1 Thursday, 5 February 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. If the witness could be brought in,
7 [The witness entered court]
8 JUDGE PARKER: Please be seated. If I could remind you, Ms. Peko,
9 of the affirmation you took when you commenced your evidence yesterday,
10 which still applies.
11 Mr. Kaufman.
12 MR. KAUFMAN: I'm obliged, Your Honour.
13 WITNESS: LUCIJANA PEKO [Resumed]
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 Examined by Mr. Kaufman: [Continued]
16 Q. Good morning, Ms. Peko. Thank you for returning.
17 A. Good morning.
18 Q. Now, Ms. Peko, yesterday we were talking about the events of the
19 6th of December, 1991. I'd like to take you now to the following day, the
20 7th of December. But before we discuss the events of that day, could you
21 tell us where you were working at that point in time.
22 A. Just a moment. Let me think. On the 7th of December, I was
23 working in my project bureau called Arhitekt in Dubrovnik.
24 Q. On the 7th of December, did you receive a request of any nature?
25 A. No. The 7th was a Saturday, and we don't work on Saturdays. But
1 on Monday was when I received it, and that was the 9th of December.
2 Q. In that case, please tell us the nature of the request that you
3 received on the 9th of December.
4 A. My company, the project bureau, received a request from the
5 Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments for assistance, to help
6 them in their work to list the damages that had resulted in Dubrovnik
7 after the 6th of December, and my director suggested that a colleague of
8 mine, Mrs. Zdenka Bacic, and I myself, as architects, take part in listing
9 the damages incurred. So we went to the institute that day to do that.
10 Q. Now, this process of listing the structures that had been damaged,
11 which institution promulgated this? The idea of which institution was
13 A. The Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments did, with
14 the proviso that UNESCO or, rather, the director general of UNESCO, Mr.
15 Federico Mayor sent two experts to Dubrovnik to set up an office there,
16 provisional office, representative office of UNESCO in Dubrovnik to work
17 in cooperation with the experts at the Institute for the Protection of
18 Cultural Monuments in listing the damages to structures in Dubrovnik
19 during the months of October, November, and December -- or, rather,
20 October and November. However, they were there when the 6th of December
21 attack on Dubrovnik took place.
22 The UNESCO experts, as consultants who were called in, worked
23 together with the experts of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural
24 Monuments and compiled a report which was entitled "Preliminary report on
25 the damages incurred on structures during the war destructions
1 that took place in October, November, and December of 1991."
2 Q. Thank you, Ms. Peko. We will seek to introduce that preliminary
3 report in due course. The two binders -- and the two binders English
4 translation are presently by Your Honours' chairs, but as I say, in due
5 course. Before we get to that, I would like to ask you if you know the
6 names of the two UNESCO officials of whom you spoke.
7 A. They were Mr. Colin Kaiser and Mr. Bruno Karnes.
8 Q. Do you know when Mr. Colin Kaiser and Mr. Bruno Karnes arrived in
10 A. They arrived in Dubrovnik towards the end of November. I don't
11 know the exact date.
12 Q. When did you meet them for the first time?
13 A. I first met them on the 9th of December, when I arrived at the
14 Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments to start working there
15 within the frameworks of the committee set up to list the damages.
16 Q. To the best of your recollection, could you perhaps give us the
17 name of some other people who took part in this exercise of listing the
18 damages to structures in Dubrovnik.
19 A. The whole undertaking was done under the auspices of the Institute
20 for the Protection of Cultural Monuments. They have their experts,
21 professional people to work on such matters, and the institute also had a
22 great deal of experience working on similar work after the 1979 Dubrovnik
23 earthquake, so that they used the -- they started compiling a list in
24 October and went on into November. Later, with consultations with the
25 UNESCO experts, they refined their methodology. I don't know what they
1 did exactly, how far this was done, but the names of the people exist at
2 the institute, and their team leader or director was Mrs. Doro Valjalo.
3 Other members of the team working on the project were the following
4 architects: Mr. Matko Vetma; Mr. Zvonimir Franic; Mrs. -- I think she's
5 an art historian, Bozena Popic was her name; and an outside collaborator
6 by the name of Slobodan Vukovic, who is also an architect by profession;
7 and the other employees of the institute of which I can name Mr. Zeljko
8 Franetovic, Mr. Dragan Elakovic; and those are the names I can remember
9 just now.
10 Q. Well, don't worry, Ms. Peko, because at this point in time I'd
11 like to formally ask to submit the preliminary report about which we are
13 MR. KAUFMAN: I believe that my learned friend has an objection,
14 although prior to today, my learned friend had agreed to submit the whole
15 exhibit as an exhibit in this hearing. If I might take this opportunity,
16 Your Honours, to state that there will be one other witness who will
17 testify before the Tribunal on the damages caused to Dubrovnik and the
18 listing of those damages. His name is Dr. Colin Kaiser. He's due to
19 testify next week. He had overall responsibility for the whole of the
20 project, as you will hear, and as I told my learned friend, he will be the
21 person to direct cross-examination concerning the methodology and the
22 conduct of the listing process, as it were.
23 But I would formally seek to submit the preliminary report. I
24 will allow my learned friend to, of course, object if he wishes to object
25 and then I would request respectfully that Your Honours allow me to reply.
1 Thank you.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is what I want to
4 address: Mr. Kaufman and I myself talked some ten days ago and discussed
5 the report that you have before you today. We are inundated with many
6 problems that we have and have lots of work to do so that we were only
7 able to look through the report this weekend, and we found that there are
8 a lot of shortcomings to it which make it impossible for us to accept in
9 advance the tendering of that report unless we have a chance to analyse
10 the contents of the report with the people who compiled it.
11 Your Honours, you will see that the report you have before you in
12 two binders is in fact a collection of individual minutes and records on
13 the on-site examination of the structures and buildings. Each of those
14 individual minutes was compiled by certain individuals. For example,
15 Mrs. Peko compiled some 20 or perhaps more minutes, and every minute
16 compiled by Mrs. Peko she signed herself and thus stands by what it says
17 in that note, in those minutes, confirming the authenticity of the
18 contents thereby. So we can accept having those parts of the report
19 admitted into evidence which Mrs. Peko herself drew up and signed.
20 As to the other parts of the report compiled by other individuals
21 who are not in this courtroom here today, Your Honours, we would like to
22 object to the admittance of those portions of the report into evidence at
23 this point in time.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Mr. Kaufman.
25 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you. Well, I believe I might be able to
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 suggest a compromise to the Court. I don't think it's appropriate to
2 submit an exhibit and identify half of it as an exhibit and the other half
3 as marked for identification, but for the ease of the Trial Chamber and
4 for the ease of my learned friend, I passed him a week ago a table that I
5 had drawn up of all the items within that exhibit, the site reports, which
6 this particular witness conducted. I for my part will not take her
7 through those individual sites one by one. I will just deal with one to
8 show the Trial Chamber the methodology that was employed, but I have
9 prepared a table of all the sites that this witness examined herself and I
10 told my learned friend that it would be appropriate perhaps for him, if he
11 wishes to cross-examine her, to cross-examine her only on those sites that
12 she examined. The witness Dr. Kaiser will be here next week and may be
13 cross-examined on anything else which is present in that report.
14 JUDGE PARKER: That being the case, it may be better to delay the
15 formal reception into evidence of the report until we have had the
16 evidence of Dr. Kaiser.
17 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honour, of course if that is the course of
18 action that the Trial Chamber is minded to take, then I cannot object, but
19 I would ask, for the sake of convenience, for it to be admitted as an
20 exhibit at this point in time. I'm quite happy to give Your Honours the
21 table. Once again --
22 JUDGE PARKER: But its admission, by the sound, will really depend
23 upon the evidence of a witness yet to come, for some part of it.
24 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honour, the relevance of this exhibit has been
25 established, but I take Your Honour's point. If I may just consult with
1 my learned leader.
2 [Prosecution counsel confer]
3 MR. KAUFMAN: Yes, Your Honours. I would just like for the record
4 to reflect, whilst appreciating everything, of course, that the Trial
5 Chamber has said, and agreeing to the course of action proposed by the
6 Trial Chamber, I would respectfully request the record reflect, however,
7 that this witness took part in the process of listing these buildings.
8 She's familiar with the methodology that was employed. She's familiar
9 with the contents of the report by virtue of being a member of the
10 institute itself, and therefore we believe that the exhibit could be
11 submitted through this witness, but if the Court is minded to take that
12 course of action, then for the sake of convenience we will of course agree
13 and oblige the Court.
14 JUDGE PARKER: What I suggest, Mr. Kaufman, is that the witness
15 identify by name or other means the buildings that are the subject of the
16 report for which she can personally vouch so that the record is clear as
17 to that. I would propose that the full report be at the moment marked for
18 identification in the anticipation that, on the basis that you have
19 indicated, Dr. Kaiser will be able to make good the balance of the report
20 and it will be received then in due course.
21 Should there be some unforeseen slip-up and we are left without
22 Dr. Kaiser or evidence to deal with the balance of the report, the record
23 would then provide a basis upon which the Chamber could accept into
24 evidence at least that part of the report which has been identified as the
25 work of Mrs. Peko.
1 For the moment, I think marked for identification is the safe way.
2 MR. KAUFMAN: I'm obliged to Your Honour.
3 JUDGE PARKER: And I think that deals with your concern,
4 Mr. Petrovic.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I deeply respect what
6 you have just said. You presented your viewpoint before I was about to
7 offer a compromise solution, perhaps, to this problem.
8 My learned colleague -- with the Court's indulgence, I would like
9 to present our proposal, if I might be allowed to do that. My learned
10 colleague drew up a list of those parts of the report which were compiled
11 by Mrs. Peko herself and which she signed herself. My proposal was that
12 those portions that he marked on this entire document, and they have ERN
13 numbers both in the B/C/S and the English version, that they be tendered
14 into evidence as exhibits while the rest of the documents, the rest of the
15 report will be decided on in due course. So that's what I wanted, just to
16 put that proposal forward as a compromise solution. Of course it is up to
17 you, Your Honours, to decide how we shall proceed, and we shall, of
18 course, abide by your decisions and fully respect them.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petkovic, for your spirit of
20 cooperation. What the Chamber has in mind is to avoid part of this report
21 being an exhibit and not the whole of it. What the Chamber proposes, I
22 think, would achieve what each of you have in mind but in a way that would
23 minimise the problem for the record of what is and what is not an exhibit
24 by simply marking, at the moment, for identification the whole report, but
25 the evidence of Ms. Peko would provide a basis later for the admission of
1 those parts which you have just mentioned should it be necessary for some
2 unforeseen reason to tender only part of the report as an exhibit. But at
3 the moment it would be neater and tidier if the whole report were admitted
4 as an exhibit, and that must await the evidence of Dr. Kaiser.
5 So we'll proceed on that basis, Mr. Kaufman.
6 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you, Your Honour. To that end, Your Honour, I
7 have the table of sites examined by Ms. Peko. I would respectfully ask
8 the usher, if possible, to circulate this table.
9 Could the exhibit -- sorry. Could the item marked Prosecution
10 Exhibit 35 for the purpose of the pre-trial brief, i.e., the two bundles
11 in B/C/S, be placed before the witness, if possible. The purpose, of
12 course, being the formal identification and no more than that.
13 Q. Ms. Peko, could you open the first of those bundles, please. Do
14 those two bundles comprise the preliminary report of which we were
16 A. Yes, that's right. They're here. For example, this particular
17 structure, the Franciscan Monastery, the Church of St. Spaso, Our Saviour.
18 Perhaps I could tell you something about the methodology, because this is
19 just part of the whole of the entire undertaking.
20 Q. First of all, Ms. Peko, we have to deal with the legal
21 formalities, if that's okay by you. If you could open perhaps the second
22 bundle and just identify that that as well forms part of the preliminary
24 A. Yes, that's right. That's it. Yes, that is part of the report.
25 MR. KAUFMAN: So, Your Honours, pursuant to Your Honours'
1 decision, I wonder if this exhibit could be marked for identification
3 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Document will be marked P51 ID.
5 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you.
6 Q. Now, Ms. Peko, please look at the sheet of A4 that I have handed
7 out. The far right column is marked "Site," and there are a list of sites
8 going all the way down. Does that comprise the list of sites that you
10 A. In principle, yes. The numbers correspond to the areas where I
11 worked, so I assume that all the buildings mentioned on the right-hand
12 side -- I mean, I think all of this is correct, yes.
13 Q. Well, the documents are before the Court, Ms. Peko. I can assure
14 you that --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- the matter will be examined in detail.
17 MR. KAUFMAN: Now, for Your Honours' convenience, perhaps I could
18 explain this table. The witness in a few moments will testify as to what
19 the various terms mean and how the items were split up, but for Your
20 Honours' convenience - and this is a matter of OTP significance so perhaps
21 I could explain it - the column marked "ERN" is the exhibit number. Your
22 Honours will see that there is a B/C/S number and a number given for the
23 English translation. Those may be used by Your Honours for convenience
24 purposes in order to find the relevant site. As you will notice in the
25 bundles before you, there are -- every page is numbered.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Now, Ms. Peko, looking at this sheet, there is a term entitled
2 "Insula". This is the second column along. What is an insula?
3 A. The area of the town of Dubrovnik within the old city walls is
4 divided into 17 insulas. This system was accepted as far back as the time
5 when the basic documents about Dubrovnik were compiled. Then this was
6 also used after the earthquake in 1979, and it was used again now. Since
7 this system makes it possible to find one's way easily, it is still the
8 principle governing the division of the city. So we dealt with 17 insulas
9 of the Old City. And then there was a separate insula, number 18 I think
10 it was, and that is Placa, and that is the main street in town. And then
11 a separate insula were the Old City walls of Dubrovnik. So there were a
12 total of 19 entities that were dealt with.
13 So the insulas are marked here, and the particular facilities
14 within them that are dealt with separately.
15 Q. So for clarification, the Old Town of Dubrovnik comprises 19
16 insula, or insulae, perhaps. Can you confirm that, please?
17 A. Yes. Yes. Absolutely. I'm just telling you that this was done
18 in terms of our line of work when dealing with the city.
19 Q. Now, you and your fellow team members were sent out to these
20 various insulae and asked to survey what you saw there and what damages
21 you saw incurred by the various sites. What were you told to look out for
22 in particular?
23 A. Our duty was, since I was a member of the institution that came
24 there to help, and I worked from the 9th until the 18th of December, at
25 the very outset I wanted to familiarise myself with the methodology and
1 with the deadlines involved for producing the documents that were to
2 pertain to the buildings that I was supposed to deal with. Of course,
3 this methodology consists of several elements.
4 Specifically, I received instructions as to how I was supposed to
5 work in the field. I had a particular form, and then there were certain
6 questions that I was supposed to answer. So I had to fill out the form,
7 basically. Basic information was to be provided about the building
8 itself, the time of inspection, the time when the damage was sustained,
9 the description of the damage, and this -- and then the category involved.
10 I would submit this document to the institute afterwards so that
11 the authors of the preliminary report would then bring all of these forms
12 together and show this on maps. One map had to do -- deal with
13 classification of damages, and the other one had to do with the type and
14 place of damages incurred.
15 My duty was to fill out the forms in the field, so to speak, and
16 to hand them over.
17 Q. Now, Ms. Peko, you talked about the category involved. What do
18 you mean by "category"?
19 A. While the methodology was being developed, the categories fell
20 into four different groups, namely, this had to do with four different
21 types of damage sustained. The first category were fully destroyed
22 buildings. How should I put this? That is the highest level of damage.
23 Then the second category were buildings where there were damaged walls and
24 roofs. The third category were buildings that had only their roof
25 destroyed or only their walls, but not both. And the fourth category were
1 buildings with minor damage sustained. That is to say these were
2 buildings that were often indirectly damaged. So that was what was shown.
3 As for the type of damage, there were other signs, and this was
4 shown on a separate map. It had to do with direct damage on roofs and
5 walls, direct damage on roofs, and then totally burned buildings, and then
6 indirect damage of walls, indirect damage sustained by roofs, and
7 buildings that were partially burned up. All the actual localities are
8 depicted on a map, and also the type of damage sustained.
9 Q. Dr. Kaiser will deal with that particular map, Ms. Peko, but since
10 earlier you asked us to allow you to explain something about your
11 particular methodology and one of the buildings that you inspected,
12 perhaps this is a convenient opportunity to deal with the Franciscan
14 MR. KAUFMAN: For this end, Your Honour, so Your Honours don't
15 have to fumble your way through the binders, I have prepared this
16 particular part of the binders in a separate handout. I would request
17 that they be circulated. This is purely for convenience sake. This item
18 need not be assigned an exhibit number at all.
19 Your Honour, I would request that the B/C/S version actually be in
20 front of the Bench because there are diagrams and maps contained in that.
21 Thank you.
22 Q. Now, Ms. Peko, working from the version in B/C/S, if you could
23 look at the front page. We see that this is in fact, I believe, the
24 second volume of the preliminary report. Is that correct? The cover
25 page, please, Ms. Peko. The front page.
1 A. Yes, the preliminary report. Yes, that's the cover page, yes.
2 Q. And there are the number 1/2?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, let's turn to the next page. There is a map there. What's
5 that map? What does that show?
6 A. This is a map of Dubrovnik depicting the insulae. Insula number 1
7 is where the Franciscan Monastery is.
8 Q. Now if you could turn, please, to the fourth page, the page marked
10 MR. KAUFMAN: I wonder if this item could be placed on the ELMO.
11 Q. Now, we have lots of different geometrical shapes here, Ms. Peko.
12 Perhaps you could take us through what we see on this particular map.
13 First of all, what does it portray?
14 A. This is part of the map that pertains to insula 1. All the maps
15 of all the insulas actually make up the map that depicts all the damage
16 sustained. We see here the markings of various localities and the damage
18 I have to mention that the signs, the markings used here, are
19 symbols, actually. They are not supposed to specifically or precisely
20 denote the area of the damage involved. This was used for the entire area
21 of the entire town. I can say that the small circles, the black dots,
22 denote damages sustained by the facades or horizontal surfaces. The
23 triangles, the black triangles denote direct hits on roofs. So those are
24 direct hits. The empty triangles, so to speak, denote indirect hits. And
25 then there is yet another symbol for indirect damage sustained by facades,
1 the very small dots. So that is basically the damage that was sustained
2 by this insula and then recorded.
3 Q. Now, this complex, is this the Franciscan Monastery?
4 A. Yes. This is the entire compound of the Franciscan Monastery, and
5 a fountain that I did not deal with myself.
6 Q. Okay.
7 MR. KAUFMAN: Now, for Your Honours' convenience --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can show it, actually. This is
9 the entire compound of the Franciscan Monastery. This is it. This is the
10 Church of Our Saviour here, and this is the fountain, Onofrijeva Fountain,
11 but that was dealt with by some other colleague of mine. All of that is
12 insula number 1.
13 Q. And I believe if we look at the map on page 01069150, which is the
14 third page, we can see numbers which relate to the subdivision of the
15 Franciscan Monastery into smaller subsites; is that correct?
16 A. Yes, that's right. My intention was to show the damage in the
17 clearest possible way, So that is why I had it grouped this way. So
18 certain parts of certain buildings were given a number.
19 Often the division into insulae corresponds with the land survey
20 divisions that had existed beforehand. I wanted to show the damage
21 sustained on parts of individual buildings.
22 Q. Thank you. So looking at this map and from your previous answer,
23 the only subsite that you did not examine in this site, Franciscan
24 Monastery and its church, was basically number 14, the fountain.
25 A. Correct. Correct, correct.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Thank you. Now, if we may turn to -- just for the sake of
2 example, so you could tell us your methodology, in the B/C/S version to
3 page 01069153, and in the English version, which is probably the version
4 which will be the most easy for the Bench to refer to, it's draft
5 translation L0060284.
6 Now, the number, I believe, relates to the subsite, does it not?
7 It's called brodj, I think, in B/C/S. Broj, I apologise for my
9 A. Yes, the number of the insula and the number of the particular
10 building within the insula. This is the cloister of the Franciscan
12 Q. The location, type of object, date and hour of inspection are
13 fairly self-explanatory. I'd like to ask you about the date of the
14 incident. How did you know the date of the incident for the purposes of
15 filling out the form?
16 A. It is recommended, or it was recommended then when we were working
17 on these buildings, that we should collect all available information,
18 everything that you can see by way of changes in the physical state of the
19 building, since we are professionals in this area, but we were also
20 supposed to ask the people using the actual building for all the
21 information they may have had. So I used information that I got from the
22 monks in the monastery. They were there during the attack when the
23 building was damaged, and of course they were trying to protect it from
24 the fire spreading from the neighbouring buildings, inter alia. They gave
25 me information about all of this.
1 The date is not really controversial because it is known that it
2 was precisely on the 6th of December that the largest number of
3 projectiles were fired at the Franciscan Monastery, and that is when it
4 sustained most of the damage.
5 Q. But from what I understand, you would, at least on some of the
6 occasions, receive the information from people who had been within the
7 building itself when it was hit, or thereby, near thereby.
8 A. Yes, that's right. That's right. Yes, of course. They recorded
9 all the damage sustained by their building. Perhaps not on the very same
10 day, but the situation position was such that they were in a position to
11 do so. I was also informed by them about the type of projectiles that had
12 hit the building involved. The most important task was to identify the
13 actual damage incurred and to categorise it.
14 I have to note one more thing, that this is a preliminary report,
15 so it is an introductory report, so to speak, and then it was followed by
16 more detailed processing. Of course, this more detailed processing
17 involved an estimate of the damage sustained and possible reconstruction,
18 and that was not an issue at that point in time. However, it was very
19 hard for me in the specific case of the Franciscan Monastery. I mean, I
20 had to record only the physical damage sustained rather than all the true
21 damage sustained by such an important historical monument. And that is a
22 different thing from a damage sustained by a plain old wall. It was very
23 hard for me, but I did my job.
24 Q. What do you mean, Ms. Peko, when you state that true damage was
25 sustained by an important historical monument as opposed to physical
2 A. The Franciscan Monastery was hit by 37 projectiles. Not to go
3 into the exact figures involved, some of them hit the cloister of the
4 Franciscan Monastery. That is the internal courtyard that is considered
5 to be one of the most valuable sites within our historical and cultural
6 heritage in Dubrovnik. It dates back to the 14th century. It is of
7 exceptional architectural and historical value. Parts of this cloister
8 consist of architectural and sculptural plastic which is impossible to
9 restore if it is damaged, because all the parts of the pillars there are
10 quite different. This building dates back to the 14th century. That is
11 to say, a period of time from which we have very few buildings left
12 because Dubrovnik experienced a major earthquake in the 17th century.
13 This was created by top masters, local people. And regardless of the
14 calibre of the projectile that had hit the building and parts of it, it
15 involved the kind of damage that was irreparable. And then, for example,
16 parts of the pavement were hit. It is possible to restore it but it will
17 never be the same thing. It will never be the authentic monument that it
18 once was. So we simply cannot talk about this kind of damage in terms of
19 parts of this monument.
20 I don't know whether I was clear enough really. Perhaps I wasn't.
21 Q. You were perfectly clear, Ms. Peko. Thank you. Now, the last
22 question I want to ask you -- sorry, just two more short questions on this
24 The type of projectile you record here as being 82 millimetres and
25 120-millimetres mortar bombs. Now, you said that in some circumstances
1 you would be told what type of shell had fallen, or projectile. What
2 knowledge did you have of the types of projectiles that were found in
3 these sites? Of course I appreciate you're not an artillery expert, so
4 confine it to what you know and what you saw.
5 A. As for the projectiles, I indeed am no expert. I wouldn't want to
6 go into that. As a matter of fact, I find this repulsive. But it is a
7 fact that in this particular case I spent some ten days after the 6th of
8 December before coming to inspect these buildings and streets. By then,
9 all the damage had been sustained by the projectiles themselves and by
10 other buildings that had fallen.
11 All the people who lived in town or worked in town in various
12 buildings kept parts of the projectiles that fell. So it is certain that
13 these were the projectiles that were shown to me within the monastery
14 itself. Specifically, I know very little about this. However, concerning
15 the remains of mortar shells and the like, I know that 80-millimetre and
16 120-millimetre shells involve a change of calibre, and that can easily be
17 identified. I mean, that can be seen. I don't know if I should add
18 anything to that.
19 Q. Well, back in 1991, did you have an opportunity to compare
20 fragments of shells that you found, shrapnel?
21 A. Yes, yes. Well, sometimes we weren't able to find them all, but
22 generally they were saved in buildings. They were lodged in the
23 buildings, and we called them the tails of the projectiles, that is the
24 bottom end of the projectile. And they had sort of wing-like attachments.
25 So parts of shrapnel of this kind were lodged in the structures that they
1 damaged, so I was able to see them. I saw the remains of these. Of
2 course, I wasn't well-versed in the different types of projectiles, but as
3 I say, I had an opportunity to hold these in my hands and to see them
4 lodged in the structures themselves.
5 Q. From your answer, Ms. Peko, I understand it's difficult for you to
6 talk about this, so my last question is simply to summarise the state of
7 affairs. I believe that the type of projectile entry on the form was
8 compiled on the basis of what you were told and sometimes on the basis of
9 what you saw. Would that be a fair summary of what you've said?
10 A. It was basically and mostly on the basis of what I saw in the
11 largest number of cases. However, might I just be allowed to add
12 something here? The projectiles themselves, as far as I was concerned,
13 were of lesser importance. What was important to me was the actual damage
14 done, and you can be absolutely certain that I was able to differentiate
15 between direct hits and indirect hits and the damage the two incurred.
16 Perhaps I was wrong in thinking that way, but that was the first thing I
17 had in mind when I went to examine the site.
18 Q. Could you explain how you could distinguish, as you mentioned?
19 A. Well, you could see the point at which the projectile hit the
20 structure, and I'll show you that with the help of this form.
21 For example, on the terrace of the cloister. I'll take that
22 example to explain what I mean. It is 010695.
23 Q. 0106 --
24 A. 9165.
25 Q. 9165. Yes. Ms. Peko, looking at that photograph 01069165.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. KAUFMAN: Perhaps it could be placed on the ELMO.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's a direct hit.
3 MR. KAUFMAN:
4 Q. Well, once again, Ms. Peko, I don't want to go into any -- too
5 much detail on that because as we've said, you are not an artillery
6 expert, but I thank you for that. And I take it although you're not an
7 expert, that was how you catalogued a direct hit?
8 A. I didn't quite understand your question.
9 Q. If that was what you call a direct hit today, that was presumably
10 how you would have recorded it.
11 A. Correct. Yes. An indirect hit had different graphics. It looked
13 Q. Once again, we won't trouble you with that at the moment because
14 there will be someone else who will come and give evidence about that.
15 And finally, you would, of course, on this form list the category
16 of damage. And in this particular instance that's to be found on the
17 draft English translation at L0060285. In this particular instance, the
18 subsite 1, the damage was category 2 damage.
19 Thank you. If you could put that exhibit aside now -- that item
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, I'm conscious of the time. I'm
23 bringing the evidence in chief to a conclusion.
24 Q. Now, Ms. Peko, being an architect who worked in the Dubrovnik
25 municipality, I take it you were familiar with the whole of Dubrovnik.
1 A. Dubrovnik, the present-day town of Dubrovnik, has the narrow inner
2 circle from Kantafiga to St. Jakov. And within that framework or within
3 that circle you will find the Old Town nucleus of Dubrovnik and Gruz,
4 Lapad, and Sveti Jakov being the outlining areas. I know the area well.
5 Q. And being an architect familiar with buildings and the uses that
6 buildings are put to in the region of Dubrovnik, I would take it you would
7 know what buildings were devoted to military uses and what buildings were
8 devoted to civilian uses.
9 A. There are no buildings that are devoted to military uses in
10 Dubrovnik. What there is were the Austro-Hungarian barracks that were
11 left empty in 1960 something, and since then there were no military
12 buildings within the town.
13 Q. Well, the question might seem a bit facile after I received your
14 response, but could you tell us if you saw any military installations,
15 weapons of any sort in October, November, December 1991?
16 A. No. I saw nothing like that.
17 Q. Ms. Peko, there is just one final clarification question which
18 arose out of the transcript yesterday and then I will conclude. The
19 transcripts of yesterday's hearing - for the sake of the record, page 74,
20 line 22 - you talked about Dubrovnik being protected. Which part of
21 Dubrovnik did you mean when you said that Dubrovnik was protected?
22 A. I first of all meant the protection of Dubrovnik as a cultural
23 monument generally. Dubrovnik within its outer walls and including the
24 town walls and the Lovrijenac and Revelin fortresses outside the wall
25 perimeter are considered to be an entity and the highest, the top category
1 of cultural monument. Dubrovnik was protected from the very establishment
2 of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments in Dubrovnik.
3 It enjoyed protection. From 1979 onwards, it was listed as a World
4 Heritage Site attached to UNESCO.
5 Q. Ms. Peko, thank you very much. I most appreciate your assistance.
6 You will be asked some questions by the Defence now, but maybe, Your
7 Honours, this is an appropriate point for a break. I don't know. Unless
8 it's too early for that.
9 JUDGE PARKER: It is, I think, a little early. We will start
10 cross-examination now, Mr. Kaufman.
11 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Cross-examined by Mr. Petrovic:
15 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mrs. Peko. I am attorney Vladimir
16 Petrovic, and I'm going to be asking you some questions in connection with
17 what you were discussing with my learned colleague. Tell me, please, the
18 time before October 1991, can you describe for me where the house you
19 lived in was actually located. What kind of building was it and where was
20 it situated?
21 A. It is a residential building comprising of several apartments in
22 the Zlatni Potok settlement in Dubrovnik, a housing estate in the area of
23 Sveti Jakov, to the east of the Old Town.
24 Q. For purposes of orientation, tell us, please, near the building
25 you lived in there were any facilities that stand out, like a hotel, for
1 example, or any landmarks of that kind.
2 A. Yes. On the one side to the east is the Belvedere Hotel, and to
3 the west, between my building and the Old Town itself, is the Argentina
4 and Excelsior hotels.
5 Q. Tell me, the building you lived in, is it along the coast, near
6 the coast, or as you said yesterday, on the slopes of Mount Srdj?
7 A. It's quite a way away from the coast. It is above the upper town
8 road, more inland.
9 Q. Tell me, please, you mentioned a moment ago in response to my
10 learned colleague's question something. Do you remember where the
11 barracks in Dubrovnik were up until the 1960s?
12 A. In Gruz. It's still a barracks, but it's not used as a barracks.
13 The barracks stands as a building.
14 Q. So from the 1960s up until the beginning of the events that took
15 place in the 1990s, is it true and correct that not a single unit was
16 stationed, of the JNA, in Dubrovnik at that time, the army of the day?
17 A. No, there was not a single unit stationed there.
18 Q. Is it also right that very rarely in Dubrovnik up until 1990, the
19 times that we're talking about, were you able to encounter in town or
20 anywhere else any JNA soldiers, because there weren't any there?
21 A. Yes, that's right. There weren't any.
22 Q. Is it -- or let me ask you this way: Did you take part in the
23 procedure of including Dubrovnik into the list of World Heritage Sites in
24 the 1970s? Did you take part in that?
25 A. As an employee of the Institute for Protection, probably you could
1 say I did, however, the main documents for it to be listed and to be --
2 for Dubrovnik to be put forward as a candidate to become a World Heritage
3 Site was done by the Institute for Art in Zagreb, headed by Professor
4 Milan Prelog [phoen]. So the associates of the institute and the
5 employees of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments worked
6 together and participated together in putting forward Dubrovnik as a
7 candidate for a World Heritage Site, and they compiled all the supporting
8 documents for that to be made possible.
9 Q. Now, do you remember whether one of the conditions for listing
10 Dubrovnik as a World Heritage Site was that it should be a demilitarised
11 town? That means a town in which there would be no military units
12 stationed. Was that one of the prerequisites?
13 A. I don't remember that. Dubrovnik had to satisfy very high
14 criteria and standards in the sense of being authentic and well-preserved
15 in the sense of its artistic values and structural values, and I know, for
16 example, that the fact that it was a living town, a live old town, was a
17 very noteworthy factor, a point in its favour, and that throughout its
18 existence it always catered to the needs of its inhabitants. And the
19 relationship of those inhabitants and its citizens towards the cultural
20 values was taken note of.
21 May I be allowed to finish, please? Now, since for urban entities
22 of that kind you have to have -- you have to comply with international
23 documents dealing with protection that were the result of UNESCO efforts
24 and United Nations efforts generally, I can just assume that there was
25 something along the lines of what you were saying, but I can't actually
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 claim that myself.
2 Q. Tell me, please, yesterday in respond to a question from my
3 learned colleague, you talked about how the process of protection was
4 established, was set up. Tell me, please, in this procedure, in
5 determining the protection of structures and buildings, is there any
6 difference between the different edifices or, rather, are all edifices
7 equally -- enjoy equal protection or is there a grade and category as to
8 which enjoys greater protection and which does not?
9 A. Yes, that's absolutely right. I said yesterday that the
10 protection of edifices, of structures, was based on a document which was
11 drawn up on the basis of evaluation and assessment. And when I said that,
12 I had in mind a series of procedures that are put in place in order to
13 compile documents of that kind. Research is conducted in order to
14 establish the state of a building, the state of a structure, and its value
15 and worth, that is to say the -- not only the artistic value but all the
16 other points according to which it can enjoy protection as a protected
17 site. Of course, those pre-conditions have different categories as well,
18 and the entire Dubrovnik area or the Old Town nucleus of Dubrovnik is an
19 entity that enjoyed protection very early on because its value is
20 undoubtable. However, within that entity, of course, within that nucleus,
21 certain structures enjoy a higher category, others enjoy a lower category.
22 Q. Thank you for your answers, but may I ask you to be a bit briefer
23 in your answers because I know that our time is limited. So would you try
24 and be as concise as possible. Thank you for your understanding, because
25 we are faced with time constraints, of course.
1 Now, you mentioned yesterday the historical urban entity. So can
2 you just -- and you explained a moment ago when asked by my learned
3 colleague what this means, what you mean by the historical urban entity,
4 that is to say the old town, the walls. What else?
5 A. Yes, that would be it. It would be the Old Town nucleus within
6 the walls; the Lovrijenac fortress, which is outside the murals; the
7 Revelin fortress, which can be considered to be part of the fortification
8 wall; and the complex of the city lazareti, and they enjoy protection --
9 quarantine cells.
10 Q. You have lived in Dubrovnik your whole life, and you've just
11 mentioned the different localities now, and you talked about this broader
12 belt around the town. Could you please tell us the streets that delineate
13 this broader town belt. Or perhaps you'd find it easier with a map,
14 working with a map.
15 A. The Lazarina Street on the east, Volantina on the west, Jadranska
16 Ceska Street on the south side, that is to say the sea side.
17 MR. PETROVIC: May I ask the usher to show us Exhibit P11. P11,
18 please. Could you show that to the witness, please.
19 Q. Since it's large map and can't fit into the overhead projector,
20 for the record, please, would you repeat the streets you mentioned earlier
21 on, and then we'll find a way of showing them. So could you take a look
22 at the map, tell me the streets again for the record, and then we'll be
23 able to fold the map and find the streets and place them on the ELMO.
24 A. May I just seek clarification? I'm telling you about something
25 that we recognised at the time I worked in the institute.
1 Q. That's what I'm asking you about.
2 A. When we talk about this area, we don't imply strict protection for
3 the city of Dubrovnik. It is protection only in the case of any
4 construction work going on in the area, to stipulate the limitations and
5 to prevent any building that would damage the aspect of the town.
6 However, everything today is regulated by the town plans. So I think --
7 Q. Let's take this step-by-step.
8 A. So I'm talking about protection of the Old Town, the inner city.
9 Q. I was asking you about the time you worked at the institute, and
10 you told us that a moment ago. So just tell me -- repeat the names of the
11 streets for the record, for the transcript, if possible, and then we'll
12 try and find them on the map as well. If you can't see them, it doesn't
13 matter. We'll move on.
14 Could you read out the names, please.
15 A. Lazarina above the Excelsior Hotel. Lazarina above the Excelsior
16 hotel. And Volantina on the west. And on the other side is the Adriatic
17 Motorway, as it's called.
18 MR. PETROVIC: Thank you. We won't be needing the map any more.
19 Q. Tell me, please, you said a moment ago that the lazareti fortress
20 makes up part of the ancient history of Dubrovnik.
21 A. It's not a fortress, it's a quarantine.
22 Q. I do apologise. I meant Lovrijenac fortress.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you said that that makes up the component part of the city
25 along the walls.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now if my orientation serves me, how far is Lovrijenac from Bokar?
3 That is the furthest point.
4 A. Perhaps 50 metres. Perhaps. I'm not sure.
5 Q. Do you know what the status is today of the Old Town surroundings,
7 A. I don't really know.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Is that a convenient time, Mr. Petrovic?
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
10 JUDGE PARKER: We will have a 20-minute break now.
11 --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Mrs. Peko, let us just summarise. Just before the break, if I
16 understood you correctly, we established that the area that is under
17 UNESCO protection is the one that includes the Old Town underneath the
18 walls, Lovrijenac, Revelin, and the lazareti quarantine. Am I right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Tell me, what is the status of the Imperial fortress on Mount Srdj
21 in terms of monument protection?
22 A. Well, I wish to say that the basic tenets related to monument
23 protection are included in documents relevant to that. The Imperial
24 fortress dates back to the Austro-Hungarian rule, and I don't know whether
25 it was registered as a historical or cultural monument, and I don't know
1 what the category of this particular landmark is.
2 Q. Do you know whether it's a cultural monument at all or not?
3 A. I cannot answer that question. I don't know.
4 Q. Do you know where this piece of information can be obtained, that
5 is to say, what the status of the Imperial fortress is, where this is
6 registered, who decides about this, where the relevant documents are, et
8 A. The Protection Institute, which is now called the Protection of
9 the Cultural Heritage, which is in Dubrovnik, decides on all such matters
10 and all of the documents are there.
11 Q. Can you remember in those days, in the autumn of 1991, how many
12 attacks were there against the Old Town of Dubrovnik? Can you remember
13 approximately or exactly?
14 A. The 23rd and the 24th of October, then between the 8th and 13th of
15 November, and on the 6th of December.
16 Q. Can you tell me exactly or approximately on the 23rd and the 24th
17 of October how many shells fell on the Old Town?
18 A. I cannot tell you.
19 Q. Can you give me an approximation, a tentative figure?
20 A. I cannot say exactly. I really didn't count them.
21 Q. Can you tell me about the period between the 8th and the 13th of
22 November? How many shells fell on the Old Town?
23 A. I think that the report refers to over 100. Look at that. Look
24 at the figures provided by the Institute for the Protection of Monuments.
25 Q. So to the best of your knowledge, about 100 in that period between
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 the 8th and the 13th of November?
2 A. That's according to the report that they had from that period.
3 Q. And what was your impression? You were in town at the time, the
4 13th of November. What was your impression? What was your estimate?
5 A. My impression was that a great many of them fell, especially on
6 the 10th. I mean, we practically spent all of those five days lying on
7 the floor, and we would not have done that if shells were not falling very
8 often. We barely managed to get out of the house, during the night, for
9 the most part, to get something, but during the day we would not leave the
10 house where we had found shelter.
11 Q. What is your estimate? How many shells fell on the 6th of
13 A. Again my estimate is based on an estimate or, rather, a survey of
14 the total damage included in the report, the preliminary report. The
15 figure of 1.000 or even more is referred to there. It was a cannonade, I
16 mean --
17 Q. We understood that. So I'm just asking you to answer my specific
19 Tell me, am I right if I say that every projectile that falls on
20 the Old Town involves damage? If it falls on the pavement, on a building,
21 on a wall, there is no place for it to fall without causing damage; is
22 that right?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. Tell me, do you know how many buildings were hit in October 1991?
25 A. I don't know the exact number.
1 Q. Of course I understand that. Of course you don't know the exact
2 number, but could you give me an approximation? If you can. I mean, if
3 you cannot, let's move on.
4 A. I cannot. Not exactly. I know the first hit in Boskoviceva
5 Street, and we were astonished by that. This was the beginning, this was
6 the first attack on town. And then also the museum Rupe was damaged and
7 buildings around Boskoviceva Street, and the harbour. I cannot give you
8 the exact number, though.
9 Q. Tell me, how many buildings were hit in the period between the 8th
10 and the 13th of November? You said that about 100 shells fell. So that's
11 probably the number of damage cases as well; is that right?
12 A. Well, quite a few fell. Quite a bit in town, quite a bit in the
13 harbour, quite a bit in the city walls. Then individual buildings were
14 damaged within the town but I cannot give you an exact figure.
15 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to ask that we move on to the
16 preliminary report that my learned friend showed you awhile ago, and I
17 think it would be easier both for you and me if the lady would be given
18 the B/C/S versions of this exhibit.
19 I would like to ask you to take a look at the first binder in the
20 B/C/S. The big black binder next to you. Could you please look at this
21 page that is at the very outset. The last three figures are 058. The
22 last three figures are 058.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, 412 are the last three
24 figures in the English version, Your Honour.
25 Q. Tell me, is this the page where we can see who drafted the report
1 that we're discussing today?
2 A. Yes. I think so, yes.
3 Q. Tell me, in the upper part, is there mention of the institution
4 that compiled it?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. So let us say for the transcript the Republic of Croatia, the
7 Institute for the Protection of Cultural and Natural Landmarks in
8 Dubrovnik; is that right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Please take a look at this list now, the list of persons. So
11 Mr. Vetma Matko is one name, and it says that's the leader of the group.
12 Is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Tell me, what was his role in this entire project?
15 A. He is an employee of the Institute for Protection of Cultural
16 Monuments, an architect who has worked on conservation for a long time.
17 For a while we worked together, he was a co-worker of mine.
18 Q. In view of his working experience, is that the reason why he was
19 appointed leader of this group?
20 A. No. I assumed it is because of his professional qualifications.
21 Q. Well, that's what I am asking. Is it because of his working
22 experience and his professional qualifications that he was appointed
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Tell me, when you look at this list, would I be right to say that
1 all these persons are architects, historians of art? Are there any other
2 professions represented? We see photographers too.
3 A. Architectural technicians, photographers, and then our colleague
4 Mr. Elakovic, he is an ethnologist with a long, long career in the
5 protection of monuments. The rest are architects.
6 Q. Thank you. Please look at page 061. Those are the last three
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] It's a bit further on, Your Honour.
9 It is L00611414 in the English version.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, what was the page?
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. 061 in B/C/S. Those are the last three figures.
13 A. Yes, that's right. I've found it now. Please go ahead.
14 Q. Tell me, what is this text that we see here? Do you know?
15 A. This is an introductory text in the preliminary report. So it's
16 an introduction, a preface. Mrs. Doroteja Valjalo signed it, and at that
17 time she was director of that Institution for the Protection of Cultural
18 Monuments, so the basic figures are there and the methodology too.
19 Q. She signed it on behalf of the institution where she worked, I
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did Mrs. Valjalo participate in the elaboration of this report?
23 Do you know?
24 A. I don't think so. She was the director of the institute. She was
25 present. I cannot say that she coordinated it, but probably up to a point
1 in terms of deadlines and the general approach to this endeavour.
2 Q. So would you agree that this report was compiled by persons who
3 were professionals trained for this particular job?
4 A. Absolutely.
5 Q. You believe that this report is reliable and accurate in terms of
6 its content?
7 A. Yes. Bearing in mind the circumstances under which it was
8 compiled. It was compiled within a month's time. There was always an
9 imminent threat of war and further attacks against Dubrovnik. It was also
10 done on the basis of the experience we had in reporting after the
11 earthquake in Dubrovnik. And the heading itself says that this is a
12 preliminary report, and therefore it can be amended later and perhaps it
13 would involve more accurate indicators of the damage sustained and the
14 ways in which it can be redressed.
15 Q. Tell me, who divided these persons into groups, people who were
16 working on it? Who specifically assigned you to work on the insulae that
17 you talked abut here today?
18 A. Well, you see, immediately after the 6th of December, people at
19 the institute started working on this straight away. I was involved on
20 the 9th. I don't know exactly who gave me this assignment for my
21 particular line of work, but I think that some colleagues had already
22 started working and that these were the buildings that had not been dealt
23 with until then.
24 Q. Who did you hand your reports to?
25 A. At the institute. It wasn't important at a personal level who you
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 were supposed to give them to. One of the leaders.
2 Q. So there was someone who collected these reports; right?
3 A. Of course.
4 Q. Who was it? Were these the people who were mentioned here as the
6 A. Yes, very probably. There is no reason for me to hand this in to
7 colleagues who were in the field.
8 Q. Of course. Of course.
9 A. I think it was only logical that I should give it to them.
10 Q. So you gave it to one of the authors. Let me just remind you, for
11 the transcript, Matko Vetma, Mr. Zvonimir Franic, Bozena Popic, and
12 Slobodan Vukovic; is that right?
13 A. Yes, someone who was at the institute at that point in time. They
14 worked at various buildings too.
15 Q. The authors are these four persons whose names I just read out
16 now. That's what it says on this page.
17 A. Involving consultations with colleagues from UNESCO too.
18 Q. Tell me, please, was a final report ever written?
19 A. According to my information, yes. There was a state commission
20 that later worked on it.
21 Q. Did you see this final report?
22 A. No, I did not. I can just say that a report had been made
23 concerning the damage sustained by all buildings irrespective of
24 protection. There was a programme of reconstruction and a priority plan
25 that had to deal with reconstruction.
1 Q. So you did not see the final report?
2 A. I did not.
3 Q. Do you know what the final report contains?
4 A. I cannot tell you anything about it because I don't work at that
6 Q. Did you perhaps hear of any differences between the preliminary
7 report and this final report?
8 A. No, I did not hear anything about that.
9 Q. Do you know whether there was any record of the damage sustained
10 by the Old City in May 1992?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can you tell me who did this and how?
13 A. Again it was the Institute for Protection of Cultural Monuments.
14 Q. Is there a collective report for May 1992 there perhaps?
15 A. I don't know. I didn't -- it wasn't only in May. It was in June,
17 Q. Yes, but in 1992 is there an overall collective, comprehensive
19 A. Probably, but I haven't seen it.
20 Q. Tell me, please, when you were in situ, what did you do? You
21 arrive at the site, at the structure, then what do you do next? Could you
22 describe your job, what you do once you're in the field.
23 A. Well, you have to tour the whole structure, see the point of
24 damage, describe it, and determine the degree of damage incurred and the
25 category, give it a category.
1 Q. Did you take notes while you did this kind of work?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you make sketches of the damage itself?
4 A. When it comes to the work I did with damaged structures, after the
5 war I worked on ten to 12 projects in all, of that type. I did make
6 sketches in August 1992, and it was damage to the stone plastics or
7 carvings. That's where I did the sketches, but not for the preliminary
9 Q. Thank you. And did you enter the structure?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did you go into every structure that you were assigned to
13 A. I don't think I could go into one of them, one of the buildings.
14 Q. Can you remember why?
15 A. Well, there were no inhabitants there any more, it was closed off,
16 so we were just able to record the external damages.
17 Q. Can you remember which building that was?
18 A. No, I can't.
19 Q. When were the photographs attached to the report taken?
20 A. The photographs were taken parallelly with the teams recording the
21 damages. At the same time. They were in situ at the same time.
22 Q. So does that mean that the photographer was part of your team as
24 A. In principle, photographers were part of the team, but as there
25 were just two of them, they weren't able to go with each team. As I said,
1 they recorded the damages even before I turned up to do my particular
2 assignment in recording the damages.
3 Q. Well, who would tell the photographers what to photograph if they
4 weren't with you all the time? There were six or seven teams and there
5 were just two photographers, as you told us, so who tells them what to --
6 what photos to take?
7 A. Well, the photographers are professionals and well able to
8 recognise damages themselves.
9 Q. So the photographers made assessments and evaluations of their own
10 as to what they thought was important and should be documented?
11 A. Well, they recognised the damage, of course, and then photographed
12 it. They photographed the damages, and that's all, nothing more than
14 Q. But how did they know what to take photographs of if they hadn't
15 received instructions from you?
16 A. Well, Mr. Milenko Mojas, for example, has many years of experience
17 working in the Institute for Cultural Monuments, and he's certainly able
18 to recognise damage when he sees it.
19 Q. Tell me, please, in all cases that were the subject of your
20 investigations was there a written report always attended by photographs,
21 with photographs as supporting material? Was that always the case?
22 A. You have a building or structure, you provide a complete
23 description of the damage incurred, you support it with photographs. They
24 don't always show everything, but photographs do show some of the damage.
25 Q. Yes. What I would like to know is how you make the selections.
1 Why do you photograph some of the damage and not other damage?
2 A. Well, it would entail far greater work and a much lengthier
3 report. The report would be a very thick one. So what we did was to
4 provide preliminary matter.
5 Q. So the final report, does that contain photographs of each and
6 every piece of damage?
7 A. Well, I can't actually say, but certainly. I'm quite sure it
8 does. It's how we do our work. You have a textual description, you have
9 the graphics of it, and you have photographs to bear out what you have
10 described so I'm quite sure, although I can't say for sure, I haven't seen
12 Q. Well, wouldn't photographs be the best evidence of the damage you
13 noted in the preliminary report, in the work you did?
14 A. Well, I don't know what to say to that. I wrote the textual
15 description, and the description, for instance, of the cloister of the
16 Franciscan Monastery would merit at least 20 pages of reporting. Perhaps
17 20 would be too much, but at least ten pages of the report would have to
18 be devoted to the cloister of the Franciscan Monastery. But you have to
19 be concise in order to provide a picture and image of the damage incurred.
20 This wasn't done in that detail. We didn't have sufficient time
21 to go into all those details, but what I wrote corresponds to the truth in
22 absolute terms.
23 Q. A moment ago you said that in all the structures except one you
24 were able to go into them to take a look round, to look at the
25 construction. Describe what you look for and examine when you go into a
1 structure in order to be able to write your report.
2 A. You first of all look at the outside damage. That is a basic
3 indicator, which is always reflected in the internal part of the
4 structure. You don't go to the cellar or basement if the roof has been
5 damaged. Then you would go to the roof section, and you see that the
6 partitioning walls, for example, have been toppled. You look at the
7 portal, you look at the facades, you look at the cracks and superficial
8 craters and things of that type. So you look at the series of damages
9 that result from the impact that has occurred and --
10 Q. So you record the cracks on the walls, for example; is that right?
11 A. Yes. You mention cracks in your report if they're visible.
12 Q. Then you record any plaster that has fallen off the walls?
13 A. Well, plaster is minor damage. That's not so important. The
14 important thing for me is visible cracks on the facades, destruction to
15 the constructual and structural elements, the bearing walls, the roof
16 construction, et cetera, and then the more minor damages that attend these
17 major damages.
18 So if you have a strong impact, you will have all the attending
19 damages to the surface of the wall, to the partitioning walls, to the
20 facade, and so on.
21 Q. So you look at the construction first.
22 A. Yes, that's absolutely correct.
23 Q. And then you look at the roof construction.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And then you look at the attending damages.
1 A. Yes, all those that are visible.
2 Q. Tell me, when you went in the field, in situ, did you have any
3 documents with you telling you who the property belonged to, any land
4 registry information or anything of that kind, any documents when you went
5 on site?
6 A. No. No. All I had was the formulas, and I conducted my
7 investigation on the basis of the points stipulated in the forms. It
8 doesn't matter who the structure belongs to; what matters is the damage.
9 Q. Yes. Well, would you allow me to be the judge of that, the
10 important things for my case.
11 Tell me what you do next. You conduct this analysis or
12 investigation of the structure. Where do you fill the forms in?
13 A. I fill the form in in my on handwriting on the spot, straight
15 Q. So it is on the spot that you complete your job. You then hand in
16 your formula -- your form, and that's where your job finishes, is that
17 right, once you have completed the form?
18 A. Just a minute, please. On the basis of the number of the
19 structure which I had given to me beforehand, once I am given the
20 assignment. Everything else is done on the spot, in situ. Perhaps I
21 would think about the category I would assign to the damage and structure,
22 but there wasn't much to think about.
23 Q. And what guides you in determining the category?
24 A. It depends on the area in which the damage takes place.
25 Q. At what point in time do you decide what category to give a
1 certain structure; on the spot, later on when you go back to your
2 institute, or when?
3 A. Well, mostly on the spot.
4 Q. And then that report is typed out by someone else; is that right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. The report that you handed over in written -- in your handwriting
7 to the institute.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did you have the chance of looking through the typed-out copy of
10 your report?
11 A. Well, I don't know when I had a chance of doing that exactly. I
12 suppose before it was bound, before binding was given it.
13 Q. Did you ever in fact have a chance to look through the typed-out
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. When was that?
17 A. Well, I can't give you an exact time. Probably before the binding
18 took place, when the final work in drawing up the forms was completed.
19 Q. And when was that?
20 A. Well, it was like this: I completed my work on the 18th of
21 December and continued working in the project bureau. On the 6th of
22 January, the report was completed, the text of it, the textual part at the
23 beginning. And all the maps with the various designations of category for
24 the damages and the location of the damages came at the end, so probably
25 sometime between the 18th of December and the 6th of January, that's when
1 I took a look at it.
2 Q. Do you remember having looked through all the minutes, all the
3 notes you took once they had been typed out?
4 A. Well, I would have had to have done that. I must have done that
5 because I signed it ultimately.
6 Q. So when they gave it back to you, you took the minutes or the
7 notes and signed it; is that right?
8 A. No. When I gave -- I signed it when I gave a statement to the
9 investigators, which was in the year 2000.
10 Q. Why didn't you sign the report when, as you say, you read through
11 the report to verify it when your name is at the bottom of every report,
12 of each of these minutes or notes?
13 A. Well, I don't know. That's not what we did. We didn't do it like
14 that at the time.
15 Q. And why did you do that in the year 2000?
16 A. Because I gave a statement to the investigators of this Tribunal,
17 and attached to that statement was this material that I worked on in 1991.
18 So as all this went together, I verified it, authorised it.
19 Q. Why didn't you do that in 1991?
20 A. Because that's not what we did. What you would have to do was to
21 call all these individuals. Some of them weren't employees of the
22 institute, and you would have to call them and sign them, and it was
23 assumed that the teams working on the assignment were doing their work
24 conscientiously and that was that.
25 Q. Well, I don't see anything to debate there. I assume they read
1 through what had been typed out.
2 A. Well, I don't see anything to debate there either.
3 Q. But why didn't they sign their part, their portion of the report?
4 A. Why we didn't sign in 1991? Is that what you're asking me?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. Well, we just didn't sign it. That wasn't customary. I don't
7 know what else to say.
8 Q. Did some -- anyone sign, anybody?
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. So you signed this in the year 2000; is that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And why did you sign then?
13 A. You mean the forms attached here? I think the forms that are
14 attached here are the signed ones.
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. Well, it comprised work on 50 structures.
17 Q. Why did you sign then in 2000 and not in 1991?
18 A. Because that's what I was asked to do. If it is attached to my
19 statement, then I sign it because that was what I was required to do.
20 Q. So after a period of nine years, after nine years had gone by,
21 could you remember all of the damages in the insulae number nine, ten,
22 eleven, twelve?
23 A. I didn't write my report nine years later, I wrote my report
24 immediately after the damage was incurred, but I signed to say that they
25 were mine. Nine years later I can't remember all the damages, especially
1 after ten major projects that have been ongoing to reconstruct buildings.
2 Q. Well, how do you know nine years later that what has been typed
3 out and what the reports contain are the authentic facts that you set out
4 in your report?
5 A. Because they are the same reports. In the text itself, I can
6 recognise my own method of writing and compiling a report, and I know that
7 what I said there was what happened, was what I actually did.
8 Q. So when you looked at it in the year 2000, you recognised that
9 that was what you had done in 1991. And I assume that you remember what
10 the contents of the report were.
11 A. Well, look, I read it. Not in great detail, but I read it and I
12 established that that was it.
13 Q. How did you know that in 2000? For example, if I ask you today
14 what exactly were the damages on various buildings, can you remember all
15 of it without looking at the documents?
16 A. I can remember some things, not all of them.
17 Q. Just a moment, please. Give me any example except for the
18 Franciscan Monastery. Do you remember any other damage on any other
19 building that you wrote about here?
20 A. I remember very well. For example, the Church of the Holy
21 Saviour, right by the Franciscan Monastery. This is a Renaissance church,
22 one of the most valuable monuments in Dubrovnik.
23 Q. Just tell me what the damage is.
24 A. It is indirect, the damage is indirect, but this is a building on
25 which this damage is terrible. It can basically not be redressed. It's
1 on the surface of the wall, then also on the ornaments around the entrance
2 door and then also on the plasters, and some of them were even dislocated.
3 The building was not hit directly, but the facade and the external wall
5 Q. What was the category?
6 A. The category of damage could be third category.
7 Q. Would you now like to look a page?
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first of all in the
9 B/C/S version, the last three figures are 150, and then page 151.
10 Q. Please take a look at page 150 first. Does number 11 indicate the
11 church that you just talked about?
12 A. Yes, exactly.
13 Q. Now please look at page 151.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. You just said to us that you established that the roof was damaged
16 there. Is that what you said a few minutes ago in respect of the Church
17 of Our Saviour?
18 A. It was minor damage that was caused by the hit of a rather
19 powerful projectile that hit a building. It's number 9.
20 Q. Please answer my question. Did you say that you established that
21 the roof of the Church of Our Saviour was damaged? Is that what you said
22 two minutes ago?
23 A. Possibly.
24 Q. Yes or no. Did you say it or did you not say it?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Do you see any damage on the roof that is indicated here?
2 A. No, it's not indicated here. I probably considered this to be a
3 lesser damage.
4 Q. Why did you mention that today, 14 years later, and not in your
5 report, the one that you made ten days after it?
6 A. I probably considered it to be a lesser damage.
7 MR. KAUFMAN: If I may.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kaufman.
9 MR. KAUFMAN: I would ask my learned friend when he's putting the
10 questions to the witness and asserting that points were not made X number
11 of years ago, to be accurate in the way the question is phrased. I would
12 like to refer, perhaps for Your Honours' convenience, to the English
13 translation of this particular subsite, which can be found at L0060310.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] With all due respect, I was talking
15 about two drawings. I haven't come to that page yet, my learned friend.
16 I will get to that page too, but I haven't got to that page yet. And in
17 the English translations there are no sketches, only in the B/C/S version.
18 I'm still talking about sketches only, and I will get to the page you've
19 referred to just now. Then I'm going to indicate both the B/C/S and the
20 English versions of that particular page.
21 MR. KAUFMAN: My only point being, Your Honours, that X number of
22 years ago, when this report was prepared back in 1991, there was mention
23 of damage to the rooftops. It's not correct to put it to the witness that
24 she did not talk about damage to the roof.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Kaufman.
1 The point, Mr. Petrovic, appears to be that the detailed report
2 prepared by the witness does mention such damage. What you are
3 identifying is a summarising sketch that was put at the beginning of the
4 report, no doubt by others.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that's precisely what
6 I wished to show. I wished to indicate the difference between what the
7 sketch, the map shows, and what the distinguished witness said. That was
8 the aim of what I was trying to get at.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. Can I say something?
10 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous translation continues]...
11 MR. PETROVIC: [No translation]
12 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mrs. Peko, were you wanting to say something?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I would just like to point out
14 that a few minutes ago I said that I think that it was the third category
15 of damage. That means either one or the other. That is to say either the
16 facade, the front wall, or the roof. I estimated that the facade, the
17 front wall, sustained major damage and the roof sustained minor damage.
18 And now what I wrote --
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Well, at any rate, the map on 151 is not accurate. Does it
21 reflect what you said?
22 A. On page 152, it does reflect that where category 3 damage is
23 concerned, that is to say either/or; either the wall or the roof. I may
24 have mentioned the roof, but obviously I considered the damage sustained
25 by the front wall to be major damage.
1 Q. So the damage that you're referring to, is that an indirect hit?
2 A. You mean the wall?
3 Q. Yes. Now, please look at 151 and tell me where is an indirect hit
4 shown here.
5 A. With the dotted line. And this dotted line is there, right by the
6 front wall on the south and partly the eastern wall.
7 Q. Not on the building itself?
8 A. Well, there's no other way of depicting it. That is how we did
9 it, with the dotted line.
10 Q. Let's move on. Thank you. Tell me, when did you -- when did you
11 establish how a particular building was damaged? You don't have to look
12 at these papers any more now. I'm giving you a general question.
13 When did you establish when the building was damaged?
14 A. When touring it, when coming to see it.
15 Q. Tell me, at any point in time did you have any knowledge about the
16 previous status of the building that you were reviewing?
17 A. What previous status do you mean?
18 Q. I'll try to explain. Did you know in what condition the building
19 was before you went out there? For example, let's put it this way:
20 Before October 1991, did you know in what condition these buildings were
21 or a particular building was?
22 A. Well, this church, for instance, the Church of Our Saviour, that's
23 a church that we pass by practically every day so we are constantly aware
24 of it. So the damage sustained by stone on our monuments is obvious
25 because new damage can easily be seen.
1 Q. Domino 6 in insula 12. Do you know in what condition it was
2 before you actually investigated?
3 A. Six? I'd have to have a look at it.
4 Q. Now, I'm asking you whether you knew when you entered that
5 building in what condition it had been before 1991. Did you know?
6 A. I cannot identify the building exactly. Do you really think that
7 I go into all of those 50 buildings, 50 houses every day? You see, damage
8 is quite obvious. I told you at the very outset that what is important
9 for me is to distinguish between a direct hit and an indirect hit. A
10 cultural monument is important for me as such. I don't know how to put
11 this. And at the moment when I arrive there, I see there is damage and I
12 can distinguish between old damage and new damage, recent damage.
13 Q. How do you distinguish between an old and a new crack in the wall?
14 A. Well, that can be seen. Very often these cracks in our walls are
15 covered with paint, and when due to vibrations and due to hits there are
16 further cracks, they appear in the same place. Cracks are activated.
17 That is the word we use. And that is where the plaster falls off, the
18 mortar falls off if cracks are reactivated.
19 Q. How do you know when there were cracks for years, for a long time,
20 and then it becomes bigger? Why did this not happen in September 1991?
21 How come you know it wasn't in September?
22 A. Well, in September there wasn't any new hit. Why would that
24 Q. Does that mean that all buildings were in perfect condition until
25 October 1991?
1 A. It does not mean that they were in perfect condition, but I can
2 recognise a crack being activated, yes.
3 Q. Does that mean that between the earthquake of 1979 and 1991 a
4 crack could not have happened?
5 A. Well, hardly, because if that were the case, then all buildings
6 would have fallen apart. If they were cracks coming up all the time, then
7 they'd fall apart. So it's vibrations, detonations, that kind of thing
8 causes cracks. Of any origin, of course.
9 Q. So what was it that you knew in terms of damage sustained by
10 various buildings apart from the Church of Our Saviour and the Franciscan
11 Monastery? What did you know about all the other buildings and the
12 condition they were in before October 1991?
13 A. The condition they were in? Well, that they were in proper
14 physical condition, that they were usable, that they were being used, and
15 that the people living and working there were taking care of them, as is
16 customary in our part of the world.
17 Q. How can it be assumed that, when you did not enter 95 per cent of
18 these buildings, because these are residential buildings or business
19 premises, how can you claim that they were being maintained properly when
20 you were never entered them?
21 A. Because those that are in poor condition become part of a
22 reconstruction programme or renewal programme. After the earthquake,
23 buildings were restored and renewed according to a certain programme. The
24 Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments could have data about
25 this. And also we have a reconstruction institute in Dubrovnik too that
1 was established precisely after the earthquake of 1979. It was engaged in
2 systematic reconstruction of buildings in town as an investor.
3 As I said, from 1988, I was employed in the bureau called
4 Arhitekt. I worked on four buildings, on four buildings that were damaged
5 during the war.
6 Q. Please answer my questions. That's what I'm asking you about. So
7 there is information, there is data about this at the institute, and so on
8 and so forth. So when you are at a building, you do not really know
9 anything about it, because all this information is registered somewhere at
10 the institute. But what do you know about it? Nothing.
11 A. Well, look, I'm some kind of an expert. I can absolutely
12 distinguish between old damage and recent damage. I cannot say our
13 buildings are in ideal condition, but I can distinguish between old damage
14 and recent damage.
15 Q. How do you distinguish, for example, recent, new damage on a new
16 building? I mean, I'm not asking you about roofs, I'm asking you about
18 A. Front walls you mean, facades?
19 Q. No, inside, within a building, a particular floor.
20 A. Well, it wasn't that frequent that there was damage there. In
21 nine buildings, there was total damage.
22 Q. Please answer my question. I'm not asking you about nine
23 buildings, I'm asking you how you can distinguish between new damage and
24 old damage sustained by the floor in a particular building. How can you
1 A. Well, in the floor there was damage very seldom except in the case
2 of these nine buildings that were totally destroyed.
3 Q. So there was no constructional damage in -- except for the roof
5 A. No. There was damage on the front walls, the facades, then the
6 roofs, so that is part of the construction, too, yes. Most of the
7 constructional damage could be noticed there.
8 Q. Tell me, please, in one of the same buildings, how do you
9 distinguish between damage sustained in October and November and December
11 A. I was not asked to do that. I was asked to register all the
12 damage that was sustained on the 6th of December.
13 Q. So that includes all the damage from the months of October,
14 November, and December.
15 A. Yes. This preliminary report refers to those three months.
16 Q. At one point yesterday you mentioned Davorin Rudolf.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. That he spoke over the radio.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you remember what he said?
21 A. I just know that his voice had an incredibly pacifying effect, and
22 his wish was to make the inhabitants of Dubrovnik feel calmer and help
23 them live through this.
24 Q. Do you perhaps remember whether he referred to an individual
25 called Jokic, Admiral Jokic?
1 A. I don't think he referred to anyone in particular. I'm not sure.
2 I'm not sure. I think that he addressed us in a very humane way.
3 Q. Do you remember that he conveyed the apology that the JNA
4 addressed to him and the citizens of Dubrovnik because of what was going
5 on at that time in Dubrovnik?
6 A. An apology. I don't remember. That would have been a paradox.
7 Q. Do you remember perhaps that he said that this Admiral Jokic had
8 been called back to Belgrade to see the Federal Secretary for National
10 A. I don't remember that.
11 Q. Would it surprise you if I told you that Mr. Rudolf himself says
12 that that is what he spoke about?
13 A. I listened to Mr. Rudolf with great delight, because he calmed us
14 down in a way, but do I not remember all of this, but after all, it is for
15 him to speak about this.
16 Q. Although I know that this is a traumatic and hard experience for
17 you, I will have to ask you something about the building that you were in.
18 Please don't hold it against me. This is simply in line with the role I
19 have before this Court.
20 Tell me, when was the building that you were staying at hit?
21 A. Between 11.00 and 12.00 on the 6th of December. I don't know when
23 Q. Do you know how it was hit?
24 A. According to what my husband said, it was a guided rocket. I know
25 the exact point of impact, and I know that I saw white traces. I know
1 that early the following morning I went to collect stone that had fallen
2 off that building. This was important for me because the city cleaning
3 services were already cleaning the streets, and it was important for this
4 particular building, and that's when I saw it.
5 Q. So what was the damage involved?
6 A. The projectile hit the corner of the building or, rather, the
7 eastern wall, right below the stone drainpipe. The surface of the wall
8 was destroyed. Perhaps one square metre was destroyed, and about one
9 metre of the stone drainpipe along with the adjoining ones.
10 Q. And what is the total surface area, would you say, of the damage?
11 A. You mean to the facade?
12 Q. I mean the damage you saw to the building you lived in.
13 A. Well, on the facade, the surface area might have been between one
14 and two metres. It's at the corner of the building. But what was damaged
15 most was the roof, because the whole structure was displaced.
16 Q. Could you take a look at a photograph now for me, please, in the
17 first binder before you. 01069400 is the number. The photograph is from
18 the B/C/S bundle, it doesn't exist in the English bundle. 400 are the
19 last three digits. 4-0-0 are the last three digits.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher place it on the
21 overhead projector, please. That will help us all.
22 Q. Mrs. Peko, would you please take a look at the photograph on the
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Tell me, is that your house? Is that it?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] May I have the photograph back,
4 Q. Tell me, please, after looking at the photograph, would you say
5 that that was a two-metre wide by one metre damage? Would that be the
6 surface area?
7 A. On the eastern side and on the northern side is where the damage
9 Now, on the northern facade, the pieces of stone have been
10 dislodged. If you know -- if one knows that the stones are 25 to 30
11 centimetres high, each stone block, you have one, two, three, four, four
12 blocks, then I think that my assessment is roughly correct. And there's a
13 piece of stone missing at the level of the drainpipe. So I would say I
14 was correct.
15 Q. Would you take a look at the page ending in the 399, and in
16 English it is 0061069 is the ERN English number.
17 Madam, would you read what your colleague wrote about the damage.
18 Or, rather, tell me first, please, whether that is your building, the one
19 mentioned here. Is that the house you were in, in actual fact?
20 A. Block Boskoviceva 15. Yes, that's the house, that's the damage.
21 Q. Take a look at what it says in the report there for the structure,
22 and does that correspond to what you've just told us?
23 A. "Direct hit into the stone drainpipe. Direct hit in the roof
24 drainpipe on the eastern and northern facade which caused lesser damages
25 to the stone channel about 20 -- stone canal, about 20 centimetres, and a
1 stone console or support."
2 Q. And what does it say next?
3 A. "On the northern facade, a stone block has been blown away and ten
4 others damaged."
5 Q. Now, tell me, please, your assessments and your testimony and what
6 it says here, can you see that there is a significant difference between
7 your assessment and what it says there?
8 Do you agree that there is quite a lot of difference between your
9 description and the description made by Mr. Elakovic and Comor?
10 A. With respect to damages to other structures, this is indeed a
11 lesser damage, but I assume that the damage does correspond with the
12 surface area.
13 Q. Would you concentrate on my question, please. Do you agree that
14 there is a great difference between your description of the damages and
15 what Comor and Elakovic ascertained?
16 A. I see no great difference.
17 Q. Do you see a difference in the dimensions, in the size of the
18 damage? It says 20 centimetres here and you said one to two metres, I
19 believe, which means ten times more, madam.
20 A. I don't know how to explain this to you. This is a direct
21 description of what was damaged by the hit. The canal, or drainpipe, was
22 considerably damaged, but I don't think there's a great difference in
23 surface area, actually.
24 Q. What did you tell us as to the dimensions of the damage a moment
25 ago on the building you lived in? What did you tell us five minutes ago?
1 A. Five minutes ago I told you the exact spot at which the impact
2 hit. And to the best of my recollections, that is 12 or 13 years later.
3 This is something that my colleagues saw, and this is a photograph. So it
4 is facts from them, supplied by them.
5 Q. But it was the house you were in?
6 A. Yes, it was. That's right.
7 Q. Do you mean to say -- just a moment, please. Is it logical and
8 natural that in the house that you were living in that you remember
9 exactly, because you were very interested in what was going on because you
10 and your family were housed there, wasn't it logical that this was
11 something that stuck in your memory?
12 A. Yes, it did stick in my memory, you're right. It stuck there and
13 lodged very firmly. However, at the time I viewed it as damage to a
14 structure, and I knew exactly what I would have to do after the war, which
15 was to repair. So I accepted that as a fact. It never entered my head to
16 take up a measuring stick and measure the area. And I know that much more
17 extensive repairs would have to be done than what it says here, let alone
18 the roof construction.
19 Q. Did you approach in the same way the structures where you had the
20 duty and responsibility of assessing the material damage -- the damage?
21 A. That cannot be compared at all. I was an ordinary citizen,
22 inhabitant there who, through force of circumstance, managed to survive
23 the hit, because the building was far more sensitive in other places than
24 that particular place where the shell hit. So I cannot at all times look
25 at things professionally and act as a professional. Otherwise, I would
1 have come here with a measuring stick to measure the table in front of
2 you, for instance.
3 Q. What equipment did you have when you went to investigate on site,
4 except the form you told us about?
5 A. A pencil.
6 Q. So you didn't have a tape-measure? You didn't have a camera? You
7 didn't have a notebook to record the damage? You didn't have any of that?
8 A. I know very well what architectural investigation requires. It
9 requires a lot of time and effort, and there are certain areas where you
10 -- which are inaccessible, where you would need scaffolding to be able to
11 assess the damage. Of course I had a measuring -- a tape-measure. I
12 forgot to mention that. Because I looked at the depth of the impact, the
13 damage. But had we used a tape-measure to measure each and every piece of
14 damage, that would have been impossible. I know -- knew that
15 investigations would follow and that repair work would have to be done and
16 that would come afterwards, but detailed procedure in that way, where
17 would that have led us? We would have been spending years and years doing
18 that. It's just not reasonable to assume that.
19 Q. After my question you said you had a tape-measure. To begin with
20 you just told us you had a pencil, and that seemed to you to be illogical
21 so you added the tape measure, is that it?
22 A. Well, I apologise for my mistake, my omission.
23 Q. Did you use your tape-measure to measure, the one you said you
24 took with you?
25 A. I always take a tape-measure with me in order to measure things.
1 Q. What did you measure?
2 A. The diameter and radius of the damage, the depth of the damage.
3 Q. So what would you do on one particular structure? There were
4 measurements to be taken everywhere, I assume.
5 A. No. I'm an architect. I can assess a dimension in space, at
6 least roughly speaking.
7 Q. So many damages were assessed by you visually. By looking at the
8 structure, you would say that is one or two metres, roughly. Am I right
9 in assuming that?
10 A. Architectural measurement is a process that you're probably not
11 acquainted with but it is a lengthy process. Architectural assessment at
12 a ten metre height is impossible to do, and that's why we did not engage
13 in systematic monitoring and measurement. I went to four burnt down
14 buildings at a height of 14 metres and assessed the damage there. I can
15 tell you which those structures were and I can tell you how long that kind
16 of investigation lasted, but in this particular case we were not able to
17 apply these things for our preliminary report and our preliminary
19 Q. I should now like to ask you to take a look at the second binder
20 that you have before you --
21 JUDGE PARKER: Perhaps, Mr. Petrovic, if you're moving to another,
22 it would be convenient to have a break before we do.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, quite, thank you.
24 I should have thought of that myself. Thank you.
25 JUDGE PARKER: It will be a 20-minute break.
1 --- Recess taken at 12.13 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 12.43 p.m.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Mrs. Peko, before the break I asked you to take a look at a
6 document, the second binder, to look at insula 11.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the page number is, in
8 the B/C/S, 010169632, and for the English translation it is L0061497. So
9 from that page onwards I shall be asking some questions with respect to
10 Mrs. Peko's report in that portion.
11 Q. Mrs. Peko, insula 11 is what we're looking at, from page 632,
12 those being the last three digits. Have you found it? Have you found the
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Tell me, please, first of all you see this column headed "Type of
16 projectile," and there is a mortar shell, 120 millimetres, three of those.
17 How were you able to ascertain that?
18 A. I don't remember. I assume I saw them lined up in the building,
19 the remnants.
20 Q. Tell me, please, what does a 120-millimetre shell look like?
21 A. I don't know. I never saw the whole of it, just the fragments
22 that were left behind.
23 Q. Tell me, what do the fragments of a 120-millimetre shell look
25 A. Well, it looks like a sort of full barrel with wing-like
1 structures at the end. That is the fragment, that's what remains of a
3 Q. And what about the shrapnel of a 120-millimetre shell?
4 A. Well, I don't distinguish between a 120-millimetre shrapnel and an
5 82-millimetre shrapnel, but of the shrapnels that I saw, I can describe
6 them in this way: They are pieces of steel with fragmented edges and a
7 flat surface, on a flat surface, the torn edges, and you can see this flat
8 plate-like surface.
9 Q. Can you distinguish between shrapnel of 82-millimetre shells and
10 120-millimetre shells? And did you see the remains of the wings of a
11 mortar shell in each of these structures?
12 A. Well, almost in all of them. People would save them and store
13 them away and then show -- show them to us.
14 Q. And where would you find the fragments of a mortar shell?
15 Somebody would give them to you or what?
16 A. No. They were sort of all lined up in part of the space,
17 apartment, or whatever.
18 Q. So you didn't find any of the shrapnel fragments at the spot they
20 A. No. People cleared up the streets the very next day and would
21 come across these fragments.
22 Q. So all these shell fragments were moved from the actual spot at
23 which they fell; is that right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And how can you distinguish between the remains of an 82-mortar
1 shell and a 120-millimetre shell when it comes to these wing-like
2 structures? Can you describe what one looks and the other looks like and
3 what the difference is?
4 A. The difference is in the radius, and I was able to see when it was
5 an 82-millimetre one and a 120-millimetre one. So that's mostly it. In
6 the structures that I investigated. And in our three-member team or
7 commission, when I was working with my colleagues who had undergone a
8 certain amount of training and were better versed in these matters than I
9 was, then they would make the assessment and record it, because I really
10 don't understand matters of that type.
11 Q. In all the reports that you signed, you made the assessments as to
12 what size shell had caused the damage; is that right?
13 A. It was my duty either to make the evaluation myself or to receive
14 information from the owner or user of the building, or even to bring in
15 the projectile itself. But very often they didn't let us take the
16 projectiles away, the ones that they had managed to collect.
17 Q. Have you ever seen a 60-millimetre projectile, for example? Or
18 have you ever seen a projectile from some other artillery weapon and not
19 from a mortar?
20 A. Well, I've already told you that I could recognise these remnants
21 from an 82-millimetre and 120-millimetre mortar. Then also I could see
22 when it was an incendiary shell that fell.
23 Q. We'll get to that.
24 A. And I also saw the traces of guided rockets. I cannot distinguish
25 between other things. I am not an expert, an arms expert. I actually
1 find this repulsive. I don't really want to know anything about such
3 Q. What about a building that was indirectly hit? What did you find
5 A. I would ascertain that there had been an indirect hit.
6 Q. What did you find? What kind of shell remains did you find in a
7 building that had been indirectly hit? What would you find there?
8 A. People mostly kept larger parts of projectiles, not smaller ones
9 usually. Since the damage sustained by buildings was mainly external, on
10 walls, roofs, et cetera, then this would fall into the street and it would
11 be cleaned the very next day, these tiny little fragments. Nobody
12 collected them.
13 Q. Did you find this part with the wing-like structures by the
14 buildings that were indirectly hit?
15 A. I would not find them at all by buildings that were hit. Outside,
16 I mean.
17 Q. So how did you then establish, in the case of a building that was
18 indirectly hit, the type and calibre of projectile that it had been hit
20 A. This is information that we would get from people living or
21 working in the buildings. Usually when a building was hit directly, then
22 its next-door building would be indirectly hit, the building next door,
23 the roof on the building next door. The people who were directly hit,
24 whose building was directly hit, would know.
25 Q. How would people know the type and calibre of projectile?
1 A. I told you. At their homes they had their -- these remains. And
2 they know. If it hit the front wall of the neighbour's house and then if
3 their building was affected, it was probably from that building, too, but
4 possibly there was shrapnel flying all over the place. It's hard to tell.
5 Q. Was it possible to -- for damage to be incurred by other weapons,
6 not only mortars?
7 A. What do you mean?
8 Q. Well, for example, a cannon, a recoilless gun, if you know what
9 that is.
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. What about a howitzer? Could a howitzer have caused damaged?
12 A. Well, possibly. I assumed that as far as these guns and cannons
13 are concerned, there was a larger distance involved, but I'm not familiar
14 with these weapons, and I don't know what their shells look like. I told
15 you at the very outset, I can distinguish between a direct hit and an
16 indirect hit, but for me that is a weapon, a weapon that caused damage.
17 So one shell was one too many in Dubrovnik, and a crime, as far as I'm
19 Q. Madam, every report of yours contains precise details concerning
20 the type of projectile that caused the damage. I'm not asking you all of
21 this for any other reason but because of the fact that it is included in
22 your report. There was not a single report of yours without giving the
23 type and calibre of projectile. That's why I'm putting these questions to
24 you. There's no other reason.
25 A. This is information that I would get in different ways; by seeing
1 what the remains were at a particular building or by getting a description
2 from the tenants, or by having the projectile brought in as such. So it
3 was one of these types of information. I really didn't invent any of
5 Q. Do you know whether these remains that were shown to you were
6 really from that building or were they perhaps from another building?
7 A. It was not carried around that way that they would collect ten
8 projectiles in one building and then that they would boast with it as if
9 it were a trophy. I don't think that was the case.
10 Q. How come you know, madam, that somebody was not carrying fragments
11 of projectiles from one building to another and yet another one? How can
12 you know that?
13 A. Well, I really don't know, but ...
14 Q. Do you know that many people collected these sad trophies in the
15 town of Dubrovnik for their own collections?
16 A. People kept this in their buildings, especially if their building
17 had been hit by one. How many people there were who were involved in this
18 kind of collecting is something I really don't know.
19 Q. Let's go back to a building that was indirectly hit. What do you
20 find by way of traces coming from a shell so that you could ascertain that
21 it was hit by an 82-millimetre or 120-millimetre shell?
22 A. I tell you that the damage has to do with a projectile, a shell
23 that hit another place near that building. For example, if you see on the
24 facade of the Church of Our Saviour evident signs of damage, that is to
25 say holes in the wall, they are quite pronounced even today. And you have
1 accurate reports in terms of the damage sustained by the main street,
2 Placa, and you see that three or four projectiles, whatever, fell on the
3 Onofrijeva Fountain. Then they ricocheted from there in all directions.
4 The roofs and the window frames and the walls were hit. That can be
6 Q. Will you agree with me that you actually could not ascertain with
7 any degree of certitude the type of projectile that had hit the buildings?
8 You did not have any direct knowledge, you did not have the necessary
9 knowledge to establish this anyway, and you did not have the mechanisms
11 A. I told you that I could tell them apart by way of their diameter
12 and also the fragments left of 82-millimetre and 120-millimetre shells. I
13 could distinguish between those, no doubt. And people would show them to
14 me. I would not find them on the spot right by the damage.
15 Q. In respect of a building that was hit by shrapnel, how could you
16 establish what the calibre of the original shell was?
17 A. Well, if in the immediate neighbourhood there was a 120-millimetre
18 shell that fell, then I know it came from there. So if it ricocheted off
19 that wall or this wall, then I know it came from there.
20 Q. Could it have been from a machine-gun?
21 A. A machine-gun?
22 Q. A bigger calibre machine-gun.
23 A. Well, that's what you said. I don't see how come there could be
24 machine-guns in Dubrovnik. Maybe you were doing it from up there. Maybe
25 there were machine-guns.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could you please have
2 this last sentence interpreted to you very precisely, because it contains
3 an insult, an insult addressed at General Strugar, and I would like the
4 Chamber to reprimand the witness for saying such offensive words like
5 maybe I was up there on Mount Srdj. "[In English] You were doing it from
6 up there." [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is offence, that's an
7 insult, and I would kindly ask you to intervene.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, I don't understand what was said in
9 the way that you do. Firstly, I see nothing addressed to your client.
10 Secondly, when you put to the witness, "Could it have been a machine-gun?"
11 she reacted by saying, "Well, you might know whether there was a
12 machine-gun or not," I think addressed to you, not your client, and saying
13 that if you're suggesting there was a machine-gun that must be your
14 suggestion, not hers. So I'm afraid I don't concur with your
15 interpretation of what was said. I think you may have misunderstood what
16 was intended.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I accept everything
18 you said. All right. Let's not dwell on it any longer, although,
19 regrettably, I think that it was otherwise.
20 Q. Tell me, do you know anything about the way in which an
21 82-millimetre or 120-millimetre shell is fragmentised?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Is anything written on the small wing-like structures that you
24 claim you found at various buildings?
25 A. I think it was possible to read the calibre and the year of
1 manufacture on some, but on others, no. I cannot say that with any
2 certitude. I've forgotten.
3 Q. Did you perhaps see the wing-like structures on a rifle grenade?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Do you know anything about descent angles of mortar shells?
6 A. No.
7 Q. On your teams, was there a crime investigation technician who
8 could ascertain this type of damage?
9 A. Look, on our team there were men who had undergone certain
10 training. Also, just before work started on this report, there was a
11 brief review of the types of projectiles that could be encountered. These
12 fragments of projectiles were on a table. However, I got involved in this
13 later, that is to say on the 9th of December. I saw the table, and -- but
14 I mean I really did not have any wish to look at it any further.
15 Now, what was it I've been trying to say? Yes. We were actually
16 warned that if we would find fragments of projectiles that there was this
17 so-called fuse that had not exploded and that we should be very careful.
18 Q. I just asked you whether you had a crime investigation technician
19 with you.
20 A. Not with me.
21 Q. Was there on your team with you a ballistics expert?
22 A. On my team at the buildings? No.
23 Q. Was there any such expert on the team -- on the entire team that
24 was working on the entirety of the preliminary report?
25 A. I don't see any such name, because I know most of these people.
1 Q. Was a crime investigation carried out? Did anybody collect these
2 remains of projectiles so that they could be processed afterwards in terms
3 of crime investigation?
4 A. I don't know any such thing.
5 Q. Please look at page 01069635.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in the English
7 translation that is page L0061498.
8 Q. These reports that are marked insula 11, report 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
9 all the way up to -- all the way up to page 01069648, are all of those
10 reports yours?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. How much time is required for examining one building, for
14 A. It depends on the size of the building and the extent of damage
16 Q. Well, give me an approximation, please. What would be the least
17 amount of time required, and what would be the longest amount of time
19 A. I cannot say that exactly now. I don't know. I don't remember.
20 Q. How much time is needed for carrying an on-site investigation of
21 an apartment building in the street of Miha Pracata, for instance? That
22 is insula 11, buildings 5 and 6. How much time is required?
23 A. Well, for example, Miha Pracata Street, yes, there it is. Number
24 1, and that is page 635, residential building, if I was there at 10.00,
25 and then I was at the neighbouring building at 11.30, well -- 11.15.
1 Fifteen minutes, up to one hour. I don't know how much. I'm just saying
2 all this off-the-cuff. I can't remember.
3 Q. Could you please explain to me how you managed within four hours
4 on the 15th of December to examine 11 buildings. Between 10.00 a.m. and
5 2.00 p.m., you examined 14 buildings. How did you manage to do that?
6 A. These are probably smaller buildings with less damage involved.
7 This is a part of town that was affected in a minor way, but I don't see
8 where this is leading to, but okay, never mind.
9 Q. Did you really have enough time within four hours to actually
10 examine buildings, 11 buildings?
11 A. Eleven?
12 Q. 11/2, 11/3, 11-4, 11-5, 11-6, 11-7, 11-8, 11-9, 11-12, 11-13. You
13 managed to do all of that within four hours' time. How come?
14 A. Quickly.
15 Q. I agree it was quick but did you do it properly? Did you do it
17 A. I stand behind this. I stand by it and I think it's correct.
18 Q. During these four hours, did you establish that there were 11
19 direct hits by 120-millimetre mortars?
20 A. Eleven?
21 Q. Yes, 11. Believe me, I added them all up, and you can do the same
23 A. Well, it depends on the place the damage took place, the size of
24 the building, the number of damages, lots of things.
25 Q. So is it true that you, in the space of four hours, were able to
1 establish 11 mortar hits with a 120-millimetre shell? Yes or no.
2 A. I certainly established the number of hits. Now, whether that
3 took place within the space of four hours, I don't know. Perhaps I didn't
4 record the time precisely. It's not the hour of impact, it's not anything
5 like that. Perhaps I wasn't precise enough in determining the overall
7 Q. Perhaps you were imprecise in the counting of the hits.
8 A. No, I don't believe that to be the case.
9 Q. Did you see a single spot where the -- and I'm talking about
10 insula 11, the spot -- did you see the spot where the projectile actually
11 hit the soil, the ground, or the structure?
12 A. There are indirect hits and direct hits, so quite obviously I did
13 see the direct hits.
14 Q. In the space of those four hours, did you manage to establish and
15 take a look at, in addition to the 11 hits, the five indirect hits as well
16 with the 120-millimetre mortar shell? All in the space of four hours did
17 you manage to do that too?
18 A. Yes, I could, I was able to. Let me give you an example. Within
19 the space of one minute, I was able to ascertain the damage on the
20 cloister of the Franciscan Monastery. Six direct hits. You could see
21 that. It just takes you a minute.
22 Now, as to these structures here, I don't know what to say. Yes,
23 of course, because the damage was the damage that was done, the hits were
24 the hits; and as to the time, well, I think it's quite enough time to do
1 Q. So do you say that in one minute you can establish all the damage
2 done by six hits, that one minute is enough for you to see how the impact
3 took place, what the calibre of the weapon used, and can you stand by
5 A. I wasn't speaking about calibres, that I could do that within a
6 minute, but when you're passing by a balcony, a terrace, for example, and
7 see four direct hits, in passing by, it's just six to eight metres, you
8 can tell that, you can establish that, yes.
9 Q. Let's take a look at insula 11 now. So there were 11 different
10 structures. Tell me, please, within those four hours, in addition to the
11 11 direct hits and five indirect hits with the 120-millimetre projectile,
12 when you conducted your investigation you established two direct hits with
13 incendiary bullets; is that right?
14 A. Yes, I'm sure about that.
15 Q. How can you distinguish between an incendiary bullet and a
16 non-incendiary bullet?
17 A. Well, at the point of impact, the incendiary bullet leaves a dark
18 orange, reddish-orange colour trace. I'm sure about that.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kaufman.
20 MR. KAUFMAN: Yes, Your Honour. This is a matter of translation.
21 I just want to make sure there's consistency in the terminology that was
22 used by the Translation Unit perhaps, and because I'm not sure that the
23 term -- the term "incendiary" has been used previously, and
24 "non-incendiary," but I'm not sure the word "bullet" has been used. Just
25 so that we are certain that there is consistency with the terminology.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's apologies: Projectile.
2 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you very much.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Could you now take a look, please, at number 7, insula 11. 69640
5 is the number, L006103 for the English version. And could you read the
6 report to us, please. You can read it to yourself. You have it in front
7 of you.
8 Tell me, please, who provided you with the information for this
9 particular structure? Who gave you the information about this?
10 A. I don't remember.
11 Q. Was anyone there to provide you with information?
12 A. Probably.
13 Q. Well, do you remember or do you not remember, or do you assume?
14 A. According to these forms, the number 9 structure was directly hit.
15 So probably on structure 7, on the roof construction of number 7, there
16 was some shrapnel from the projectile that fell there.
17 Q. Now, tell me how you saw that if you didn't enter the structure.
18 Is that your assumption?
19 A. If you have two neighbouring buildings, one hit by a
20 120-millimetre shell that fragmented and fell on the roof, then where
21 would this other damage -- how would this other damage have been made but
22 from that?
23 Q. Madam, you said it wasn't possible to investigate the structure.
24 So you didn't actually enter the structure. And now I'm asking you how
25 was it that you saw there was damage to the roof, or did you just assume
1 that because the shell had fallen close by so most probably the roof of
2 that particular house was damaged as well.
3 A. Dubrovnik has higher house and lower houses, and if I went into
4 the neighbouring structure, then I could look up and see, and there were
5 buildings underneath the music school which stands at a higher altitude
6 than all the other buildings. So that is something that I could have seen
7 from the neighbouring building.
8 Q. And did you do that in this particular case?
9 A. You're asking me about the details that I can't remember 12 and 13
10 years on. I can't remember specifically for this structure. I just
11 recorded that there was nobody inside, in the building. So I don't write
12 about the internal damages to the walls but the roof structure, which I
13 was able to see, and you can be quite convinced that I haven't imagined or
14 constructed or construed any data contained in my report. What I saw was
15 enough for me.
16 Q. So you're now making logical deductions and conclusions as to what
17 could have happened but you don't remember.
18 A. No, I'm not making logical conclusions. Quite simply, my
19 professional morals and ethics don't allow me to write down things that I
20 didn't see. And we're dealing with damages. I'm not interested in the
21 type and shape of the projectile at all, I'm interested in the damage.
22 Q. Take a look at 11/1, please, or -1. In the comment at the foot of
23 the page, "Remarks," it says the building was repaired after the
24 earthquake in 1979. Where do you get that piece of information, for
1 A. Because I worked in the Institute for the Protection of Cultural
2 Monuments, and I know that the building was included into the repair work
3 that was done subsequent to the earthquake. And not only that, there was
4 an additional part to the building that was built when the reconstruction
5 was carried out.
6 Q. So do you know about all the buildings that were repaired and
7 reconstructed after the earthquake, the same thing that you said for the
8 11/1 building?
9 A. The institute has detailed information, but I do roughly know
10 about the buildings that were repaired and reconstructed, especially the
11 ones where I was the designer and architect working on the project. And
12 in this particular case, it is reinforced concrete, and our constructions
13 are generally -- the roof constructions are generally wooden
15 Q. Take a look at the structure which has the number 10/10 now,
16 please, which is 69643 page or, rather, for the English translation,
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. At the top, where it says "Type of projectile," you note that
20 there were two pieces of 120-millimetre shells and two of 82 millimetres.
21 In the comments or remarks at the bottom, it says: "The remains of one
22 120-millimetre shell were found."
23 How were you then able to establish that there were four, that two
24 were 120-millimetres and two were 82 millimetres, whereas at the bottom
25 you just say you just found one fragment?
1 A. Are we looking at the same structure, 10/10?
2 Q. Yes. Did I say 10/10? I apologise. I meant 11/10. I apologise
3 to the witness and to Their Honours. It is structure 11/10. And to my
4 colleagues as well. It is 01069643 in the B/C/S, and the English version
5 is L0061506. So we have two 120-millimetre projectiles, two 82-millimetre
6 projectiles, whereas at the end, in the remarks, it says the fragments of
7 one 120-millimetre shell were found. Now, my question to you is how were
8 you able to establish that there were six hits of which two by 120
9 millimetre and two by 82 millimetres whereas you found just one
10 120-millimetre shell or, rather, the fragments of one such shell? If you
11 don't know, then say you don't know and we can move on.
12 A. I really don't know, but I probably got the information from
14 Q. Doesn't that seem to you to be rather strange?
15 A. I can't reconstruct the whole thing now.
16 Q. Why in this case did you note down that fragments of a shell were
17 found, of one shell were found?
18 A. I really can't say. I don't know.
19 Q. Why in the majority of other cases there are no remarks of that
20 kind where you say the fragment of such-and-such shell found, just in this
21 one case?
22 A. I really can't answer that. I don't know. I can't go back 12
23 years to be able to explain that to you.
24 Q. Perhaps because that was the only place you found any fragments,
25 shell fragments.
1 A. Oh, no, no. You could come across them. People collected them
3 Q. Why was this structure different from the others? Why did you
4 write down that you found a shell fragment here whereas you didn't write
5 that in any of the other cases? There must be some explanation for that.
6 A. I don't know. I really don't know.
7 Q. Perhaps the explanation is that you didn't find anything like that
8 in the other structures.
9 A. No. There were shells all over the place. As many as you like.
10 But as I have already told you, people would gather them up, collect them
11 together, and keep them in one place.
12 Q. Well, if the people stored them, why didn't you introduce that
13 into your records, into your notes and minutes?
14 A. Because I told you that I was interested in the damage done and
15 not in the shell that incurred the damage. And I don't like shells or
16 anything like that. I don't even like picking them up, having them in my
18 JUDGE PARKER: I trust you're keeping your eye on the time, are
19 you, Mr. Petrovic?
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes. I do apologise,
21 but I'm sure you'll understand this is extensive matter and that it is no
22 easy task to find one's way in this bulk of material. I'm doing my best.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. There are no assessments of the damage in any of this material.
1 A. That wasn't the object of the report. We were told that the
2 damage would be evaluated in the final report and proposals for
3 reconstruction and repair work to be done, that would be in the final
5 Q. So I assume you don't know who established -- who evaluated and
6 assessed the damage or how it was assessed. Do you have any personal
7 experience of this? Any of your friends know about this that you can tell
8 us, how the damage was assessed and evaluated?
9 A. Later on I came across categories of damage. As to an evaluation
10 of the damage, no, I didn't come across that anywhere.
11 Q. Who gave elements for damage estimates? Have you heard about such
13 A. No, no. Well, maybe I did hear about it, but I don't remember at
14 any rate.
15 Q. When filling out these forms, did you fill them out in their
16 entirety, every single entry? Was there perhaps something that you did
17 not know or did you have to double-check something or did you always fill
18 them out in their entirety?
19 A. Yes. I would hand in the filled-out form. Possibly I did not
20 even fill out some forms at all. For example, when a few of us were on
21 this commission, only one of us would do the actual writing, not all three
22 of us. We would establish what the damage was and then we would agree on
23 what the text would be, and then one member of the commission would fill
24 out the form. And it is certain that I let others write about types of
25 projectiles, but at any rate, the form was always filled out. Sometimes I
1 would put some comments in as well, like in the case of the school, that
2 it had been reconstructed in 1979.
3 Q. On the reports that you compiled yourself, did you always fill out
4 the entire form, every single question?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Including those that had to do with the time when the building was
7 hit, the type of projectile?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did you ever have any dilemma as to what should be written down?
10 Did you talk to someone? Did you seek advice?
11 A. We always communicated amongst ourselves. We always talked.
12 Before and after going on these tours, we talked about the buildings
13 and --
14 Q. Do you know how data were included in every one of the maps that
15 is attached to the report?
16 A. The data are based on the report that we provided, but in our
17 form, there would be exact reference to the category involved, and then
18 this would be depicted in the map. The locality of the damage was
19 depicted by a symbol. I explained this to you at the very beginning,
20 namely symbols showing the type of hit and the position of the building
21 that was hit.
22 Q. Did you follow the drawing of these maps or did this happen after
23 you submitted your report?
24 A. Well, it is only natural that the maps would be drawn after the
25 report was submitted.
1 Q. Please look at binder number 1 now, the Franciscan Monastery. I
2 have another question related to the city walls. There was a lot of
3 damage there that was established; right? Is the answer yes?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Tell me, how was information obtained there? Who provided the
6 information? What was hit and when?
7 A. I don't know who dealt with this particular area.
8 Q. I'm sorry, but if you don't know, let's just leave at it at that.
9 A. I really don't.
10 Q. Please look at 0106953. Please look at photograph number 11, if
11 I'm not mistaken. That is a photograph 01069615. You looked at it awhile
12 ago when my colleague showed it to you. My colleague showed you this
13 photograph. Please take a look at the photograph.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Tell me, can you conclude on the basis of this photograph anything
16 about the descent angle of the mortar shell?
17 A. Not the exact route it took but perhaps the direction, yes.
18 Q. Can you tell me on the basis of what you can establish the
19 direction which it fell?
20 A. Because this is the western wing of the cloister and behind it is
21 the facade of the western wing of the monastery. The four shells were
22 precisely in that area.
23 Q. I'm asking you about this specific photograph and this that you
24 can see here and now. Can you tell us the direction from which the shell
25 fell? Yes or no. If you can't, let's go on.
1 A. I can't. And this photograph is so unclear anyway.
2 Q. Please now take a look -- this is page 153. This is your report
3 related to the Franciscan Monastery.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. In the first sentence, you establish two direct hits on the facade
6 of the western wing; is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you know -- can you infer the direction from which the shell
10 A. The eastern side, because, look, I can say this with certitude for
11 one that hit the wall. The other one that hit the surrounding area I
12 cannot say, but this one hit the corner between the southern and the
13 western sides of the cloister. So it could have only come from the east.
14 Q. Oh, so you say that only on the basis of the fact that on the
15 eastern side there were JNA units or why -- just let me finish my
16 question, please. Do you infer that or conclude that on the basis of the
17 fact that you believe the JNA units were there on the eastern side, or do
18 you base your conclusion on your belief that you can tell the direction
19 from which the shells were coming?
20 A. No. This has nothing to do with the side on which the JNA units
21 were. It has to do with the position of the building and the place where
22 the damage was sustained. If you have a wing which is on the west and if
23 the south is there, then of course it -- the shell had to come from the
24 east. There was no other way of having it happen.
25 Q. So are you capable of ascertaining the direction from which the
1 shell came on the basis of the actual damage?
2 A. In this case, yes. It could have come from the north-east or
4 Q. Tell me, please, in the next sentence you say the wall damaged
5 where the southern and western wings come together.
6 A. Precisely.
7 Q. So where could it have come from?
8 A. Well, that's what I've been telling you all along.
9 Q. I've read out your quote once again.
10 A. Well, look, if this is the western wing and this is the southern
11 wing, this western wing has its eastern facade and western facade, and the
12 southern wing -- I mean, now we're talking about the building in general.
13 This building has on the southern part a wall on the south and on the
15 Q. So where did the shell come from, the one that hit the western
16 facade of a particular building?
17 A. Well, let me look. The -- the two wings, the western and southern
18 wing, and when we say "wing," we refer to a building, actually, so it was
19 the eastern facade of the western wing. Look, can I draw this for you?
20 Q. Please let me put the question and then you can answer it if you
22 MR. KAUFMAN: If I may just make an observation Your Honour. The
23 witness was answering the question until my learned friend interrupted
25 JUDGE PARKER: I have understood the witness. I don't think that
1 Mr. Petrovic has. Perhaps a drawing might help you, Mr. Petrovic, I leave
2 it to you, but you are running out of time.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm going to put a
4 question that is very simple and then a simple answer will do.
5 Q. If on a building, so we're not talking about the building right in
6 front of us, if on a building the southern facade is damaged - not that
7 building, I'm talking about a building - can you conclude from which
8 direction the southern -- the shell came?
9 A. The southern facade? I can assume that it has to be 180 degrees
10 in relation to the surface. Anywhere within that range.
11 Q. So anywhere -- any direction but the north; right?
12 A. I think so, yes.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could you please
14 instruct me now? I have about half an hour of questioning left. Will you
15 allow me to complete that tomorrow morning or do I have to give up on my
16 questions, the ones that are left? I require another half hour. So
17 perhaps I will even be able to summarise it if I look at everything we
18 discussed today.
19 The report contains several hundred pages. You can see that for
20 yourselves, that's why this has been moving along somewhat slowly in view
21 of the volume of the material involved and the answers provided by
22 Mrs. Peko.
23 JUDGE PARKER: I agree very much, Mr. Petrovic, that things have
24 been moving somewhat slowly but the Chamber is well conscious that the
25 evidence-in-chief of this witness was very succinct because it consisted
1 substantially of tendering a large report without that being examined in
2 detail. For that reason we have been allowing you an unusual indulgence,
3 and we will continue that indulgence tomorrow morning, but do not exceed
4 the half hour estimate tomorrow morning. I think if you look over the
5 transcript, you will see that you have made most of your points and made
6 them more than once. Making them once, as I've mentioned before, is
7 enough for this Chamber.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, and I do
10 JUDGE PARKER: Before we conclude today, could I go back to a
11 matter that -- Mr. Kaufman, in the course of your examination, I was not
12 alert enough at the time, and I apologise. The report was marked for
13 identification as P51. You then placed before the Chamber the sheet which
14 identified which components of that report were indeed the personal work
15 of the witness. Should not that be separately -- or specifically
16 identified for the record?
17 MR. KAUFMAN: I think it ought to be and I agree. In fact, since
18 the witness has confirmed the contents of that particular table, and I
19 don't think there would be any objection to this from my learned friend
20 it, could even be submitted as an exhibit, but that's to --
21 JUDGE PARKER: That was the view I had, and that document will be
22 marked as an exhibit, which will no doubt be P52 if I've got it right.
23 THE REGISTRAR: You're correct, Your Honour. Thank you.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Somers.
25 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, I don't know if it's necessary for the
1 witness to remain but there was matter that I wanted to tie up which was a
2 question by the Chamber yesterday for some clarification as concerning
3 yesterday's witness. If you can give me some guidance as to whether to
4 wait a moment until the witness leaves --
5 JUDGE PARKER: Will it be a short point?
6 MS. SOMERS: It will only be a moment.
7 JUDGE PARKER: I think the witness can stay. She has been very
8 patient, she'll be patient for another moment, I'm sure.
9 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour. Yesterday the Chamber
10 requested that the Prosecution attempt to get the best possible available
11 copy of Exhibit P47, which was a photograph tendered through yesterday's
12 witness, and also as good a copy as possible of the printed sheet
13 enumerating that witness's staff's rendition of structure. And that has
14 been done. We are hopeful that it clarifies it. It appears to the
15 Prosecution that it is substantially better, and we would ask -- if the
16 Chamber would want it substituted, then I would ask -- it is an original.
17 We can try to get the very best copy once the Chamber is satisfied that
18 this copy satisfies it.
19 JUDGE PARKER: If that original could be passed to the exhibits
20 officer and if counsel for the Defence and ourselves could have the copies
21 that you have there, they can be assessed overnight.
22 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, also I -- P49, Mr. Kaufman reminds me,
23 is the second one. It was P47, the photo, and P49 the second.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for what you've been able to do there.
25 That's very much better. Perhaps Mr. Rodic and Mr. Petrovic can examine
1 the photograph overnight.
2 MS. SOMERS: Overnight, literally. If so, we will just notify the
3 evidence unit as it is an original piece of evidence, and we'll indicate.
4 JUDGE PARKER: We're keeping the original in the custody of the
5 court officer here and we're looking at copies, and if counsel want to
6 look at the original, they could do so before they leave the court today.
7 Mrs. Peko, as you've heard, I must ask you to return again
8 tomorrow. By the look of things, I can indicate to you that you can
9 expect to get away tomorrow.
10 We will adjourn now until tomorrow morning at 9.00.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Friday, the 6th day of February,
13 2004, at 9.00 a.m.