1 Monday, 16 February 2004
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon, Dr. Kaiser. If I could remind you
6 of the affirmation you took at the beginning of your evidence, which still
8 Mr. Petrovic.
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour. Thank
11 WITNESS: COLIN KAISER [Resumed]
12 Cross-examined by Mr. Petrovic: [Continued]
13 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Kaiser. Mr. Kaiser, do you remember a meeting
14 you had in Zagreb with the deputy minister of the Republic of Croatia for
15 culture whose name was Prosper Nowak, if memory serves me.
16 A. Yes, I remember this meeting, sir.
17 Q. Do you remember that that meeting he referred to an initiative by
18 the citizens of Dubrovnik to internationalise the Dubrovnik problem at the
20 A. There was concern about what the -- I think what the local
21 authorities of Dubrovnik were doing in their various discussions with the
22 federal authorities.
23 Q. Can you tell us more about this. What was this concern about?
24 What was it that the local authorities were doing in their negotiations
25 with the federal authorities that caused concern to the central
1 authorities in Zagreb?
2 A. It's a bit difficult to say because they never really explained to
3 us what the local authorities in Dubrovnik might, in fact, be doing.
4 There was genuine concern about the discussions. I don't know if this was
5 a -- as you know, I mean Dubrovnik has had a long history of autonomy and
6 Dubrovnikers and the Dalmations in -- generally have a reputation of being
7 rather different from the rest of the Croats. I don't know the exact
8 basis of the fears that they had. This internationalisation discussion,
9 of course, also went part and parcel in fact with what Dubrovnik was
10 doing -- not Dubrovnik but what UNESCO was doing, running up the flags and
11 things like that.
12 Q. Does this mean that there was an initiative on the part of the
13 local authorities in Dubrovnik that was opposed to Zagreb's policies at
14 the time, the official policies?
15 A. It appears that there was such a suspicion, at least on the part
16 of the authorities of Zagreb.
17 Q. Was your impression that the authorities in Zagreb were trying to
18 suppress any such initiative?
19 A. Well, the authorities in Zagreb were really going through a lot of
20 panicking. I think this is a -- this is something that struck us very,
21 very much. I believe Vukovar had just fallen. There was a lot of fear.
22 And this fear probably involved different aspects of different things
23 going on, in fact, on the territory of the Republic of Croatia. I can't
24 really put my finger exactly on what the fear would have been. I think it
25 certainly was some -- I suspect that there was some sort of autonomy being
1 negotiated. This is I think what it was about, but I don't know exactly
2 what it was.
3 Q. Did you perhaps ever hear about an initiative that proposed the
4 de-militarisation of Dubrovnik and for Dubrovnik to be placed under
5 international control as a means of avoiding conflict that was beginning
6 to break out at the time? Was all of this perhaps a reference to such a
8 A. I don't remember hearing exactly this discussion about turning it
9 into kind of an UN protectorate.
10 Q. Perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear. I did not mean
11 in terms of protectorate. I meant for Dubrovnik to be placed under any
12 kind of protection by the international community in view of the
13 historical significance of the general Dubrovnik area.
14 A. Well, sir, I mean the point of view -- the mission of UNESCO in
15 the framework of The Hague convention and also the World Heritage
16 Convention, the gesture of running up the UN flags over the walls of the
17 Old Town of Dubrovnik was clearly an attempt on the part of UNESCO to try
18 to preserve this town from whatever military action.
19 Q. In Zagreb did you get the impression that the authorities in
20 Zagreb were trying to suppress this initiative that you were not exactly
21 clear about but that was at any rate in place at the time?
22 A. Well, there was a question of trying to put an assistant minister
23 on a boat. And you might regard that as an attempt to suppress something.
24 Q. If I may just read out a sentence from your statement, which
25 reads: "Prosper Nowak said that he wanted to go with us, the reference is
1 to Dubrovnik, to check on what Dubrovnik people were doing and to ensure
2 that we did not internationalise Dubrovnik. He explained he wanted the
3 town to remain under the Croatian authorities and part of Croatian
5 Did I quote you correctly and what did you think that meant?
6 A. Well, that's correct. I mean, you've quoted me correctly. The
7 internationalisation of the town would I suppose go somewhere to ensuring
8 some sort of autonomy, which was what I suppose that the authorities in
9 Zagreb were afraid of would take place.
10 Q. So they were taking steps to prevent that from happening. You,
11 yourself, witnessed one of those measures that were being taken, and
12 perhaps there were other such measures being taken at the time. Would you
13 agree with me?
14 A. Well, I don't know exactly what the other measures were, but there
15 certainly was an attempt to put Mr. Nowak on the vessel which we were
16 going to take to go to Dubrovnik. And perhaps Mr. Nowak thought that he
17 could go down and by himself suppress autonomous activities.
18 Q. That's as much as you know. But perhaps there was something else
19 happening at the time. Would you allow for that possibility?
20 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honour, I would object to that question.
21 That's inviting speculation. The witness has given his --
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I withdraw the question,
23 Your Honour.
24 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. You refer to another meeting that you had in Zagreb with a JNA
2 officer whose name was Stamenkovic. Can you please tell me where exactly
3 you met this man, under what circumstances, and when, if you remember?
4 A. Well, we met him very briefly because he actually came to the
5 headquarters of the ECMM in the hotel. That was brief. And then when we
6 had a longer meeting with him, it was -- it was the command building of
7 the 5th Military District in Zagreb.
8 Q. Do you know where this building was? Is it in the centre of town?
9 Do you remember anything about of the location of the building?
10 A. Well, I remember -- it was a central location, if I remember
12 Q. Did you have trouble reaching the building on your way to the
14 A. No. We had no trouble.
15 Q. Did you see any Croatian military around the headquarters of the
16 5th Military District towards the end of November 1991?
17 A. Well, this is what made the atmosphere in Zagreb very strange.
18 You didn't see any Croatian defence forces.
19 Q. Did you get the impression that soldiers and officers from the 5th
20 Military District HQ were free to move about Zagreb in late November 1991?
21 A. Well, I don't imagine they had so much freedom to move around.
22 Q. Can you please tell me why.
23 A. Well, let's put it this way: Zagreb was in a -- if you will
24 permit me just to make a few comments about the -- sort of the environment
25 or the ambience of Zagreb when we came there. Zagreb was in a very
1 strange state of mind and condition. I mean, it's the type of place where
2 in the morning you can see all the rush-hour traffic, great big traffic
3 jams, people coming in to go to work. And at night there was shooting.
4 We were in an Intercontinental Hotel which was a great big hotel, a
5 splendid restaurant, but every morning there would be 600 refugees in the
6 lobby. The top two storeys of the hotel were, you know, were condemned.
7 You couldn't use them, I suppose, perhaps because -- for fear of air
8 raids. There were people wandering around -- strange people wandering
9 around the hotel. And I remember one occasion there was a chap with his
10 gun out walking down the corridors. If you consider that this was a very,
11 very strange setting and an unreliable one, and if there was shooting at
12 night I would find it very hard to imagine -- there was also what they
13 call the "police hour". I find it very hard to imagine that people could
14 move around very easily, especially if they are wearing a uniform. It was
15 not appreciated in the city.
16 Q. Did you not hear that the JNA barracks in Zagreb had been blocked
17 at the time?
18 A. We -- now that you mention it, yes, because I had heard that many,
19 many of the barracks buildings of the JNA throughout Croatia, in fact,
20 were blockaded.
21 Q. The night shooting that you have referred to, these were probably
22 shootouts between the JNA soldiers on the one hand and the Croat military
23 surrounding the barracks in which the JNA forces were still stationed,
24 wasn't it? Or you simply don't know. If so, please just let us move on.
25 A. I don't know for sure.
1 Q. This officer you met, Stamenkovic, did he say anything about the
2 mortars surrounding the Old Town rampart in Dubrovnik?
3 A. During the course of a meeting at the 5th Military District, one
4 of the officers did in fact say that -- made an allusion to the mortars.
5 What I remember is this was the -- sort of the second allusion to the
6 mortars. I can't remember for sure if it was Stamenkovic or if it was
7 perhaps General Raseta himself. Because at the end of one of the meeting
8 Raseta came in and we had a short conversation with him, but it was said.
9 Q. Is it not true that General Raseta was the commander of the 5th
10 Military District?
11 A. Yes, he was the commander of the 5th Military District.
12 Q. Did you get the impression that at the 5th Military District HQ
13 they were all familiar with the situation in and around Dubrovnik?
14 A. To be very honest, it's very hard to say. I think maybe it was
15 very far away for them. There was no -- there was not much in the way of
16 details. It was a very vague, sort of general discussion. It was
17 probably along the lines of earlier discussions that we had had.
18 Q. In Zagreb, did you meet any representatives of the European
19 Community mission in the former Yugoslavia?
20 A. Yes, sir, I did.
21 Q. Who precisely did you meet?
22 A. Well, I remember meeting Ton Kampenars [phoen] who was a monitor
23 who I met on a number of occasions later on in the Croatian-Bosnian wars
24 because he worked there for a while. I can't remember the names of the
25 other gentlemen.
1 Q. Did you perhaps meet any of those monitors who were in the former
2 Yugoslavia at the time these days in The Hague?
3 A. Well, yes, I did meet a chap who in fact had been at Dubrovnik.
4 Q. Did you have an opportunity to talk to him?
5 A. Well, we talked mainly about his horses and his dogs because I'm
6 not supposed to talk to him about anything referring to the case.
7 Q. He made no reference at all to his testimony, I assume?
8 A. No, no. No, sir.
9 Q. Did you know that man back in Dubrovnik at the time when he was
11 A. When I saw him, I vaguely remembered him. The years have gone on.
12 We both have gotten older. We didn't have very much contact with him
13 obviously, but I vaguely remember this gentleman.
14 Q. Did you have any contact at all with the monitors in Dubrovnik,
15 especially in those days, the 4th, the 5th, and the 6th of December, 1991?
16 A. We didn't have any contact with them about -- around that time.
17 Q. How come you sort of vaguely remembered him? Was it from Zagreb
18 or from Dubrovnik?
19 A. Well, there -- I just vaguely remember somebody, sir. There --
20 there weren't so many internationals in the town. I think what you might
21 expect -- a few of them you might actually remember.
22 Q. Did you remember anyone else you saw in Dubrovnik when you were
23 there in late November and early December, any other monitor specifically?
24 A. No, I don't remember any monitors specifically. I couldn't
25 describe them to you.
1 Q. I would like to briefly go back to General Raseta. Do you
2 remember what he said? Did you know what his views were on what you
3 talked about, the reason you went to see him at the 5th Military District
4 HQ, I mean?
5 A. Well, it's normal that we would try to see the top-most officer.
6 As I said, most of discussions with lieutenant -- or Colonel
7 Stamenkovic -- Raseta was -- came in, he was extremely -- he was very,
8 very polite. He -- there was not much -- not really so much of a
10 Q. Did you perhaps use the opportunity to convey to the commander of
11 the 5th Military District your concern about the bombardment of Dubrovnik
12 in October and November 1991?
13 A. I think I mentioned earlier that we didn't talk very much about
14 these bombardments or these mortars at the foots of walls and things like
15 that. I mean, when we -- it wasn't necessary to -- I mean, everybody knew
16 why we were going to Dubrovnik. Everybody knew what had been alleged, so
17 there was no particular point in lecturing anybody or speculating on this
18 or speculating on that. I mean, this is just not the way it was done. It
19 may sound strange, but in fact that's the truth.
20 Q. Last Friday you told us that when in Belgrade you turned down the
21 proposal of the federal -- of the federal authorities for federal experts
22 to join you on your way to Dubrovnik. However, both you and your
23 colleague from the mission accepted that a Croatian assistant minister
24 should join you. Can you please explain how it was that your colleague
25 and yourself made the decision to bring the Croatian deputy minister along
1 while you had turned down the proposal for the federal experts to join
2 you. Why was that?
3 A. Well, we -- I've already explained the -- sort of the general
4 atmosphere in Zagreb. It was kind of a feeling of impending doom that
5 hung over everybody's head. The most unpleasant meeting that we had, in
6 fact, before we arrived in Dubrovnik was in fact that first meeting with
7 the Croatian officials. It was very, very unpleasant. There was a lot of
8 tension in the air, and there was a lot of tension about which boat we
9 were going to take and which direction we were going to come from. You
10 yourself have alluded to some statements made by Mr. Nowak about the
11 danger of if we come in on a federal boat, provoking the people of
12 Dubrovnik, and this statement was in fact said twice. And it was quite
13 clear that this was not just an information statement about a few people
14 throwing tomatoes or perhaps even spitting on somebody. The fact that it
15 was underlined in the context of annoyance. We were told that UNESCO
16 didn't care where Dubrovnik was, which country it was in. There were --
17 things that were like that said, quite aggressive. And the question was:
18 Well, how are we going to get to Dubrovnik under those circumstances? And
19 you could say this was sort of a tactical concession in order for us to
20 carry out our mission, that is to actually to get to Dubrovnik.
21 Q. Well, did you then set out with this assistant minister?
22 A. Yes, we did set out -- we set out with him from Zagreb to Rijeka
23 and we got to Rijeka with him. However, there's another element into --
24 into the story -- is that, you will remember that there was -- Mr. Janicot
25 had returned to Paris. And Mr. Vogric was with us in Zagreb, and Mr.
1 Vogric had also returned to Paris in order to brief Mr. Janicot about the
2 progress of the mission. So we got as far as Rijeka with Mr. Nowak and
3 then we entered into conversation, into discussion with Mr. Janicot who
4 had been completely briefed by Mr. Vogric on our confession [sic]. And of
5 course Mr. Janicot was quite angry about this and we were recalled to
7 Q. Why was Mr. Janicot angry?
8 A. I think Mr. Janicot was angry because Mr. Janicot was a very --
9 was a very, very talented N-ARC [phoen], he was a very talented UNESCO
10 functionary. He was a director of the cabinet, director-general. And of
11 course he realised that you simply can't go around improvising your trips
12 and improvising who you're going with and which routes you going to take
13 and that sort of a thing. And it certainly seemed that it would not be a
14 very good idea diplomatically in order to actually go on the boat to
15 Dubrovnik with an assistant minister of culture. It would not help the
16 credibility of our organisation.
17 Q. Obviously you disagreed with that, given the fact that you had set
18 out from Zagreb in the company of the same assistant minister?
19 A. My mission, as I understood it and as we understood it, was that
20 we did have to get to Dubrovnik. It was very important for the
21 representatives of UNESCO, the observer mission, to get there. So we were
22 going there. At the same time, we knew that Mr. Vogric would be going
23 back to Paris and that Mr. Vogric was inform Mr. Janicot of the decision
24 we had made, that is the concession -- the improvisation in Zagreb.
25 Q. Therefore it seems that the Croatian authorities had exerted a
1 great deal of pressure on you, even if you choose to euphemistically
2 refer to it as a tactical concession. Am I correct in stating that?
3 A. It was pressure, it was a great deal of pressure.
4 Q. Did you yield to that pressure?
5 A. Well, if we -- of course we yielded to it. We yield led because
6 we got on the same vehicle with Mr. Nowak and we went to Rijeka at the
7 same time as Mr. Vogric was going back to Paris.
8 Q. But did you give in to this pressure, contrary to the policy of
9 the institution that you worked for to accompany one of the sides in the
10 conflict to accomplish your mission, while at the same time refusing to go
11 on that same mission with the other side in the conflict? Wasn't that so?
12 A. Sir, I only really discovered the arts of diplomacy a little bit
13 especially working in Bosnia-Herzegovina when one has to deal with three
14 different sides. This was a mistake on our part. It -- I understand
15 perfectly Mr. Janicot's reaction, but as I said I wasn't too surprised at
16 his reaction really. At the same time we were trying to keep open all the
17 different options. It was very, very important to get to Dubrovnik. Not
18 to go to Dubrovnik, I think, would not have been a good thing either for
19 Dubrovnik or, let's say, the commitments of the United Nations and it
20 certainly wouldn't have been a good thing for UNESCO. But if it had been
21 the only option open, it would have been a disastrous mistake.
22 Q. So this heavy pressure existed while you were in Zagreb and even
23 heavier pressure when you arrived in Dubrovnik?
24 A. Well, you see, there is much -- actually, there is much more
25 pressure from authorities in Zagreb who themselves were very far away from
1 Dubrovnik and wondering what was going on and possibly inventing things
2 that were going on. In Dubrovnik there was not at all that kind of
3 pressure. The aggressiveness which we felt in the meeting with Nowak and
4 his colleagues and also we felt at other moments in the Croatian press. I
5 mean, extremely nasty, nasty articles about us running the flag up over
6 Dubrovnik and taking it away, taking down the Croatian flag, taking
7 Dubrovnik away. I remember a really nasty encounter I had with a
8 journalist who saw me with the keys to the walls and said: Only UNESCO
9 has the keys to the walls. UNESCO won't let any Croat up on the walls of
10 Dubrovnik, which was a lot of nonsense. Any people could go up, but
11 people didn't want to go up. I mean, the pressures in Dubrovnik, they
12 were -- there were no pressures compared to what we felt in Zagreb.
13 Q. Do you have any problems in Dubrovnik with the Croatian armed
14 forces in Dubrovnik which were under the direct control of Zagreb?
15 A. We didn't have any dealings with the armed forces, but we didn't
16 have any problems with them either.
17 Q. This media pressure which existed there exerted on you and your
18 activities, did it influence the attitude that you adopted, vis-a-vis the
19 problems that you had to grapple with, or were you in blockaded Dubrovnik
20 completely immune to such pressures?
21 A. The incident with the keys, I think it happened after the 6th of
22 December. And I can't remember the exact printing of -- the date of the
23 printing of the particular article which we saw in the Zagreb press. But
24 there was really -- if there was a pressure, as I said, it was an
25 extraneous pressure. It came from Zagreb, whether it was in Zagreb with
1 the ministers or whether it was the medias of Zagreb that showed up down
2 in Dubrovnik.
3 Q. Did you have the impression there -- was Zagreb actually in
4 control of the authorities of -- in Dubrovnik and the armed forces in the
6 A. I think -- I really can't answer that, because these are the types
7 of questions that sort of went -- they went beyond my particular part of
8 the mission. What I did pick up was not from politicians, but it was
9 often from people, little people, who felt that they were abandoned. It's
10 not a question under the pressure of Zagreb, but they felt that they were
11 abandoned by Zagreb. And they were always complaining about this.
12 Q. Can you explain in briefly what detail -- I do not wish to dwell
13 on this. Just by way of detail when you sailed into the port of Zelenika.
14 You said Serbian policemen stopped you and said this or that. What do you
15 mean when you refer to Serbian policemen in Zelenika, or Serbian police?
16 What Serbian police in Zelenika are we talking about?
17 A. I'm sorry this is Serbian used in a generic way. It would be some
18 sort of emanation, either local authorities or federal authorities. I
19 don't know exactly what units these people were from. I got the feeling
20 that they were police and I thought there also may have been customs --
21 customs officers among them. But whether Montenegrin, whether Serbian,
22 whether federal, whether republic, whether municipal, whether military, I
23 really don't know.
24 Q. Yes, but for you these were Serbian policemen. This is how you
25 experienced them or you expected to come across a Serbian policeman there,
1 at least that is what you said to the investigators?
2 A. Yeah, I said they were Serbian policemen.
3 Q. On the first day of your stay in Dubrovnik you say that you and
4 your colleague Carnez went around the streets collecting shrapnel. Is
5 that right?
6 A. We did go around the streets collecting shrapnel. We began to
7 look at the damage that we saw, and unfortunately I pulled out one of
8 these cylinders from the house in Ulica Boskoviceva. There was one moment
9 when we went up the walls to Minceta when I found little fragments, which
10 I think were shrapnel, and that I actually did collect and put it in my
11 hand. But I -- we weren't going around collecting shrapnel.
12 Q. Did you leave the shrapnel where you found it or did you take it
13 with you?
14 A. In this particular case, these very small pieces which I picked up
15 on the wall, I took it with me. The -- if you're -- when you say
16 "shrapnel," if you're talking about -- we weren't so interested in
17 shrapnel, but if there was a piece of something, we didn't take it with
18 us. We just noted down that there had been this piece. You have to keep
19 in mind as well, sir, that the people kept the fragments that -- the tail
20 cylinders, the tails of mortars, they actually kept them and we didn't ask
21 them to give them to us. We just noted down and sometimes we photographed
23 Q. Did you know on that day what it was that you found? How did you
24 know that it was shrapnel, that it was something that was part of a shell?
25 A. Okay, I'm not a military expert and I don't claim to be a military
1 expert. The cylinders which I pulled out, or the tails of mortars --
2 well, we've sort of seen the drawings of these things. I mean, I assumed
3 that that's what they were because those are military things. I don't
4 know what else they could be except tails of mortars or tails of
5 projectiles. The -- if you're talking about how would one identify
6 smaller pieces of shrapnel --
7 Q. Excuse me. I'm asking you about this first day in Dubrovnik, the
8 28th of November, if I remember correctly. How did you know it then on
9 that day, how did you dare touch something which perhaps was potentially
10 explosive and dangerous? Is it possible that you touched some explosives
11 without knowing what it was, what their properties were? How can you
12 explain that? In fact, did you do that at all?
13 A. The shrapnel on the wall was obviously quite dead. The cylinder
14 that was in the rubble didn't have the head. Sir, I really take your
15 point as a good point. This is the first time I had ever been near -- in
16 a war zone. And one day when the Macedonian soldier was pulling the --
17 pulling the cylinder out of the wall and I was on the other side of the
18 wall, and I was looking in the hole and putting my hand up the hole, I
19 understood quickly that these things may seem to be dead but I wasn't sure
20 that they were dead. It was an education for me, and I never behaved this
21 way again in the future.
22 Q. You just referred to a Macedonia soldier. Which Macedonian
23 soldier are you talking about? How did you know -- how do you know that
24 he was a Macedonian soldier? On whose side was he and on whose side was
25 he fighting?
1 A. Well, to continue in the vein of your former question, sir, one
2 day this gentleman -- actually, we were asking questions about shells and
3 this gentleman very, very obligingly put a whole lot of live shells. They
4 had been picked up around Dubrovnik in a little truck, and he drove it
5 into the town, and he took these things out and showed them to us. We
6 had an interpreter with us and explained that. Yes, I'm from Macedonia,
7 I'm on the HVO -- sorry, wrong war. I'm in the Croatian defence forces,
8 and this is the same gentleman I saw later pulling the tail out of the
10 Q. Was he an explosives expert or what was he?
11 A. There didn't seem to be many experts around on our side. His
12 function seemed to have been a rather dirty job of piling up and
13 recuperating all the various bits of ordnance which were around the
14 district of Dubrovnik. Whether or not he was really talented -- he was
15 trained for it, I don't know, sir.
16 Q. So where was this? He took this from the vicinity of Dubrovnik to
17 the institute where you looked at these things. Where was this? He took
18 them to the institute on his van?
19 A. Unfortunately he didn't take them into the institute. He only
20 took them out of his van and showed them to us. And I took some pictures.
21 They were live rounds.
22 Q. Where was he collecting them?
23 A. I believe that these rounds were -- these were collected outside
24 of the Old Town. There was an artillery round as well, not a mortar, not
25 a cylinder, so the so-called rocket, something else that we didn't -- we
1 never saw in the town. And it was something he collected from outside.
2 Q. Do you remember what kind of a vehicle he used to transport them?
3 Did you see the vehicle he used?
4 A. It was at night. It was some little -- it was like an Renault
5 pickup truck or something like that. A little van, a camionette.
6 Q. So it was at night that we took these rounds to you for the
7 purpose of your examining them, and that was in the Old Town, in the
8 Institute for the Protection of Monuments of Culture in the Old Town, if I
9 understood you correct, or rather in front of the institute?
10 A. Near the institute, outside. Yes.
11 Q. Why was he transporting these shells at night? Why did you do the
12 whole thing at night, if you know why?
13 A. That I really can't remember.
14 Q. Do you know why he took unexploded mines and explosives into the
15 Old City with all the potential dangers that entailed?
16 A. It did not seem a very wise thing to do and I didn't think it was
17 a very wise thing to be done. And we had a very short meeting with him.
18 Q. Do you know what he did with the explosive shells then? Where did
19 he take them to?
20 A. I don't know where they went after that.
21 Q. Did you perhaps convey to the city authorities of Dubrovnik your
22 concern about potentially dangerous explosives being moved about the
23 streets of the Old Town?
24 A. No, we didn't. We didn't ask to see them again, no.
25 Q. Did anyone tell you that there were such shells being kept in the
1 cellars, in the basements, of the Old Town? Did you hear any stories to
2 that effect?
3 A. No, I didn't hear any stories like that in Dubrovnik.
4 Q. When you arrived in Dubrovnik, where was The Hague Convention flag
5 hoisted? On what buildings was it?
6 A. It was on the Sponza Palace, the palace of the rectors, on the
7 cathedral, on St. Blaise. Maybe there were one of two others. Maybe the
8 Franciscan monastery. The thing is that apparently some of the flags had
9 been raised on the Rupa, there was a flag raised on the Rupa, but the wind
10 had actually blown it down. They didn't have very many flags, and this is
11 one thing that they complained about. They didn't have many and they
12 didn't seem to go about making more.
13 Q. Did you see The Hague Convention flag on the imperial fortress on
15 A. I did not see the flag on the fortress; however, I saw the flag on
16 a media report or some Western journalist had gone up the hill and had
17 taken pictures of the soldiers up on the top of the hill. And it was a
18 quick view of what looked like The Hague Convention flag on the fortress.
19 Q. Is this perhaps ITN footage that you saw prior to your departure
20 for Dubrovnik?
21 A. I can't remember. It might be ITN, yes. And it certainly was
22 prior to going to Dubrovnik.
23 Q. In your statement you saw: "I have seen a videotape from British
24 television station ITN in which The Hague Convention emblem was flying
25 alongside the Croatian flag on the imperial fortress of Mount Srdj."
1 Did I -- have I quoted you correctly, I mean your statement?
2 A. Yes, you have.
3 Q. Is this correct, what you state in your statement?
4 A. The ITN or CNN or whoever, I'm not sure about that. But the fact
5 is I did see the flag.
6 Q. Do you know that the forces of the Croatian army were deployed on
8 A. Yes, I know that.
9 Q. Does this fact represent a gross misuse of The Hague Convention
11 A. It represents a very gross misuse of The Hague Convention symbol
12 outside of the Old Town of Dubrovnik.
13 Q. Did you raise this question with your hosts in Dubrovnik? Did you
14 tell them that you had seen on this footage The Hague Convention flag on
15 Srdj? Did you point out what potential dangers this could carry for the
16 city of Dubrovnik itself, the fact, that is, that The Hague Convention
17 flag was being abused in this way?
18 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, I would just at this point in time
19 wish to interject and state that whether or not there was a misuse or
20 there wasn't a misuse of Hague Convention symbols, that's -- I would
21 submit is a legal question which will be for the determination of the
22 Court, which if it is, of course, a matter which is appropriate to be
23 decided in this case.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Kaufman.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Your answer to the question?
2 THE WITNESS: I don't know what the --
3 JUDGE PARKER: Did you raise the question of the use of the flag
4 with your hosts?
5 THE WITNESS: We did not raise the question of the use of this
6 flag outside of the Old Town with anybody in the town, with the officials.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. But were you concerned over this abuse? Were you afraid of the
9 consequences of such an abuse of The Hague convention flag? Because the
10 same flag was also erected on Srdj from which the army, the Croatian army,
11 was operating as well as on the Old City from which, as you claimed, there
12 were no operations, no fire by the Croatian army?
13 A. Well, I mean I don't think that the Hague convention flag on Fort
14 Srdj was going to protect Fort Srdj or the soldiers from anybody. And I
15 do not understand what the linkage would be between the misuse of that
16 flag on a clearly military object and the use of the flag inside of the
18 Q. Is the abuse of such a symbol punishable, in your view?
19 MR. KAUFMAN: That's -- I would object to. That is a purely legal
20 question and I don't think that this witness is qualified to answer it.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic --
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I withdraw my
24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Are you sure that under some of The Hague Convention flags, just
2 like it was done in Srdj, no fire was opened in the Old City of Dubrovnik
3 as well, because the same people are in question, the same military unit
4 is concerned, the same military unit on Srdj, and the same military unit
5 in and around the town of Dubrovnik?
6 A. You're saying that there were soldiers are hiding and using these
7 buildings to shoot out of the town from. I just don't -- never saw any
8 military posts in any of these buildings. I didn't see soldiers using
9 these buildings. I don't think there's any similarity at all.
10 Q. Were you able at all to see whether somebody was actually doing
11 this, because when there was alarms sounded, when it was night, when there
12 were attacks you were not everywhere in the Old Town. On the 6th of
13 December you were deep down in the cellar. Do you know what was happening
14 from the facilities on which this flag was erected, just like it was on
16 A. As you've said, sir, I was -- either I was in my bed at night when
17 the police hour struck, of course, or else on the 6th of December I was in
18 the Dominican monastery, so I didn't see what was going on in the Old Town
19 at those moments.
20 Q. Are -- you do not believe that those who are abusing The Hague
21 Convention flag in Srdj, could also be doing the same thing in the Old
23 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, I have to interject. The witness has
24 given his answer. Any further additional statement he can make it's --
25 that would be probably pure speculation, so I would object.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness had
3 decidedly said on several occasions that he hadn't seen anything of the
4 kind, so I'm asking him whether he allows for the possibility that
5 something of the kind might have happened when he was not looking, drawing
6 a parallel when what had happened from Srdj, which was also flying The
7 Hague Convention flag, like the city of Dubrovnik. I'm just asking him
8 whether something like that was possible.
9 JUDGE PARKER: You are, I would suggest, Mr. Petrovic, clearly
10 reaching the point of conjecture there. The evidence, I think, of the
11 witness is clear, which indicates that he saw footage of this flag being
12 used on Mount Srdj. He has told you he saw no sign of an equivalent
13 military abuse of the use of the flags in the city, the Old Town, but he
14 has told you that there were times when he was indoors and did not see
15 what was happening outdoors. He really can't take the matter any further,
16 can he?
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I accept everything you have said,
18 Your Honour.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Sir, to the best of your knowledge, what is the Crisis Staff of
22 Dubrovnik? What was its role?
23 A. Well, I believe that Crisis Staffs in the former Federal Republic
24 of Yugoslavia in the time of war were in fact groups of -- they were the
25 officials of the town. Perhaps other people could be associated with
1 them, and their role was simply that it was the management, the management
2 of the affairs in the town in times of crisis.
3 Q. Is it not true that the Crisis Staff was also in charge of defence
4 matters in Dubrovnik?
5 A. I'm sorry, I don't know very much about the Crisis Staffs in
6 general, and I don't know about the specific attributions of the Crisis
7 Staff in Dubrovnik.
8 Q. Do you know where the seat of the Crisis Staff was?
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. Did you meet anyone from the Crisis Staff? If so, where?
11 A. Well, I assumed that most of the municipal officials were on the
12 Crisis Staff, and I met the mayor, and I met the deputy mayor, and I met
13 one or two city councillors. Maybe -- I'm -- I really can't answer that
15 Q. Sir, where was it that you first carried out an on-site inspection
16 of a building in Dubrovnik, which was in effect the first building that
17 you looked at?
18 A. I think the first building was on Ulice Boskoviceva, and that
19 would have been on the 28th, the 28th of November.
20 Q. Do you know where specifically Boskoviceva Street is inside the
21 Old Town? Can you remember its approximate location?
22 A. It's a few streets -- you're going westward, and it's a few
23 streets down from the Sponza Palace. It's on the right.
24 Q. In the further course of our testimony, if I show you a map will
25 you be able to pinpoint this exact spot on the map?
1 A. It depends how good your map is.
2 Q. You also referred to the fact that you had been to a woman's house
3 on that first day which had been hit by several shells.
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Sir, was her home inside the Old Town?
6 A. Yes, sir, it was.
7 Q. Where specifically?
8 A. We're talking about Boskoviceva Street.
9 Q. Did you talk to that lady?
10 A. Briefly, yes.
11 Q. You also spoke to another lady, if I'm not mistaken, whose son had
12 been killed while a member of the Croatian army - I'm not sure if I got
13 this right - whose house had also been damaged.
14 A. These are examples of people I spoke with, but it's -- they're far
15 from exhaustive. I spoke with a great many people before the 6th of
16 December, and afterwards as well.
17 Q. Well, we'll come to that and we'll examine that in quite some
18 detail, but what I want to know now is the following: This lady's house
19 is near the dead bell, or Mrtvo Zvono, isn't that correct? And her son
20 was killed where exactly, if you remember?
21 A. I think he was killed on Srdj.
22 Q. Was her son a member of the Croatian army?
23 A. He was certainly a member of the defence forces, yes.
24 Q. Did you notice anything interesting in the immediate surroundings
25 of the house, something that you think would be noteworthy, something that
1 needs to be mentioned before this Trial Chamber, in your opinion?
2 A. Sir, I think I know to what you're alluding. You're alluding to
3 what was clearly an observation post on St. Peter's Bastion. There were
4 small works that had been added, I believe, by the Italians during the
5 Italian occupation. And these provided shelter for one person. And there
6 was a small post that was on St. Peter's Bastion; you could look out to
7 the sea from it.
8 Q. Is this inside the Old Town or, rather, on the walls?
9 A. This is on the walls, and the walls are in the Old Town.
10 Q. Did you perhaps observe that people were regularly standing guard
11 there? Was there anything that could have led you to that conclusion?
12 A. Well, people weren't really standing guard, but on the -- inside
13 there was a little notebook which had times written on it. Now, I assume
14 that -- because from that side I had seen a federal patrol boat. I
15 assumed that this was the civil defence that was simply noting down the
16 sightings of various patrol boats. I should say the patrol boats were
18 Q. If it was not a place where someone was standing guard, then it
19 must have been an observation post I assume?
20 A. I think it was an observation post.
21 Q. Tell me, sir, what do you think would have been the importance for
22 the civilian protection to take down sightings of patrol boats? Or do you
23 think maybe this was an offshore observation post used to observe the
24 military observations that were underway in and around the town itself?
25 A. I -- I assumed that this was simply for the boats. I cannot go
1 any further than that. It's a very bad place to be observing anything.
2 Q. This information, do you think this would have been useful
3 information to later be used by the Institute for the Protection of
4 Monuments, for example?
5 A. I'm sorry. I don't really get the question, sir.
6 Q. I'm trying to get you to explain what the importance of those data
7 might have been. Could they have been used for civilian purposes, for
8 cultural purposes, or was the only possible use when observing patrol
9 boats passing by for military purposes?
10 A. I explained what I saw, the notebook, the timings. I indicated
11 that I had seen a patrol boat on one occasion. The third point is I know
12 the people of Dubrovnik were very, very afraid of the patrol boats. And I
13 can't speculate any further than that. I assumed it was for looking at
14 patrol boats.
15 Q. Did you perhaps notice that observation was being conducted
16 regularly from that position?
17 A. I didn't see anybody in -- the only person I -- in that
18 observation post was myself when I went to have a look and see what was
19 inside of it. And I never saw anybody else inside of it.
20 Q. This logbook, or notebook, that you referred to, what did it look
21 like, the one that contained sightings? Do you remember that?
22 A. I think it was just a little notepad. It was lying there alone.
23 Nobody walked off with it.
24 Q. Did you perhaps see regular entries in that logbook?
25 A. Sir, I looked at it once.
1 Q. Did you see it or did you not see what I'm asking you about?
2 A. Well, there were a certain number of timings that were noted down.
3 I mean, I didn't interpret what those timings were or which days these
4 were. I just saw these.
5 Q. Did you see that entries were -- had been made in different
6 individual handwritings by different people, by people taking shifts
8 A. That I can't remember, sir.
9 Q. I'll try to jog your memory on that, if I may. In your statement
10 you say: "Just behind the house there was a small sentry point."
11 That's what the B/C/S translation states. It may be a
12 mistranslation, but that's at least how it was translated at the time.
13 "I remember going in there and seeing a register of JRM ships
14 sighted. I never saw anyone inside this facility, but it was clearly
15 being regularly used, as there were entries on different dates and in
16 different handwritings."
17 Am I quoting you correctly, sir?
18 A. You're quoting me correctly, sir.
19 Q. Is it true what the sentence says?
20 A. The statement is made three years ago. I will stand by the
21 statement that I made three years ago. I've forgotten since.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown the
23 map that has been marked as P11. My apologies to the usher. P12 is the
24 number, P12.
25 [In English] This is too big.
1 [Interpretation] My apologies.
2 My apologies, Your Honours, I've selected the wrong map it seems.
3 Q. Can you please just pull the map up a little bit so that we can
4 see the southern portion of the town. The south, that's what we need. If
5 you can just pull it up a little bit, please. Thank you. Just a little
6 bit up, please. I can see it now, that's fine.
7 Can you please point to the Mrtvo Zvono fort and why you said a
8 while ago that you couldn't see anything from there when looking at the
9 map this is the most prominent, outmost point of the town walls. What
10 sort of a view over the surrounding sea is there from this point that
11 you've just pointed out? Is it not the most prominent point of the whole
12 Old Town?
13 A. Yes, sir, it's a very prominent point for observation over the
15 Q. Is it not natural that an observation post or a guard post should
16 be there? Would not anyone who wanted to survey what was going on put an
17 observation post there of all places? Can I please have an answer to
18 that, sir?
19 A. Well, you could put it there. There are also places you could put
20 it on as well.
21 Q. Would you agree that this spot offers a wonderful view of the
22 entire surrounding sea, on all sides around the town?
23 A. Yes, sir, it does.
24 Q. Thank you very much. We'll no longer be requiring this map.
25 Thank you.
1 Did you perhaps see any observation equipment being stored there?
2 A. No, I didn't see any observation equipment.
3 Q. Did you perhaps see any communications equipment being kept there?
4 A. No, sir.
5 Q. Is it not true that it was only on that spot that the town walls
6 were being kept open all the time? Did you perhaps observe that?
7 A. That's true, yes.
8 Q. Did that strike you as strange, given the fact that the remaining
9 portions of the walls were mostly kept closed?
10 A. It didn't strike me as strange because there was precisely this
11 little observation post there. So whoever would have access to it would
12 want to have a fairly free access to it. So it's normal it would be kept
14 Q. Did you inform the town authorities of Dubrovnik that there was a
15 guard post there?
16 A. No, I didn't inform them.
17 Q. Did that strike you as important? Did you think that it would
18 have been important for you to notify the authorities?
19 A. I -- sir, as I assumed it was a civil defence, I assumed that the
20 authorities would know that there was a post in existence. So there was
21 no reason to inform them about it.
22 Q. Can you please tell me, sir, what is civilian protection and why
23 would it be important for anyone referring to themselves as civilian
24 protection to monitor movement of the JNA navy?
25 A. Civilian protection would be an official body whose responsibility
1 would be to make certain that things didn't happen to the people in the
2 town or, just generally speaking, to the civilians.
3 Q. Tell me, sir, why did it not occur to you that it was a military
4 post and not a civilian post, perhaps? How come it first occurred to you
5 that this was a civilian post? Why did it never occur to you that this
6 might be a military post, a military place, a place used for military
7 purposes? Why was not the first thing that occurred to you, but rather
8 that it was a civilian post, given the fact that they were obviously
9 monitoring ships and patrol boats?
10 A. First of all, I do not believe that there were soldiers carrying
11 out the functions of soldiers in the Old Town. Secondly, as you have
12 correctly pointed out, this is a superb observation post and it can be
13 seen as well from everywhere. And it's a bit like, you know, soldiers in
14 minarets and things like that. There's some very, very dangerous places,
15 if you're going to be a soldier observing anything. So that's why I would
16 call a reason far down the road. I assumed that the civil defence
17 authorities had to have some sort of earlier warning system in the town so
18 that they could just see that something was coming too close for comfort
19 or there were too many of them and that they could give the alert right
21 Q. This a priori refusal on your part that this could have been a
22 military observation post, was this perhaps a result of the pressure
23 exerted on you in the Old Town that no military should ever be observed,
24 noticed in the Old Town, and no military installations?
25 A. No, sir. If I had seen that there were soldiers crawling over the
1 St. Peter's Bastion, I certainly would have told somebody.
2 Q. Who would you have informed, had you seen soldiers around?
3 A. Well, we would have gone to the mayor or to the vice-mayor.
4 Q. What were the names of those people?
5 A. Mr. Poljanic and Mr. Obuljen.
6 Q. So, for example, if you had told them that you had seen soldiers
7 around, they would have intervened and those soldiers would have been
8 removed, I suggest?
9 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honour, I object to the way the question was
10 phrased. The answer given previously was: If I had seen soldiers
11 crawling all over St. Peter's Bastion I would have informed the mayor and
12 the vice-mayor.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will take a
14 different approach now to clarify this matter.
15 Q. Did you see any military, any soldiers, inside the Old Town?
16 A. I saw on a number of occasions a few soldiers. Once I think I saw
17 four or five -- five or six, something like that, and I said to
18 Mr. Carnez, I've seen five or six soldiers. Do you know this is a cause
19 for worry. You should talk to Mr. Obuljen. That was in the Old Town.
20 Usually I would see one or two soldiers, and these soldiers were people
21 who lived in the town and they were coming back from their positions.
22 Q. Where did you see those five or six soldiers in the Old Town?
23 A. Sorry, I can't remember exactly. I think it was on the Stradun.
24 Q. But you are sure that it was inside the Old Town, aren't you?
25 A. Yes, it was. Yes, they were.
1 Q. How did you know about these one or two soldiers that you had
2 seen? How did you know that they lived inside the Old Town? Did you see
3 them come in? Did you see what they were doing once inside the Old Town?
4 How did you know that they resided in the Old Town? How come you knew
5 that they were not on a mission since they were uniformed and carrying
7 A. Well, they were -- usually they weren't carrying weapons. I mean,
8 on one or two occasions I saw people carrying long-barrelled weapons. But
9 we talked to people and we said, What about these ones? They said, They
10 live here. I didn't go up to them and question them about where they
11 lived and what they were doing.
12 Q. Who told you to do that? Those people with long barrels, they
13 reside in the Old Town?
14 A. I can't remember asking somebody specifically about the people
15 with the long barrels.
16 Q. Those six soldiers you saw, where were they headed for? How did
17 they strike you? What were they doing?
18 A. They were like all the other soldiers. They didn't seem -- they
19 were walking around -- walking into the town. They weren't doing anything
20 particularly. They weren't going anywhere. I just remember seeing them.
21 Q. How did you know they were going anywhere in particular if you
22 don't even know where you saw them. You merely know that you did see
23 them. How would you be in a position to know where those soldiers were
24 headed or what their tasks were?
25 A. I said I think I saw them on the Stradun, and I have no particular
1 detailed memories of these people.
2 Q. What would you do if you saw armed people on the Stradun or what
3 did you do specifically in this situation when you saw six armed people
4 carrying long weapons on the Stradun?
5 A. I went to Mr. Carnez and I said, Look, I saw a bunch of soldiers
6 and you should go and speak to Obuljen about that.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Can you assist me, please, Dr. Kaiser. You've
8 spoken of seeing one or two soldiers and you recall on one occasion
9 seeing perhaps five or six. You've also said that on occasions, but not
10 always, you saw soldiers carrying long-barrelled weapons. Were the five
11 or six soldiers carrying long-barrelled weapons? Are you able to tell us
13 THE WITNESS: I can't remember exactly what they were carrying.
14 If they were carrying -- if they were carrying side arms. I'm sorry, my
15 memories are very, very vague about this.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that.
17 Sorry to interrupt, Mr. Petrovic, it was something that was not
18 clear to me.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Why did you think it important to inform someone immediately about
21 the fact that you had seen those five or six soldiers?
22 A. Well, frankly if we started seeing a group of five or six soldiers
23 and we started seeing more soldiers, we get really worried about the
24 situation. It was important for us, as vague as my memories are, it was
25 important for us to identify if something -- if there were people moving
1 around and there were too many of them moving around. I mean, we could
2 understand that one or two or three soldiers, maybe five soldiers, could
3 be coming down from the mountain or coming from some other part of the --
4 you know, of their positions. But we would be very concerned if we
5 started to see regularly large bunches of soldiers.
6 Q. Tell me, sir, what was it that worried you most about that? Why
7 did you find that to be worrying?
8 A. Sir, I don't think we were the only ones that could see eventually
9 who was walking around in the town. They could be observed, I think, from
10 outside the town.
11 Q. I have no doubt about the fact that they could be observed in the
12 Old Town as well as outside the Old Town. My question is: Why did that
13 cause you concern?
14 A. This town was supposed to be as empty as possible of all military
15 presence. Whether that be people in uniforms, whether that be whatever,
16 this town was not supposed to have a military presence. So we had to keep
17 our eyes open. We went around the walls in order to look at things,
18 looking at clock towers, and church towers. Clamoured up in a few of
19 them. We went around to see if there was anything on the walls, if there
20 was any spent cartridge cases. Our mission was to make certain that the
21 town was protected, and the best way to protect it was that there would
22 not be military presence in the town.
23 Q. Why were there supposed to be no armed soldiers in the Old Town?
24 What was the reason for that?
25 A. If there were armed soldiers in a town, then somebody could say
1 that these armed soldiers in the town are shooting at the federal forces
2 outside of the town. We don't want -- we are trying to make certain that
3 there could be no pretext, not pretext at all for any targeting on the Old
4 Town of Dubrovnik.
5 Q. Who was it that was thinking about that when you were not on the
6 Stradun, when you were in bed or perhaps sleeping, prior to the 28th of
7 November? Who was it that worried about that? And who was there to
8 prevent those people from doing the same thing as you saw them doing when
9 you were there?
10 A. We were not there to prevent them. This was something that the
11 authorities of the town would have to make certain was respected.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Is that a convenient point, Mr. Petrovic?
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.
14 We may as well have a break now, yes. Thanks.
15 JUDGE PARKER: We will have a 20-minute break.
16 --- Recess taken at 3.48 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 4.12 p.m.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Kaiser, please tell me, did you convey your concern about the
21 armed soldiers in the Old Town to the Crisis Staff of the city?
22 A. Well, on one occasion I mentioned I conveyed my concern to
23 Mr. Carnez and then Mr. Carnez conveyed his concern to Mr. Obuljen, I
25 Q. Did you intervene the very first time that you saw soldiers in the
1 Old Town?
2 A. We only inter -- I only intervened about the question of this five
3 or six soldiers.
4 Q. At the first meeting that you had with the Crisis Staff, did you
5 accentuate how important it was for no military effectives of the Croatian
6 side to be present in the city? Was that not one of the most important
7 things that you said to them, given the importance of that question in the
8 first encounter that you had immediately upon arrival with the members of
9 the Crisis Staff?
10 A. I really can't remember what we conveyed to them the very first
11 time because we had a general meeting, I think, in the mayor's office, and
12 then we had a lunch, and I'm sorry I can't remember exactly what we
13 conveyed. We explained generally our mission to them. You must remember
14 that I was the cultural heritage consultant and I did not take care of
15 contacts usually with the -- any of the city officials.
16 Q. In your statement you said the following: "The staff in the
17 mayor's office would be immediately informed by us when we saw more than
18 two or three soldiers. We would inform Nikola Obuljen of this and we
19 would take care that these soldiers left the Old City. We had to convey
20 things of this kind to Obuljen on only a few occasions."
21 Did I quote this part of your statement correctly? "There were
22 very few occasions when we had cause to make such a report to Obuljen."
23 A. Yes, sir.
24 Q. So please tell me as far as I can see here you speak in the
25 plural, "we would, we had to, we had cause," and so on and so forth. Who
1 were "we"?
2 A. This is the observer mission. I am saying "we," but in fact
3 Mr. Carnez had the -- he was the one who usually spoke to the members of
4 the city.
5 Q. Do you remember whether you yourself ever attended these talks?
6 A. I didn't attend these talks.
7 Q. Why didn't you say here Mr. Carnez would intervene. Why did you
8 say "we would intervene"?
9 A. Well, I was intervening with Mr. Carnez; Mr. Carnez was
10 intervening with the officials. I mean, I didn't intervene myself with
11 the officials.
12 Q. So then what would Mr. Carnez then say to the officials in the
13 Crisis Staff? Would he then convey to them what you had seen? Would it
14 be confined to that?
15 A. Yes, he would convey what we -- what I had seen or what he had
16 seen, and that we didn't want to see soldiers. We wanted to see as few as
17 possible soldiers in the town.
18 Q. So you did this on several occasions, as you speak in the plural
20 A. I think Mr. Carnez intervened on a number -- one or other -- one
21 or more occasions. I remember mentioning once to Mr. Carnez.
22 Q. So you'd report about this to Nikola Obuljen who on the Crisis
23 Staff was in charge of military matters of the armed forces. Is that
25 A. Sir, I'm not certain exactly what Mr. Obuljen was in charge of on
1 the Crisis Staff. He was an engineer I believe, and I thought he was
2 mainly in charge of trying to keep some basic services working in the
3 town. But I can't say for sure what all of his responsibilities were.
4 Q. So when you made such reports, when you informed Mr. Obuljen about
5 these things, would these soldiers then be removed from the town?
6 A. I don't know if the word "removed" is -- there would be fewer of
8 Q. Meaning that some of them would remain then. Is that so?
9 A. I don't know. I didn't follow what individual soldiers were
10 doing, going to see their families or coming back to stay for five days.
11 This was not what my job was.
12 Q. Was it hence an effective way to reduce the number of soldiers
13 that you saw to call Mr. Obuljen. And once Mr. Obuljen was called he
14 would influence their number to be reduced. Am I right?
15 A. We're talking about something that happened over a period of three
16 weeks, which is to say that before the bombardment of the 6th of December
17 and also in the two weeks after the bombardment of the 6th of December. I
18 didn't write down anywhere any time I saw a soldier. I didn't write down
19 a date when I saw a soldier. This is just something that happened from
20 time to time.
21 Q. What I asked you was whether intervening with Obuljen was
22 effective, whether it had an effect. I actually did not ask what you
24 A. Sir, if we didn't see soldiers very often, then I could assume it
25 also had an effect.
1 Q. Did you see what kind of a uniform Mr. Nikola Obuljen wore?
2 A. Mr. Obuljen didn't wear any uniform.
3 Q. Did you see this person, this man in Dubrovnik?
4 A. Yes, I did.
5 Q. Do you know that he is the commander of the -- he is one of the
6 commanders of the armed forces of the city of Dubrovnik?
7 A. No, sir, I did not know that he was one of the commanders of the
8 armed forces in Dubrovnik.
9 Q. Would you be surprised if I told you that on the 7th of December
10 he signed an agreement with the JNA forces on a cessation of hostilities,
11 a ceasefire agreement, that is where he is designated as Mr. Obuljen, the
12 commander of the armed forces of the city of Dubrovnik, and this is a
13 document that was discussed before this Honourable Chamber by this
14 gentleman who is fond of horses and dogs, whom you saw in The Hague.
15 A. Yes, I'm a little surprised, sir.
16 Q. As you warned the authorities in Dubrovnik that uniformed men
17 could not move around the Old City, do you think that they took some
18 measures in order to evade your supervision and your warnings of this
20 A. I don't think there was any -- any evasion. But what kind of
21 evasion are you talking about?
22 Q. Perhaps men who were members of the armed forces, did they perhaps
23 carry out their combat mission in civilian clothes rather than in
25 A. I mean, I suppose that's a possibility.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could I please ask the usher to put
2 a picture on the ELMO and also to present a copy to the Chamber and my
4 Q. In view of the limited resources that we have, I have been able
5 only to reproduce one colour photograph. So I'll try to also make the
6 other photographs. But for now, I've only been able to produce this one
7 and I'll explain what this is. This is a photograph which was taken off
8 the footage that the witness Ivo Grbic, whom you will certainly recall,
9 who took the stand here and which he gave to my learned colleague,
10 Mr. Weiner, which he disclosed to us. So this was a photograph which was
11 taken off that video footage.
12 Do you see this man, sir? Is he wearing civilian clothes?
13 A. It indeed appears so.
14 Q. Did you ever see this uniform or this kind of a uniform in the
15 city of Dubrovnik?
16 A. I -- is that a uniform?
17 Q. Of course it is not. These are civilian clothes. Can you see
18 what this person, what this man on this photograph, is doing?
19 A. He appears to be loading a mortar.
20 Q. Would you be surprised if I told you that he is loading a mortar
21 and also opening mortar fire from a park which is some 200 metres under
22 the city walls. That is, he is operating from Bogisicev Park in
24 A. Well, I wouldn't be surprised now, because an investigator who
25 took my statement back in 2001 pointed out that this activity was going
2 Q. Did you ever notice activities of this kind, that is to say people
3 in Mufti opening mortar fire directly from the Old City and operating from
4 inside the city?
5 A. No, sir. No, I did not.
6 Q. Is it possible that you didn't see civilians opening fire from
7 other positions either, not only from this part which is some 200 metres
8 under the old city ramparts also in civilian clothes?
9 A. When would I have seen this?
10 Q. On no occasion during your stay in the city of Dubrovnik?
11 A. You mentioned somebody near Dubrovnik opening fire on federal
12 positions. I'm saying to you that I never had any occasion to see or to
13 believe that such fire was being opened from near the city. I did not see
14 or hear any such thing take place.
15 Q. In your statement you say: "The investigator Stephens informed me
16 that the investigation which was undertaken by the international Tribunal
17 showed that the Croats had opened fire from the mortar position in
18 Bogisicev Park several hundred metres away from the Old City."
19 And then you say: "I was surprised because during this
20 observation mission in Dubrovnik, I never saw anything which would
21 indicate that Croats were operating from such weapons so near the Old
23 Did I quote your statement correctly?
24 A. Yes, sir, you did.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can I have your leave
1 for this photograph to be marked as evidence, and I shall do my best to
2 also prepare colour photographs -- copies for you and for the other side.
3 But we are -- our resources are limited and that poses quite a problem for
4 us. So this is - let me repeat - footage which was identified and handed
5 over to the Prosecution by the witness Grbic who took the stand before the
6 Honourable Chamber a few weeks ago.
7 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received as an exhibit, Mr. Petrovic.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit D28.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Will the usher please show the witness the second photograph.
12 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honour, perhaps I might take this opportunity
13 as well to state that the Prosecution will be seeking in due course as
14 well to rely on certain video evidence. And I hope that Mr. Petrovic will
15 be as forthcoming in agreeing to the submission of such videos,
16 photographs, et cetera, without raising any matters with respect to the
17 admissibility of such evidence at a later date.
18 JUDGE PARKER: You're hoping for some reciprocal understanding?
19 MR. KAUFMAN: Indeed. Your Honour, I think it would be beneficial
20 to both sides and to the Trial Chamber.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Well, the Chamber would certainly encourage
22 discussion between Prosecution and Defence to remove any difficulties over
23 such things, because it is of significance if we can avoid unnecessary
24 wasting of time over technical issues. If the parties can reach agreement
25 over the nature of the exhibit. Thank you.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we shall exhibit the
2 maximum of cooperativeness. Of course, once we know exactly what is in
3 question, which I'm sure my learned colleague will appreciate.
4 Q. Sir, can you tell me what is on the left side of the photograph in
5 front of you. Is this the Minceta fortress?
6 A. Yes, I would say it's the Minceta fortress.
7 Q. Is this green part that you see behind, is that the Bogisicev
8 Park, do you know that it is in that direction, the park that is
9 immediately next to the Old City?
10 A. I think that's Bogisicev Park, which is behind the Imperial Hotel.
11 Q. You said in your statement, sir, that you would be surprised if
12 the Croats were operating so close to the Old Town from Bogisicev Park.
13 Now, why would that be a surprise to you?
14 A. Well, the surprise is that they would have anything -- well, one
15 of the surprises is that if this was operating near the park, I'm
16 surprised that nobody said anything about that. That's one thing. I
17 don't know if it's 200 metres from the old walls of the town; I thought it
18 was a bit further than that.
19 Q. That is cause also, your concern?
20 A. Somewhere it does cause some concern. It does cause some concern.
21 Q. Now, what would cause your concern, if they were operating from
22 this park, which was so close to the Minceta fortress?
23 A. Okay, my answer is based also on my experience, my experience in
24 Croatia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina, especially after this period. I'm
25 not -- I didn't know that this position was there when I was on mission.
1 So if I was -- I'm not entirely sure what I would have thought. But
2 afterwards on the basis of experience that I had in the war zones, I would
3 be concerned that something 4 or 500 metres away from a location which I
4 would hope and expect to be protected, I would be concerned that the
5 proximity, even if 4 or 500 metres, would be used as a pretext to shoot at
6 the object I was concerned about.
7 Q. So this would worry you because this would directly endanger a
8 protected property?
9 A. I mentioned that it could be used as a pretext to endanger
11 Q. Do you really expect the Croats to tell you that their mortar
12 position was several hundred metres away from the Old Town? Did they
13 really expect them to admit this to you?
14 MR. KAUFMAN: Once again I think that is speculative,
15 Your Honours.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that this is a
17 question which is wholly in place. I am in your hands. I believe that
18 the witness can reply to this question.
19 JUDGE PARKER: If you would. If you had an expectation.
20 THE WITNESS: Sir, I don't know exactly when this mortar position
21 was operating. The -- I don't think the investigator indicated a date.
22 The picture you showed me has a date of 4th of November on it. I don't
23 know if it was there. I mean, maybe it was there before and it was moved.
24 Maybe it was not moved. If any authorities could speculate on what might
25 be the consequences, justified or not, of having a mortar position 4 or
1 500 metres from the walls, I think that they should be concerned about it
2 as well.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Well, Mr. Kaiser, during the break the Prosecution gave me the
5 statement of a witness - whose name I shall refrain from mentioning right
6 now; the colleagues, of course, know who is in question - which mentions
7 that it was also precisely on the 6th of December that fire was opened
8 from exactly the same position that I'm talking to -- about right now.
9 This witness who will be appearing before this Chamber. Are you still
11 A. You're asking me if I'm surprised now. I am still surprised.
12 Q. You had a rich experience in the countries of the former
13 Yugoslavia in these unfortunate times. Was it rare for someone to do a
14 thing like that, namely to position a military target immediately upon a
15 protected piece of property? How often had you had occasion to see
16 something of the kind? Was this something that happened only seldom in
17 the wars which took place in the former Yugoslavia in this period, or was
18 this an element of the daily tactics of the warring factions, in your
20 A. There was a considerable problem I think in urban areas which
21 could have cultural heritage nearby, might not have cultural heritage
22 nearby. And there are unfortunately a number of substantiated examples of
23 ordnance being used inside towns. That I'm pretty sure about. It's a
24 little harder to say in rural areas or beside towns. But it is true, it
25 is definitely true, that ordnance was used from places where it really
1 should not have been used. If people were thinking about -- supposed to
2 be thinking about the security of their civilian population, thinking
3 about that first, and possibly also valuable buildings, valuable
4 historically speaking.
5 Q. How many times during your time in the former Yugoslavia did you
6 see a church, a mosque, or a monument of culture being used for firing
7 from? Was this often the case? I'm not asking you about the specific
8 number of times that you saw that.
9 A. I tried to avoid shooting zones as much as possible, so my
10 observation of these matters I didn't really observe them. The problem
11 was that when you observed damage you weren't sure -- I mean, the -- it
12 was often alleged that a church tower or even a minaret was being used as
13 a firing position or a military observation point. It was very hard to
14 demonstrate that this, in fact, had been the case. If you found -- if you
15 found spent cartridge cases in a church tower, then you could be pretty
16 well sure that it was so. And I've even heard of examples where minarets
17 were supposedly -- eyewitnesses actually used. These are very, very hard
18 things to determine, especially after the fact; I fear that they were,
19 though, sometimes.
20 Q. Let us move on and look at your statement in connection with this
21 story about how many people were in uniform and how many people were
22 without uniform. You say in your statement: "There were many people
23 walking around with personal weapons," and further, "there were very few
24 people in military or police uniform. Of those people in uniform that I
25 did see, those were in what I believed to be military uniform. In the Old
1 Town there were no Croatian units or equipment positioned."
2 Is it correct that the ratio between those in uniform and those
3 with weapons was in favour of those who were carrying weapons but did not
4 wear uniform and that you saw a great number of those, as stated in your
6 A. The first thing I'd like to say is when we first came to Dubrovnik
7 we went to visit Stefan Dimistura. Stefan Dimistura was the head of the
8 mission in Dubrovnik, and he is a very well-known international
9 functionary, a very, very respected one. Dimistura told us that there
10 were -- I can't remember if he said many, but he said there were certainly
11 people not in uniform in the town with weapons. Now, on one occasion I
12 did see somebody take out a hand gun. On other occasions I just looked at
13 people, and this is something I saw off and on all through the war is that
14 people would always put their hand guns in the back of their belt. And so
15 there would be a bulge, often a bulge at the back. And if you looked
16 around and you could see somebody with a bulge, you say, Well, he may have
17 a hand gun back there. And to say many, it's -- I didn't count them.
18 There were definitely people in the town not in uniform who had had hand
19 guns. It is true. But to say what the ratio was between soldiers and
20 people with hand guns in civilian uniform, really, sir, I couldn't say --
21 give any idea about the ratio.
22 Q. I would please ask you to provide brief answers, if you can, sir,
23 because we don't have too much time to waste.
24 Sir, is it true what it says here that many people were walking
25 around? Is that true or not? Do you stand by your statement where you
1 said that many people were walking about town?
2 A. Some people, sir. I wouldn't say many. There were certainly
4 Q. So why did you say "many" in your statement to the investigator?
5 A. I'm sorry. I can't remember.
6 Q. Did you see a civilian with a rifle?
7 A. No. I didn't see any civilians, or people in civilian dress with
8 long-barrelled weapons.
9 Q. Did you see any civilians with a mortar perhaps?
10 A. Definitely not.
11 Q. Except for the one that I showed you in that photograph from the
12 Bogisicev Park?
13 A. Except for the one in your photograph, sir.
14 Q. Sir, tell me, please, what is HOS?
15 A. Well, HOS was a right-wing Croatian militia.
16 Q. Is it a paramilitary unit?
17 A. Yes, it's a paramilitary unit.
18 Q. What does "right" mean? Right as in radical nationalists? What's
19 so right-wing about them?
20 A. Yes, sir, radical nationalists.
21 Q. Did you see any members of the HOS in Dubrovnik?
22 A. I saw a couple of individuals who were wearing some sort of patch.
23 They were also pointed out to me as being members of HOS.
24 Q. What was the difference between members of the HOS and Croatian
25 regular forces?
1 A. I'm not sure I could make any difference out, except on the basis
2 of the insignia.
3 Q. Did you inform Nikola Obuljen about the fact that paramilitary
4 troops were walking about town?
5 A. I didn't inform -- we didn't inform him about that. At least I
6 didn't inform Bruno Carnez about that. But I don't know, I don't think
7 that we informed him about that, and there were one or two of them.
8 Q. Did the presence of paramilitary units worry you?
9 A. Well, I didn't know what HOS was up to or what HOS was. But I
10 think I mentioned in my earlier statement that one of the UNICEF
11 internationals had trouble with one of these guys and was sort of -- sort
12 of saved by the people of Dubrovnik who informed the HOS member that this
13 man had come with UNICEF to help the people of Dubrovnik, that it was not
14 an enemy of the people.
15 Q. This HOS member who attacked the UNICEF official, was this man
16 arrested? Were his weapons taken from him?
17 A. I'm sorry, sir, because I there. I don't know what happened after
18 this encounter.
19 Q. Do you know if the Croatian army was facing difficulty with
20 members of the HOS in the town at the time?
21 A. I didn't know this. I knew on other occasions the Croatian army,
22 or Croatian troops in Bosnia were having trouble with them, yes.
23 Q. Did you know about conflicts breaking out between the Croatian
24 regular forces and members of the HOS inside the town?
25 A. No, sir, I didn't know about any such conflicts.
1 Q. Would it surprise you if the regular Croatian forces made an
2 attempt to disarm those paramilitary units and that a clash could have
3 broken out?
4 A. Well, now it wouldn't surprise me. At the time I didn't know what
5 these different units were; I didn't know what their relations were.
6 Q. Do you know if any of the members of the HOS were ever prosecuted?
7 A. No, sir, I don't.
8 Q. Were you afraid yourself -- were you afraid -- were you concerned
9 about your own security when you heard that HOS members were attacking
10 international officials who were present in town?
11 A. I wasn't afraid because the -- as I mentioned before, there were
12 only a couple of them we saw in the town. They didn't seem to have much
13 of a presence.
14 Q. But still they did manage to attack an international official,
15 didn't they?
16 A. Yes, they did. And he was protected by the people of Dubrovnik.
17 Q. Do you know those HOS members had taken part in military
18 operations against the federal forces?
19 A. I don't know what operations they had taken part in.
20 Q. Sir, I would like to ask you now something about your own
21 perception of events of the 6th of December. Is it correct that you had
22 an impression, as you said in your statement, the sounds you heard that
23 morning were coming from nearby? I'm talking about the morning of the 6th
24 of December, 1991.
25 A. Well, as I mentioned, the first impression I had of the sounds
1 when I woke up is that the sounds were really up on the hill towards Srdj
2 or in that area. They weren't so close. There were a lot of them, but
3 they didn't seem to be so close. And then later on the sounds all of a
4 sudden moved down quickly.
5 Q. In your statement you said the following: "It seemed to me that I
6 could distinguish between three different types of sound and they were all
7 coming from nearby."
8 If you can - I know this may not be too easy to put into words -
9 but can you please try to describe these three respective types of sound
10 to me.
11 A. Okay. I'm not -- well, the sound that I remember really very
12 distinctively because it was repetitive in the early part of the
13 bombardment was -- there was a series of whams, very metallic sounds like
14 something striking stone and these sounds were at intervals. You could
15 count between the explosions. This is one of the sounds.
16 There was another sound that was kind of a whistle, not a -- kind
17 of a hiss, whistle, which seemed to be a lower sound. Projectiles coming
18 in close to the roofs.
19 There were big booms, which I assumed to be the mortar -- mortar
20 sound -- the mortars coming in. And then there was a few other sounds
21 which were louder, sort of -- this was -- this was I think the one that
22 I --
23 Q. Tell me, please, can you distinguish between an explosion, a
24 detonation, from the sound of an artillery weapon firing? Can you
25 distinguish between those two? If so -- or rather, were you able to
1 distinguish at the time, back then, and why?
2 A. You're asking if I can -- if one can distinguish between the
3 sounds of different projectiles, and my answer to that is yes. I don't
4 think back then I could distinguish perhaps as well as I could distinguish
5 later on. I would definitely say that the big booms were mortars, but I
6 was not -- I'm not an expert now and even my experience later didn't make
7 me an expert. But I could tell some noises a lot better and what they
8 were later on. But a few sounds on this day sort of did stand out and
9 they were different projectiles.
10 Q. What I want to know about is the part where you say - if it's been
11 interpreted correctly - that you heard them daily. Was that your first
12 experience ever of that kind, the morning of the 6th of December?
13 A. I'm sorry, sir, I heard them daily? I heard these sounds daily?
14 I don't understand. What did you ask me?
15 Q. It may have been a misinterpretation. I don't believe you said
16 you heard those sounds daily. But at any rate, was this your first
17 experience of the kind, in your life I'm saying, the morning of the 6th of
19 A. Yes, sir, it was.
20 Q. On that morning could you distinguish between an explosion and the
21 sound of an artillery weapon being fired? Could you distinguish the
22 explosions of shells on the one hand and the sounds of artillery weapons
23 firing on the other? Or were all these sounds sounds that just merged for
24 you and you could not distinguish?
25 A. I don't think that I could distinguish between the piece being
1 fired and the detonation coming -- when it hit. I could distinguish
2 between different types of detonations and some coming, but I could not
3 honestly differentiate between the moment of firing and when it hit, an
4 explosion, that it made.
5 Q. Is it correct that you spent the best part of that day, or rather
6 the entire day practically and the night, first at the institute and then
7 in the monastery where you had taken shelter, or you tried to sleep in the
9 A. Yes, we spent most of the day in the Dominican Monastery. And
10 then, of course -- and then the night after the bombardment as well.
11 Q. Is it correct that you were not able to see anything that was
12 going on outside? For example, if there were any soldiers in the Old Town
13 or artillery weapons or anything like that for that matter because you
14 spent the entire day between 5.48 in the morning and nightfall shut up.
15 Isn't that correct?
16 A. Well, we were out briefly, and that was simply when we went from
17 the institute to the Dominican Monastery. But what you're saying is
18 essentially correct; I was shut up so I couldn't see anything.
19 Q. In answer to a question by my learned friend and colleague on 8th
20 and 9th of February this year, you said that at the beginning there were
21 82-millimetre shells and then 120-millimetre shells came, followed by
22 marker shells, and so on and so forth. How was it that you were able to
23 distinguish from the basement of the monastery that 82-millimetre shells
24 were falling or marker shells? How were you able to know that? This was
25 your first experience of shelling, as you said; and secondly, there was
1 not a thing that you could actually see from the basement, where you
3 A. Well, it's a question of this so-called rocket, and we had been
4 carrying out the survey of the damage of October and November and looking
5 to see where this particular projectile landed, how it landed. We saw
6 that there would be a group of them, sometimes in a line, but sometimes
7 not. There would be a group of them. This particular projectile I
8 assumed when it was fired it could be fired in sequence. And so these
9 various whams that I mentioned -- and the Dominican Monastery was actually
10 hit by this projectile. We could see a few things out the window, by the
11 way. I assumed that this particular projectile, that noise, was coming in
12 fact from that rocket. You're right, I couldn't see what the other things
13 were and when they were coming in. We're talking mainly on the basis of
14 what was picked up after the bombardment. Of course I was in --
15 Q. I believe my question is very specific. How can someone who holds
16 a Ph.D. who is in a basement taking shelter from the shelling that is
17 going on outside, how would such a person facing such a situation for the
18 first time in his life be able to distinguish between the various types of
19 shell? I think the only logical answer that I can see is that you are not
20 able to distinguish.
21 A. Well, I'm not an expert. I mean, I heard different kinds of
22 noises and they didn't seem to be too many different kinds of noises. And
23 there weren't too many different kinds of shells picked up. You're right,
24 I couldn't tell if it was a Marching 1 that was being fired. I don't
25 think that the -- this particular rocket -- I was not wrong about the
1 noise that it made when it hit.
2 Q. Mortar rockets you're talking about?
3 A. Yes, we called it a rocket. And I have later seen it described,
4 in fact, as a mortar.
5 Q. When was it that you realised that this was called mortar? That
6 was just after the 6th of December; right?
7 A. It was later on that I came across -- I believe it was one of the
8 documents in UNESCO. In the UNESCO action plan, it indicates this in fact
9 as a mortar. This is the one with the wings that we called a rocket. But
10 it is a brand of mortar that has a flat trajectory.
11 Q. We'll get to your report later and we'll go into great detail when
12 examining your report. But what I want to know is when exactly you
13 realised this, because your report was published in October 1993, which
14 means two years later. And your report still states "rocket." So when
15 was it that you realised specifically that those were no rockets, in fact,
16 but rather mortars. I can locate the exact spot in your report, if you
17 like. When then, if it wasn't on the 7th or 8th or 9th of December, how
18 come you know this very well now, 12 years later, but you didn't know it
19 back in 1993 or didn't seem to?
20 A. Well, my report wasn't published in 1993. I think it was perhaps
21 included as a document in the report of the commission of experts. It was
22 never published. It was not -- if it had been published, then perhaps
23 there would have been a correction, a correction made of it. But it was
24 not published. There was no particular need for it to be corrected; it
25 went to the director-general and the culture sector. It wasn't supposed
1 to go any further than that. So I don't understand -- in 1992 UNESCO was
2 working on an action plan, and I remember seeing this particular -- it's a
3 page in the beginning of the action plan, and it gives the different types
4 of projectiles. It was shown the other day, and this -- I noticed that it
5 was a mortar written on it. So I assumed that it was a mortar and not a
7 Q. You told us that you referred in your report to the fact that
8 those were not rockets but rather mortars. Did I understand you
10 A. I think in my report it's mentioned as a rocket all the time, I
11 believe, incorrectly.
12 Q. So when did you make the correction for the first time, when you
13 came here to testify or earlier?
14 A. I think it was pointed out to me that I was making mistakes in the
15 shells, and in fact it really was a mortar. But then there was no reason
16 for me to correct my report. Now, keep in mind there's also two mortars.
17 There's two 82-millimetre mortars. One of them is the flat trajectory
18 mortar with the little fins, the little wings on it, and the other
19 82-millimetre mortar is a little squat -- little squat thing.
20 Q. Please go on.
21 A. What else do you want to know?
22 Q. Can you clarify about the flat trajectory mortar. What exactly is
24 A. All right. Well, the flat trajectory mortar shell which we
25 called -- we called that the rocket. And that was in -- we found in the
1 very tops of buildings and it was always on the very same side usually of
2 the buildings. And that was what we called the rocket. This is the one
3 that pierces -- it pierces the stone. We had been informed that this
4 particular projectile -- and we saw inside of it, it had an explosive
5 charge at the front of it and it had a little metal cylinder. And when
6 the charge exploded, this little metal cylinder came out and this sort of
7 projectile was used normally for vehicles to pierce armour. This is the
8 difference between that one and the ordinary little squat mortar.
9 Q. And what's the trajectory of the other projectile, the other
10 mortar that you talked about?
11 A. The other one is a higher trajectory, so you don't find it on
12 walls. You find it coming on to roofs, it comes into flat, stone surfaces
13 on the Stradun and that sort of thing.
14 Q. Who told you about marking mortars, what they were? How did you
15 learn about that? What is it?
16 A. Well, a marking mortar is used -- it makes a lot of smoke when it
17 explodes, therefore it marks a position. And if you have visual sighting
18 on a target, then you can send the mortars in. If you want to hit this
19 particular area, you sight your weapon on the smoke that's coming up. So
20 it's used for marking targets. It's used apparently as a -- eventually as
21 a smoke screen. Who told us about this? This -- I cannot remember
22 exactly who told us in Dubrovnik and when they told us about this
23 particular weapon.
24 Q. In your statement you said that the shelling was the heaviest
25 during the initial hours. Is that correct? And then you say: "It died
1 down later on," when you heard individual shots coming probably from the
2 ships. Is that correct?
3 A. It is true -- it is true that the heaviest part of the shelling
4 was at the beginning for a few hours. And the shelling then became more
5 selective and less intensive as time went on.
6 Q. But you heard firing from the ships. Right?
7 A. This is a problem. This is a discussion. At the time when we
8 were listening to the shelling, Mr. Carnez felt that there was a certain
9 regular pattern of firing. And Mr. Carnez in fact is a former
10 paratrooper, and it was true that there seemed to be some sort of regular
11 firing pattern. After -- excuse me for being very long-winded, sir --
12 Q. If we could just try to be brief, because there are so many things
13 for us to go through. I will be glad to give up some of my questions to
14 speed things along a little bit in return. But sorry for interrupting
15 you, sir.
16 A. Now, the whole question about the boats is for me up in suspension
17 marks. I don't know if there really were boats. At the time of the
18 writing of the report it still seemed that there were boats because it was
19 odd impacts on the inside of the city walls that could not identify as
20 being likely from the usual types of ordnance. Therefore, they might come
21 from ordnance shot from a boat, but later on those impacts were identified
22 as, in fact, coming from the usual types of ordnance. Therefore, the
23 question of the boats is I don't know anything about it. I am rather
24 dubious about the boats -- at least shooting on the Old Town. If there
25 were boats, maybe they were shooting at something else. But I am dubious
1 about the boats and the Old Town.
2 Q. At which point in time did that become unimportant? You gave your
3 statement two years ago and you stated clearly "from ships." How come it
4 strikes you as so unimportant now? What has happened in the meantime to
5 make it seem so unimportant all of a sudden? Have you perhaps remembered
6 something? Have you talked to someone else? It's been ten years, after
8 A. It just sort of gets weaker and weaker, this idea. Also, you
9 know, is it the fact that -- as I mentioned, that there were not strange
10 projectiles identified in the damage assessment done by the institute. I
11 just don't believe it anymore. I can't tell you when I gave this idea up,
12 but I was dubious about this idea in 1992.
13 Q. So since the year 2000 this idea grew vaguer and weaker. How --
14 you were discussing this with someone and then you were sort of gradually
15 relinquishing this idea or perhaps you were examining your own
16 impressions? How is it that the idea got weaker and weaker. I find this
17 really difficult to understand. Maybe it's up to me; maybe it's my fault.
18 But I find it's very hard to understand.
19 A. I've given my answer on this.
20 Q. You say: "As time went by, the shooting died down and sounded
21 more selective as though someone was trying to target -- someone was
22 searching for something."
23 Can you please explain that phrase, "someone was searching for
24 something," what does that mean?
25 A. I don't want to go back to the boats again, but this was about --
1 this is a question of, sort of, intervals of shooting. And that -- and
2 those intervals seemed to imply that -- it's an intuition, that statement.
3 There was intervals, and it seemed to me that something -- that people
4 were aiming at something specifically. I may have been wrong; I was
5 sitting in the Dominican Monastery, but I noticed this sort of interval
6 shooting going on.
7 Q. So you had the impression that someone was trying to target very
8 specific targets. Correct?
9 A. That's correct, sir.
10 Q. Is it correct that on that day the blaze in the houses that were
11 on fire was getting stronger and stronger on account of a strong wind?
12 A. The -- I think the buildings functioned as a bit as a chimney and
13 if there is a wind blowing very strongly, it would get worse. The fear
14 was, and I went out in the evening, was that we knew the wind was blowing
15 and the fear was that in fact the fires would spread.
16 Q. So the wind was very strong that day. Correct?
17 A. It rose steadily.
18 Q. Can you please tell us something about the methods, the working
19 methods, you used when assessing the damage in the town of Dubrovnik.
20 Would you agree with my assessment that the method applied was one of
21 total improvisation as to the assessment of the precise time and of the
22 way the damage had come about?
23 A. Total improvisation is the assessment of the exact time and way.
24 You're talking about 6th of December, following the 6th of December?
25 Q. Yes. That's what I'm referring to.
1 A. Well, the question was -- there was damage which was done earlier.
2 October the 23rd, the 10th to the 12th of November, that damage had been
3 identified. Any other damage which there would be would be done on the
4 6th of December. There is no idea when -- what time the damage was done
5 on the 6th of December. I don't think that's -- it's not so totally
6 improvised and it's not totally off.
7 The second part of your question is the way the damage come about.
8 I would say that we had hoped and we had instructed and we had explained
9 to the members of the institute something about the type of damage done by
10 different projectiles that we had been able to observe in the earlier
11 bombardments. Now, we're not -- I'm not a specialist of ballistics,
12 however we thought we had good -- can I continue? I want to explain --
13 Q. Of course, please.
14 A. Thank you very much.
15 Q. My apologies.
16 A. The question of whether or not I remember the institute got every
17 shell right is something that can indeed be asked. I've been over a few
18 of the sheets, and we see light damage done by 120-millimetre mortar.
19 Well, I'm not sure it's light damage and the roof is scratched by a direct
20 hit by a 120-millimetre mortar. Then we see heavy damage on the roof done
21 by an 82-millimetre mortar. I don't think so. So, there will be some
22 discrepancies. These people were not experts in ballistics either. If
23 they could get the -- pick up the shell in the vicinity, in the close
24 vicinity, of the damage, then that was the best way to know what damage it
25 did. I will stop there. I hope I've answered your questions, sir.
1 Q. Yes, you have. But I'm afraid we'll need to go back to that for
2 further detail once we get to your report.
3 Tell me, sir: What is your experience in assessing damage in this
4 way? Just briefly, one sentence, if you can. Is it extensive? Do you
5 have any experience at all?
6 A. One word, sir: None.
7 Q. What is your general experience in assessing the state of
8 conservation of a building, for example? Have ever done that? Have you
9 carried out assessments of architectural features of a building and its
10 state of preservation?
11 A. No, sir, I'm not a special -- I'm not an architect. And I'm not
12 an art historian either.
13 Q. So even in that area your experience is as good as nonexistent?
14 A. Well, that's a way to say it.
15 Q. Is it not true that you were trying to focus on damage that had
16 been caused to the buildings; that was your primary interest, wasn't it?
17 A. Well, there were several interests. One of the interests was
18 damage, if war damage had been done. The other question was to make some
19 recommendations as to what should be restored, what were the priorities of
20 restorations. I knew the different types of buildings and the value of
21 the individual buildings. So there were two things, not just damage, also
22 questions of priorities for restoration and recommendations for
24 Q. You have referred to Mr. Zvonko Franic on various occasions and to
25 the Vetma family. Did they have any previous experience in assessing
1 damage to buildings, architectural, in terms of construction?
2 A. Well, they were members of the institute for the protection of
3 cultural heritage; they were architects. It was their job to assess
4 damage, to assess the value of buildings; and this was something they had
5 done as part of their job before the war.
6 Q. So their daily work was to assess the state of preservation of a
7 building, to assess the damage, whereas Dubrovnik was your first encounter
8 with that type of work?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. When you did these assessments, did you also ascertain the
11 direction of the projectile in question, from which direction the
12 projectile which damaged the building in question came? Briefly, please.
13 A. Well, with -- dealing with the 82-millimetre mortar, it was
14 usually - rocket mortar - it was usually easy to find out which direction
15 it came from. On the other hand, dealing with the little 82-millimetre
16 mortar, dealing with the 120-millimetre mortar, it was much more difficult
17 and most of the time you couldn't really tell.
18 Q. How were you able to ascertain from which particular direction a
19 mortar shell, an 82-millimetre shell, was fired? What were the
20 characteristics that you observed so that you were able to tell it was
21 fired from this or that particular position?
22 A. Well, as you heard on Friday, there were certain -- there was a
23 number -- a good number of 82-millimetre mortar rockets which were
24 actually stuck in walls. So you could tell where they came from. There
25 were others -- if they were not stuck in the wall, they had made damage to
1 the wall. They had left a particularly narrow impression -- a narrow
2 cylindrical hole, some of the pieces had gone through the wall, as we
3 encountered for the earlier type of damage. And if you would drew a
4 straight line backward, you would see it was coming from -- these
5 particular shells were coming from the east.
6 Q. Does there exist a mortar which has a straight-line trajectory of
7 the shell which it fires? And is this the 82-millimetre mortar?
8 A. We're talking about the flat trajectory of the 82-millimetre
9 mortar, the little wings on the end, the cylinder mortar.
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So an 82-millimetre mortar shell at each site or most of the sites
13 that you observed, that you examined, you were able to ascertain for each
14 of these shells from which direction it had come?
15 A. Yes, most of the time, for this particular shell.
16 Q. Did you put that down in your report?
17 A. If you look in the annex 3, you will see where the damage is
18 meant -- what walls the damages are found on. And it's in the report,
20 JUDGE PARKER: Is this a convenient time, Mr. Petrovic?
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm in your hands.
22 I'm slightly carried away with my questioning. Of course. I apologise.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Well, perhaps you'll be able to collect your
24 thoughts during the break.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. It is not a
1 question of collecting my thought; it of is the voluminousity [as
2 interpreted], the bulk, the sheer bulk of the questions that I wish to
3 address in posing questions to this particular witness. Thank you,
4 Your Honour
5 JUDGE PARKER: We noticed, Mr. Petrovic. We will have a 20-minute
7 --- Recess taken at 5.25 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 5.56 p.m.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Mr. Kaiser, before the break we spoke about these shells,
12 projectiles, and the trajectories of them. And you said that in your
13 report marked as P61 in tabulater [as interpreted] 6 that you also
14 indicated the directions from which the shells were coming. So, sir,
15 please tell me: Was this the procedure that you also used in the
16 preliminary report for the Institute for the Protection of Heritage, to
17 the best of your knowledge?
18 A. We were talking about these particular shells. I explained to you
19 how I came about indicating where they came from. The preliminary report
20 institute report you're talking about is the one done after the
21 bombardment of the 6th of December or the one before, the preliminary
23 Q. After.
24 A. Okay. Now, with respect to this report, I didn't instruct people
25 to speculate about where the shells were coming from. This was not really
1 part of it. It was really looking at the type of damage. It was not
2 strongly underlined by myself.
3 Q. So this was your primary concern. Were you also interested in the
4 type of ammunition which inflicted the damage?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Or was the time also of the infliction of damage important in the
7 preliminary report you prepared for the institute?
8 A. By timing we're talking about the dates; we're not talking about
9 any specific times in the day.
10 Q. I'm referring to the days. Not the time of day during that period
11 but the actual days.
12 A. Yes, the date was important. Yes.
13 Q. Was a police investigation undertaken to ascertain the damage
14 levels in the Old Town of Dubrovnik?
15 A. I don't know if a police investigation was undertaken.
16 Q. Did you have any crime or ballistics technician or expert on your
18 A. No, sir.
19 Q. Did you ever prepare a report quantifying the damage that was
21 A. What do you mean by "quantifying"?
22 Q. I mean the number of buildings that were damaged and the
23 equivalent of the damage in terms of money.
24 A. Well, the preliminary report of the institute was to determine the
25 number of buildings that were damaged, the type of damage that it was.
1 We -- we were asked by headquarters in the days following the bombardment
2 to get together some figures. I mean, this was a very unrealistic kind of
3 exercise. And we got together some figures, but they were not very useful
4 figures finally.
5 Q. In your statement at a certain point you refer to -- you say:
6 "We agreed for the needs of the investigators to prepare this preliminary
7 report for the investigators."
8 Do you remember this particular part of your statement?
9 A. I'm sorry. You're saying that I said we were preparing the report
10 for investigators of the ICTY?
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. I'm sorry --
13 Q. No, no. Not the ICTY. Generally for the requirements of
14 investigators. The ICTY did not exist at the time. For the needs of the
15 investigation. I can read the entire paragraph.
16 "On this day, we -- that day we gathered with members of the
17 institute, Bruno and I knew we had to act quickly. We agreed on a pro
18 forma standard report for the investigators to use, to list the date of
19 the damage," and so on. "We were most interested in mapping the damage."
20 Was this correct?
21 A. These investigators, the people who were going to be doing the
22 survey. It's not police investigators or Tribunal investigators.
23 Q. Who are the investigators for the needs of whom you undertook to
24 make this preliminary report? This is what I failed to understand?
25 A. We agreed on a pro forma report for the investigators to use. To
1 list the damage, et cetera, et cetera. These were the members of the
2 institute and the volunteer architects. Was"investigator" used in the
3 English, or was it a translation? But these are not -- these are the
4 people who were carrying out the damage survey.
5 Q. All right. Have you read the preliminary report, which is marked
6 P51 here? Have you ever read it?
7 A. I have never read it through in its entirety. I saw -- you
8 remember that my assignment was finished at the end of December. I wrote
9 my report. That was ongoing work. It was sent in a Serbo-Croatian
10 version, and I was much less conversant in Serbo-Croatian, even than I am
11 today. The bits -- I saw bits of it. When the investigator Stephens came
12 along and showed me what I had done myself. And then I saw it, sort of,
13 when I came here for the appearance in the Tribunal. I saw an English
14 version of it. I have never read the report in its entirety.
15 Q. Did you see this report before it was published or had you already
16 left Dubrovnik by that time?
17 A. Well, we were working on it in Dubrovnik when we left. I didn't
18 know it was -- I didn't know it was published.
19 Q. Did you ever have an occasion to inspect the content of the report
20 at that time? At the time of its publication, that is.
21 A. I didn't have an opportunity to investigate -- to study this
22 report in 1992 when it came out.
23 Q. Is it true that the report consists of individual minutes or
24 records that were made related to the individual buildings and structures?
25 A. Yes, sir. That's exactly what it consists of.
1 Q. Did you -- did you also personally undertake this inspection in a
2 number of cases?
3 A. In a number of cases, yes.
4 Q. Did you show the record that you compiled to anyone?
5 A. The forms that we worked on and I was working with Mr. Franic,
6 those forms were simply given in to the institute when they were finished.
7 Q. In which way did you participate in the shaping of this form for
8 the inspected buildings when these reports were made solely and
9 exclusively in the Croatian language, which you do not speak?
10 A. Well, the form that you see was a form that I had designed and it
11 was for the earlier bombardments. So that was a methodological
12 contribution to the report. I remember addressing the institute as the
13 beginning -- at the beginning of the survey, just going through the
14 different points and explaining to them what we were looking for, what we
15 were --
16 Q. Please stick to the subject. I'm asking you whether you read what
17 was written in the form, for the concrete buildings that you undertook to
18 inspect. Did you read it? I believe that I'm quite clear. I can quote
19 for you what I'm referring to. Book number 1, Z24 to 25, book 35 to 36,
20 and book seven zones, Z28 to 12. Did you read these, because your
21 signature is underneath -- under it. Did you read these?
22 A. Yes, I misunderstood you. Yes, I read these when they were handed
23 in, to agree that that was in fact what was in fact, you know, what was
24 in them, yes.
25 Q. That's what I'm asking. How did you read them, seeing that they
1 were in the Croatian language?
2 A. Sorry. I didn't read them afterwards. I read them at the moment
3 they were put in as a contribution to the work of the institute.
4 Q. Did you read the specific documents contained in the preliminary
5 reports, under which is your signature? The final product, did you read
6 the final product? Have you ever seen the final product?
7 A. The final product in Serbo-Croatian was shown to me, but -- I
8 mean, it was shown to me in 2001. And -- I mean those surveys were
9 carried out years before. And as I said to you, I'm not at all a
10 proficient Serbo-Croatian reader.
11 Q. And in the year 2001 you can practically not remember any of the
12 specific damage to the specific buildings in the report forms that you
13 signed. Is this correct?
14 A. I'm afraid I don't.
15 Q. Did you examine the records that were drawn up by other people?
16 A. I looked through an English edition of it. There's an English
17 translation of this, and I just -- I flipped through and I looked at a
18 number of the entries.
19 Q. Please, can we clarify this particular question. I'm asking about
20 the years 1991, 1992, and 1993. I'm not asking you about the year 2001.
21 I'm referring to the translation which was made by the Prosecution of the
22 ICTY. Did you ever -- when the report was being prepared, did you study?
23 Did you look at what other people were preparing for the report?
24 A. When we were doing the surveys, I can remember discussing with the
25 teams on a few occasions. I cannot remember reading these different forms
1 which were done -- by and large produced when I was no longer there.
2 Q. Are you prepared to shoulder the responsibility for the accuracy
3 of what is written by other people in these forms? Do you assume that as
4 yours, as your responsibility?
5 A. There's some responsibility for setting up the methodology and
6 launching this exercise. As I was never engaged by UNESCO to go back and
7 look at that report and compare it with the reality, I cannot assume
8 total -- I cannot assume responsibility for something that was completely
9 out of my hands.
10 Q. So the preparation of the preliminary report thus was not under
11 your control and you did not influence the shaping of the final -- of the
12 end product, the final report?
13 A. The very beginning stages were under our control, but you're
14 perfectly right about -- in most of your question.
15 Q. So am I right when I say that apart from designing the
16 methodology, that you had no other influence on the preliminary report, am
17 I not?
18 A. Apart from what influence we may have had in discussions with the
19 teams while we were still in Dubrovnik.
20 Q. So you neither saw the final report nor did you sign it nor were
21 you able to read it?
22 A. That is correct.
23 Q. After this preliminary report, was there ever a final report
24 prepared on the damage which was inflicted?
25 A. I don't -- I don't believe that there was because the institute
1 found itself drawn immediately into the UNESCO -- the preparation of the
2 UNESCO plan for restoration of the Old Town.
3 Q. In your reports -- just bear with me for a second.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours.
5 Can the witness please be shown this Exhibit Number 61, tabulater
6 6 -- 62, my apologies. I think the number is 62.
7 [In English] Sir, I think it is 62. P62.
8 [Interpretation] The report by Mr. Kaiser, the two-volume report
9 that we had the last time. Tab 6, please.
10 Q. At tab 6, can you see your report?
11 A. Yes, sir, I can.
12 Q. Can you please have a look at annex 3 to your report. Is this the
13 annex to your report, so not to the institute's report, to your report,
14 the annex describing the damage inflicted in October and November 1991.
15 Am I correct?
16 A. Yes, you're correct.
17 Q. I assume that you compiled this report with accuracy and
18 conscientiously, didn't you?
19 A. Yes, sir, I did.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown two
21 other exhibits marked for identification as P51. Those are two binders.
22 Can these two please be given to the witness; he'll need them to compare.
23 Q. First of all, sir -- first of all, I will ask you to look at annex
24 3 of your report, and look at -- this appears to be in French.
25 Unfortunately I'm not conversant in French but I will try to find my way
1 around, as we don't seem to have an English translation of annex 3. I
2 hope, however, that this will not prove to be an insurmountable problem
3 for all of us. On page 1 of annex 3, please -- first of all, please tell
4 me, at the top of the page it says that this refers to the damage
5 inflicted in October and November 1991. Is that correct?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. And then there's a list under A with buildings that you inspected
8 and ascertained damage that was sustained in October and November 1991.
9 Is that correct?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. The first listed building, the building listed as damaged at some
12 date in October, November is the Drezvenik fort, is it?
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 Q. Sir, can you please look at -- in binder 1, P51, can you please
15 look at Z12, Z13, and Z14.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will try to be of
17 assistance to you also. In the English version of P51, these are the
18 pages that are marked as L0061344, 345, and 346.
19 Q. Mr. Kaiser, that's in the upper left corner of the page, 434, 435,
20 and 436. Have you found that?
21 A. Yes, I have.
22 Q. Can you please now show me these qualifications, Z12, 13, and 14,
23 do these refer to the Drezvenik fort and the adjacent portion of the wall?
24 A. These refer to section of the wall near to -- it was Drezvenik
1 Q. Does that correspond with what you wrote in your report? Is it
2 the same building we are talking about, the same building from your
3 report. If you could please read the French. I really don't read French.
4 I'm not sure what there is under 1, direct impact by a 82-millimetre
5 shell. I believe it states that it hit the wall just next to the bastion.
6 I really can't say what it says in French. Please, can you look at A1.
7 A. What I see is that it hit the platform on the bastion itself.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, do we seem to have a
9 problem there? Can I continue?
10 JUDGE PARKER: I have not located the documents to which you are
11 referring yet.
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my apologies.
13 Your Honours, the English translation, the pages as I have
14 indicated in binder 1.
15 JUDGE THELIN: Could you please give us a number in English again.
16 That number doesn't seem to be in my binder at least.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, here it goes:
18 L0061434, L0061435, L0061436. That's the number in the English
20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic. We've now -- two out of
21 three have succeeded. Three out of three can see it.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, again my apologies.
23 I believe you will soon realise why I am trying to show this to the
24 witness. My apologies again. I know this is inconvenient, but I would
25 like the witness to first of all look at annex 3 from his own report and
1 read what it says precisely under A1 Drezvenik Bastion, direct impact by
2 82-millimetre shell, and that's as far as I can stretch my knowledge of
3 French. If the witness can please continue.
4 THE WITNESS: Direct impact of 82-millimetre rocket on the
5 pavement and fragments on the west wall of the platform. This is on the
6 bastion. Platform of the bastion. West wall of the platform of the
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Mr. Kaiser, can you please find this same piece of damage in P51,
10 if you can. Are there any references to it? The document that comprises
11 October, November, and December. In my view it would be Z12, 13, and 14,
12 because that refers to the same thing. If that's it, then okay. If not,
13 please find what is it.
14 A. If you look at the locations, the locations are walkways basically
15 between the towers. There's no reference to the actual hit on the tower.
16 The first one says city wall crown, crown of a wall. Section between St.
17 Jacob tower and the Drezvenik tower. So it's not on the tower. City
18 walls walkway - this is Z13 - city walls walkway near the Drezvenik tower;
19 it doesn't say it's on the tower. Z14, city wall walkway, section between
20 Drezvenik tower and the tower of St. Katarina. So it's not on Drezvenik
21 tower; it's on adjacent areas to the tower.
22 Q. So at Z12, 13, and 14, this damage that you found in A1 is not
23 indicated, is it? Annex 3 of your report.
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. If you can please find in the preliminary report, P51, which
1 comprises October, November, and December, can you please find this
2 particular piece of damage, October and November, from your report. I can
3 tell you straight up that it's not there, but please if you want to have a
4 go yourself, you can just try to go through it yourself and see if you can
5 find it. So if you can, please feel free to do so and have a go.
6 A. Well normally this was -- we were asking them to look for damage
7 from the 6th of December bombardment. I see that in preliminary report on
8 the war-drove [sic] section, October, November, December 1991. Well,
9 they've entitled it that. The damage that I picked up in the earlier --
10 the earlier bombardments is not in this and I am not too surprised that
11 it's not in it, because -- with the instructions we had given was that it
12 was for the 6th of December. Now, that didn't mean they wouldn't pick up
13 some of that earlier damage, especially when it was right together.
14 Q. Does that mean that all the damages sustained in the Old Town
15 throughout those three months were assigned as damages inflicted on the
16 6th of December?
17 A. No. They were not supposed to do that. They were supposed to
18 find the damage that was the 6th of December and not from the earlier
19 bombardments. I have seen one or two forms in which there is mention made
20 of earlier damage, but it would be normal according to the assignment that
21 this damage would not show up on these forms.
22 Q. Sir, P51, the report, is it a report on the damage inflicted in
23 October, November, and December, as its name seems to suggest, or not? Or
24 is this a report on the 6th of December damage? If anyone, you should be
25 in a position to know, since you claim to be the author of this report.
1 A. I did not claim to be the author of the report of the Institution
2 for the Protection of Cultural Heritage in Dubrovnik. I can claim to be
3 an important contributor to the methodology of that report. I have not
4 studied this report in detail. I notice just flipping through that we
5 have mainly 6th of December --
6 Q. Very well. So Drezvenik, damage from October, this is something
7 that we can't seem to find in the preliminary report marked as P51. Do we
8 agree on that?
9 A. We can't find this damage here, no.
10 Q. The next thing I would like you to do is look at item 6 of the
11 annex to your report, annex 3 to your report, the Sponza Palace. Did you
12 establish any damage to the Sponza Palace in October and November?
13 A. Well, you can see the entry which indicates indeed damage to the
14 wall of the Sponza Palace from the earlier shelling.
15 Q. Very well, thank you.
16 Now I would like to ask you to have a look --
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise for this
18 exercise being so inconvenient, because there is a bulk of documents that
19 I'm trying to deal with and it's enormous. However, I must point out the
20 importance of this procedure and you will see for yourselves. The witness
21 drew up a report; these are damages sustained in October and November.
22 All these damages from October and November, with the exception of several
23 of those, have been attributed to my client, as sustained in December.
24 This exercise will probably prove to be quite lengthy and it will take
25 some time; however, I hope that I will be able to show exactly this. And
1 this is the only way I can go about this particular task.
2 Q. So, sir, can you please go back to the Sponza Palace, insula
3 number 17, 17-5. 17-5.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] And, Your Honours, this in
5 translation is page L0048618. That's towards the very end of the
6 document, second-last page -- one of the last pages. I think 18 is the
7 last one, so it's one of the last pages. 17-5.
8 Q. Have you found that, Mr. Kaiser?
9 A. I've almost found it.
10 Q. Have you found it?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. In your report October and November, damage to the Sponza Palace.
13 That's what it says. Isn't that correct, briefly?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Is it true that in the report, preliminary report, of the
16 institute it is stated that the only damage that the building actually
17 sustained was inflicted on the 6th of December?
18 A. Yeah. This describes damage done on the 6th of December.
19 Q. The damage described as relating to the 6th of December, what is
20 the distinction from the damage potentially sustained in October and
21 November and that from December? Are there any indications in this
22 document, 17-5, that there had been any damage at all in October and
23 November, because there is an assertion here, a clear assertion, being
24 made that whatever damage was inflicted was inflicted on the 6th of
25 December only. Isn't that correct?
1 A. Yes. There's damage to the roof, as I said.
2 Q. So how could one distinguish between the damage from October and
3 November and the damage from December when one looks at the preliminary
4 report of the Dubrovnik institute? Can one draw any distinction at all
5 between the damage sustained in October and November and that sustained in
6 December by looking at the preliminary report of the Dubrovnik institute?
7 A. From what I have seen in examples used, this is -- this is almost
8 entirely damage done on the 6th of December. If you wanted to distinguish
9 between -- really, between damage done on the 6th of December and earlier,
10 you would have to incorporate or at least put an annex, the annex 3 from
11 my report, if you wanted to be able to distinguish clearly. But the
12 examples you've given are just the 6th of December.
13 Q. Therefore, what we have in your report, the damage inflicted in
14 October and November was represented in this report as damaged that
15 occurred in December. Doesn't that appear to be correct?
16 A. No, I didn't think so. I think the examples you've given -- you
17 won't find this damage which is in annex 3 from my report on Sponza; it's
18 not here.
19 Q. Can you please explain how this came about. And why is it I can't
20 find it here if the report purports to be -- to refer to October,
21 November, and December?
22 A. Well, somebody has written on the title page that it's October,
23 November, and December, and all the chaps running around doing the work
24 seem to be looking only for damage that was done on the 6th of December
1 Q. How do they know, those chaps running around, which damage was
2 inflicted on the 6th and which was earlier?
3 A. Well, they had the preliminary -- okay. I know, preliminary
4 survey. There was an earlier survey which was done by their own
5 institute, and that one they had. This particular document, which is in
6 my report, would have been transmitted to them later. They could easily
7 separate, even on the basis of the first damage report for October and
8 November, they could separate the damage out. It's not to difficult.
9 Q. Why didn't they? They wrote everything down as if it happened on
10 the 6th of December.
11 A. I'm sorry. The two examples you have shown me are 6th of December
12 damage and they have nothing to do with the earlier damage.
13 Q. Okay. Let's move on, please.
14 Were you in Boskoviceva Street?
15 A. Yes, sir, I was.
16 Q. Can you please find the damage that you yourself ascertained in
17 Boskoviceva Street in October and November. Can you please find this
18 damage in the preliminary report of the institute that comprises October,
19 November, and December, if you can please. Yes, sir.
20 A. If you can help me by indicating the number of the insula, that
21 would be nice.
22 Q. My idea was that it would be much easier for you to find your feet
23 there. I thought you were more familiar with that than I was but, if not,
24 obviously if not I can give you a hand.
25 A. Thank you.
1 Q. Can you please look at insula 6-9.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this document is
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please speak into the microphone.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. The preliminary report as it concerns October, November, and
7 December, where can we find the damage that you refer to in annex 3 in
8 your report as occurring in October and November?
9 A. You're talking about my report now?
10 Q. What I'm talking about is the following: In your report it says
11 that 18(a), the house at Boskoviceva Street number 1, was damaged in
12 October or November. My question is: If you look at the preliminary
13 report as it relates to October, November, and December, where can we find
14 this particular bit of damage that you spoke about in annex 3 to your
16 A. Okay. You'll have to let me just check the two different
18 I'll make one remark and I'll go on in my perusal. It appears
19 there is damage in this report of the 6th of December. It appears that
20 there is damage on the facade that is in fact also found in my report. It
21 appears this is from a heavy shell.
22 Q. So what that means is the damage that you established as having
23 occurred in November was classified as having occurred on the 6th of
24 December instead. Isn't that correct?
25 A. At least some of that. I would have to go through the rest of it
2 Q. Is it your submission that in the preliminary report of the
3 institute, the only damage that is actually listed there is the damage
4 that occurred on the 6th of December. Is that what you're saying, sir?
5 A. This is supposed to be 6th of December damage only. This looks
6 like it's a mixture of old damage and identification of also some new
7 damage. The elements are not separated out. The time of the damage is
8 not separated.
9 Q. Thank you. Therefore, the dates when the damage occurred are not
10 specified in the -- are not separately specified in the preliminary report
11 of the institute. There is no distinction between the damage that
12 occurred in the earlier months and the damage that occurred in December.
13 Am I right in assuming that?
14 A. I've seen some entries where they also indicate November as well.
15 In this case, they did not indicate earlier damage on this particular
17 MR. KAUFMAN: Yes, Your Honours, I was about to pick my learned
18 friend up on that particular point. I can refer Your Honours to an
19 example of such at L0048498 which is in the same bundle which we're
20 currently considering. The damage to Zudioska 16, it is listed as having
21 occurred on the 12th of November, 1991.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I was just about to
23 say the same thing as my learned friend and colleague. That's quite
24 correct and this is precisely what I'm talking about. Some of the
25 indications are very clear and accurate as to the damage -- as to the date
1 when the damage occurred, but most of them refer to cumulative damage that
2 was sustained over the months of October, November, and December, but
3 which was represented to only have occurred on the 6th of December. There
4 are many, many instances of damage that actually occurred in October and
5 November, but all of it is here represented as having occurred on the 6th
6 of December.
7 Q. Can you please look at insula 6, building number 10, also on
8 Boskoviceva street in your report, sir. Boskoviceva Ulice Street number 3
9 in your report. In your report this is 18(b) and in the preliminary
10 report of the institute, the reference is page L0061066. Can you please
11 have a look, sir. You established damage at Boskoviceva Street in October
12 and November, didn't you?
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 Q. Can you please now look at what the preliminary report of the
15 institute claims. All of this damage is attributed, classified, as the
16 6th of December, even the earlier damage that you had yourself
18 A. Well, it looks like the damage done to the balcony in the earlier
19 period is, in fact, also attributed to the 6th of December. I note some
20 roof damage from shrapnel which is not in my report, and that seems to be
21 done the 6th of December.
22 Q. Can you please look at 18(b), Boskoviceva Street. What does it
23 say in French there? What sort of damage was inflicted?
24 A. "Corbeaux en pierre", this is the well-supported section
25 underneath the balcony.
1 Q. Sir, you can also read it in French because this will be
2 translated for everyone.
3 A. Okay. "corbeaux en pierre appuyant le balcon en pierre du
4 troisieme etage casses par eclats: cette structure doit d'urgence etre
5 reparee parce que le balcon risque de tomber dans la rue."
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters' note. Counsel is actually wrong
7 in assuming that the English booth works in translating --
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] It appears not, Your Honours. I
9 was convinced. Everything here is so bilingual. But that merely appears
10 to be on the surface. The problem, Your Honour, is that we only have this
11 document in French.
12 Q. So will you please then translate this for us from French into
13 English. 18(b)/3. My apologies. I was trying to make it easier for you.
14 These things happen. What can I do. 18(b) Boskoviceva Street number 3.
15 A. The stone supports for the balcony, the stone balcony on the third
16 floor have been broken by fragments. This structure must urgently be
17 repaired because the balcony risks falling into the street.
18 Q. Sir, 6-10, this report, doesn't it state: "Heavy damage to the
19 balcony, to the south portion of the balcony, the balustrade broke down."
20 Is that what I'm talking about?
21 A. This is the object that is damaged but it seems to be additional
22 damage. Balustrade is demolished. A previous damage --
23 Q. The only thing I'm asking you about is the following. Let's keep
24 things simple. What you wrote as referring to November -- you wrote about
25 November. This damage, was it registered as damage that occurred on the
1 6th of December, without wanting to go into even further detail and
2 without wasting too much time. Is that how the damage was registered, as
3 having occurred on the 6th of December. Please, yes or no?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Thank you very much.
6 Can you now please look at 18(c) of your report, annex 3.
7 Boskoviceva Street number 2. Can you please tell us what it says in the
9 A. Well, the windows of the -- the glass of all the windows have been
10 blown out and the frames of all the windows on the ground floor and on the
11 first floor had been damaged by fragments coming from the shots on number
12 1. But the conclusion that the damage is minor.
13 Q. Can we now look at insula 6-5. L0061660. Is that what I'm
14 talking about, Mr. Kaiser?
15 A. I found the location. I'm reading it now.
16 Q. Of course not each word will be identical but, roughly speaking,
17 is it the same thing? I believe that you as someone who holds a Ph.D. can
18 talk about this in a dozen different ways. But my basic question is: Is
19 this fundamentally the same thing?
20 A. I'm not sure that it is because we're talking here about actual
21 shrapnel damage on the stone. This is -- in their report it's shrapnel
22 damage on the stone basically. And in my report I'm talking about an
23 effective blast which would knock the windows out and would -- could
24 damage the frames of the windows. They mention damage to stone lentils
25 lintels chiselled stone, first floor windows, chiselled door transept and
1 stone pin, et cetera, et cetera. And then they mention the partial
2 displacement of the roof cover as well. And south wall of the dormer
3 window shaken showing a longitudinal crack. It looks to me like it's
4 different damage.
5 Q. Can you please now tell me the damage that you established. Where
6 can I find that in the preliminary report for October, November, and
8 A. It doesn't seem to be here.
9 Q. Can we please now look at Boskoviceva Street number 4 under D,
10 18(d). Insula 6-6 L0061061. Can you please -- what it says at D in your
12 A. The window -- the glass of all the windows have been blown out and
13 the frame of the window nearer to number 2 on the first floor has been
14 damaged by shell fragments. Minor damage. But it should be noted that
15 this house is abandoned in the last five or six years, and the interior is
16 in the state of impressive decay because of squatters. That's what my
17 report says.
18 Q. Can you please now look at the institute's report. What can you
19 find there?
20 A. This looks like it's different damage. Substantial damage to the
21 eastern part of the building facing Zudioska Street. Cause of a blast by
22 a shell close by; that is the synagogue on that street. Cable wall
23 structures damaged. Plasters damaged on second-floor ceiling. Two direct
24 hits to the west front in Boskoviceva Street inflicted indirect damage to
25 chiselled stone frames of second-floor windows on the west front of the
1 building. These are direct hits and we're talking about -- in my report
2 we're talking about the effect of blast. We're talking about different
3 damage -- different damage.
4 Q. What I'm asking is: What is the distinction between the two? Can
5 you please explain that.
6 A. We're talking about windows that are blown out basically --
7 Q. Can you please just plain your description --
8 A. [Previous translation continues]... We're talking about windows
9 that had been blown out according to my report. Now we're talking the
10 damage -- this is on the west front. We're talking about substantial
11 damage to the eastern part of the building. Gable wall structure, which
12 is high wall structure. And two direct hits. I'm not talking about
13 direct hits. It's different. It's very different.
14 Q. Can you please say which side is your damage on. Has this been
15 determined in your report, which side the damage occurred on?
16 A. It has been -- it's effective blast damage. So it comes on the
17 west wall and it probably comes from one of these other explosions on the
18 other side of the street. We're talking about --
19 Q. In your report can we find this piece of information, which side
20 the building was actually damaged from, which side specifically, which
21 would enable us to draw the kind of distinction that you're trying to
22 make. Does your report actually specify this?
23 A. Number 4, right? Okay.
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. It mentions blast effect on the windows, on the west wall. That's
1 a different thing.
2 Q. Which side?
3 A. West wall. West wall that is in Boskoviceva Street.
4 Q. And what does this say? Impact on the west front. That's all
5 right. Let's move on.
6 Can you please look at the synagogue under number 19. What does
7 it say about the damage sustained by the synagogue at Zudioska Street in
8 annex 3 to your report.
9 A. The windows have been blown out on the side of Boskoviceva Street
10 because of panels that were placed on the windows of the synagogue, it is
11 impossible to determine the nature of the damage. But according to the
12 architects of the Institute of Conservation Monuments, the synagogue was
13 very damaged during the earthquake of 1979 and has never been repaired.
14 Cracks were apparent in the interior, but it wasn't possible to determine
15 if they were -- they were still open or whether that was the effect of the
16 detonations. It's necessary after the bombardment of the 6th of December
17 to examine more carefully the state of this important heritage because of
18 the age of the establishment and the richness of the interior.
19 Q. Now what I would like you to clarify is the following: In your
20 report in annex 3 you reference -- you refer to damage that occurred on
21 the 6th of December. So what was supposed to be after the 6th of
22 December? How does that come across in your report?
23 A. I think this is question -- is a question of the cracks. And
24 there was a certain amount of shaking in the town from detonations on the
25 6th of December. And so it's really a question of seeing if the cracks
1 had widened, if there was more damage associated with this trembling of
2 the town. I think that is what is intended.
3 Q. My question to you is: In your report in reference to October and
4 November, what does the indication mean, the date specifically, the 6th of
5 December? That's my question to you, sir.
6 A. I'm sorry. I thought I answered it. It was a concern that after
7 the 6th of December that it should be visited to see if there was any sort
8 of secondary blast effect or any trembling effect to the building.
9 Q. Well, was it actually hit on the 6th of December? Do you know
11 A. I can't remember if it was hit or not on the 6th of December.
12 Q. Maybe there was something else that should have been done in
13 addition to merely visiting, if you didn't know if and how there was
14 damage in the following period. What did you base your recommendations on
15 as to what should or should not be done following the 6th of December if
16 you knew nothing about that, or if it is your assertion today that you
17 know nothing about it?
18 A. We were worried -- and I was worried that there could be some
19 additional damage that could be caused to buildings that were damaged in
20 the earthquake of 1979. This is -- I don't know if it's the oldest
21 synagogue in the Balkans, but it is one of the oldest synagogues in the
22 Balkans and it's a very important building in its own rite. And it was
23 obvious that normal -- that it should be double-checked simply to see if
24 there was any secondary blast effect that came from the bombardment of the
25 6th of December. I did not see this building after the bombardment; I was
1 too busy in the other part of the town.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Do I correctly understand, Dr. Kaiser, that as you
3 understand the report it does not identify specifically damage caused on
4 the 6th of December, even though at first sight that appears to be what it
5 is saying?
6 THE WITNESS: It is supposed to record damage -- identify damage
7 on the 6th of December. And it would appear that there are a few entries
8 that it doesn't --
9 JUDGE PARKER: I'm talking about the specific building, the
11 THE WITNESS: We don't have the -- I'm sorry, we don't have the
12 synagogue building in front of us here on the ...
13 JUDGE PARKER: We're going to have to adjourn now until tomorrow.
14 I will make an observation to which I invite the attention of counsel. It
15 is very obvious from the effective cross-examination of Mr. Petrovic that
16 there are significant difficulties with the preliminary report and annex 3
17 to the earlier report of Dr. Kaiser. Mr. Petrovic may need to spend the
18 time necessary, as he has done in the last hour or whatever it was of
19 today, in going through item by item to identify deficiencies that he has
20 identified. That is a time-consuming exercise for him, for the witness,
21 for the Chamber. Is it possible by consultation between counsel for that
22 process to be short-circuited and these deficiencies identified and
23 scheduled by agreement? I just make that observation now and leave it to
24 counsel to consider whether there is going to be a way in which what
25 Mr. Petrovic is now in the process of doing can be reliably done in a much
1 shorter and more efficient way. And we leave it to you to consider and
2 perhaps discuss. Thank you.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous translation continues]... Tomorrow
5 again, Dr. Kaiser.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
7 at 7.04 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday,
8 the 17th day of February, 2004, at 2.15 p.m.