1 Tuesday, 4 May 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. We move to a new witness.

6 Mr. Re.

7 MR. RE: It will be Mr. Slobodan Vukovic, Your Honours.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

9 [The witness entered court]

10 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning, Mr. Vukovic. Welcome to the

11 Tribunal. If you would be kind enough to take the affirmation which is on

12 the card now being shown to you.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

14 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. If you'd like to sit down.

16 Yes, Mr. Re.

17 WITNESS: SLOBODAN VUKOVIC

18 [Witness answered through interpreter]

19 Examined by Mr. Re:

20 Q. Good morning, Mr. Vukovic. What is your full name, please?

21 A. My name is Slobodan Vukovic.

22 Q. Do you live in Dubrovnik?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. How long have you lived in Dubrovnik for?

25 A. Practically since I was born, although I was born in Mostar, I

1 lived in Mostar only for one month. I spent my entire life in that town

2 except for my university studies from 1971 until 1979 when I studied and

3 worked in Zagreb at the school of architecture of the University of

4 Zagreb.

5 Q. All right. So your period in Dubrovnik, we're talking a little

6 over a half a century?

7 A. Approximately.

8 Q. You said you studied architecture in Zagreb. Did you graduate

9 with a degree of bachelor of architecture?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Are you studying for a masters degree in architecture?

12 A. I completed the entire coursework involved in the masters degree

13 at the university. And I am working on the masters degree itself, a paper

14 entitled "The Design of gardens and landscaping" with Dubrovnik as an

15 example.

16 Q. Are you a member of the Croatian Association of Architects?

17 A. I'm a member of the Croatian Chamber of Architects and Civil

18 Engineers which was established only at the beginning of 2000, and I am a

19 member of the Association of Croatian Architects.

20 Q. Are these the professional bodies that license architects in

21 Croatia?

22 A. The Chamber of Architects gives permits to engage in this

23 particular line of work in Croatia. And without this license, no one can

24 be involved in this profession. This started in 1999, and it is still

25 ongoing.

1 Q. Before that, was there a formal system of accreditation of

2 architects in Croatia?

3 A. Yes. There was a state examination that was supposed to be

4 passed, and then you would get a certificate. You had to pass a special

5 professional examination. You would get this certificate, and this

6 certificate meant that you could professionally work on town planning and

7 other architectural work.

8 Q. Where did you work after you completed your studies in 1979?

9 A. My practice started at the faculty of architecture itself. I

10 worked there on particular projects, specifically the project of the

11 restoration of the music school in Dubrovnik. I did that within a project

12 of restoration, rather projects of restoration that followed after the

13 earthquake of Dubrovnik from 1979.

14 Q. When did you do your JNA military service?

15 A. I did my military service from 1980 to 1981.

16 Q. When you left your military service, where did you work and what

17 was your job?

18 A. I spent some time in Zagreb working on the same project very

19 briefly. And after that, in 1981, in the summer of 1981, I returned to

20 Dubrovnik, and I got a job in the town planning service, or rather the

21 Institute for the Construction of Dubrovnik had a sector that was involved

22 in town planning, the town planning of Dubrovnik.

23 Q. Was that office attached to the Dubrovnik Municipality, that is,

24 the local council?

25 A. Yes. That was the only office in the territory of the former

1 Municipality of Dubrovnik that was involve in town planning.

2 Q. And was your job title an architect within that office?

3 A. Yes. Yes. That was my job title.

4 Q. Did you become a lead architect within that office, or a leading

5 architect?

6 A. Yes. After a few years of working there, I later became the

7 leader of certain projects that were ongoing.

8 Q. I just want you to briefly tell the Trial Chamber what sort of

9 work you did in that office between 1981 and 1991, if you could just list

10 the sorts of things you did.

11 A. My activity primarily had to do with town planning. Town planning

12 consisted of a particular method that required familiarity with the

13 existing situation, and then, after having analysed the existing

14 situation, it was necessary to prepare documentation for conservation

15 projects. Since this is an area that has many cultural monuments, even

16 outside the nucleus of the Old Town. Town planning was based on this

17 analysis and an assessment as to what can be done, so basically, it

18 consisted of designing new parts of town. Actually, this was the primary

19 activity that we were involved in. In addition to that, we worked on

20 architectural projects, but that was not a major portion of our work.

21 Specifically then, I worked in Cavtat on the reconstruction of two

22 facilities. That was actually an adaptation of an old school building.

23 It was being turned into an apartment building. And the methodology that

24 was applied there was later applied in the reconstruction of other

25 monuments within Dubrovnik and within the Old Town itself.

1 Q. Did your work involve zoning issues?

2 A. If I understand your question properly, it meant, of course,

3 within our methodology that certain areas should be zoned. So this was

4 the so-called zoning plan. And it was specified what kind of construction

5 would take place within such zones.

6 Q. Did it involve the assessment of heritage values of property in

7 the Dubrovnik Municipality, and in particular, the UNESCO-protected Old

8 Town?

9 A. In that period, I did not work directly on planning within the Old

10 Town nucleus, but my colleagues did. So we exchanged information and

11 knowledge in terms of how to respond to certain challenges, like what was

12 supposed to be done within the Old Town nucleus itself. So I'm talking

13 about the Old Town of Dubrovnik within the city walls.

14 It was customary that for every plan, preliminary documentation

15 would be planned, the so-called conservation documentation, regardless of

16 whether it was within the Old Town nucleus or outside it, and then the

17 number of buildings would be specified as well as the area around the

18 buildings that should particularly be reviewed and how the entire matter

19 should be resolved in view of the exceptional historical importance of

20 these buildings.

21 Q. And as of December 1991, what experience did you have in building

22 inspection, measuring buildings, and urban spaces?

23 A. My experience in relation to what you mentioned in your question

24 is part of our elementary professional training. Since the area of

25 Dubrovnik and Croatia has an enormous number of cultural monuments, when

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 we had staff meetings at university, we had special courses related to

2 this particular subject matter; that is to say, dealing with heritage. So

3 we actually did master this method of identifying existing buildings and

4 adjacent areas which involved measurement and presenting what we saw

5 through architectural drawing and design. That was one part of the

6 exercise involved.

7 The other one was actually a method of diagnosis which was

8 supposed to identify the actual state that the building was in from the

9 point of view of construction and from the point of view of its

10 functionality. Then we would actually engage in prognosis which meant we

11 would decide what should be done within the building involved.

12 So this is the experience I got at university staff meetings. And

13 also, through my graduate studies, I received additional training and

14 preparation in terms of heritage and monuments as such. This was a

15 particular field of interest for me.

16 Q. What about on-the-job experience of the things you just outlined

17 when you were working for the Dubrovnik Municipality? Did you do those

18 sorts of things up until 1991?

19 A. I've already said that my basic activity was town planning. This

20 had to do with individual buildings that in a way evolved along parallel

21 lines with town planning itself.

22 Q. Have you ever lived in the Old Town of Dubrovnik?

23 A. Yes. That is my town. I'm actually a child of that town.

24 Q. How would you describe your familiarity with the Old Town and the

25 buildings and objects within it?

1 A. I am very familiar with it. I had accumulated all of that from a

2 material and spiritual point of view, and it actually formed my

3 personality, living in the Old Town. I was always very proud of that. I

4 am very proud of that. And I shall always be very proud of that.

5 Q. When did you move from the Old Town?

6 A. When I returned from Zagreb and when I started working. That was

7 in 1981. However, my mother stayed in the Old Town at the place where I

8 grew up and where I graduated from high school.

9 Q. And where is that place in the Old Town?

10 A. Buniceva Poljana. It is a square by the cathedral.

11 Q. Where were you living in the second half of 1991?

12 A. I was living in Lapad, Put Vojnovica 104.

13 Q. Was your mother still living in the Old Town in the second half of

14 1991?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. How often did you go to the Old Town and visit your mother in

17 September, October, November and the first half of December 1991? When I

18 say how often, how regularly would you go and visit her?

19 A. It wasn't that I went regularly since I spent most of my time in

20 Lapad where my office was and in a way it was in a special situation.

21 Because of the situation at the time, it was our official duty to stay in

22 the office and to take good care of the maps and everything else we had.

23 So I went once or twice a week. However, I spoke to her on the telephone

24 very often.

25 Q. When do you remember the shelling commencing in Dubrovnik?

1 A. I well remember that moment. I even remember the day and hour.

2 Towards the end of September at a meeting of the executive council of the

3 Municipality of Dubrovnik. I beg your pardon?

4 Q. I'm just more interested in the date rather than the full details

5 of your experience.

6 A. I think it was the end of September or the beginning of October,

7 roughly. I can't remember exactly. But I think that it was the last day

8 of September or the first day of October, approximately.

9 Q. And just very briefly, what was your experience of shelling the

10 Dubrovnik area in October 1991?

11 A. It was shocking. It was a shocking experience.

12 Q. How many times was the area shelled or how often?

13 A. As far as I can remember, because after all it has been 13 years,

14 I cannot recall each and every detail, at first I actually noticed and we

15 all noticed jets flying over Dubrovnik at a low altitude. And this was a

16 signal as far as we were concerned that there was something unpleasant in

17 store for the entire town. After that, bombardment followed. Not very

18 frequently and in all fairness outside the Old Town nucleus. It was not

19 very frequent, but then the intensity increased, as far as I can remember,

20 as time went by.

21 Q. The jets flying over Dubrovnik, could you identify which army they

22 belonged to?

23 A. Yes. They belonged to the Yugoslav People's Army.

24 Q. Was there any pattern to the bombardment as it's described in the

25 translation over October-November 1991?

1 A. I cannot say. I'm simply not in a position now to say anything in

2 terms of whether a pattern existed or not. Except for what I said before,

3 that is.

4 Q. What about frequency? Can you say anything about your impression

5 now of the frequency of it during that period?

6 A. As far as I can remember, I know that close to the reporting

7 centre that had been directly bombed, this is a facility near the

8 hospital. That was intensive bombing. So basically, my daughter who was

9 two years old at the time experienced a shock. She could not recover for

10 a long time from this sound of aircraft. And actually she felt insecure

11 whenever she would hear the sound of any kind of airplane after that.

12 Q. Your -- you just mentioned your daughter. Did your wife and

13 daughter remain in Dubrovnik during the second half of 1991? Or did they

14 leave?

15 A. After the dangers that increased every day in terms of living in

16 the town, refugees got organised and started leaving on ships, mainly

17 women and children. My wife and daughter thus left on a ship called

18 Marina from Gruz harbour towards Split where my wife's mother lives and

19 further on where my wife had more family.

20 Q. Did you continue working throughout the period of October and

21 November 1991?

22 A. We did not work. Our only concern was to take care of our

23 documentation.

24 Q. A little while back, you mentioned or were mentioning something I

25 think you called the executive council. Was that a body attached to the

1 Dubrovnik Municipality for which you were working?

2 A. I did not work on the executive council, but I worked in the

3 Institute for Territorial Planning and Environment Protection which was a

4 technical service of the municipality dealing with plans.

5 Q. Can you explain what the executive council was within the

6 Dubrovnik Municipality, what its function was?

7 A. In addition to the municipality, it was actually a local

8 government, the city government.

9 Q. What about executive board or executive council? Do you know what

10 its function was?

11 A. The function of the executive council in terms of my line of work

12 was to approve, endorse certain designs and forward them to the assembly

13 for approval.

14 Q. In October-November 1991, was that body, the executive council, a

15 civilian body attached to the municipality?

16 A. As far as I can remember, yes.

17 Q. What about December?

18 A. I no longer had any insight into things after that last meeting

19 which was the last occasion when I saw all the members of the executive

20 council.

21 Q. Now, was the Old Town shelled in October or November 1991?

22 A. Yes, there was shelling.

23 Q. What do you know about shelling of the Old Town in October 1991?

24 A. Since I was out of town, I had received information about

25 something unusual that nobody could have imagined, that the Old Town would

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 be shelled. At that moment, it had a shocking effect, not only on me but

2 on the entire population of Dubrovnik, as far as I was able to learn from

3 speaking to people.

4 Q. You told the Trial Chamber a while back that you would visit your

5 mother once or twice a week in the Old Town. Did you see damage to the

6 Old Town as a result of shelling on your visits to your mother in October

7 1991?

8 A. Yes, I did.

9 Q. Can you briefly describe the damage you saw to the Old Town from

10 shelling in October 1991.

11 A. Since we came down into Dubrovnik through the high street called

12 Stradun, that was the main street, we would then turn off into side

13 streets such as the Od Puca Street in order to avoid sniper shots.

14 Q. Which street is Od Puca, correct?

15 A. Od Puca Street. That street is parallel to the main street,

16 Placa, south of Placa, or rather Stradun.

17 Q. What about damage? What damage did you see in the Old Town from

18 shelling in October 1991 when you walked through Stradun and Od Puca?

19 A. I cannot remember the details, but I remember my overall

20 impression. We saw debris after the shelling on Stradun. We saw entire

21 chips that had fallen off roofs, tiles, pieces of roofing. I believe

22 particularly badly hit was Boskovic Street where you could see a lot of

23 so-called stone plastic bits of window frames, some lining from under the

24 roof, and pieces of facade.

25 Q. What about the Stradun itself? Did you see any damage to the

1 paving on the Stradun?

2 A. Yes, I saw that.

3 Q. Moving to November 1991, did you see any damage from shelling in

4 November 1991 to the Old Town when you went there to visit your mother?

5 A. I will have to be completely honest and tell you that I didn't

6 keep a diary recording what I saw and where I saw it. And too much time

7 has elapsed for me to remember now the details. I cannot tell you

8 anything about the intensity of the shelling on each particular day. But

9 my general impression is that before the 6th, there was much less damage

10 than after the 6th.

11 Q. Moving to the 6th of December, where were you on the 6th of

12 December?

13 A. On the 6th December, I was at home in Lapad. My address is Put

14 Ive Vojnovica 104.

15 Q. What time did the shelling start?

16 A. Early in the morning. I believe around 6.00 a.m.

17 Q. Where did you spend the day?

18 A. On that day, we were unable to leave our homes. We couldn't go as

19 usual to our office, which was 400 metres away from my apartment. We all

20 went down into shelters, all the residents of our apartment block. And we

21 waited to hear some information on the radio as to what was actually going

22 on.

23 Q. Was your -- was the area in which you were living shelled?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. How long did the shelling go on for?

1 A. It seemed to me that it went on incessantly from 6.00 a.m. Or

2 thereabouts until late afternoon, 5.00 or 6.00 p.m. It seemed to be

3 continuous with a very short break around noon, I believe. I'm not 100

4 per cent sure any more. But I believe that's how it was.

5 Q. Was your mother in the Old Town on the 6th of December?

6 A. Yes, she was.

7 Q. Did you contact her that day?

8 A. Yes, by phone.

9 Q. Did you go to the Old Town on the 6th of December?

10 A. On the 6th of December, in the evening, yes, late in the evening.

11 Q. Was it dark?

12 A. Yes. Pitch dark.

13 Q. Did you enter through the Pile gate?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And where did you go?

16 A. I went across Stradun.

17 Q. What did you see?

18 A. What I saw was an inferno.

19 Q. Do you mean you saw houses on fire or fire or burning?

20 A. I saw fire coming out of the houses right at the beginning of

21 Stradun. I believe one was the building of festivals and summer games,

22 and the adjacent buildings around it.

23 Q. What was the state of Stradun that night?

24 A. I saw it in a hellish image. Fire, smoke, debris, you could

25 hardly walk across Stradun. And there were people who were trying to put

1 out the fire. That was the main thing that struck you as you watched, and

2 a lot of commotion. That's all I remember.

3 Q. Apart from Stradun, did you go to any other places in the Old Town

4 on the evening of the 6th of December?

5 A. No, I did not. I only went up to the area in front of the

6 St. Blaise Church. I tried to reach the home of my mother, but from some

7 point onwards, I didn't feel safe any more. I couldn't know what would

8 fall on my head as I continued down the street.

9 Q. So did you return home?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Did you return to the Old Town on the 7th of December?

12 A. Yes. It was actually my first real visit when I was able to see

13 clearly what had happened, sometime around 11.00 a.m. I went on foot from

14 Lapad towards downtown. I saw a lot of people coming into the downtown

15 area, silent, mute with tears in their eyes. It's a sight that I will

16 never forget.

17 Q. Did you again enter the Old Town through the Pile gate on to

18 Stradun?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. You described seeing fire, smoke, and debris, and hardly being

21 able to walk across the Stradun when you went there the evening before.

22 What was the state of the Stradun, just the paving, the pavement area, as

23 you walked along Stradun on the morning of the 7th of December?

24 A. Fires didn't burn any more, but there was smoke coming out of

25 burnt-down houses at the very beginning of Stradun that I mentioned. I

1 saw the debris that had come out of the window and doors of houses into

2 the street. And I saw the hoses of the firefighters and the remnants of

3 certain parts of burnt-down buildings.

4 Q. What was the debris like on the footpaths or the pavement of

5 Stradun? I want you to describe the depth and what you saw on the -- on

6 the Stradun.

7 A. It was actually a pile of burnt debris, ground, stone, glass, and

8 burnt woodwork from houses, pieces of roofing and doors. A huge amount of

9 debris that made it impossible to walk through, although the first

10 interventions had already started late that evening and continued in the

11 morning, and some part of the way was cleared by the time I returned in

12 the morning.

13 Q. What about damage to the buildings on either side of the Stradun?

14 What did you see on the first day you went -- sorry, on the first day you

15 went back, the 7th of December? This is before you conducted your

16 inspections.

17 A. The situation was shocking. I did not pay attention to details.

18 Such was the impact of the overall picture of the destroyed town on me. I

19 was unable to concentrate on one building in particular. The overall

20 impression of the burnt town was such that I felt at that moment as if

21 everything had been destroyed.

22 Q. How did you what you saw on the morning of the 7th, that is, the

23 damage to buildings on the Stradun and the debris you saw in the streets,

24 compare to damage you had seen in the Old Town in October and November

25 from shelling?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 A. There's no comparison. First of all, there was no fire. There

2 was a huge difference in the quantity of destroyed material. That is the

3 main difference in terms of consequences of shelling.

4 Q. What about holes in the roofs of buildings? Did you see -- On

5 that first day, did you notice or were you looking for holes in roofs?

6 A. As far as I was able to see, standing in Stradun and walking up to

7 Knezev Dvor and my mother's home when I wanted to see what her house

8 looked like.

9 Q. Did you notice any roof damage, that is, holes in roofs, on the

10 first day you went there?

11 A. I cannot say with any certainty but --

12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object to this

13 question. This question was asked only a minute ago and answered. The

14 question on the damage to roofs on the first day. My learned friend, it's

15 page 16, lines 2 and 3.

16 MR. RE: I'm not sure it was answered. He answered about going to

17 his mother's to see what the house looked like. He didn't answer

18 specifically the question about holes in roofs.

19 JUDGE PARKER: I agree, Mr. Re, so perhaps you better tidy up.

20 The question was asked, Mr. Petrovic, but it was never answered.

21 MR. RE:

22 Q. Did you understand, Mr. Vukovic? The question was: Did you see

23 on that first day any holes in roofs?

24 A. Yes, I did.

25 Q. What did you see?

1 A. I saw damage to the cathedral on the dome because that's what you

2 could see standing in Stradun.

3 Q. A moment ago you mentioned the Knezev Dvor. Is that in English

4 the rector's palace? I'm sorry, that may sound like an odd question. It

5 is, in fact, the rector's palace. I'll move on.

6 As you came through the city gates, the Pile gates, what did you

7 notice about the walkways, the walls, and the gates in relation to the

8 shelling the night before, or the day before?

9 A. I have already said what I saw. There was a pile of debris,

10 pieces of material in a much larger quantity incomparable to what was

11 visible in the previous two months, October and November.

12 Q. Where had the debris that you saw coming into the Old Town, that

13 is, through the gates near the walkways, city walls, come from?

14 A. One could assume the debris had fallen from the roof, from the

15 interior of burnt buildings. That was it.

16 Q. What had been the practice in the Old Town in relation to the

17 clearing of debris from the streets after the previous shellings in

18 October and November?

19 A. What needed to be done was to clear walkways and roads to be able

20 to pass through by car and on foot, and people did that. People would

21 move the debris aside, clear it -- clear the way so that one can pass

22 through.

23 Q. And how soon after the shelling was the debris cleared from the

24 streets in October and November, to your knowledge?

25 A. I cannot remember exactly. But I believe the reaction was

1 instantaneous. And certain shops windows and even roofs were repaired

2 within a very short time.

3 Q. You've described going along the Stradun to the cathedral and

4 seeing damage to the dome of the cathedral on the 7th of December. Where

5 else in the Old Town did you go on that morning?

6 A. I said I went to Buniceva Poljana where my mother's house stands.

7 I saw there something that shocked me concerning the life of my mother.

8 She used to go to the ground floor of the building because that's where

9 she felt safe, as safe as she could be. But on that day, she didn't go to

10 the ground floor. She was on one of the intermediate floors. And then a

11 shell fell on Buniceva Poljana, and the shrapnel completely destroyed the

12 very solid door of that house. So if she had been on the ground floor,

13 she probably wouldn't be alive today.

14 Q. How do you know a shell fell on Buniceva Poljana? What did you

15 see which led you to conclude that?

16 A. I saw the traces of impact of the shell on the pavement and on the

17 facade of the building which I mentioned before.

18 Q. What was the damage you saw on the facade of that building?

19 A. I could see the traces of impact of what I suppose was shrapnel.

20 We called them dents in the facade or piketina [phoen] in our jargon.

21 Q. Was it a stone building?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. What was the trace of the impact of the shell on the pavement that

24 you saw?

25 A. We could see the place where the shell fell. It was a depression

1 in the pavement with sharp edges. And in a radiating pattern like when

2 you let a drop fall on a stain of ink, you could see the same pattern on

3 the pavement as a consequence of the impact of the shell.

4 Q. And this depression, what was the approximate diameter of it?

5 A. I cannot remember that any more. But it could have been 20 or 30

6 centimetres of the main depression itself. And if you count the circle

7 around it, it could have been bigger, 2 or 3 metres. And if you also look

8 at the traces on the walls, then you could make it bigger still.

9 Q. Did you go anywhere else in the Old Town apart from the area where

10 your mother lived and the Stradun on the 7th of December?

11 A. I went through the Od Puca Street on the way back. And then I

12 emerged on another street that I don't recall the name of any more. And

13 then I returned to Stradun. I believe it was Siroka Street, and then I

14 returned to Lapad.

15 Q. Describe the state of Od Puca and Siroka Street as you walked

16 through them that day?

17 A. Od Puca Street is narrower than Stradun. And my impressions were

18 even more intense. I found a lot of burnt buildings there. Smoke was

19 still coming out of them. And the worst sight was on the corner of Od

20 Puca Street and Siroka Street of which I have a very fond memory of the

21 times from before all that because a painter, Grbic, had a gallery on the

22 ground floor, and he had a wonderful sound studio behind the door. All

23 this was completely destroyed after the 6th, and I was very moved, or

24 rather hard-hit by it. So on my way, I passed through Stradun again and

25 saw again the sight of burnt houses and piles of debris on the pavement.

1 Q. Was there also debris on Od Puca and Siroka Streets?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Was that debris similar to the debris, the building debris, you

4 described as being on the Stradun?

5 A. It all seemed the same to me.

6 Q. Have you seen a video that Mr. Grbic took which is in evidence

7 here, P66, taken on the 7th of December 1991?

8 A. Well, I did see some of this footage, and I think that Mr. Grbic's

9 was among them.

10 Q. Mr. Grbic's was the earlier one. That's Exhibit P66. There was

11 also Mr. Jusic's video, and the one we call the JNA video, which is P145.

12 A. What is the question?

13 Q. Of the three videos, if you accept that Mr. Grbic's was P66 and

14 the earlier one and having viewed it, did that accord with your own

15 recollections of the state of the Old Town on the morning of the 7th of

16 December, 1991?

17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, objection,

18 Your Honour. First of all, I don't know how the witness can possibly know

19 which exhibit is which one in terms of their numbers, as admitted by this

20 Trial Chamber. That is one objection.

21 P66, secondly, is not Grbic's footage at all. Please look at this

22 particular exhibit before the Honourable Trial Chamber. This is not

23 Grbic's footage. It is footage that was obtained by Grbic and provided by

24 Grbic, but he did not author it in any way. So please, let us not confuse

25 the witness by saying that this is Grbic's footage because no such thing

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 exists. Thank you, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Re, the question of whether the witness can

3 identify the particular exhibit is a live one which you'll need to work

4 on.

5 MR. RE:

6 Q. Mr. Vukovic, in conferring with the Prosecution lawyers, did we

7 show you three videos?

8 A. Yes, I saw them.

9 Q. Were they described to you as, colloquially, "the Grbic video,"

10 that is, a video provided by Mr. Grbic. For the purposes of the record

11 P66. Secondly, a video provided by Mr. Jusic. For the purposes of the

12 record P78. And thirdly a video taken when the JNA were videoing the Old

13 Town on the 8th of December, for the record P145?

14 A. I am aware of the names of some of the video footage, and I cannot

15 say anything about who was the author of particular footage. But I know

16 that it is under these headings or names that the videos were shown to me.

17 MR. RE: I may deal with this a little later by showing the

18 witness a clip of P66 to clarify that.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Another possibility might be to have the witness

20 view something with the court officer during the break.

21 MR. RE:

22 Q. Mr. Vukovic, what did you do professionally in the days following

23 the 7th of December and your walk through the Old Town and seeing the

24 damage?

25 A. My professional activity, as I already said, until the 6th was

1 aimed at taking care of the material that we had in our office. And that

2 was my only activity.

3 After the shelling, since we were in a state of shock, I, myself,

4 called my colleagues at the Institute for the Protection of Cultural

5 Monuments, and quite simply I said that we were there, available, to help

6 them in the work that they had already started in terms of identifying the

7 damage that was caused by the shelling. With our colleague Matko Vetma

8 who is a personal friend and colleague, another architect, I spoke to a

9 few colleagues from the town planning office, and I promised them that I

10 would come to their office and help have this identified as quickly as

11 possible, in order to be able to organise help in redressing the damage

12 and repairing it. So at that point in time, that is what I was focussed

13 on.

14 Q. Had the work in assessing or identifying the damage started before

15 the 6th of December shelling?

16 A. Yes. Information was compiled about the damage sustained. At

17 that moment, when speaking to my colleagues, I found out about this. I

18 did not have any insight into the actual documentation. It is only later

19 that I found out that they had compiled some papers where they actually

20 identified that damage as well. This was shown on the map, and the actual

21 places were identified by numbers. And also, the degree of damage was

22 shown.

23 Q. Who was doing this?

24 A. This was done by colleagues from the institute for the protection

25 of cultural monuments. This was done strictly within their line of work.

1 Q. And did it relate to the damage in October and November to the Old

2 Town?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. What about UNESCO? Was UNESCO involved in that earlier damage

5 report in October and November?

6 A. I think the answer is yes. It is only later when I came to the

7 institute that I met two gentlemen, Mr. Bruno Karneze and Colin Kaiser.

8 They were representing UNESCO in Dubrovnik. And as far as I knew then,

9 they had already worked together with our colleagues from the institute

10 for the protection of cultural monuments. They worked on the

11 identification of actual damage.

12 Q. Are you saying you first met Mr. Karneze and Mr. Kaiser after the

13 6th of December in the institute office?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. How did the planning to map the damage of the Old Town of

16 Dubrovnik proceed?

17 A. I have to say that unfortunately cataclysm is an integral part of

18 life in Dubrovnik. Earthquakes compelled us to work out a methodology of

19 our own. First of all, in order to protect cultural heritage, and

20 secondly, a methodology to identify the state of the monuments themselves.

21 I am not a conservation expert, but through my activity I did learn that

22 after the earthquake of 1979, when Dubrovnik was affected by a bad

23 earthquake, a particular methodology had been evolved in order to identify

24 damage as soon as possible. And zoning was carried out in this respect.

25 That is to say, various sectors within the nucleus of the Old Town. So

1 that was one matter.

2 Another matter was identifying the degree of damage sustained by

3 particular buildings or sections. And there were different categories

4 involved depending on the degree and type of damage sustained. This was

5 used in the first moment in order to establish a pattern which then made

6 it possible to identify what the situation was within the Old Town

7 nucleus. This actually has to do with your question related to planning.

8 And if you wish, this is direct experience I had while working on

9 town planning myself.

10 Q. Who were the people who devised the plan to map the damage of the

11 Old Town from the shelling of the 6th of December?

12 A. I've already said that my colleagues at the Institute for the

13 Protection of Cultural Monuments had this methodology. It had been

14 evolved already in 1979 due to the damage sustained then, and it was

15 worked on further. It was supplemented by ways of establishing damage

16 caused by shelling. So it is the result of a synthesis of the previous

17 methodology and the new situation caused by the shelling itself.

18 As for the persons involved, this is the institution for the

19 protection of cultural monuments. According to the information I had, and

20 I did not directly take part in this, the gentlemen from UNESCO

21 participated in this effort as well.

22 Q. You mentioned the division of Dubrovnik into zones for mapping

23 following the earthquake in 1979. How many zones was the Old Town divided

24 into?

25 A. I don't know exactly how many zones, but I think it's around 17 or

1 something like that, or around 20. Between 15 or 20 approximately.

2 Q. You also mentioned categories of damage. Were they the four

3 categories of damage which are referred to in the institute report, which

4 is P51/ID?

5 A. Yes, yes, these are four basic categories in view of the degree of

6 damage sustained by an individual building.

7 Q. Do you know who devised those four categories?

8 A. I don't know exactly. But having talked to my colleagues from the

9 Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments, the assumption is that

10 it was the result of a team effort. I cannot tell you who all the

11 participants were.

12 Q. And how did you physically go about inspecting the damage to the

13 buildings and objects in Dubrovnik?

14 A. Before I answer this question, I have to say that when we came to

15 the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments, we were given some

16 preliminary information that our colleagues had had before our arrival,

17 before we from the town planning office arrived and people from

18 architectural bureaus and other people who took part. So we received this

19 preliminary information about the effects caused by individual projectiles

20 when impacting. I remember well that we worked in a room that was like an

21 anteroom, leading into the institute itself, and there were maps of the

22 entire municipality on the wall. There were maps of the Old Town nucleus

23 as well, and within all of that there was a board where the type of

24 projectiles, the types of projectiles were depicted. And the effects of

25 these projectiles were shown.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 So this was this preliminary information that we did not hear

2 about directly, but the people from the institute said that they received

3 this information from the civil defence. And we talked to our colleagues

4 from the institute about this, and this is something that prepared us for

5 the identification that we were involved in later. So how do we go about

6 doing this? On the basis of this preliminary information --

7 Q. I'll just ask you to pause. I'll go back to what you just

8 mentioned. What was the purpose of your being asked to identify from that

9 board the projectiles and the damage that they caused?

10 A. At that moment, this was not of decisive importance in terms of

11 the assessment that we were supposed to carry out. It just meant whether

12 by the nature of the effect it caused it led to the kind of damage that

13 required total restoration of a building. For example, if a building had

14 burned down, then it had to be reconstructed totally. On the other hand,

15 we had some projectiles that affected the surface only, damaging the walls

16 or roof only. And there was the so-called indirect effect from shrapnel

17 when adjacent buildings were hit and others were indirectly affected. So

18 that was the point of this identification.

19 Q. What was the information you were given about the types of

20 projectiles that you might find or might have caused damage to buildings

21 and objects in the Old Town?

22 A. Well, we were made aware of three or four types of projectiles, I

23 believe, that were used in the area, at least that's the information we

24 received. So we were talking about mortar shells, 120 millimetres, then

25 mortar shells of 80 or 82 millimetres, I believe. Then there were the

1 so-called Maljutkas. These were guided missiles. And I think there were

2 tank shells or cannon shells. I cannot remember exactly now, but it was

3 something along those lines more or less.

4 Q. What experience had you had, if any, in ballistics' identification

5 before seeing this information on the board in the institute office?

6 A. Before that, I didn't have any such experience.

7 Q. You say that based upon the information which was on that board

8 that you would be able to competently identify the cause of, or the type

9 of projectile which may have hit a building?

10 A. Well, to a large extent, yes. Not 100 per cent, but as much as we

11 needed at that point in time. As I said, the point of our identification

12 was to ascertain the actual damage sustained. It wasn't to be used as any

13 kind of evidence or whatever. We wanted to embark on the restoration and

14 reconstruction of buildings as soon as possible. So that was relevant for

15 the problems we were facing at the time.

16 As for the rest, we could not imagine that any such thing would

17 come out of it, and we did not even receive any instructions as to how we

18 should proceed.

19 Q. Going back to what you did, what did you do based upon that

20 preliminary information? How were you divided and what did you do?

21 A. Well, the organisation of the people who were engaged in this

22 effort involved the following: We were divided into teams of two or

23 three, and everybody got a particular block. This had to do with the

24 zoning that we've already discussed. So we simply went out into the area

25 rather systematically, from one house to the other, from one door to the

1 other, from one floor to the other. We looked at it all systematically,

2 and it consisted of first identifying the problem visually, and then the

3 second level was compiling information, interviewing persons who were

4 either in the building itself or near the building. And of course, the

5 preliminary information that we had in terms of the sources, that is to

6 say, the type of impact and so on. So that was the approach we had in

7 this identification effort.

8 Q. What was the composition of the teams? How were they divided up?

9 A. Well, you see, we did not have much leeway. We did not have a lot

10 of people to work with. We were all in a state of shock, and we wanted to

11 identify the damage as soon as possible. So the teams mainly consisted of

12 people who were either architectural technicians or who were architects,

13 so there would be one or two or three of them, sometimes even four

14 persons. At any rate, the teams were small. And they had some

15 foreknowledge, so to speak, but it was perhaps at a lower professional

16 level, but quite sufficient for this type of identification that we were

17 after.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Is that a convenient time, do you think, Mr. Re?

19 MR. RE: Yes, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE PARKER: What we'll do now is have the first morning break

21 now. We've gone for an hour and a half. And we'll continue with the

22 evidence after the break.

23 --- Recess taken at 10.27 a.m.

24 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Re.

1 MR. RE:

2 Q. Before the break, Mr. Vukovic, you were telling the Trial Chamber

3 about the teams of people who were architectural technicians or

4 architects, two or three or four, who were going around inspecting the

5 city, the Old Town, block by block. Who was on your team?

6 A. I didn't have a permanent team so that Mr. Vetma inspected some

7 buildings, then my colleague Mrs. Davorka Kunic, and another colleague,

8 Mrs. Peko, plus Mrs. Karaman. That is the team of people with whom I went

9 out to carry out inspections and evaluations.

10 Q. And Mrs. Peko, you referred to, that's Mrs. Lucijana Peko. Is

11 that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And you're saying you did your inspections in a combination of

14 those various people?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. What sort of map were -- was the institute using of the Old Town?

17 What was on the map?

18 A. We used the as-built plan of the entire town with our coded

19 blocks, sections indicated, and specific streets inside sections, and

20 that's the plan we used when carrying out inspections. Each team was

21 assigned one section and the plan for that section.

22 Q. I'm going to show you a bundle of documents which contain 18

23 separate maps and an overview.

24 MR. RE: Could the witness please be shown this document.

25 For the information of the Trial Chamber, these are extracts from

1 P51/ID which are all the maps relating to each zone but together in one

2 bundle.

3 Q. Mr. Vukovic, you see on the first page, it's an overview map. Is

4 that an overview map of Dubrovnik, of the Old Town?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And this is divided into 17 separate zones?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And are the documents following each -- a larger map of each of

9 the 17 zones marked on the front page?

10 A. I suppose so.

11 Q. With the addition on the second page of one with a Z, a large

12 handwritten Z on it, which is my marking. Does the second page refer

13 to -- the second page relate to the city walls and walkways?

14 A. Yes, it does.

15 Q. And was it -- were these the documents that you used, that the

16 institute and you used in dividing the work between teams and assigning

17 sectors or zones for each team to inspect?

18 A. Yes.

19 MR. RE: May these be received into evidence as one bundle.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.

21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first of all, the

22 second page of this document is, indeed, a graphic depiction of the entire

23 Old Town, but this page does not reflect what my learned friend indicated.

24 It reflects alleged hits on the walls of the Old Town. Therefore, my

25 learned friend did not present the contents of this second page in a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 proper way. And we do not see on what basis it can be tendered. The

2 other pages contain maps, however, and we do not object that they be

3 offered.

4 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous interpretation continues]... to be

5 Exhibit P68 already.

6 MR. RE: In fact, it is. I put it in only so that the

7 Trial Chamber can see that it relates only to the walkways. It is not

8 tendered at the moment on the basis that that's where the hits actually

9 were, but only on the basis that that was the map that the institute was

10 using.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Were you purporting to tender the whole bundle or

12 simply the first two pages?

13 MR. RE: The whole bundle.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Well, are you going to tell us more about what's in

15 the bundle through the witness?

16 MR. RE: I can.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Is it that they're tendered merely as a more

18 detailed plan of each section that's set out on the first page?

19 MR. RE: Yes, that's correct.

20 JUDGE PARKER: That's all you're doing.

21 MR. RE: It's only for convenience as to how the city was divided

22 up, yes.

23 JUDGE PARKER: All right. All right.

24 MR. RE: There's no damage depicted on or purported to be depicted

25 on any of those maps bar the first one which is only put there to show --

1 JUDGE PARKER: Not the first one. The second.

2 MR. RE: Sorry, the second one. I stand corrected.

3 JUDGE PARKER: And that is already an exhibit through Dr. Kaiser.

4 MR. RE: Correct.

5 JUDGE PARKER: In those circumstances, I think the whole bundle

6 should be received as an exhibit.

7 THE REGISTRAR: This exhibit is P172.

8 MR. RE:

9 Q. What instructions were given, Mr. Vukovic, to the teams as to how

10 to assess the damage, apart from what you described about -- about

11 describing projectiles?

12 A. I already said in the introductory part that our methodology of

13 evaluation was based on identifying damage to construction; that is to

14 say, the degree of damage to construction after impact of projectiles.

15 That was the first stage of identification. We had to establish whether

16 the building was completely destroyed by the hit. In the second stage, we

17 had to evaluate whether the walls and roof were damaged. That was the

18 second category. The third category was one of the two, either the roof

19 or the walls. And the fourth category were buildings that were indirectly

20 damaged by shrapnel from projectiles that hit the adjacent building. This

21 was followed by an evaluation of the degree of damage.

22 Apart from that, we had to establish the source of damage, to find

23 out what damaged the building.

24 Q. How were the teams instructed to record their observations?

25 A. We had a form to fill in which contained the code of the building

1 that was to be observed. And based on that form, we would fill in the

2 time of inspection. Second, the name of the owner, if that was possible

3 to identify, if the owner was present. The third item was description.

4 We filled that in based on our observations and comments from neighbours

5 or tenants. We wrote in hand using these two main sources of information.

6 We did that on so-called field drawings. And the markings would be then

7 drawn into our own plan.

8 Q. You mentioned the code of the building. What are you referring to

9 when you say "code"?

10 A. I did not understand the question. Could you clarify it.

11 Q. Of course. Your answer was "we had a form to fill in which

12 contained the code of the building that was to be observed." What did you

13 mean when you said "code"?

14 A. Code may be a pretentious term. It was a mark of that particular

15 building within a block of buildings. That facilitated our work in

16 identifying the building and systematising the data once we were back in

17 our office.

18 Q. Do you mean by that that if you located damage on a building in,

19 say, zone 8, you gave it a number, 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on? So it became

20 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, 8-4?

21 A. Yes. Blocks were marked by Roman numbers. And inside blocks,

22 there was a mark in Arabic numbers.

23 Q. Did these marks in Arabic numbers, that's 1, 2, 3, 4, et cetera,

24 bear any relationship to the street number or the cadastre number?

25 A. No, none.

1 Q. Were they chosen purely for the purposes of the report noting the

2 damage to the Old Town?

3 A. I think this material was used only for this report, but I don't

4 know whether it was used before or after for any other purpose.

5 Q. Who gave the -- who was responsible for allocating numbers, like

6 Roman numeral VIII-1, 2, 3, 4, and so on, for each block?

7 A. I couldn't tell you that with any certainty. But I suppose that

8 this system was established before, after the 1979 earthquake. Already at

9 that time, we had as-built plans that used these indications. I don't

10 know how long ago it dates back to, but in any case I had this system,

11 these plans, when I was drawing up my report.

12 Q. That's the system. But who was responsible at the end of the day

13 for allocating the individual damage numbers within a block? That is, 1,

14 2, 3, 4 sequentially. Who did that once the questionnaire was brought

15 back?

16 A. If I understood your question correctly, you want me to tell you

17 who was responsible for assigning a particular block of buildings to a

18 particular team?

19 Q. No. Who was responsible for putting the numbers relating to the

20 damage on a building that had been assessed as damaged?

21 A. It was our colleagues from the Institute for the Protection and

22 Conservation of Cultural Monuments.

23 Q. Were buildings in which no damage was assessed, were they given

24 numbers or were they left blank?

25 A. No. All the buildings were marked, and I suppose this system was

1 used -- had been used since the time of the earthquake in 1979.

2 Q. Was the same form given to all the teams that went to all of the

3 zones?

4 A. I cannot recall exactly any more, but I believe every team

5 certainly got an excerpt from the hall reflecting the part of town or the

6 blocks that were assigned to them.

7 Q. When did you start your physical inspections of buildings in the

8 Old Town?

9 A. Sometime between the 10th and the 12th, or maybe 13th. I cannot

10 recall precisely any more. I believe it must be indicated somewhere in

11 these documents, but it was immediately after the shelling.

12 Q. What did you take with you in your inspections?

13 A. I had a notepad and a file with writing paper and a plan of the

14 block of buildings we were supposed to inspect marked with numbers. We

15 also had about a dozen of these forms to fill in.

16 Q. Which zones were you allocated?

17 A. If I remember well, I was assigned zone 8, or rather a part of it;

18 then zone 9. In fact, when I say "zone," I mean block. 9, 10, and 11, if

19 memory serves me well.

20 Q. You've already mentioned some of the details of how you carried

21 out your inspections. Going to the blocks which you inspected, did you go

22 to every building and structure within that zone?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Why did you go to every building or structure?

25 A. Because when we looked from very narrow streets, we could not

1 ascertain whether there was any damage or not. The only way to establish

2 whether a building was hit was to go into it and inspect it from bottom to

3 top. In that way, we had sufficiently good control over the whole area of

4 the building and could establish what actually happened.

5 Q. How thorough were your inspections of each of the buildings you

6 went into?

7 A. You have to take into account that our inspection was a

8 preliminary one. Within a relatively short time, we had to make complete

9 assessments covering all the buildings that were damaged, and the very

10 term "preliminary" means that more detailed evaluations were to follow.

11 To establish the degree of damage and those later evaluations, more

12 complete ones, would eventually form the basis for restoration works.

13 Therefore, our observations were only preliminary, of informative nature,

14 and sufficient for that level of evaluation.

15 Q. What was the average length of time you spent examining each

16 building or structure?

17 A. From the document that we produced, you can see that, because we

18 also noted the time spent in each building. It would be 20 to 30 minutes.

19 Q. And what sort of impression could you gain in 20 to 30 minutes in

20 the building?

21 A. It was enough to identify what we were supposed to identify at

22 that moment; that is, the degree of damage and the source of damage.

23 Q. Were you able to gain access to every building within the blocks

24 or zones that you inspected? Sorry, that you were allocated.

25 A. Of course. We entered all the buildings that were possible to

1 enter. However, there were buildings that were completely burnt down

2 where you couldn't get any further from the entrance or the ground floor,

3 that were completely destroyed. And in all buildings that were not

4 destroyed, we inspected literally every nook and cranny.

5 Q. Were there any safety issues relating to human habitation or

6 occupation of the structures you examined?

7 A. I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand this question. Do you mean

8 the safety of us who did the question or safety in terms of the fitness of

9 that building for residential purposes?

10 Q. I was mainly directing it at the occupation. But could you also

11 please answer your own personal safety in terms of -- in your inspection

12 of these buildings.

13 A. First of all, I have to say that there was a degree of danger

14 involved in our work because we didn't know whether the shelling would

15 start again or not. However, we went into it enthusiastically following

16 our main objective, to assess the damage. Renewed shelling was always a

17 possibility, but fortunately it didn't happen.

18 Second, in our notes, we indicated all buildings which continued

19 to be fit for occupation, wherever it was possible to establish. We would

20 also write that down certainly.

21 Q. Was there a practice in relation to the allocation of blocks or

22 zones every day?

23 A. For the most part, we had the task to cover a certain block.

24 Every morning, we would report to our head office, which was in the

25 building of the Institute for the Protection of Monuments. It was a big

1 room with drawing boards and boards on the walls. We would have a meeting

2 there before going out into the field. We would make a plan, a practical

3 plan, how we would go about it. And then we would go to work.

4 After the inspection was completed, we would go back to the office

5 to systematise the results of the inspection and prepare a summary of our

6 findings for each block.

7 Q. Was that on the handwritten annotations you made on the form that

8 every team had?

9 A. Yes, yes. We did everything in hand.

10 Q. Do you remember whether Mr. Kaiser -- sorry, Dr. Kaiser and

11 Mr. Karneze participated in these morning briefings or meetings before

12 people went out to inspect the buildings?

13 A. I used to see them. They were with us occasionally. I personally

14 talked to Mr. Karneze and Mr. Colin Kaiser. And we established a rather

15 close contact based on our common professional interest. As far as I can

16 recollect, they were not there every day, at least not every time when I

17 attended.

18 Q. The forms that you were filling in had an entry on them for

19 filling in the date of the damage.

20 A. Yes. The date and time when we arrived would be marked.

21 Q. How or what did you do to assess, what inquiries or what did you

22 do to assess when the building was damaged when you inspected buildings?

23 A. I must tell you that every resident knew very well what happened

24 to his own house and in the immediate vicinity. So our evaluations of

25 impacts were based on information provided by the tenants or neighbours

1 and from what we could see with our own eyes, burnt beams, woodwork,

2 pieces of stone that had fallen off as a result of impacts, et cetera.

3 Every shell that fell on Dubrovnik first hit the hearts of our people

4 before exploding, so they knew very well what exactly was done and how.

5 Q. Did you fill in the -- or did you put on each form relating to

6 each building you inspected a date under the heading "date of incident";

7 that is, the date of the impact or damage?

8 A. You mean the evaluated, the assessed date of impact?

9 Q. On each of the forms, there's a date and hour of inspection.

10 That's the time when you inspected the building. Underneath that, it says

11 "date of incident." On each of the buildings you inspected, did you fill

12 in a date for when you believed the building was damaged?

13 A. I think for the most part, yes. As far as most buildings are

14 concerned. I told you already that our inspection was preliminary. We

15 were supposed to gather all available information. And at that moment, it

16 didn't matter to us so much whether it was damaged on the 6th or before;

17 what mattered was to establish the degree of damage.

18 Q. You said a moment ago your evaluation was based upon what people

19 were -- was partly based upon what people were telling you. Were there

20 instances where you were told that the building had been damaged both on

21 December the 6th and either in October or November 1991?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. How was the information you brought back on the forms every day

24 collated into the final or the preliminary report, which is a typed

25 document?

1 A. I was not there in the final stage of the elaboration of the

2 document in terms of the actual typing and the final version. This was

3 done by my colleagues at the Institute for the Protection of Cultural

4 Monuments. But the text was worked on and the visual images were, too, so

5 I did not have much insight into the completion of this documentation, if

6 I can put it that way.

7 Q. Have you reviewed the typed version of the forms which you

8 submitted after inspecting buildings in December 1991? That is, have you

9 looked at the -- how your work appears in the preliminary report as

10 published?

11 A. Yes. I did look at that. But not with the intention of checking

12 out to see whether somebody had changed the findings in any way. I was

13 just interested in what the material actually looked like. This was the

14 final version when we could see the integral material and when we could

15 familiarise ourselves with what had been written, and then we could

16 intervene in terms of whether any mistakes had been made or not. As far

17 as I can remember, I had no objections whatsoever in respect of my own

18 part that I looked at and that had been processed.

19 Q. As far as you are concerned, are you satisfied that what is in the

20 report under your name, that is, the buildings under your name that you

21 inspected, accurately reflects your observations that you recorded?

22 A. Yes. I mean, there was no great possibility of deviation. It

23 could be established immediately whether this was actually the material I

24 had work on. I was indeed very pleased with the way in which this had

25 been done in terms of the final presentation, the graphic part, the text,

1 and the material as a whole.

2 Q. You also referred to a graphic part. Are you referring to

3 diagrams, maps, photographs?

4 A. I mean maps first and foremost. So that is a graphic depiction of

5 the blocks where we exactly registered a certain type of damage. The

6 impact that caused the damage, and I think the third map showed the

7 category of damage sustained. Also, there were photographs which in a way

8 provided supplementary documentation for the situation as it was.

9 Q. Who took the photographs which accompany the text of the buildings

10 you examined?

11 A. It was actually done by Mr. Milenko Mojas, an employee of the

12 Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments. He's a professional

13 photographer actually, and he has had many years of experience with this

14 kind of work, together with a colleague of his who is not from the

15 institute but who is a journalist, rather, a photographer, a journalist.

16 He actually took these photographs on the basis of the information that we

17 compiled for a particular block, but then he also relied on his own

18 concept of photography. For some important buildings he went and he took

19 more photographs and completed the documentation in this way. I would

20 like to point out that there were only two men, or rather there was only

21 one man. And physically, it was not possible for him to be everywhere no

22 matter how hard he tried to do his best. But anyway, we could put these

23 photographs into our completed report.

24 Q. Did Mr. Mojas ever accompany you when you were doing your

25 inspections?

1 A. I cannot remember that.

2 Q. Do you recall seeing him in the Old Town taking photographs at the

3 time when you were doing your inspections?

4 A. Yes, I saw him several times. I also saw him at the Institute for

5 the Protection of Cultural Monuments, and that is where we discussed how

6 what we had inspected should be presented.

7 Q. Did that include adding his photographs to the various buildings

8 inspected and detailed in the report? When I say "adding," I mean

9 selecting photographs to include in the report.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. I'm going to show you a compilation of the buildings which bear

12 your name within the report, the preliminary report, which is P51/ID.

13 MR. RE: Could the witness please be shown a copy of the

14 compilation and an index to it.

15 Q. Before we go into the details of the extract from the larger

16 report, I'll turn to something else. Did you bring with you to The Hague,

17 Mr. Vukovic, a large overhead photograph of the Old Town of Dubrovnik?

18 A. I did. I would ask you kindly, if possible, to show it to the

19 Honourable Trial Chamber. It was taken in May 2001. It's an aerial image

20 of the town of Dubrovnik.

21 Q. Who took the photograph or where did you get the photograph from?

22 A. That photograph was borrowed from the Institute for

23 Reconstruction. So that is an institution that works on operational

24 reconstruction of the town established as far back as 1979 after the

25 earthquake. So they're in charge of reconstructing and repairing the town

1 after the shelling, too. Geofoto is the organisation that actually took

2 the photograph. They are a professional organisation that is engaged in

3 this line of work.

4 Q. Does it show an aerial view of the Old Town as reconstructed by

5 May 2001?

6 A. Yes, that is the situation in the month of May when everything had

7 been taken care of in a way, so this is a good opportunity for you to see

8 what it was like at the time and what was actually the object of the

9 shelling.

10 Q. And does this photograph show an overview of all the locations, an

11 aerial overview of all the locations that you inspected in December 1991?

12 A. Yes, yes. It is an overview of the entire town, including the

13 locations that I inspected.

14 Q. Of course, in their repaired state almost ten years later?

15 A. [No Interpretation]

16 Q. I think you said yes, Mr. Vukovic, but no answer is recorded.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 A. The answer is yes.

20 MR. RE: Could the photograph please be distributed.

21 Q. Mr. Vukovic, I think you have the original photograph there from

22 which we've made copies.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Could you just put that on the ELMO there, the overhead projector.

25 I don't want you to mark your photograph there, that's your

1 original. I just want you to point out to the Trial Chamber several items

2 with the pointer. The Trial Chamber will already know this. But will you

3 just run the pointer along the Stradun.

4 A. This is Pile. The Onofrije fountain, then Stradun, Sponza, the

5 church of St. Blaise, the street Pod Dvorom, the rector's palace, the

6 cathedral.

7 Q. Could you point just to the old harbour.

8 A. [Indicates]

9 Q. You're indicating the area underneath the Pile, near St. John's

10 fortress?

11 A. No, this is the area near Ploca. Pile is the western area.

12 Q. What I want you to do is just with your pointer show the Trial

13 Chamber the zones or blocks in which you inspected buildings.

14 A. Block 8, it was this block here. It went up to here. Within this

15 block, I had specifically one building only that I had to inspect. I

16 carried out this inspection in January. That's the only building that was

17 dealt with in 1992 actually. So that was block number 8.

18 Then block --

19 Q. Zlatariceva Street. This is just a visual thing for the Trial

20 Chamber. We actually have each of the buildings marked on to a

21 computer-generated map. That's block 8 which is on the left-hand side

22 underneath Stradun --

23 A. Yes, it is Zlatariceva Street, yes. It is the street between

24 Stradun and Od Puca. It's the building here.

25 Q. Which was the next zone in which you inspected buildings?

1 A. I think -- now, I'd have to try to remember. This is block number

2 9.

3 Q. The next one marked on the index of buildings is block number 9.

4 A. Yes. Yes. That is the block that goes from Nikola Bozidariceva

5 Street, and along the street Od Puca it gets to the rector's palace, and

6 that is that block. The church of St. Blaise was there, too, and also the

7 Orthodox church.

8 Q. And that's bounded on the north by the Stradun?

9 A. That's right. That's Stradun, yes.

10 Q. You also inspected buildings in block 10. Can you just point that

11 out to the Trial Chamber, too, please. I'm sorry, block 11.

12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters cannot hear the witness.

13 MR. RE:

14 Q. Mr. Vukovic, I mean block 10. I corrected myself, I said block

15 11. Can you just speak up a little bit for the -- or move forward to the

16 microphone for the interpreters.

17 A. Block number 10 is this block here from Od Puca Street going along

18 Miha Pracata Street, all the way to Strossmayerova Street, and then going

19 further down to the cathedral and that is that block as far as I can see.

20 Yes. This is the street Od Puca. So this is block number 10, yes.

21 Q. What about block 11. You also inspected buildings in block 11.

22 A. Yes. That is this block from the street of Miha Pracata,

23 Strossmayerova, towards Siroka Street, and going down to Od Puca Street.

24 So that's this block. Let us repeat. This is block number 8. This is

25 block 9. This is block 10. And this is block 11.

1 Q. Can you just give us the street boundaries for block 11, the full

2 boundaries.

3 A. Block 11, it's this one here. I think that this is Miha Pracata

4 Street, and then Od Puca.

5 Q. That's on the east. On the west is Od Puca. Sorry, the north.

6 A. No, on north, that's where Od Puca is.

7 Q. On the west?

8 A. On the west, partly Siroka Street, and this street, I don't know

9 its name exactly.

10 Q. And on the south?

11 A. I think it's Od Domina. And up here is Strossmayerova, that's the

12 street where the music school is. That's what we used to refer to it.

13 Q. The southern boundary.

14 A. Yes, that's the boundary Strossmayerova.

15 Q. Looking at this map, or this photograph taken three years ago, I

16 want you to look at the roofs of the buildings in the Old Town. You can

17 see a mixture of orange buildings -- sorry, orange roofs, lighter coloured

18 sort of fawn or a light-beige coloured roofs, and roofs which seem to be

19 dappled; in effect, a mixture of the two. What were the roofs like before

20 the shelling in October, November, December 1991?

21 A. I think that the colour of the roofs does not reflect the age of

22 the roofs or the date when the reconstruction was carried out because the

23 reconstruction had started in part already after the earthquake, as I

24 said. So some buildings were reconstructed already then. I'm referring

25 to the rector's palace primarily. Then the music school that I had worked

1 on in the aforementioned project. Then this is the elementary school.

2 And this is Klarisa or the Jadrun restaurant. This is the area that had

3 been reconstructed earlier. I mean, I'm telling you all of this from

4 memory. So then the Museum Rupe. That is actually what the situation

5 was. The effect of the roofs was not uniform on purpose, so there's this

6 mix of colours. But it does not mean that if the roof is red, for

7 instance, and if another roof is yellow that there has to be a difference

8 in terms of age. This can just be an illustration of roofs, if I can put

9 it that way, that are depicted in their entirety in May 2001; that is to

10 say, after the shelling.

11 Specifically, this building is one that was recently intervened

12 on --

13 Q. If I can just stop you there --

14 A. -- Collegium Ragusinum, the church of St. Ignatia, this is the

15 so-called complex of Jesus. This is a big building with a specially

16 reconstructed dome which is of a different colour. It's not red.

17 Q. Are you able to tell from looking at this aerial photograph if

18 there are any what we might style original roofs; that is, those that

19 survived both the 1979 earthquake and the war?

20 A. It is hard for me to say now. Survived. I cannot say.

21 Q. Based on your inspections and your knowledge of the damage to the

22 Old Town in October, November, and December 1991, can you point out new

23 roofs or roofs that were repaired or replaced after the shelling in

24 December 1991?

25 A. Well, I do not have a total overview. I can only tell you on the

1 basis of my own knowledge and - how can I put this - the level of

2 information that I've obtained because professionally I was no longer

3 engaged in this line of work. So let us say that this is the level of my

4 personal knowledge for the sake of curiosity, if I can put it that way.

5 So I can say that these are the buildings that had been set on fire,

6 specifically the palace in the street Od Puca. Then this palace near the

7 church of St. Joseph on one side, and on the other side. Then it is this

8 building here, the so-called Grbic house, where the already mentioned

9 gentleman, Mr. Grbic, lived. So that would be that area.

10 Then the Museum Rupe. There were partial interventions there,

11 too, depending on the degree of damage. So actually, what you asked

12 concerning the repairs done after the war, it does not mean that the

13 entire building would have been repaired. This is Museum Rupe, for

14 instance. The situation is similar as regards the Dominican cloister, the

15 Franciscan cloister, then the festival building, that is the Dubrovnik

16 summer festival, very close to the Franciscan cloister.

17 Then the ground-floor building that had burned down completely,

18 this is actually the building in the street Od Polaca. I am telling you

19 about the buildings that I am sure of, 100 per cent, that were repaired

20 afterwards. Of course, the buildings along Stradun on both sides, so it

21 is this row, this row. That would be it for the time being in response to

22 your question.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 MR. RE: May that be received into evidence as an aide memoire for

25 the Trial Chamber, an aerial photograph of Dubrovnik in 2001. What I

1 would anticipate doing is at a later stage getting the witness to mark on

2 another copy 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and so on, a legend.

3 JUDGE PARKER: The exhibit will be received.

4 THE REGISTRAR: The exhibit is P173.

5 MR. RE:

6 Q. While we're on the topic of roofs, Mr. Vukovic, what are the tiles

7 made of and where are they obtained from?

8 A. Roofs have their wooden construction which we call roofing. It's

9 the load-bearing structure with beams. The interval between them is 70

10 centimetres approximately. On top of that comes the so-called attic

11 construction, mezzo murals or little beams with intervals of 80

12 centimetres. They carry the tiles directly. So we can say that it is a

13 wooden construction traditionally covered by traditional roofing with

14 modern adjustments sometimes. Since those are mostly residential

15 buildings, they have hydro and thermal insulation.

16 Q. What about the tiles? What material are the tiles made from and

17 where is it sourced and where is it made, where are they made?

18 A. The tiles are made of baked clay, a product which was obtained

19 after the war from several sources. If I remember well, some were donated

20 by the Republic of France. And later on, tiles began to be manufactured

21 in a local factory, Tondach. It is actually an Austrian firm based in

22 Croatia, with a branch in Croatia, which produced specifically for the

23 needs of Dubrovnik, two types of tile. One was named Libertas, and the

24 other was named Dubrovnik. They differed in colour and size. So that one

25 tile, Libertas, I believe reflected the old format of roof tiles so that

1 in the course of reconstruction we could be faithful to the old pattern.

2 So much about the Tondach factory.

3 Other sources were France and Italy.

4 Q. How did these French tiles blend in with the old tiles which were

5 on the roofs before the shelling?

6 A. The colour, as I remember, was the most important because our

7 domestic tile which was produced for areas outside Dubrovnik which were

8 not cultural heritage was approximately the same as the one used in old

9 Dubrovnik. It was rather faithfully reflected by the tiles we received as

10 a gift from France. I think that we managed to do quite well in terms of

11 following the traditional pattern as we can see on this aerial photograph.

12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am sorry to

13 interrupt the witness and Mr. Re. I would like, however, to get a better,

14 more faithful interpretation of what the witness said in the last two

15 sentences because the current record does not reflect it faithfully. The

16 witness said that their objective was not to achieve uniformity. It was

17 rather to achieve variety in the roofs of Dubrovnik. I think this is

18 missing from the record, and I would be grateful for a clarification from

19 the witness.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.

21 MR. RE:

22 Q. Mr. Vukovic, you heard what Mr. Petrovic said. Is that what you

23 said?

24 A. Yes, that's what I meant to say.

25 Q. Turning to the extract from P51/ID in the folder in front of you

1 with the index which the usher gave you before we looked at the

2 photograph. Just take a moment to have a look through this. Is this an

3 extract of the buildings that you examined or inspected in those zones you

4 described or blocks after the 6th of December 1991?

5 A. I would have to compare this to the map. I don't have the map

6 here. But I suppose it's in it.

7 Yes. That would be all.

8 Q. Are you saying you need to look at the map which was the exhibit I

9 tendered earlier, which is the collection of maps?

10 A. It's not necessary at this point. If we come to a particular

11 building, then I can use the map to identify it.

12 Q. What I'm going to do is just to take you through several examples

13 from the extract there. Could you turn to --

14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm very sorry to

15 interrupt my learned friend and the witness as well, but I believe a more

16 proper way of examining at this point would be for my colleague to ask

17 first whether the witness remembers a particular building and the damage

18 to that building, and only then, if the answer is negative, if he doesn't

19 remember the damage, only then should he be presented with the document in

20 front of him. Otherwise, this might turn or degenerate into

21 interpretation of the document.

22 So I'm suggesting that the witness be asked first whether he

23 remembers a building and the damage; and only then, be asked to review the

24 document.

25 JUDGE PARKER: I think, Mr. Petrovic, having regard to the

1 practicalities, especially the number of buildings, the detail of the

2 damage reported on these survey sheets, and the time that has elapsed,

3 rather than that being done for each building, there might be some general

4 questions asked at the beginning by Mr. Re. And if the answers are as I

5 think we all would anticipate, we can short-circuit the process. Is that

6 a clear enough hint, Mr. Re?

7 MR. RE: I certainly wasn't intending to take him through every --

8 each one of the 55 buildings there. I was going to take him through about

9 half a dozen as representative examples.

10 Q. Maybe, we can start at the top, Mr. Vukovic. The top -- the first

11 one is --

12 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Re, I think you missed my point. I wonder,

13 Mr. Vukovic, are you at this stage able to recall the detail of your

14 inspection of the buildings that you inspected with your colleagues back

15 in 1991, and in one case in January 1992?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The most part, yes.

17 JUDGE PARKER: And are you able of your own recollection to

18 describe what you saw then to us today? Or is it that you need to check

19 the notes that you made at that time?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Depends on the building. Some more

21 significant buildings which made a great impression on me, I could

22 remember even without looking at documents, and those are primarily the

23 buildings that burnt down. As for the rest, I could recollect some

24 details. And the rest I could remember by looking at the document. I

25 could not remember everything without reminders after so much time. 13

1 years have elapsed, after all.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Are you able to -- you've indicated the buildings

3 in respect to which you have a more detailed recollection are those that

4 burnt down. Is that the case?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, those are the buildings that

6 burnt down.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Can you say which they were?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can. First of all, it's the

9 festival building. You mean, only the buildings that I inspected

10 personally, or the buildings that I remember?

11 JUDGE PARKER: We are wanting to consider the buildings that are

12 in this folder, so they are necessarily the buildings that you inspected.

13 And of those, can you indicate which of them you have a clear, personal

14 recollection today.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand now. First of all,

16 it's the palace that I indicated a moment ago, in the Od Puca Street.

17 Then in the same street, the building next to the St. Joseph church on one

18 side and on the other side. It's partly or partially the building on the

19 corner of Od Puca Street and the side street. Only the upper part of it

20 burned. The corner of Od Puca Street and Siroka Street.

21 Then the building on the corner of Mica Pracata and Putitica

22 Streets, it's the elementary school building. Miha Pracata Street. These

23 impressed me the most.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much.

25 Now, Mr. Re, you wanted to turn to particular buildings.

1 MR. RE: Yes.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Were any of those buildings you were to turn to?

3 MR. RE: Certainly one of them, which is 11-15, the building in

4 Miha Pracata, number 6.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.

6 MR. RE: The other ones weren't.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Otherwise the ones to which you were to take the

8 witness are not in his list of detailed recollection. Can I indicate that

9 in view of the nature of the evidence about this matter, that you would be

10 able to ask the witness to refer to the inspection notes he made as he

11 gives his evidence about each particular building. He can refresh his

12 memory from those as he goes.

13 I think you'll see in that, Mr. Petrovic, a sufficient observance

14 of formal technicality whilst nevertheless a realistic approach to

15 evidence of this nature.

16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Certainly. I

17 completely agree with your assessment that in addition to the technical

18 aspect, there are many other things and what is at issue is the essence of

19 what the witness remembers and what he will tell us.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Re.

21 MR. RE:

22 Q. I first take you, Mr. Petrovic -- sorry, Mr. Vukovic, to it's

23 IX-13. The ERN is 0106-9567, English, L005-9957. The location is Izmedju

24 Polaca number 12. Can you please refer to your inspection notes as typed

25 up and inserted into the report. Was this one of the buildings that you

1 inspected, and was it on the 15th of December, 1991?

2 A. First of all, just for purposes of identification, I have IX-13

3 here. Your ERN number is 10 -- 01069567. Is that the paper?

4 Q. That's the one, yes.

5 A. All right.

6 Q. It doesn't have a name at the bottom. Was it one of the buildings

7 you actually inspected? That's the apartment Smok.

8 A. Yes, that's right. I inspected that one. I remember that well.

9 Q. Do you know why your name is missing from the report?

10 A. I think a mistake occurred during copying. When this paper was

11 typed, my name was on the other side of the page, on the other side of the

12 sheet. And a copy does not have anything on the backside. So it's purely

13 a technical area. But this is definitely a building I inspected and that

14 I remember very well. And I remember talking to the gentleman who owned

15 this building.

16 Q. In the original, you've referred to the date as incident as the

17 12th of November 1991 and the 6th of December 1991. I just note for the

18 record that the English draft translation contains an error. It actually

19 says 12th of December and 6th of December. It should be November as you

20 can see from the Roman numerals in the original.

21 What did Mr. Smok, or Mrs. -- the Smok family tell you about when

22 their building was hit?

23 A. This gentleman told me when we were talking in the loft, as I

24 remember very clearly, that the building had been hit before, meaning

25 before the 6th, and he even gave me the date when that happened, because

1 it was etched in his memory. And again on the 6th of December, the

2 building was hit again. That's what I remember from talking to Mr. Smok.

3 Q. The estimate of damage you've note there had was damaged roof and

4 attic and the stone facade on the northern side of the block, category

5 III. Why did you assess it as category III?

6 A. From the description we provided, the description of damage, one

7 can see that in the categorisation we developed, it belonged in the lower

8 half; that is, milder damage. And we marked it as category III because

9 the walls were partially damaged, and the roof was partially damaged. And

10 it was possible with minor repairs to continue using the building for

11 tenancy. So we put it in the third category.

12 Q. Under the sixth heading which is type of projectile, you recorded

13 82-millimetre indirect, and 120-millimetre incendiary, indirect

14 120-millimetre MB, I assume meaning mortar bomb. How were you able to put

15 those descriptions in this particular report? What was the information

16 you received or relied upon or the observations you made that allowed you

17 to put those two things in, or three things in?

18 A. I said at the outset that we had several sources we used in

19 evaluating the damage. One of the sources was the experience of people

20 who lived either in the building or in the vicinity and were able to see

21 the location of impact and the trace it left. In this particular case,

22 the size could be identified by the traces left by projectiles.

23 Specifically, a mortar projectile has small wings in the lower part which

24 for the most part remain at the place of impact. And on that basis, we

25 could ascertain the type of hit. In this case, we saw traces on the spot

1 of impact with some sort of yellow powder on them. And that indicated to

2 us that the projectile perhaps had some additional charge.

3 This helped us identify the source of damage to a particular

4 building. I just want to add that this does not have to be decisive in

5 terms of what we wanted to evaluate. We did not mean to sound definitive

6 when we said "mortar projectile." But we needed this piece of information

7 in order to establish the degree of damage that could have been caused.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Re, is that a convenient time?

9 We will have the second break now.

10 --- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.

11 --- On resuming at 12.50 p.m.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Re.

13 MR. RE:

14 Q. Mr. Vukovic, before the break, you were explaining to the Trial

15 Chamber that you can identify damage to an extent by the traces left by

16 the projectiles. And you said specifically a mortar projectile has small

17 wings in the lower part which for the most part remain at the place of

18 impact.

19 Can you tell the Trial Chamber what these mortar wings are, the

20 ones that you saw.

21 A. I think in this interpretation, whether they remain at the spot of

22 impact or not, I'm not sure. But I know that in certain places, we found

23 those traces. And on that basis, and not only on the basis of that, we

24 were able to determine whether it was a mortar or some other projectile.

25 As for these wings, I'm not an expert. For the most part, they

1 were in the lower part. And finally, we saw that on this board we were

2 given before we went out into the field. So we were able to familiarise

3 themselves with various projectiles. The 120-millimetre mortar

4 projectile, I believe that's what it was called because of the diameter of

5 the circle where the wings are positioned. And the head is of the same

6 profile, and that's, I believe, how these names are given to different

7 projectiles.

8 MR. RE: Could the witness please be shown Exhibit P67. And this

9 isn't for the purposes of identification; it's for the purpose of pointing

10 out what the witness is referring to.

11 Q. P67 is a page from the report, the Institute preliminary report.

12 It depicts five types of or categories of five types of projectile. What

13 I just wanted to do is to indicate to the Trial Chamber which part on

14 these projectiles there are you referring to when you say "wings"?

15 A. I mean -- do we have to use the pointer?

16 I mean these wings here primarily. So that's the tail in this

17 projectile. And this thing here, this type of tail.

18 Q. For the record, the witness was indicating under 2, 3, and 4

19 basically the back end if I could describe it that way --

20 A. No, sorry. A correction. 2 and 4.

21 Q. I apologise for 3. What really could be described colloquially as

22 the back end or the rear end of the tails in 2 and 4.

23 A. Yes, that's correct.

24 Q. In 4, you can see two projectiles. One labelled M56, the other

25 one OF843. If you look at OF843, it seems to have wings, if you can

1 describe it, attached to the tail. Are those the sorts of -- generally

2 the types of wings you're describing when you refer to wings?

3 A. If I could see a photograph, maybe that would be better. But even

4 based on this picture, I believe that's what you are referring to.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 MR. RE: Might the exhibit be returned.

7 Q. What were you told was the difference between the wings from the

8 tail of an 82-millimetre and a 120-millimetre projectile in terms of size?

9 A. Well, size was an important parameter, and the dent made in the

10 wall and -- or in the pavement was a good indicator of size. 120 was the

11 larger profile. And those were important parameters for identification.

12 Q. Okay. At the moment, I only want to refer to the tails, the small

13 pieces at the -- or the wings, the small pieces attached to the tail of

14 the projectiles. Was there any difference between -- were you told there

15 was any difference between those from an 82-millimetre mortar and those

16 from a 120-millimetre mortar as in the size of them or the dimensions?

17 A. Yes. Yes, there is a difference. 82 is smaller; 120 is larger.

18 That was the only source of information, the only basis on which we made

19 our evaluation, our assessment.

20 Q. How do you say you were able to tell the two apart; that is, the

21 tail -- the wings of the tail of an 82-millimetre mortar and those from a

22 120-millimetre mortar?

23 A. We were able to tell on the basis of the remnants and the

24 testimony of residents. They had already had experience with these

25 projectiles, and they were able to tell the type of the projectile in

1 question. They had to learn to protect themselves. So we had some idea,

2 some indications of the type of projectile.

3 Q. Did you see examples of two different sized projectiles? I'm

4 sorry, I withdraw that. Did you see examples of two different sized

5 tail -- wings from the tails of projectiles in your inspections of

6 buildings and on the streets of the Old Town Dubrovnik?

7 A. I don't recall that any more. But I suppose that all that was

8 written was grounded in convincing identification or evaluation.

9 Q. Were you conscripted into the Croatian Army after 1991?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Was that in 1993?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. In what particular unit did you serve?

14 A. It was 163rd Dubrovnik Brigade. I was in a mortar unit.

15 Q. How many members did your mortar unit have?

16 A. I don't remember exactly. But there could have been 20 maybe.

17 Q. What sort of projectiles was your mortar unit using? Or what sort

18 of ammunition was it using?

19 A. First of all, in the army, I spent a very short time. I was in a

20 unit which had no combat activity whatsoever while I served. So all the

21 training we got was familiarisation with projectiles, but we had no

22 shooting practice. We didn't actually use them.

23 Q. In your training, were you taught the difference between an

24 82-millimetre and a 120-millimetre mortar?

25 A. As far as I can remember, they were mostly 120 millimetre. At

1 least those are the ones that I remember better. There might have been

2 others, 80-something, but the size was the main parameter on the basis of

3 which we could distinguish between different projectiles.

4 Q. What can you say about the wings of the tails of the mortars you

5 saw in the Old Town of Dubrovnik in your inspections and the

6 120-millimetre mortars that you were taught about sometime later in your

7 army training in the Croatian Army?

8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour. The

9 question has already been asked, page 60, line 7. And the witness

10 answered he didn't remember. Exactly the same question. But it was just

11 mildly rephrased.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic. In view of the additional

13 knowledge now identified, you can have the liberty on this occasion,

14 Mr. Re.

15 MR. RE: Thank you, Your Honour.

16 Q. Do you understand the question, Mr. Vukovic? That is, you were

17 taught about 120-millimetre mortars in the army in 1993. What can you say

18 about those relative to the remains of mortars, that is the wings of the

19 tails, that you described in your report as seen in the Old Town in 1991,

20 December 1991?

21 A. I can tell you only what I remember, and I'll say it again. We

22 had a certain degree of information about the size of the wings and the

23 impact and shape. All the rest is completely outside the scope of my

24 knowledge and interest. I am not an expert. I was not even interested in

25 that. Any interest I had disappeared the moment I left the building, the

1 area. So the size and the shape, I believe, are the basic parameters

2 which I remember, if only vaguely. That's all I can tell you at this

3 moment.

4 Q. You also described before the break yellowish powder marks around

5 the edges of holes. I just want you to go into that a little bit further.

6 Can you describe to the Trial Chamber a bit more what you mean by

7 yellowish marks -- or sorry, yellow powder marks.

8 A. Well, there was nothing of the sort, at least in what we saw.

9 There were some traces on certain buildings left on the spot hit by the

10 projectile. It was some yellowish powder. That's how it seemed to me,

11 how I remember it. And it was mainly to be found in those holes made by

12 the projectile. It was a superficial trace, a dent in the surface. And

13 from our preliminary briefings, we knew that it could have been a

14 projectile that could have had some incendiary charge, phosphorous, maybe.

15 I don't know for sure. At that time, when we were identifying the damage,

16 it was completely irrelevant. It was just peripheral information.

17 Q. Are you saying by that that when you recorded in your reports

18 phosphorous and incendiary charges, it was based only upon what you had

19 learned from the briefing or the material which was on the wall in the

20 institute; you had no independent knowledge yourself from which you could

21 make that finding?

22 A. I think that the basic information came from the institute, but

23 what was essential was what was established in the field because this kind

24 of impact was quite different from the other one.

25 Q. Can you please turn the page to the next one, which is IX-14,

1 Izmedju Polaca 14, underneath which is written the apartment Sambrailo.

2 The pages in Croatian 01069568 and in English it's L0059958. And again I

3 point out a mistake in the English draft translation and the date of

4 incident which in the B/C/S clear says the 12th of November, 1991, and the

5 6th of December, 1991. It has been wrongly translated as the 12th of

6 December and the 6th of December, 1991.

7 Looking at that one, Mr. Vukovic, did you inspect that by -- your

8 name is down on the bottom, did you inspect it alone or with someone else?

9 A. Specifically, in this case I think I went on my own.

10 Q. Do you now have any independent recollection of this particular

11 building, or do you have to rely on the notes you have recorded there to

12 speak about it?

13 A. In view of the degree of damage, I think that it would have been

14 more useful to use material that was in writing.

15 Q. I don't quite understand your last answer. Could you please

16 clarify that.

17 A. If I understood your question correctly, I wished to say that I

18 need assistance by way of identification from this text in whose

19 composition I participated.

20 Q. Looking at the text, what does it tell you about the inspection

21 that it records you having done on the 15th of December 1991?

22 A. The important thing is that damage was due to indirect impact;

23 that is to say that the actual hit was in the immediate vicinity, and the

24 damage was due to a shrapnel that ricocheted. That is what is relevant in

25 this case. That would be about it. That is what is characteristic of

1 this particular case.

2 Q. What it that allowed you to record two different dates of

3 incident, that is, the 12th of November 1991 and the 6th of December 1991?

4 A. In this specific case, there was a witness, Mr. Sambrailo, who was

5 in the apartment, and he actually testified about the two hits. One that

6 was before the 6th and the other one that was on the 6th. I talked to the

7 mentioned gentleman myself.

8 Q. Under the heading "estimate of damage," you've described the

9 load-bearing structure as being shaken up in a category IV of damage.

10 What inspection did you do or what did you -- how did you determine that

11 the load-bearing structure was shaken up?

12 A. First of all, this was visible on the roof construction. So it is

13 that part of the construction that this pertains to. It was evident

14 because the attic construction and the roof tiles were completely

15 destroyed. And that is why the load-bearing structure was affected to a

16 certain extent. That is why we described it this way. The effect was

17 somewhat milder, if I can put it that way.

18 Q. Are you able from the description recorded there to distinguish

19 between damage in November and damage on the 6th of December 1991?

20 A. Well, now, how much I can remember specifically. There was the

21 hit on the facade element, and this is the area that borders on Stradun.

22 So actually, this was the ground floor of the house that was damaged by

23 this shelling of the pavement, if I can put it that way. And in addition

24 to that, if we can put it that way, there was the effect of the roof

25 structure itself, which was hit directly, or rather the shrapnel that hit

1 the adjacent building ricocheted on this one that we are discussing now.

2 This was not a predominant element in terms of identification. What was

3 most relevant was the interview with the mentioned gentleman who witnessed

4 all of this.

5 I wish to note, though, that all this information that we

6 collected and that we looked at were actually at the level of a

7 preliminary report. That is to say, it could have been supplemented by

8 additional information. And this proved to be true in future papers.

9 Q. Could you turn to the next one, please, which is IX-15. The page

10 is Izmedju Polaca 5. I'm sorry, 15. I said 5.

11 You've recorded the date of inspection as the 15th of December at

12 11.10 hours. And the date of the incident is the 6th of December, 1991,

13 and the type of projectile is a 120-millimetre incendiary. Just for the

14 record, the ERN numbers are 01069569, 01695970, and the English L0059959.

15 There's also a photograph attached or behind this particular description.

16 Is that a photograph of this -- of the building you examined on the 15th

17 of December 1991?

18 A. Yes, that is a photograph of that building.

19 Q. Under the description of damage, you've written "the building was

20 struck by an incendiary projectile. The traces of phosphorous are visible

21 on the northern facade of the neighbouring building (reconstruction

22 office). The roof and the attic as well as the mansard are completely

23 destroyed." What I'm interested in is your description of it having been

24 struck by an incendiary projectile. You've already spoken about the

25 information you were given at the institute about the types of projectiles

1 which they thought were in use.

2 Can you be more specific about the traces of phosphorous that are

3 referred to there and where they were and what you would have seen.

4 A. I cannot remember exactly now. It was long ago, so I cannot give

5 you the kind of precise answer that you expect. But what I can say is

6 that I am familiar with the building. The building had burned down

7 completely. I mean, the wood structure. There was just a ground floor

8 and a loft, so it was a rather small building compared to others. The

9 traces that are referred to here are similar to the ones that I pointed

10 out when we discussed the other building that was being identified. I

11 cannot remember the exact number now. But at any rate, that's the trace

12 which could in a way show that the damage or destruction was caused by

13 this incendiary material. So the description would be similar to the one

14 I gave beforehand.

15 Q. How do you know it was struck or burnt on the 6th of December

16 1991?

17 A. I think that this is a very noticeable detail. It would have to

18 be noticed that it was hit on the 6th of December. That could be

19 established with a great deal of reliability because it had not happened

20 before.

21 Q. Are you able to be more specific on how you know it was standing

22 intact on the 5th of December but burnt on the 6th?

23 A. The building was intact because by that time not a single case had

24 been registered of any building burning down completely in the area of the

25 Old Town.

1 Q. I take you to the next one which is IX-23, 01069581, and

2 accompanying photo 01069582. The translation, draft translation, L0059971

3 and 2. It's Miha Pracata 4, the apartment Zile. Again there's a

4 translation error of the dates of incident 12th of November and the 6th of

5 December 1991. In the English, which is clearly indicated under "date of

6 incident" in the B/C/S, the 12th of November.

7 Firstly, are you familiar with this building, that's Miha Pracata

8 number 4, the residents of the Zile family.

9 A. Yes, I am familiar with it, and I talked to the gentleman myself

10 at the moment of identification.

11 Q. What's your memory of your inspection of that building as recorded

12 on the 15th of December 1991?

13 A. Well, I remember that Mr. Zile who is otherwise a rather

14 sophisticated person identified rather specifically when talking to me

15 when the building was hit. And he pointed out the two hits. In my

16 opinion, what was discernible was the hit into the profiled stone gutter.

17 That is what I remember. And that is what jogged my memory in relation to

18 that building; namely, that I had been there myself and that I had spoken

19 to the mentioned gentleman.

20 Q. And are you satisfied that what's recorded there describes the

21 damage that you found in your inspection on the 15th of December 1991?

22 A. Yes, yes. That's it.

23 Q. And does the photograph 01069582, is that an accurate reflection

24 of the damage as described in the report?

25 A. Yes. That is this partial damage. It is part of the damage that

1 can be seen here, and this is the intersection of Cvijeta Zuzoric and Miha

2 Pracata. So that is the view.

3 Q. Can you turn now to block XI-15. That's Miha Pracata 6, 01069650,

4 with the accompanying photographs, 965123 and 4, with English translation

5 draft L0061511.

6 A. Would you please be so kind to repeat the number of the building

7 itself.

8 Q. Miha Pracata 6, XI-15. Was that one of the buildings that you

9 referred to when Judge Parker asked you earlier whether you can remember

10 any specific buildings in the report?

11 A. Yes, yes. That's the building. That's the building I mentioned.

12 Corner building.

13 Q. It shows you inspected it on the 16th of December, and you

14 described the date of the hit as the 6th of December 1991 by a

15 120-millimetre incendiary mortar shell. You've described a direct hit to

16 the roof by an incendiary shell, and it was completely destroyed by fire.

17 What information were you given that enabled you to record that it was --

18 received a direct hit by an incendiary shell?

19 A. This was a category of damage that could have been inflicted only

20 by a direct hit. Since the wooden structure had burned down completely, I

21 think that the degree of damage was one of the main identification

22 elements. It really had burned down, and in a way, that was an indication

23 that guided us to the conclusion that this was caused by an incendiary

24 projectile, or rather a projectile that carried some incendiary material.

25 Q. Why do you say "could only have been inflicted by a direct hit"?

1 A. Well, because there were similar situations elsewhere that had

2 this kind of charge. But then the buildings had not burned down.

3 Wherever we found buildings that had practically burned down, it was with

4 a great degree of certainty that we claimed this had to have been an

5 incendiary projectile. I think it was the only element at the time that

6 we had in terms of our own recording of damage.

7 Q. Did the photographs attached to the report, those four

8 photographs, do they accurately depict the damage you saw when you

9 inspected the building on the 16th of December?

10 A. Yes, yes. That is the entrance where the stairs are. Yes, that's

11 the building, absolutely.

12 Q. Are you satisfied that what is recorded in the report accurately

13 reflects your observations of the damage?

14 A. Yes. This building had completely burned down. It is depicted

15 exactly the way it was on that day. Especially this photograph of the

16 interior that shows all these elements is something that I find readily

17 recognisable, especially the mouldings.

18 Q. Could you just put that photograph on the overhead projector. And

19 just point. Just for the record you've got -- I just need the number so I

20 can describe it. It's the one 9653 and 9654 that you're looking at at the

21 moment.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. You're pointing to 9653. You're telling the Trial Chamber how

24 you're able to recognise something from it.

25 A. Yes. I mean, this is the moulding. And this is where the stairs

1 were. So in my opinion, this was readily recognisable and it remained

2 etched in my memory.

3 Q. And as I asked you with the previous building you described as

4 having been burned down, how down that that particular building, Miha

5 Pracata number 6, was burned down on the 6th of December as opposed to

6 other days?

7 A. I've already said that experience up to the 6th of December simply

8 did not include such cases, if we can put it that way, when buildings had

9 completely burned down. So this was a very telling example. Also, the

10 debris there showed that this had to have happened very recently, not

11 earlier on.

12 Q. Do you mean the debris in the building or the debris on the street

13 or both?

14 A. Well, both.

15 Q. Please turn to the next one I wish to take you to which is XI-24.

16 That's 01069675. The address is 17 St. Josip Street. It records you

17 having inspected the building on the 17th of December 1991 in company with

18 Davorka Kunic. Is that correct?

19 A. Yes, that's right.

20 Q. And it records damage as having occurred, date of hit on the 12th

21 of November 1991 and the 6th of December 1991. And in the description,

22 you've referred to an 82-millimetre mortar shell hitting the roof on the

23 12th of November and destroying 12 to 25 square metres of the roof

24 structure. And on the 6th of December, it being hit by a second

25 82-millimetre shell that further destroyed another 12 and a half square

1 metres of the roof structure.

2 What was the information you received that enabled you to record

3 two separate specific hits with specific mortar dimensions and specific

4 dimensions of damage?

5 A. The basic source of information was actually our conversation with

6 the people who lived in the neighbourhood and in the building itself. So

7 basically, this identification came from this element, if I can put it

8 that way. And then there was also our assessment which was actually a

9 field report after we had established what happened earlier on and what

10 happened later; that is to say, on the 6th and the 12th of December 1991

11 [as interpreted]. So basically, this is what I mentioned in the

12 introduction. I said that I spoke to eyewitnesses and with the

13 neighbours, and that that constituted an important foundation for

14 identifying the time involved and in their assessment the source of the

15 damage, that is to say, the projectile.

16 Q. Can I just get you to clarify part of your last answer. The

17 transcript reads: "What happened later; that is to say, on the 6th and

18 12th of December 1991." Did you mean the 6th of December and the 12th of

19 November 1991 in that answer?

20 A. If I misspoke, then I actually did so. I mean to say the 6th of

21 December and the 12th of November.

22 Q. I neglected to ask you before. Are you familiar with this

23 particular building at 17 St. Joseph Street?

24 A. Well, it belongs to the category of buildings where I would need

25 to take a look in order to be able to remember.

1 Q. I'll take you to another one. That is number XI-33. Od Domina 1.

2 That's 01069684. The English L0061530. This was an inspection on the

3 17th of December 1991 in relation to damage recorded as having occurred on

4 the 6th of December 1991. The people inspecting the building were

5 yourself, Davorka Kunic, and Zvonimir Franic. Are you familiar with this

6 building?

7 A. Excuse me, which number are you talking about? Could you say it

8 again?

9 Q. XI-33, 01069684.

10 A. Yes, fine, I can now answer your question.

11 Q. Are you familiar with this building? That's number 1, Od Domina

12 Street.

13 A. Yes, I'm familiar with it.

14 Q. Why is that?

15 A. It's a large building and one of its parts lies on the Pjaceta

16 behind the Od Domina Street. I have a clear memory of it. This building

17 was also very familiar to me because a colleague of mine lived in it,

18 Zvonimir Franic.

19 Q. Was he one of the people working with you on the project

20 inspecting buildings in Dubrovnik?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Was he one of the three people recorded at the bottom, that's with

23 you and Mr. Kunic as having assessed or inspected the building on the 17th

24 of December 1991?

25 A. Yes, that's right.

1 Q. Your description is of the date of hit of the 6th of December 1991

2 and by parts of a 120-millimetre mortar shell. Where did you obtain the

3 information to record that in this form?

4 A. Well, if I can remember it now, we wrote that on the basis of what

5 we saw. We inspected the location, the spot of damage, and other

6 information was received from the family who lived in this building.

7 These two indicators seemed to point to this conclusion.

8 Q. What did -- did Mr. Franic tell you anything about the date of

9 impact or when it was hit?

10 A. I can't remember exactly now, but I suppose that he told me. I

11 can't claim that with absolute certainty. I know this piece of

12 information was used. Whether he said it or someone in his family, I

13 really don't remember any more.

14 Q. I'm going to take you back to one -- I'm sorry, I withdraw that.

15 Before I do that, are you satisfied that what is recorded there accurately

16 reflects your observations and your record of the damage that you observed

17 on the 6th of December -- on the 17th of December 1991?

18 A. I can confirm that, just as in the case of all the other

19 buildings. All that was written was written on one single occasion,

20 nothing was added later. We filled in the form we were provided with, and

21 it was called "identification sheet."

22 Q. If I could take you back to one of the more prominent buildings in

23 the Old Town, that being the cathedral. There's a record of that at X-1.

24 01069596 and L0061482. You're of course familiar with that particular

25 building. It records you and Mr. Vetma and Mrs. Peko having inspected it

1 on the 10th of December 1991. Is that correct?

2 A. Yes, correct.

3 Q. You also describe the date of hit as the 6th of December by an

4 82-millimetre projectile -- mortar, and it receiving two direct hits.

5 What was the information you had which led you to record "the building

6 received two direct hits"?

7 A. As I said, based on what we were able to see in the location of

8 damage. Judging by the traces we established that it was a hit, a direct

9 hit.

10 Q. And is the information recorded there so far as you're concerned

11 accurate as to the extent of the damage, the type of the damage, and what

12 you saw?

13 A. Well, for this level of processing, I believe it's accurate

14 enough.

15 Q. I'll take you to another religious building, that's X-10, which is

16 the mosque. That's at 01069619 and 2021. And L0061492. I take it you're

17 familiar with the mosque in the Old Town. The inspection sheet records

18 you, Mrs. Peko, and Mr. Vetma as having inspected it on the 12th of

19 December 1991. First of all, are you familiar with the mosque?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Do you remember inspecting the mosque with Mrs. Peko and

22 Mr. Vetma?

23 A. Well, I cannot recall it precisely now. But the signatures here

24 indicate that that was the team.

25 Q. You've described five shells hitting the building on the 6th of

1 December 1991. What was the information you had which enables the three

2 of you to record that in the report?

3 A. The information was what we were able to see on the spot and what

4 heard from people who were in the immediate vicinity, people who lived in

5 the neighbouring apartments. For your information, it's a building that

6 is used in part as a mosque and another part is as a residential area. So

7 we were able to get the testimony of people who were in the immediate

8 vicinity, plus the type of devastation that we were able to see with our

9 own eyes indicated that it was that kind of hit.

10 Q. And finally on this particular building, the photograph

11 accompanying the text, is that an accurate depiction of the damage

12 recorded in the text?

13 A. I suppose so, since you can see the domes of the Orthodox church

14 in the immediate vicinity and further in the background you see the

15 Franciscan cloister. It must have been photographed from the neighbouring

16 block across the roof. At least, that's my assumption. I cannot claim

17 anything with 100 per cent certainty. But that's what I believe.

18 Q. Are you satisfied that the details recorded and the damage

19 recorded is an accurate reflection of what you Mrs. Peko and Mr. Vetma

20 observed during your inspection on the 12th of December 1991?

21 A. This text that is written here was written entirely on one

22 occasion and completed then.

23 Q. Is it accurate so far as you're concerned now?

24 A. Yes.

25 JUDGE PARKER: I take it that's a convenient time, Mr. Re?

1 We will continue tomorrow.

2 [The witness stands down]

3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,

4 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 5th day of May,

5 2004, at 9.00 a.m.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25