1 Wednesday, 5 May 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

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

6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. Yes, Mr. Re.

7 MR. RE: Good morning, Your Honours.

8 WITNESS: SLOBODAN VUKOVIC [Resumed]

9 [Witness answered through interpreter]

10 Examined by Mr. Re: [Continued]

11 Q. Good morning, Mr. Vukovic. Mr. Vukovic, while you still have the

12 extracts of the report in front of you, I just want to ask you about two

13 others to try and give the Trial Chamber some representative spread and

14 sample of the buildings that you inspected in December 1991. Could you

15 please turn to X-5, which is 10-5. It's for the record 01069612 with

16 photographs appended, 9613 and 9614, and the English is 01069612. It's a

17 building described as the Katic - that's with a "K" - palace at 2

18 Gunduliceva Poljana. Firstly, Mr. Vukovic, are you familiar with this

19 building?

20 A. Yes, I am familiar with it.

21 Q. And do you recall inspecting that building with Mrs. Peko and

22 Mr. Vetma on -- as described there, the 10th of December 1991?

23 A. I do recall that.

24 Q. The remarks at the bottom of the assessment -- underneath

25 "assessment" say: "The building has been visited by somebody and rubble

1 has been cleared. The keys are to be found with the Dragicevic family.

2 Inside the building, a collection of portable historical monuments has

3 been recorded." Where did you obtain that information from?

4 A. We obtained this information from the neighbours.

5 Q. And how did you get access to the building?

6 A. After having inspected the neighbour's apartment, because this

7 block has several entrances, after receiving this information, we got the

8 keys from the Dragicevic family. These people happened to be neighbours

9 of my mother, too, in Dubrovnik. So that is what made it easier to get

10 the keys and also to speak to them generally speaking.

11 Q. Could you just briefly describe the type of building this is to

12 the Trial Chamber.

13 A. It is a typical building, a very high-class building in terms of

14 Dubrovnik architecture. It is a very valuable building because it's

15 interiors are very well preserved from the Baroque period. In a way, it

16 is a paradigmatic example of a Dubrovnik townhouse, and its interior could

17 still be seen in the original form. That would be it very briefly.

18 Q. The description of the damage refers to "a direct hit to the east

19 side of the roof close to the apex above the staircase and through the

20 transom light." What was the information you received or the inspection

21 you made which enabled you to record the details of a direct hit?

22 A. I'm trying to remember as I read this text. I'm trying to

23 remember this specific building. There is reference to the stairwell and

24 the area above it, and that made it obvious that there was that kind of

25 damage involved. So we simply recorded the damage as it is recorded here.

1 Q. Can you say now how you were able to record that the date of the

2 hit was the 6th of December 1991? What was the information which enabled

3 you to record the date of the hit?

4 A. Well, this information followed our previous experience. We spoke

5 to the actual tenants or the neighbours. So that was our primary source

6 of information. We had another level of information, the actual traces of

7 impact. This building had to be marked in view of its historical

8 importance, and what I said a few moments ago, what a valuable monument it

9 was. So that shows its relevance within the Old Town.

10 Q. Would you please just look at the photographs, that's 01069613 and

11 9614. Are those photographs of the Katic palace and do they depict the

12 damage to the roof and building that you've described in your report?

13 A. Yes, yes, that is certainly the building. And what is shown here

14 is exactly what we talked about. Actually, it is the block in front of

15 the rector's palace, and it is very impressive and memorable. So one has

16 to recognise it even in these photographs.

17 Q. Is the information contained on this report form, it's 01609612,

18 accurate?

19 A. I just have to intervene. I have my own version. I imagine that

20 these codes that you refer to just now have to do with the paper I have

21 before me. So could we please check this before I actually make a

22 statement.

23 Q. The document you should have in front of you has a number on the

24 top right-hand corner, 01069612. It's the Prosecutor's evidence number.

25 And that is on the page with the building number X-5, 10-5.

1 A. Mr. Re, you haven't understood my point. I only have my very own

2 copy here, not the copy that I had yesterday, the one that the Court

3 provided me with yesterday. So if I could have that, please.

4 It is the same document, so I can give you an answer. This

5 statement here is correct.

6 Q. Thank you. And just to clarify, the numbers of the photographs

7 that you were looking at before, are they 01069613 and 01069614? Two

8 photographs referred to a moment ago, from your own identical copy of the

9 document before the Court.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And looking at the description and the authors -- or the people

12 who inspected it, that's you, that's yourself, Mr. Vetma, and Mrs. Peko.

13 Could you remember now what each of you did in that particular inspection?

14 A. I've said already, or rather I said yesterday, that we toured the

15 area together, made notes, and commented on everything that we saw. So we

16 defined all of this together.

17 Q. That was a general practice. My question is just in relation to

18 this building, can you remember now all these years later specifically

19 what each of the three of you did when you inspected the Katic palace

20 together?

21 A. I could not remember the details. It's been quite a while, hasn't

22 it? So I can't really answer your question with any degree of precision.

23 Q. All right. The last one I want to take you to is number XI-29,

24 which is the record 01069680. The translation is L0061526, described as 9

25 Od Domina Street, the house of Kukuljica. Firstly, are you familiar with

1 that particular building?

2 A. I'd need to look at the map. I need to jog my memory after all

3 because I think this is a smallish building, and I don't seem to remember

4 it very well. But if you allow me, if I look at the map, then I may give

5 a more specific answer.

6 It's a smallish building, as I said. It's at the intersection of

7 two streets, Od Domina and Strossmayerova. Yes, this is one of the many

8 buildings that had to be identified on the basis of this additional

9 insight. I do remember the building now, though.

10 Q. The details record you as having inspected it on the 16th of

11 December at 13.50 hours and describe the damage as ricocheting shrapnel

12 causing minor damage to the roof cover, blast impaired static stability.

13 You said it's the house of Kukuljica. How did you get the information as

14 to the date of the hit?

15 A. The same situation. Quite simply, neighbours provided

16 information, and I think that what you said just now has to do with that

17 type of identification. It practically had a decisive role in terms of

18 identifying the time and date of impact.

19 Q. The building I showed you before, the Katic palace, that's X-5,

20 had some photographs attached. Do you know whether this one, XI-29, 9 Od

21 Domina Street, whether any photographs were taken of this?

22 A. I'll just take a look in my own documents here. I think there

23 aren't any. Perhaps some could be found elsewhere, but I would not be in

24 a position to identify them now. And there aren't any here as identified.

25 Q. If there aren't any there as identified in the report, why

1 wouldn't there be photographs of this particular building attached to the

2 report whereas there are photographs of other buildings that we went

3 through today and yesterday, such as the cathedral, the Katic palace, Miha

4 Pracata 6, and so on?

5 A. Well, it had to do with a principle of accessibility as far as

6 photography is concerned. You know yourself that when buildings are so

7 densely built, then it is hard to find the right angle to take a picture.

8 Perhaps it is included in one of the panoramic pictures, but now why they

9 were not here, I cannot say. But it was not of such decisive importance

10 for what we had elaborated here.

11 Q. The form shows -- records you and Mr. -- sorry, records the

12 inspection being done by you and Mr. Davorka -- sorry, Davorka Kunic. Are

13 the details of your inspection accurately recorded in this report?

14 A. Well, yes. It was recorded. How should I put this? In our first

15 review, we managed to establish whether there was more or less damage

16 sustained. This is a building that was put in the category of those with

17 the least degree of damage. So the only thing we said was that this

18 building had been damaged, too.

19 Q. What was it about the details or your inspection there which

20 enables you to put it in the category of least damage, that is?

21 A. Because it has to do with an indirect hit and the effects of that

22 indirect hit, that is to say, shrapnel that ricocheted from the point of

23 direct impact. This showed a lesser degree of damage, and it could be

24 readily discerned. So we did not need to check and verify and analyse it

25 to any major extent.

1 Q. I've taken you to, I think, eight or nine separate buildings out

2 of the 55 listed in the index to the buildings bearing your name as one of

3 the inspectors in the report. Have you reviewed each of the buildings or

4 the details of the inspection of each of the buildings listed in that

5 index which is attached to the extracts containing the reports of the

6 buildings you inspected?

7 A. I assume that it has to do with the material that I obtained

8 yesterday.

9 Q. Yes. It's an identical copy of the -- of all the buildings in the

10 folder you have.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I. The Defence

13 would like to know what this document is, the document that the

14 distinguished witness is looking at here. As far as I can see from this

15 side, it is not what was distributed to everyone in the courtroom, the

16 Trial Chamber and everybody else.

17 The second question is who gave him this and what is it? Because

18 he started his evidence yesterday, so we need to know.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Re.

20 MR. RE: Perhaps I can deal with that.

21 Q. Mr. Vukovic, can you just confine -- you've brought some of your

22 own material based on the report, I understand, with you. I just want you

23 to confine yourself to the folder which you were provided with in Court

24 yesterday. That's the one you have been looking at this morning. So just

25 close your bundle.

1 JUDGE PARKER: That probably arose because at the beginning the

2 witness didn't have the Court copy.

3 MR. RE: That was my fault. I assumed when I saw him with one in

4 front that it was it.

5 JUDGE PARKER: And while the witness is looking, I'm told on

6 reliable authority that the number in the folder is 63, not 55, separate

7 buildings. You took the witness to three more than you identified in your

8 evidence, just to show you that one of us at least is awake.

9 MR. RE: And keeping reliable and accurate statistics, yes.

10 Q. Perhaps, Mr. Vukovic, if you're going to flick through every page,

11 you could possibly do that during the break, and I'll move on to something

12 else at the moment.

13 MR. RE: If that's acceptable to the Trial Chamber.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Perhaps the witness might mark somehow the point he

15 has reached to save him more time, and you.

16 MR. RE: Can the witness...

17 Can the witness please be provided with a copy of P51/ID.

18 Q. You've got a copy in front of you, a document which we have been

19 referring to as the Institute Preliminary Report. What was the purpose,

20 the main purpose, of this report?

21 A. The primary purpose of this report was to see what the situation

22 was on all buildings that had been damaged at the time and to establish a

23 technical component, if I can put it that way, which would be used for an

24 overall assessment of the intervention that was necessary. It is called

25 "preliminary" precisely for that reason, that it had to be analysed

1 further, which would ultimately lead to establishing the actual damage and

2 the amounts that were required for the repair. Also, it needed to be

3 established whether the premises could still be used for housing. So

4 those would be the basic components, if I can put it that way, that were

5 the motive for this preliminary inspection, or rather preliminary report.

6 And as I said, that was the only purpose.

7 We had no idea where this would end up and what else it would be

8 used for. So this is material that in our estimate is a faithful picture

9 of the situation as it was during our inspection.

10 Q. You said you had no idea where it would end up and what else it

11 would be used for. When it was prepared, was it prepared with litigation

12 in mind?

13 A. I didn't know that, and I think at that time as far as I know it

14 wasn't something that we envisaged in view of the things that we were

15 dealing with at that time.

16 Q. Was an estimate of the cost of repair made as a result of that

17 report?

18 A. I didn't personally work on that. I've already said that in my

19 testimony yesterday. This was done by experts from an institution which

20 was to take over the operative part of the reconstruction and which was

21 established after the earthquake in 1979 in Dubrovnik. It was called the

22 Dubrovnik Reconstruction Office. And based on our information which we

23 made in our preliminary report, and a methodology which as far as I can

24 recall was based on the degree of damage and the footage of the space, the

25 price of the damage, direct damage, was formed. This was the immediate

1 direct damage. And as far as I can remember from conversations with my

2 colleagues, because I didn't participate, in this in the first draft,

3 based on the preliminary reports, it amounted to 17.5 million dollars.

4 But this was not the final sum in view of the fact that there were some

5 additional information which was based on the fact that the buildings were

6 already a little unstable because of the earthquake. So that due to the

7 detonations from the shelling, the degree of damage from before, from

8 1979, on these buildings involving cracks and some constructional

9 damage -- structural damage which affected the technical state of the

10 building and brought its usage safety a little bit down. The additional

11 damage was estimated at 4 million dollars, and this information was also

12 obtained, and I'm speaking about information that I gleaned from

13 conversations. I don't have any information, official information about

14 this. But this is the amount of the damage established at the time and

15 which at the time was probably the subject of conversations about how and

16 in what way to approach the reconstruction.

17 Q. You just mentioned the estimate being based upon a footage of

18 space. Do you mean by that a square -- a cost per square -- a figure per

19 square metre of damage depending upon what was actually damaged in the

20 structure?

21 A. Yes. At the time it served as the quickest way to get to the

22 value of the damage. So we're talking about the square metres of the

23 space.

24 Q. You have recorded with some precision in some of your reports of

25 damage an area measured in square metres of damage to, for example, 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 roof. Was it because of the need to estimate the cost of repairs based

2 upon square metres of damage that you did it, or was it for some other

3 reason, or was it a combination of reasons?

4 A. The main reason was to describe more closely what could be seen of

5 the damage. So it served to illustrate what we actually wrote relating to

6 specific buildings. But whether it was used for some additional purposes,

7 for example, to assess exactly how many square metres of different

8 construction materials you needed, for example, timber and things like

9 that, this was perhaps then used as a kind of secondary information.

10 Q. Was any one person responsible for the compilation or the

11 collation of the entire report?

12 A. The responsibility was to the extent that somebody on behalf of

13 the institution needed to sign the whole thing. I don't know if there is

14 such a signature or not on the complete report which numbers a number of

15 volumes. But in any case, the responsibility rested with the people who

16 were coordinating the entire project and on the people who participated in

17 this identification itself. So there should have been a kind of order for

18 the responsibility for everything that is stated in the reports.

19 Q. By my last question, I meant administrative responsibility. Did

20 anyone have overall administrative responsibility for the physical

21 compilation, or collation of all the reports, the typing up and putting

22 them into report form?

23 A. A report as a kind of summary, I don't know if that form of report

24 exists, and I don't know if anybody signed such a report. What I was

25 talking about is all of this material that I know that exists, and that's

1 these volumes of the report. So that is all that I can say on that matter

2 at the moment.

3 Q. Can you just turn to the introduction to the report. In the

4 English, it's at page L0061414. It's 01069061 in the B/C/S. It's signed

5 by Dorotea Valjalo, lawyer. Was she the director of the institute at the

6 time? And it's dated the 6th of January 1992.

7 A. Yes, Miss Dorotea Valjalo is a lawyer in the department for the

8 preservation of historical or cultural monuments. And at the time, she

9 was the director of the institute. So she was the administrative

10 authority about which you wanted to know, I guess.

11 Q. Is the information contained in that introduction accurate and

12 reliable -- or accurate?

13 A. If you allow me to read.

14 I've read it.

15 Q. Is the information accurate?

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

17 Q. Just go back to -- go back one or two pages. That's to the credit

18 page so to speak, 01069058, which lists the task team of the people

19 involved in the compilation of the report. It should be the third page

20 from the front.

21 A. Not in this book, unless it's in the first book.

22 MR. RE: Could I just have access to that for a moment.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Not the third, but a little

24 bit further on.

25 MR. RE:

1 Q. Under task team, it describes authors as Matko Vetma, Zvonimir

2 Franic, Bozena Popovic, and Slobodan Vukovic. Firstly, there's an error

3 in the English translation, draft translation at L0061412. The name of

4 Bozena Popovic, which is written in English. The name should be Popic.

5 Is that correct?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. Underneath the authors are the consultants, Bruno Karneze and

8 Colin Kaiser of UNESCO, followed by collaborating members Lucijana Peko

9 and a number of other people, underneath which are technical members in

10 collaborating institutions. The four authors -- Mr. Vetma, what was his

11 role or job at the time?

12 A. Matko Vetma is an architect. And at the time, he gave a kind of

13 architectural interpretation of the information reaching the institute.

14 And in a way, he was able to present everything to be able to get a

15 relevant technical set of data about what was being done on these cultural

16 monuments.

17 Q. Was he the person who contacted or coordinated or liaised with the

18 UNESCO people, that's Dr. Kaiser and Mr. Karneze?

19 A. Yes. Mr. Matko Vetma, who speaks French and English and Italian,

20 directly contacted with Mr. Karneze and Dr. Kaiser, and of course with all

21 the other colleagues.

22 Q. The next one is Zvonimir Franic. What was Zvonimir Franic's role

23 in this project and who is he?

24 A. He's also an architect, a colleague, a younger colleague, who also

25 worked on the technical aspects of the preservation of cultural monuments

1 and in the interpretation of certain data that we were receiving. And he

2 also participated in the final drafting of the final material in the

3 graphic sense, first of all, and let's say in a system of processing.

4 Q. Who is Professor Bozena Popic and what was her role?

5 A. She's also employed in the Institute for the preservation of

6 cultural monuments and she was in charge of the moveable heritage or

7 paintings and everything that in a way is connected with buildings.

8 Q. Did she have a role in recording the moveable heritage in the Old

9 Town and any damage to it?

10 A. Yes. That was her primary function.

11 Q. You're the fourth author described there. What was the difference

12 between an author and a consultant for the purposes of this report?

13 A. The author of that, and we will give it a kind of working title,

14 and it's something that's a little bit unusual, to use that term "author."

15 What we wanted to stress is there was a kind of core of experts which

16 created first of all an atmosphere of enthusiasm and which kept up this

17 atmosphere throughout the whole time. This is an undisputable fact, and I

18 was very proud because of this. At the time, and I must say that this

19 authorship in a way implies first of all the team which perhaps in a

20 different context should have been the heart and the brain of that whole

21 project.

22 Q. Underneath consultants, consulting members, including people who

23 are listed as having inspected buildings with you such as Lucijana Peko

24 and Davorka Kunic. Some of those people are architects; some are

25 described as architectural technicians. What was the difference between

1 an author, or the role of an author and that of the collaborating members

2 who are listed there?

3 A. The collaborating members were a kind of physical, technical

4 assistants. They were supposed to speed up the whole procedure of

5 identification since there were not enough people at the time at the

6 Institute for the Preservation of Cultural Monuments because this quantity

7 of buildings was supposed to be registered as quickly as possible. So we

8 asked our colleagues in urban planning, and I'm thinking of

9 Ms. Davorka Kunic first of all, Ms. Anka Buzic, Ms. Mirjana Karaman, and

10 Mr. Zeljko Franetovic who together with me on my initiative after I spoke

11 with my colleague Matko Vetma by telephone joined the team which was to go

12 out on this inspection. So their function was technical so that this

13 large number of facilities could be covered as quickly as possible.

14 Q. And what was the role of the technical members described -- who

15 are listed underneath collaborating members, that's Milenko Mojas, the

16 photographer you told the Trial Chamber about yesterday, the other

17 photographer, a graduate economist, a graduate engineer, and a typist?

18 What was their role in this project?

19 A. The technical collaborators were Milenko Mojas who was a technical

20 photographer at the Institute for the Preservation of Cultural Monuments.

21 Bozidar Djukic was also a professional photographer, but he's a

22 journalist, a photo journalist. And then we're talking about the typists.

23 I personally don't know who these people are, but I assume that they are

24 from the administrative part of the institute. And I had limited contacts

25 with that sector, and I practically don't know who these people were. But

1 I think that more or less this is the team that was in the institute's

2 administrative sector at the time.

3 Q. Collaborating institutions which are listed below, the first one

4 is the Institute for Urban Planning and Environmental Protection

5 Dubrovnik. Was that the body or the office attached to the municipality

6 for which you were working in 1991?

7 A. This is an institution which was the only one that dealt with

8 urban planning for the Dubrovnik Municipality.

9 Q. Were you consulted by Ms. Valjalo before she wrote her

10 introduction to this report, do you remember?

11 A. I think not.

12 Q. When was the report completed?

13 A. I think that this was in the beginning of January 1992. I don't

14 know the exact date. But I think it was in the -- in early January. I

15 remember that a press conference was organised in our large conference

16 room. Journalists were present, TV crews. And I think this was, if I

17 remember rightly, in early January 1992.

18 Q. Did the authors or other people involved in the project meet

19 before the press conference to talk about the report and its contents and

20 how to present it?

21 A. There were no official meetings. These were mostly unofficial

22 contacts. We were in daily contacts to a lesser or greater degree. And

23 the usual team that is noted here as the authors, this team actually

24 formed a concept of how to present our case or ourselves before the media.

25 Q. Do you remember whether you personally read the entire report or

1 went through it before its publication and the press conference in early

2 January 1992?

3 A. Not in detail, in every paper. But I did go over most of it. Of

4 course, I was interested in that -- in those parts where I was personally

5 featured. As far as the other things are concerned, I just was curious to

6 see how much material there was and how this was presented, how -- the way

7 in which it was presented. And I must say that I was impressed with the

8 manner in which such a quantity of material was presented in such a short

9 period.

10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to say that on

11 page 17, line 6, the witness said something that was not adequately

12 interpreted. He said that he just went over this in a summary way, in a

13 quick, fast way. He kind of glanced over the material. That is the gist

14 what have the witness said.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic. That flows on to what is

16 recorded as not in detail. Thank you.

17 MR. RE:

18 Q. Having looked through the report in the detail which we've just

19 mentioned and Mr. Petrovic has added to, how do you assess the report's

20 reliability in terms of assessing -- sorry, identifying and assessing the

21 damage to the Old Town as of early January 1992?

22 A. I've already said here that the material was used for the

23 preliminary identification, meaning that the degree of processing and the

24 level of damage assessment could have been more detailed than was

25 presented here. So it's material which meets the lowest level of

1 certainty regarding the material here.

2 Q. So what about its reliability in meeting that lowest level of

3 certainty? How would you describe the overall reliability of the

4 information contained in the report that you've looked through?

5 A. To a large percentage, up to about 95 per cent I would dare to

6 say, the identification is reliable. And on the whole, I think that it

7 satisfied our goals which we had at that time.

8 MR. RE: I wish to show -- excuse me.

9 I wish to show the witness a clip, a portion of Exhibit P66, which

10 is the video that Mr. Grbic provided. There's actually a transcript.

11 I wish to start the clip. I'm going to show the witness a clip

12 from, for the record, the time of 34.55 to 37 minutes. And from 37.38 to

13 37.53.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Of what, Mr. Re?

15 MR. RE: Of the Exhibit P66, which is a video which Mr. Grbic

16 produced. It's the compilation video.

17 [Videotape played]

18 Q. In front of you, Mr. Vukovic, you will see a portion of the video.

19 I just want you to identify -- if you can identify anything, to point it

20 out, just say "stop" and we will stop it and we will make a record and

21 come back to it later.

22 MR. RE: So could the video be played, please.

23 [Videotape played]

24 MR. RE: Just stop you there.

25 Q. Do you recognise that street?

1 A. Yes. Yes, this is Stradun. It's the southern side of Stradun.

2 I beg your pardon. Just a small correction. It's not the

3 southern side; it's the northern side. I've noticed just now. This is

4 where the Franciscan cloister is, so it's clear to me.

5 MR. RE: That was at 35.05.

6 Stop there.

7 Q. I've stopped at 35.34. It shows a street and some people standing

8 in a street. Which street is that?

9 A. I think that this is Od Puca.

10 Q. What can you say about the damage there relative to what you saw

11 when you walked through Od Puca on the morning of the 7th of December

12 1991?

13 A. This is in front of a building that had burned down completely. I

14 think it's the palace close to the street of Miha Pracata, a big building.

15 I don't know if that will do for the time being.

16 Q. Yesterday you told the Trial Chamber that you walked through Od

17 Puca on the morning of the 7th of December, and you saw damage and debris.

18 How does the damage and debris which you can see in that video compare to

19 that what you saw and described yesterday to the Trial Chamber?

20 A. This is just a very short clip which is supposed to jog my memory.

21 I can recall that this is what the pavement looked like with a lot of

22 debris, glass shards. Quite simply, I mean it was difficult to pass

23 through the street.

24 [Videotape played]

25 MR. RE:

1 Q. We just showed a building at 35.43.

2 35.43, do you recognise that building?

3 A. Yes, yes, I do recognise it.

4 Q. Which one is that?

5 A. This is a house in the street Od Puca. It's the palace that I

6 mentioned a few minutes ago, the one that I said was close to Miha

7 Pracata. It had burned down completely. And I have a lasting memory of

8 it.

9 Q. Was this one of the buildings you inspected?

10 A. Yes, that's one of the buildings I inspected.

11 [Videotape played]

12 MR. RE: 35.46 and 47, there's another building there.

13 Q. Is that St. Vlaho's church?

14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the question that is

15 being put by my learned friend is a leading question. I believe the

16 witness will recognise it because anybody would. But I would just like my

17 colleague to be careful and to bear this in mind. Thank you.

18 MR. RE:

19 Q. What is that building, Mr. Vukovic?

20 A. If you're asking me about the damage we can see close up, that is

21 the terrace in front of St. Blaise's church.

22 [Videotape played]

23 MR. RE:

24 Q. 35.52, what's that?

25 A. This is Stradun viewed from the west towards the bell tower. I

1 think that on the left-hand side we see the ground floor of the festival

2 building. That is where the main building of the Dubrovnik summer

3 festival is.

4 Q. How does the debris on the pavement compare to what you saw on the

5 7th of December 1991?

6 A. This is a less striking example because we can see that the

7 pavement has already been cleaned to a certain extent. So we do not see

8 the full effect of the fire and everything else that led to the

9 destruction of this building.

10 Q. If you can just look on the left-hand side of the picture, there's

11 a fire hose which seems to be leading towards a door and you can see a

12 wall. Do you know which particular building this is?

13 A. If I understood your question, this is the building that I

14 described only a short while ago.

15 Q. Yes, that's right. There's a building, you can see a red hose

16 going diagonally directly towards a door, and there's a window. I just

17 want you to look at the wall. It's on the left-hand side of the screen.

18 You can see some marks on the wall.

19 A. The question?

20 Q. How clearly on the monitor in front of you can you see marks,

21 pockmarks on the wall of that building?

22 A. Well, the damage can be seen, primarily that caused by shrapnel.

23 And I also think that the window posts and lintels were obviously

24 destroyed, too, because of the extreme heat. That is to say that it was

25 all turned into limestone.

1 Q. Just stopped at 35.58. I'm sure my learned friend won't mind me

2 leading on this particular building. Is that the Onofrije fountain,

3 Mr. Vukovic?

4 A. Yes. The Onofrije fountain.

5 Q. Just stop at 36.04. There's a street shown there. Which street

6 is that?

7 A. This is Siroka Ulica, Siroka Street, viewed from Stradun facing

8 the south.

9 Q. Is the debris shown there similar to the debris you described

10 yesterday on your walk through that street, the Siroka Street, on the 7th

11 of December 1991?

12 A. Yes, yes.

13 Q. Stop at 36.08. There's a burnt-out building there. Do you know

14 which building that is?

15 A. That is the facade of the building that I mentioned a short while

16 ago, the one that I said that remains in my lasting memory. It's in Od

17 Puca. That's it.

18 Q. 36.12, stop there. Is that the same building?

19 A. It's the same building. It is a fragment of this building that is

20 closer to Miha Pracata Street.

21 Q. Stop at 36.15. There's a narrow street there with a man walking

22 down it. Which street is that?

23 A. This is a street near St. Joseph's church. So when you go down Od

24 Puca, there are streets on the side, and I think there's a building on the

25 left-hand side there that had burned down completely.

1 Q. Do you know the name of the street?

2 A. I think it's St. Joseph's Street.

3 This was the entrance into the palace.

4 Q. A moment ago you mentioned entrance into the palace. Was that the

5 same palace you described earlier?

6 A. No. It's the palace on the corner that's in the row of palaces

7 that burned down in the same street.

8 Q. Was that in St. Joseph's Street?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. We just stopped at 36.19. Is that a building on the Stradun?

11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

12 MR. RE: He can say no.

13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think the question

14 has to be does the witness know what building this is, rather than leading

15 him on, suggesting that it is this or that. I think that this is an

16 unfair way of putting questions. I can understand his fervour, wanting to

17 prove something that's extremely difficult, but please...

18 MR. RE: The fervour is just trying to move the proceedings on,

19 but I won't lead if there's an objection to...

20 JUDGE PARKER: That seems to be the position, Mr. Re. So you're

21 on notice.

22 MR. RE:

23 Q. That building, do you know where that building is, Mr. Vukovic?

24 A. It is on Stradun, and I know the building. It is the ground floor

25 of a block which is on the corner of Siroka and Stradun. This is where a

1 bookstore was.

2 Q. Was that a building you inspected?

3 A. No, I did not. But it was in the block that I worked on, too. I

4 think it was number 8.

5 Q. What can you say about the marks on the walls near the windows --

6 near the window and underneath the window?

7 A. These are actually marks of a fire. They show that there was

8 shrapnel, too, that damaged the building, the facade. So when a shell

9 would fall on Stradun, then this is the effect it would cause on the

10 neighbouring buildings. So I think there were two important matters here:

11 One is that the damage was due to shrapnel and to fire. The fire probably

12 came from direct impact nearby or something like that. So that would be

13 my present observation with regard to that particular case.

14 Q. 36.34 shows -- seems to show the top floor of a building. Do you

15 know which building that one is?

16 A. I'm assuming that this is Stradun. Another matter now. I think

17 this is a building -- could I have a broader view of it, if possible?

18 MR. RE: We'll see what we can do. No.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I assume that this is a building

20 that is near a building on Stradun, near the festival building, which is

21 on Stradun. This is one of the upper floors. That's what it looks like.

22 It's the profile that's suggested.

23 MR. RE:

24 Q. That was the building at 36.34 on the video. We'll just keep on

25 moving through.

1 36.38, which building is that?

2 A. This is the cathedral, the dome of the cathedral.

3 Q. Next one, 36.42, do you know which building that one is?

4 A. The festival building. Or rather, the Dubrovnik summer festival

5 building. That is what it was called, and that is what it is called

6 nowadays as well.

7 Q. 36.50, do you recognise that?

8 A. Yes. Yes. It is St. Joseph's church in Od Puca Street. And the

9 damage can be seen here.

10 Q. Is that a building you inspected?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. 36.54, do you recognise that street?

13 A. Well, not with any certainty. But I assume that it's one of the

14 streets leading from Prijeko to Stradun.

15 Q. We've given you a wider view or a longer view. Does that assist,

16 36.59?

17 A. I cannot say with any degree of certainty.

18 Q. What can you say about the debris or the rubble on the ground

19 which was near the man at about 56.56 -- sorry, 36.56?

20 A. Could you please rewind it a bit so that I can see it somewhat

21 better.

22 Q. It's coming.

23 A. Stop.

24 Yes, I can say that that is approximately the situation that was

25 there just after I first walked into town. That is to say, lots of rubble

1 which made accessibility very difficult. That is the main characteristic.

2 The material obviously fell off the roofs because damaged roof tiles can

3 be seen here. And also some of the stone material that is hard for me to

4 define on the basis of this footage.

5 Q. Can you just point out to the Trial Chamber where you can see in

6 that photo damaged roof tiles?

7 A. I don't know how I can show this.

8 Q. Is it something that you --

9 A. Here. Here is this area.

10 Q. If you tell us where it is, we can move the cursor around.

11 A. The cursor is where it is. It's reddish-brown, yellowish,

12 reddish, something like that. And then if you can go left with the

13 cursor.

14 Q. The cursor was just to the right of the person wearing a beret

15 standing in the middle of the photo at about his knee height. It has just

16 been moved to the left --

17 A. That's right. At the same level. Yes, these are bigger parts of

18 the roof tiles, as far as I can see from this. It's not very precise, but

19 it is very, very likely.

20 Q. And I think you said a moment ago that this is a street that runs

21 between Prijeko and the Stradun.

22 A. Yes, that's what I said.

23 Q. That completes that part. We'll move to 15 seconds between 37.38

24 and 37.53.

25 The video shows some people on top of some roofs. Where is that?

1 A. Well, I cannot tell you exactly which building this is. But since

2 I see in the background the dome of the Orthodox church, it is most

3 probably block number 8, somewhere in block number 8. But I cannot say

4 anything more specific than that.

5 Q. Can you see any roof damage there?

6 A. In that block, I did not examine the damage. Not on this building

7 specifically.

8 Q. Can you see any damage in the video?

9 A. Yes, yes. It can be seen.

10 Q. Would you just point it out to the Trial Chamber where it is.

11 There are two figures. Where is it relative to the two figures, one

12 wearing a red shirt and the other one wearing a dark top?

13 A. The damage is under the feet of the man in the red sweater. Yes.

14 Q. 37.35, what is that a view of?

15 A. This is a panoramic view from the city walls, from the western

16 side above Pile gate. That is what can be seen close to us. It is a

17 damaged wall. Then in the background, Pasko Milicevic Poljana can be

18 seen. That is where the Onofrije fountain is, and also a building with a

19 damaged roof can be seen. That is actually the first building on the

20 corner of Stradun and Poljana Pasko Milicevica, which is a square.

21 Q. You just said there was a damaged wall. Is the damaged wall on

22 the city walls itself?

23 A. I said that it is part of the damaged wall which belongs to the

24 city walls itself, yes.

25 Q. Stop.

1 37.38, what's that a view of?

2 A. It is most probably a view from the same point but facing Minceta,

3 so it's probably in the northern part of town. And the damage can be seen

4 again on the parapet and parts of the stone material that fell off. This

5 was probably a direct hit.

6 Q. 37.45, there's a view with some smoke arising out of some

7 buildings. What can you say about --

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. -- that?

10 A. That is the festival building that was still surrounded by smoke.

11 That can be seen because this is the bell tower of the Franciscan

12 cloister. Near it is a building that burned down completely. So it is

13 with a considerable degree of certainty that I can say that. Also what

14 can be seen is fire, most probably on one of the buildings in Od Puca

15 Street.

16 MR. RE: That completes that clip, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE PARKER: That will be a convenient time for the first break.

18 MR. RE: Your Honour, perhaps the witness could, as discussed

19 before, just review the -- for consistency the documents from the Court

20 against those which he has to --

21 JUDGE PARKER: That can occur during the break.

22 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

23 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Re.

25 MR. RE:

1 Q. Mr. Vukovic, have you had a chance to look through the bundle of

2 documents over the break?

3 A. Yes, I have.

4 Q. And does that contain a copy of all the buildings you inspected in

5 December 1991?

6 A. Yes, it does.

7 Q. Those are the extracts from the Institute Preliminary Report,

8 P51/ID. Is that correct?

9 A. Yes, yes.

10 Q. And are you satisfied as to the accuracy of the information

11 recorded on each of the pages, inspection reports --

12 A. Yes, I am satisfied.

13 MR. RE: Your Honour, the Prosecution intends to move to have the

14 extracts tendered into evidence. I'm not quite sure of the statistics,

15 but I think I showed him 10, 11, or 12 -- 10 buildings, 11 buildings. 11

16 buildings out of the 63. For the purposes of -- I understand my learned

17 friend, Mr. Petrovic, from a discussion with him, he's objecting to the

18 tendering of those portions of the report. How far --

19 JUDGE PARKER: Perhaps we might hear Mr. Petrovic, then.

20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. The

21 Defence is opposed to having this extract of the document which is in

22 front of the witness, to have it used -- to have it tendered into

23 evidence. The reason why we feel this way is -- has already been

24 expressed during our work on this case. I do not wish to take up your

25 time, Your Honours, to repeat all of this. I just want to point out some

1 aspects of the reasons why we are opposed to tendering this exhibit.

2 I will start from the simplest of reasons, and you will understand

3 why, Your Honours. The document that my learned colleague is trying to

4 have admitted contains things that the witness does not work on. If you

5 closely look at the document, there are some parts of it on which the

6 witness did not work on at all. My learned colleague probably made a

7 mistake because the translation was wrong, but for example if we look at

8 location marked IX-25, we will see that this location was processed by

9 Matko Vetma. This is also in this binder that has been tendered. This is

10 just one example of numerous mistakes and numerous mistakes and problems

11 that this document contains. We will deal with some of them in our

12 cross-examination.

13 But the number of inconsistencies, mistakes, incorrect facts is

14 such that we feel that this document does not satisfy the minimum

15 standards required for it to be adopted as an exhibit by the Trial

16 Chamber. I'm not going to go into details. I will deal with that during

17 our cross-examination. But in any case, we strongly object to this.

18 The second set of reasons relates to the fact that only a few

19 buildings were inspected, 11 or perhaps a few more, out of a total of

20 60-odd buildings. To the question from the Trial Chamber, the witness

21 knew only about three buildings. Everything else is something that he has

22 read out. And all of the rest is something that's not based on his

23 recollection. So we simply do not have an adequate way of determining

24 that the document that is being tendered is reliable enough and it is --

25 has -- contains enough probative value to be admitted. I am convinced,

1 and I hope that the Trial Chamber will also be convinced, the Defence will

2 certainly try to do this during the cross-examination of this witness,

3 about what I have just said. And we believe that this document should not

4 be admitted into evidence, but should just be given an ID number.

5 I could go through this whole set of documents, but I'm afraid

6 that that would take up too much time so I will not do that unless it's

7 necessary, unless the Trial Chamber feels that the arguments I have put

8 forward are insufficient in which case I am prepared to do that. In any

9 case, thank you very much.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.

11 Mr. Re, concern is expressed in particular about building IX-25.

12 There does appear to be a difference between the B/C/S and the English

13 language of that report.

14 MR. RE: Yes, I apologise. My learned friend is completely

15 correct. Those were supposed to be removed from the binders before they

16 were handed up. In a rush to get them done, it must have been omitted and

17 shouldn't be in the index either. He is quite correct in relation to that

18 one.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Are there others of that nature?

20 MR. RE: None that I know of. That's the only one that I know of

21 that should have been removed. If Mr. Petrovic could point to others

22 which he says shouldn't be there, which he says the witness didn't

23 inspect.

24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you permit me,

25 please.

1 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] There is a whole series of other

3 documents from this same binder which cannot be admitted into evidence, a

4 whole series of them. And this will be the content of our

5 cross-examination so that in any event we suggest that your decision on

6 this matter be postponed until we have completed our cross-examination.

7 And then we propose that the -- this document is not accepted into

8 evidence in this case.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Just a minute.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Re, I take it, Mr. Re, you persist in your

12 tender of all but the documents relating to IX-25.

13 MR. RE: That's correct. I certainly do.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Concern arises, the witness has apparently

15 identified all the documents in here as his. Are we sure about his

16 position on IX-25?

17 MR. RE: Perhaps I could ask him, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE PARKER: I think you might have reason to do so.

19 MR. RE:

20 Q. Mr. Vukovic, building number IX-25, in Croatian, that's 01069585,

21 in the B/C/S it says it was inspected by Mr. Vetma. And in the English,

22 L0059975, it said it was inspected by you. Is that correct?

23 A. This is an obvious mistake in the English translation. The

24 information in the Croatian is correct, so I did not work on this

25 building. I noticed this, but I did not include that in my

1 interpretation, that it's identical. But I don't think that this changes

2 anything substantially.

3 Q. We're just concerned at the moment to ensure that there are no

4 other buildings in the bundle you have there which you did not personally

5 inspect. Apart from one, which has slipped through, were there any

6 others?

7 A. I did not look at the English version. I looked at the Croatian

8 version, and I think what is in the Croatian version is correct.

9 Q. All right. Apart from IX-25, were there any other buildings in

10 that bundle that do not bear your name as having inspected them?

11 A. I've already said that I checked everything in the Croatian

12 version, and that corresponds to what I worked on, whether alone or in a

13 group.

14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you permit me to

16 give you another brief argument, although the moment is not suitable to

17 make this argument since this will be the subject of our

18 cross-examination, so I apologise in advance to the Trial Chamber.

19 50 per cent or approximately 50 per cent of the reports before

20 you, Your Honours, were compiled before the 13th of December 1991. Why do

21 I mention the 13th of December, Your Honours? The same day that the

22 witness signed the reports on the buildings that he allegedly inspected,

23 on that same day, he also signed a statement to an investigator of the OTP

24 that he began work, his work, on the 13th of December. So 50 per cent

25 more or less of documents or reports contained in this binder were drafted

1 before the 13th of December, and on the same day that he signed the

2 reports that he did, he also signed a statement to an investigator stating

3 that he has joined this work on the 13th of December. This is another one

4 in a series of arguments that we intend to present during our

5 cross-examination. Thank you.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber is of the view that the tender, except

8 for item IX-25, should be received at this stage. Could I indicate that

9 the live question clearly is the reliability that is to be attached to the

10 content, but on the face of the present evidence, the document is clearly

11 relevant. It is clearly directly of probative value to issues which this

12 Chamber must decide. And it is of a nature which on the present evidence

13 indicates that it is the product, the work of the witness with others, and

14 he vouches generally for its accuracy and reliability. Even so, of

15 course, some of the content is based on what others have told the witness,

16 neighbours or tenants and the like, and therefore, is subject to

17 assessment as to weight by the Chamber in due course. And of course, the

18 reliability and, therefore, the weight which the Chamber might place on

19 this report may well be significantly affected during cross-examination.

20 But at the time of tender, which is now, it appears to us that a

21 sufficient basis has been laid to justify its receipt into evidence with

22 the exception of the documents relating to IX-25. It will therefore be

23 received as a Prosecution exhibit.

24 MR. RE: May I also move into evidence at the same time the index.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Let's just get that one in. Stage by stage,

1 Mr. Re.

2 MR. RE: Not too much further, Your Honour.

3 THE REGISTRAR: This document is marked P174.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Re, you want to admit something else?

5 MR. RE: That is the index we have prepared to Exhibit P174. Of

6 course, with the exception of number IX-25. We can, of course, during the

7 break delete that particular entry from the index, if it would assist.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Where is the entry to be found?

9 MR. RE: Page 3, the 7th item.

10 JUDGE PARKER: I was looking at the wrong document. My fault.

11 The members of the Chamber are able to strike that out and have

12 done so on page 3. But is it really an exhibit, or is it merely an aide

13 memoire to the exhibit?

14 MR. RE: It's an aide memoire to the exhibit, Your Honour.

15 Perhaps it should be appended to P174.

16 JUDGE PARKER: As an index.

17 MR. RE: Yes.

18 JUDGE PARKER: We will do that. It will be received as part of

19 P174. And there have been deleted from it on page 3 the reference to

20 building IX-25. I got my tense wrong there. "There has been deleted..."

21 Now, Mr. Re.

22 MR. RE: Thank you.

23 Q. Mr. Vukovic, Mr. Petrovic just raised a matter relating to a

24 statement which you gave to ICTY -- sorry, Office of the Prosecutor

25 investigators on the 6th of July 2000. Do you have a copy of the

1 statement there with you?

2 A. Yes, I do.

3 Q. And you have it in English and Croatian?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Would you just turn to page 3 of that statement. Do you have the

6 English one in front of you or the Croatian one?

7 A. Croatian one.

8 Q. Can you find the paragraph that begins "on the 13th of December,

9 four colleagues from the town planning office..."

10 A. Yes, yes.

11 Q. Does it read -- can you just read what that paragraph says,

12 please.

13 A. "On the 13th of December, four colleagues from the town planning

14 office (Anka Buzic, Zeljko Franetovic, Mirjana Karaman, and Davorka Kunic)

15 and I attended at the institute and made ourselves available to assist in

16 the investigations, which by this time were well underway."

17 Q. Is that what you told the investigator when you spoke to him in

18 July 2000?

19 A. Yes, I did.

20 Q. Did you consult any notes, records, or diaries when you gave him

21 that date?

22 A. No, I did not consult them. And this date was just an

23 approximation which I had in my memory at the time. So the 13th, when I

24 said the 13th, we can assume that it was on or about the 13th.

25 Q. Having looked at the records which are in Exhibit P174, can you

1 say now whether the date of the 13th of December in your statement is

2 correct or incorrect? Sorry, P174, for your information, is the extract

3 of all the buildings you inspected, including the date -- which, of

4 course, include the date of inspection.

5 A. I note that the 10th of December was mentioned as the date when I

6 went out on inspection which confirms my prior statement that it was on or

7 about the 13th. In this case, it was even earlier, possibly on the 10th,

8 and everything confirms that. I did not have the material at the time

9 when I provided the statement. It was all based on my recollection. And,

10 as I can see, I didn't go too far wrong in what I said.

11 Q. I wish to show you another video. It's Exhibit P145, which was

12 tendered during the evidence of Admiral Jokic. The description which has

13 been given of this video is one taken by some Croatian people who were

14 basically following around a commission from the JNA as it was videoing

15 parts of the Old Town on the 8th of December 1991.

16 Just to confirm, you've seen -- have you seen a copy of this

17 20-minute video in Dubrovnik and in the offices of the OTP over the last

18 few days?

19 A. Based on this footage, I cannot tell whether it's something that I

20 have seen before or not. So could you please show me a little bit of it.

21 Q. All right. We'll start right at the beginning.

22 [Videotape played]

23 MR. RE: Stop.

24 Q. I'll ask you that again later, if necessary. Stopping at 0.08,

25 can you identify that building and the roof which has a tarpaulin over it?

1 A. Yes. This is the Sponza. It's close to the bell tower.

2 Q. Stop.

3 At time of 21 seconds, can you identify that building.

4 A. Yes, that is the St. Blaise church terrace.

5 Q. Can you see any signs of recent damage on that -- that particular

6 shot? We'll just take it back a second.

7 A. I didn't understand the question. What do you mean by "recent

8 damage"?

9 Q. Damage which had occurred around the time the video was taken.

10 A. Are you thinking of the 6th of December?

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. On the 6th of December, the shelling occurred and the damage

13 probably also occurred on the 6th of December, if this is what you're

14 talking about. Then in that context, yes, then, it is a recent hit.

15 Q. There's a close-up shot -- 25 seconds. What does that show? It

16 shows something just above a balcony rail.

17 A. It's on the wall. It's a stone relief that was damaged. I

18 remember that detail very well. That is all that I can tell you about

19 that. It was probably caused by a direct or indirect shell hit.

20 Q. Just stop you there. It shows some steps. That's at the time of

21 38. Which steps are those?

22 A. It's part of the same church, but this is the side from the

23 Gradska Kavana.

24 Q. If you look at the bottom stair, there seems to be some damage to

25 that. Can you comment on that?

1 A. Yes, it was most probably damaged by shrapnel coming from impact

2 in the vicinity.

3 Q. Stop you there at 51 to 53. Was that another shot of St. Vlaho's

4 church, taken from the top of the church looking down?

5 A. Yes, yes. It's the same terrace balustrade. And also, this is

6 the same part of the stone relief and the pillar of the church.

7 Q. Just stopped at a time of 56. Is that what you're referring to,

8 the stone relief and the pillar of the church?

9 A. No, it's a little bit more to the right, just above the pointer.

10 Q. I want you to comment upon the three holes which appear to be in a

11 stone pillar which is in the middle of the still. Time of 56.4.

12 A. These are shrapnel traces.

13 Q. Just go back. Between 57 and one -- 57 seconds and 1.04, there

14 was a hole in the pavement of something. Where is that? Sorry, it was

15 58.

16 A. These are traces of a direct hit or direct impact by a shell.

17 Q. Whereabouts is that?

18 A. In this shot, this frame.

19 Q. No, just where the hole was.

20 A. Well, I'd have to have a broader view of it. I think it's Luza. I

21 think it's in front -- yeah, yeah, that's it. It's the square in front of

22 Sponza, St. Blaise's, and the bell tower.

23 Q. 1.16, it's focussing on some rooftops which is on the Stradun.

24 Can you identify which building that is or where that is on the Stradun?

25 A. Well, at any rate, this is a building that belongs to the second

1 row of houses on Stradun. I would need to have a broader view now in

2 order to be able to assess where it is exactly.

3 Q. At 1.20, there's a shot looking up a street with a pile of rubble

4 and debris up to the left. Which street is that?

5 A. I think this is one of the streets going from Stradun to Prijeko.

6 I assume this is Boskoviceva, but if you could show me a bit more perhaps

7 I could confirm that it really is Boskoviceva. Yes, it is Boskoviceva.

8 Q. Stopping at 1.35, could you recognise where those buildings were?

9 A. I'm sorry, I have 1.37 here in front of me.

10 Q. Just going back.

11 A. Yes, it is Boskoviceva Street.

12 Q. We've stopped at 1.38, and there's a pillar with a gutter to the

13 right. What can you say about where that building is and what it shows?

14 A. This is the beginning of Boskoviceva Street, so it's part of

15 Stradun. These are traces of the vaults that existed before the great

16 earthquake in Dubrovnik, the earthquake of 1667. So this detail belongs

17 to the building we discussed just now, Boskoviceva Street at the very

18 beginning by Stradun.

19 Q. What about damage? Can you see any damage to any structure?

20 A. Yes, yes. The damage can be seen. The broken stone, the profiles

21 that were damaged. It is possible that this came from shrapnel. So

22 indirect impact.

23 Q. 1.44, we'll stop there. Do you recognise that street?

24 A. Yes, yes. That's the next street going towards the Franciscan

25 cloister. It's Dropceva. Also, this is the beginning of the street at

1 Stradun leading towards Prijeko.

2 Q. There's a person doing something with some tiles there at 1.50.

3 What can you see in this shot in relation to building debris and rubble

4 and materials?

5 A. That's what I said a few minutes ago. The roof material was

6 falling into the street all smashed. So these were small pieces or big

7 pieces. This shows the situation when these roof tiles were being removed

8 already with the hope of having them repaired and having the roofs

9 repaired. So that is what I consider to be noteworthy.

10 Q. You said that was Dropceva Street the next one up from Boskovica.

11 Is that from Stradun going towards Prijeko?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Just stop there. That's at 2.09. Where is that building?

14 A. Would you please be so kind as to rewind it so that I can see the

15 wider context.

16 Stop. So, I can recognise this. In the upper right-hand corner

17 of this still, we can see the beginning of Dropceva Street, and this

18 closed area is the ground floor of the house that actually belongs to

19 Dropceva Street. So this shot was taken from Stradun.

20 Q. You described shrapnel --

21 A. Towards Dropceva.

22 Q. You've described shrapnel damage to buildings you saw on the video

23 P66 to buildings on Stradun. Can you see any shrapnel damage to those

24 particular buildings?

25 A. It is quite evident. We called this piketine.

1 Q. Meaning what?

2 A. Well, it's these tiny little shards of -- coming from the stone

3 walls, and this was caused by the metal parts of the shells that fell.

4 Q. And would buildings -- were other buildings on the Stradun in this

5 state after the 6th of December? That's the building which is at-- time

6 at 2.08.

7 A. As far as I can remember, yes, and that goes for the majority.

8 Q. What about before the 6th of December? You told the Trial Chamber

9 yesterday you were regularly visiting your mother once or twice a week

10 before the 6th of December. Were the buildings along the Stradun in that

11 condition before the 6th of December? When I say "condition," I mean

12 bearing those types of shrapnel marks?

13 A. Yes, yes. There were some in part. I cannot remember the exact

14 localities, but there were some before the 6th, too. Again, I say it

15 cannot be compared to the period after the 6th.

16 Q. Time of 2.24. Can you recognise that building?

17 A. I think that this is a building in Stradun facing the north in

18 relation to the position of Stradun.

19 Q. You mean facing towards Srdj. Is that what you mean by facing

20 towards the north?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Can you see any damage to that building?

23 A. Yes. I can see damage in the upper right-hand corner. I can see

24 the cornice, and also I can see the window that is damaged, the wooden

25 shutter was broken. And there's even more damage than that that can be

1 seen.

2 Q. 2.37, there's a video still of a building. Where is that

3 building?

4 A. This is also a building in Stradun which belongs to a particular

5 row of buildings that are on the northern side of Stradun.

6 Q. What are the cross streets?

7 A. I cannot see from this particular still. If you could give me a

8 broader view, perhaps I could say.

9 Q. Does that assist?

10 A. I assume that this is either Kuniceva or another street like that

11 viewed in respect of the bell tower of the Franciscan cloister and

12 recognising the building that we can see right now.

13 Q. 2.54 shows the pavement. Is there a hole at about 2.54? Is that

14 also on the Stradun?

15 A. I have before me 02.56, but I did see the previous footage, and

16 that is a hole in the pavement on the Stradun.

17 Q. Was that hole, or a hole similar to that, on the Stradun before

18 the 6th of December?

19 A. No. If it had been there before, it would have been cleared up,

20 at least to a certain extent and it wouldn't have been in this condition.

21 Q. I just want you to comment about 2.55, 56, after that hole you can

22 see some red -- stop -- red material on the pavement around the channel

23 that runs through the middle of Stradun. What is that red material?

24 A. The recording is not clear enough, but I think that I can say that

25 these are smashed-up roof tiles that fell from the roof onto the pavement.

1 Q. And just whereabouts on Stradun is the shot at 2.56?

2 A. This was recorded before Siroka. So practically it is the block

3 with which Siroka begins, or rather ends -- or rather Stradun and Siroka

4 Ulica.

5 Q. 3.11, there are two windows and doors. Do you recognise those

6 buildings?

7 A. I can just say something very tentative. I would need a broader

8 context. This is the northern side of Stradun. Yes.

9 Q. Stopped at 3.20. What street is that?

10 A. Siroka Street viewed from Stradun towards the south.

11 Q. What can you see in the bottom left hand on the pavement of that

12 shot behind or underneath the red taping?

13 A. Well, the same material I referred to earlier on. That is to say,

14 roof tiles that were totally smashed up. And also, little pieces of stone

15 material.

16 Q. Where the cursor is, at the immediate bottom right-hand corner,

17 there's a post which -- can you see any shrapnel or any damage to that

18 particular object?

19 A. Yes, yes. There are parts of shrapnel that can be seen.

20 Q. Just go back to 3.30, there's a shot which shows a hole in the

21 pavement on Stradun. I just want you to tell the Trial Chamber where that

22 particular -- where this particular shot is taken from. That's at 3.27.

23 Stop.

24 A. Could you please replay this footage so I can see it again.

25 This was recorded from the beginning of Siroka Street towards the

1 northern side of Stradun. This is the building that is next door to the

2 festival building. We can go on now if you wanted me to comment on other

3 matters.

4 Q. I'm just interested in the hole in the pavement which was shown at

5 about 3.27. Was that similar to the other holes in the pavement you've

6 commented on earlier?

7 A. Could you show me the hole, please, and then perhaps I can

8 describe it in greater detail.

9 Q. What can you say about the impact and the marks to the right?

10 There's two people standing there. One in white who I assume is an ECMM

11 monitor. And to the right, there were two other legs. What can you say

12 about the hole, its dimensions, and the marks to the right of that? Those

13 smaller marks on the pavement.

14 A. Well, this is a typical example, at least the way we interpreted

15 it, of a mortar shell. According to the information we had, it had the

16 effect of destroying the surface. This is a good example of how we

17 perceived mortar-shell hits.

18 Q. All right. There's a large hole just between, really, the legs of

19 the person in white, and there are some smaller marks between his legs and

20 the legs of the person wearing beige trousers. What can you say about

21 those smaller holes, the smaller marks coming away from the larger hole?

22 A. If you mean the one down here, that is to say, by the legs of the

23 person wearing beige trousers --

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. -- that is exactly what I was talking about. The effects of an

1 explosion of a mortar shell. That was at least our interpretation. And

2 then we observed this. These small parts of the pavement that were

3 broken, that is like when an ink drop falls on a piece of paper. So

4 perhaps that would be a picturesque way of explaining what happened.

5 Q. And you mean radiating out from the point of impact. Is that

6 another way of describing it, in one direction?

7 A. Yes, yes. Radiating out from the centre towards the periphery,

8 yes.

9 Q. Which building are we looking now at 3.34?

10 A. Well, I've just said. It's the building right next door to the

11 festival building, the one that also burned down.

12 Just stop here now. And could you rewind it a bit. Stop.

13 This is Mrs. Dragicevic. The Dragicevices were mentioned earlier

14 on. This is Mrs. Berta Dragicevic, and she is actually my mother's

15 neighbour in town. I just wish to draw your attention to this, if you

16 permit me to do so.

17 Q. Was she the one who had the keys to the Katic palace?

18 A. Yes, yes.

19 Q. And that was at 3.45. Keep going.

20 Just stop there. I've just stopped at 4. Which building is that?

21 A. I think that this is the same building, but it's ground floor

22 actually. Would you just rewind it a bit so that I can see the broader

23 view in order to be able to confirm what I have been saying just now.

24 Q. When you say "same building," you mean the same opposite the

25 festival palace that was burnt out?

1 A. That's right.

2 Q. I just want to take you back to the building you just identified,

3 again just stop there at 4.00. Just very briefly, the rubble which you

4 can see on the footpath there to the right of the person with the camera,

5 you described earlier red tiles. Is that the same sort of debris?

6 A. Yes, yes.

7 Q. The building you've just seen from the inside of the -- the

8 burnt-out building, 4.10 to 4.12, which building is that, do you know?

9 A. Well, I'd need to have a look at the outer side, if you can find

10 one for me. I can only make an assumption now, but if you can find

11 something like that for me, then I could confirm what building it really

12 is.

13 Q. I'll stop you there at 4.16. There's a street, and there seems to

14 be some smoke rising from somewhere. Do you know what street that is?

15 A. I think this is a street going from Stradun towards Od Puca, and I

16 think it belongs to block number 8. Now, which street is this? I think

17 it could be the one right next to Siroka. I think it's called

18 Cubranoviceva or something like that.

19 Q. Stop there at 5. Is that a shot of the Onofrije fountain at 5.01?

20 A. Yes. We see part of the fountain.

21 Q. Stop there. At 5.13, there's a shot of the stairs which encircle

22 the fountain. Just atop the red tape that is surrounding, do you see any

23 damage there?

24 A. Yes, we can see that part of the stone step was damaged. There's

25 a part that's missing. And that's due to shrapnel, too.

1 Q. 5.17, what's that a shot of?

2 A. These are the steps leading into the Franciscan church at the top

3 of Stradun.

4 Q. What in your opinion has caused the damage shown in that still?

5 A. Correction. I'm sorry. Can you rewind it a bit so that I can

6 have a broader view.

7 These are the steps at the entrance into the Franciscan church at

8 the stop of Stradun. So shrapnel damage can be seen here. That is to

9 say, indirect damage.

10 Q. Stop there. Time of 5.31, there's a shot of a building with some

11 holes in the roof. Which building is that?

12 A. This is the atrium of the Franciscan monastery, and this is one of

13 the wings that comprise the cloister.

14 Q. 5.37, where is that one?

15 A. It's the same building, and these are the columns of the atrium,

16 and this is the top of the column that has been broken off the capital.

17 Q. At 5.55, there are some trees or palms which are broken to the

18 ground. Whereabouts are those palm trees?

19 A. It's in the same atrium.

20 Q. 6.05, where is that?

21 A. It's the same atrium, and it's the damaged balustrade on the

22 terrace which is above the front entrance which goes all the way around

23 the atrium.

24 Q. That's in the Franciscan monastery. What was the condition of

25 those balustrades before the 6th of December?

1 A. I don't know exactly. But I assume that it was whole. This is

2 the result of the shelling of the 6th of December. This building is much

3 too important for this not to be recorded already at this stage.

4 Q. Just stop there. 6.54, we're still in the Franciscan monastery.

5 Keep going. At 7.17 -- stop -- what does that show?

6 A. This is the damaged inventory. I don't know exactly what that is.

7 I don't know whether it's an exhibit or something but, in any case, it

8 does belong to the Franciscan monastery.

9 Q. Just stop there. At 7.32, there's a hole in the roof underneath.

10 Is that Minceta to the right?

11 A. Yes. In the back, you can see the Minceta.

12 Q. The roof which was the concave-shaped hole in it just immediately

13 to the left of -- below, to the left of Minceta, is that still the

14 Franciscan monastery?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. That time was at 7.35.

17 A. This is a building of the upper atrium of the monastery. It has

18 two atriums. It has -- the one on the ground floor is a larger one, and

19 there is another atrium which belongs to the upper part of the building.

20 Q. That was at -- time of 7.50.

21 Just stop there. There's a person holding something at 8.18.

22 What is it? Or do you recognise it?

23 A. Yes. These are the parts of the -- of a mortar shell, the wings

24 of a mortar shell, 120-millimetre one.

25 Q. At 8.33, someone's holding something that looks like something

1 coming from ammunition. Do you know what that is or have you seen

2 something like that before?

3 A. I assume that this is either a tank or a cannon shell, something

4 like that. But I couldn't really say exactly.

5 Q. Stop at 9.08. Do you know where that is? Can you recognise that?

6 A. If you can just give me a broader frame, please. Yes. I think

7 this was the interior of the old pharmacy, so this is an interior shot in

8 the Franciscan monastery.

9 Q. And could you see any damage there?

10 A. Could you please just go back a little bit on the footage so that

11 I can tell you a little bit more about it.

12 Q. We just showed you 9.07 to 9.12. Did you see any damage in those

13 clips?

14 A. Yes. I saw traces of projectile impact and also a small part

15 indicating shrapnel impact points. I think the previous -- the larger

16 markings are from a direct hit.

17 Q. Just stop there, at 10.13. Is that still in the Franciscan

18 monastery?

19 A. This is the famous library, the old library.

20 Q. Just stop there. At 10.25, there's some debris on the floor of

21 the library. What can you say about that debris relative to the debris

22 that you saw in your inspections of buildings in the Old Town of Dubrovnik

23 in December 1991?

24 A. This example points to examples of direct hits which occurred

25 above on the roof structure. So this probably came through the roof,

1 which of course was also damaged in the same place. This is just an

2 indication of a direct hit. That's one thing.

3 Another thing is that this is definitely proof that this happened

4 on the 6th of December and not before because, had it occurred before, it

5 would have been removed by that time.

6 Q. What is it about the shape or dimensions or the consistency of the

7 material that allows you to reach your conclusions?

8 A. This is a fragment of straw which was -- had mortar over it. And

9 it comes from the ceiling. So you can see a fragment of the ceiling, and

10 you can also see the construction on which this mortar -- to which this

11 mortar was attached. And you can see that from this example. That is the

12 most important thing that leads us to conclude that this was actually a

13 direct hit.

14 Q. 10.38, you can see a hole in the ceiling above. Can you comment

15 on that?

16 A. This is what I have just told you. There was probably a direct

17 hit on the roof. It broke through the roof, and also through a part of

18 the ceiling. So the place below the roof had also been damaged. And then

19 you can see that as a result of the direct hit, that section of the

20 ceiling fell.

21 Q. Can you see daylight through that upside-down L-shaped hole in the

22 ceiling between the cracks in the wood?

23 A. Yes. This little white blue part that you can see is actually a

24 piece of sky that you can see.

25 Q. Stop there at 11.22. It showed a building with a hole in the

1 roof. Where is that building?

2 A. This is the building where the Jadran restaurant was located at

3 the time. We called it Klarisa. And it used to be St. Klarisa's

4 monastery.

5 Q. Is that immediately to your right as you come in the Pile gates

6 behind the Onofrije fountain?

7 A. Yes, that's that building.

8 Q. 11.25. There's a -- what looks like a fountain in the centre of

9 the still. What's that?

10 A. This is not a fountain. This is just the top part of a well,

11 actually, that is below. And we can see the damage. The damage was

12 caused by shrapnel. So it's an indirect hit.

13 Q. Was that damaged on the 6th of December?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. 11.38, you can see some trees in the corner of a courtyard. Is

16 that still the Jadran restaurant courtyard?

17 A. Yes. That's the atrium where the Jadran restaurant was.

18 Q. What can you say about the damage to the trees?

19 A. Nothing. It's fresh. You can tell by the green colour that it's

20 fresh foliage and that this happened most probably on the 6th of December.

21 Q. 11.45, can you identify that building.

22 A. Yes, it's the same building. Also this one.

23 Q. If you look at the shot which is 11.44.9, there's a pillar to the

24 left and a window to the right. And the walls are a reddy [sic] ochre

25 colour. There are some marks there. I think I can see six lighter

1 coloured marks on that building. What are those marks?

2 A. This was caused by shrapnel. This is a plaster facade that was

3 painted, and the damage was obviously caused by shrapnel.

4 Q. We just saw a hole in paving at 11.50. You just described damage

5 to the Jadran restaurant. Is that in the courtyard or is it somewhere

6 else?

7 A. I would need to see. Yes, yes, it's the same courtyard.

8 Q. Is that impact similar to the ones you've described earlier on the

9 Stradun?

10 A. Can you rewind it a little bit, and then I'll be able to tell you.

11 Yes, it's similar. But the foundation here is earth. It's soil. And

12 here, we're talking about fragments of stone. When they're hit by that

13 kind of projectile, it leaves a small mark.

14 Q. Stop. The building at 11.55, can you identify that building.

15 A. Yes, it's the same building, or it's a complex of buildings

16 comprising four wings. This is one wing that looks out to the west.

17 Q. And the damage that you can see above the window, the second

18 window from the corner, in which direction is that facing, damage to the

19 roof and gutter?

20 A. This faces the east side.

21 Q. Can you recognise the burnt-out building which is at 12.06

22 onwards?

23 A. I think that this is the festival building filmed from the inside

24 towards Stradun. And there is -- that's the side street there that we can

25 see. Yes.

1 Q. The building which was just shown at 12.43, could you recognise

2 where that one is?

3 A. 13.43. Perhaps you can play that for me.

4 Q. 12.41, just there.

5 A. Could I look at a broader frame, please. I cannot identify it

6 yet. It's a little bit dark, so I can't see it properly.

7 Q. It won't get any better.

8 12.44, 12.45, where's that?

9 A. Yes. This is the Iza Roka Street looking from the south to the

10 north. This is a small street which is to the south of the Od Puca

11 Street. And it leads to the St. Dominik church. This is the corner

12 building towards Siroka Street.

13 Q. I just want you to comment on the rubble and debris you can see in

14 the street at 12.45.

15 A. This is rubble of the furniture, equipment, stone, crushed bricks

16 that you can see. And this is what I saw when I went there for the first

17 time. The street was strewn with rubble, and this is an example of what

18 it looked like in one section.

19 Q. Was St. Dominik church one that you inspected?

20 A. No. St. Dominik's church is not shown here. There is

21 St. Domino's church here. There is a difference because there is also a

22 St. Dominik's monastery. But this is St. Domino's church.

23 Q. And I've just stopped at 12.56. There's a gentleman wearing a

24 coat with black legs, and you can see in front of him the steps to the

25 church. What can you say about the marks on the steps to the church?

1 A. Here, you can see well a place of direct impact. And you can see

2 traces of the shrapnel which destroyed the staircase of the main entrance

3 of St. Domino's church. I think this is an example of a mortar

4 projectile. And I am concluding this on the basis of the surface effect

5 that we can see here.

6 Q. Are you referring to the -- what seems to be the area of damage

7 behind the man with the black trousers? The cursor is just moving from

8 right to left on the screen, at the bottom of the screen, at counter

9 12.58.

10 A. Yes, I'm talking about that part, and also the part that is

11 immediately in front of it. So this is a kind of cause and effect example

12 of a direct hit and also the consequences of an indirect hit.

13 Q. You said you saw shrapnel. Can you point that out.

14 A. No, I did not say that I saw shrapnel. I just said that I saw the

15 traces of shrapnel.

16 Q. Can you just clarify what you mean by "traces of shrapnel."

17 A. The traces simply means the effects of impact by small shell

18 fragments which disperse at the time of the impact of the shell, and they

19 make these small holes or damage on the stone wall.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Is that a convenient time, Mr. Re?

21 MR. RE: It certainly is.

22 --- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.

23 --- On resuming at 12.54 p.m.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Re.

25 MR. RE:

1 Q. Returning to the video, Mr. Vukovic --

2 MR. RE: Earphones.

3 Q. We were up to 13.08, and that was Iza Roka -- 13.08, what street

4 is that?

5 A. This is Siroka Ulica looking towards Stradun. And it was in front

6 of the St. Domino's church.

7 Q. Was that the -- there were two churches, St. Dominik's and

8 St. Domino. Did you inspect St. Domino?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Do you see St. Domino church in that photo -- sorry, in that

11 still?

12 A. No, you cannot.

13 Q. We stopped at 13.13. There's a burnt-out building. 13.04,

14 13.05. Can you recognise that building?

15 A. Yes, that is the corner building on the crossroads of Siroka and

16 Od Puca Streets. We called it the Grbic house.

17 Q. Is that the same building in the photograph now, in the still now

18 at 13.12?

19 A. Yes, yes. The same.

20 Q. 13.15 to 16, which street was that? Can you tell?

21 A. That is Od Puca moving from Siroka Street towards Gunduliceva

22 Poljana.

23 Q. The video is going into a burnt-out building at 13.26. Which

24 building is that?

25 A. Could you please give me a broader frame.

1 It's okay. You can stop now.

2 Q. I just want you to identify which building it is.

3 A. This is a building which was not shown in the first footage. This

4 is a building which I inspected in front of the Orthodox church. It was

5 completely burnt. This is the biggest building in the Od Puca Street

6 amongst those buildings that burned. And we can see that building here.

7 Q. That's at 14.39 on the counter. The building which was shown at

8 13.26 onwards, are you able to say which building that was, which was

9 shown from the inside and outside?

10 A. This was one of the palaces. At the beginning of that series of

11 those which I inspected, so going from Siroka Street towards Gunduliceva

12 Poljana. So that's the building which was next to the corner building.

13 It was the interior of the building. I recognised it by the outside

14 openings. It used to be a barbershop.

15 Q. The one shown -- is that in Od Puca, the two buildings you've

16 described?

17 A. Yes, that's the street. It's one in a series of burned-out

18 houses.

19 Q. The one we're looking at at the moment, 14.39 on the timer, what's

20 the address of that street? You said you inspected that one. Sorry,

21 what's the address of that building?

22 A. Yes. The address is Od Puca number 11. That is block 9, building

23 17.

24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would just kindly

25 ask that the record reflect that the witness provided the Trial Chamber

1 with this information from some private notes that he has in front of him.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Re, could you explore that.

3 MR. RE:

4 Q. Mr. Vukovic, you just looked into a pile of documents to find that

5 address. What documents were you looking at?

6 A. This is a photocopy of the same material. However, it does not

7 have those code numbers of the Court. The text is identical to the text I

8 found here. So it can be seen that it is one and the same building. The

9 answer to the question that was put is that.

10 Q. All right. Could I ask you to put your material to one side.

11 A. May I intervene.

12 Q. We have an identical copy of what you're referring to, which is

13 called P174. We just prefer it if you would get your information from the

14 Court exhibit rather than the identical copy of your own material because

15 the Court copy has the evidence numbers on it. So could I just ask you to

16 put it to one side for a moment and just -- yes.

17 A. Can I just ask for one thing in relation to what is being

18 discussed now.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the material that I have as

21 official material that is being used by you all, there is not an

22 accompanying map. So it is hard for me to find my way, to orient myself,

23 so it is only the map that helps me from my material.

24 JUDGE PARKER: It appears, Mr. Re, that what we've called the

25 index is not included in the material the witness has.

1 MR. RE: I think he means the map of the blocks or zones to

2 identify which building is which.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Exhibit 172.

4 MR. RE: That's correct.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Perhaps the witness might have Exhibit 172, and

6 then we'll get back solely to court exhibits.

7 MR. RE:

8 Q. Mr. Vukovic, if that's your material, can you just please close

9 the binder and just put it aside and use the court material.

10 Number XI-17 is at page 01069572; English is at L0059962. I

11 apologise. I haven't made a note of the number. Can you tell me the

12 number again.

13 A. What do you mean? The text or the pictures?

14 Q. The code number. Was it IX-17?

15 A. Yes, it is IX-17.

16 Q. And that's the building described as the Marojice Kaboge, a

17 residential business.

18 JUDGE PARKER: I see in the transcript we have it as XI-17 in one

19 place, and IX-17 as another. Can we be confident in the position?

20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps I can help my

21 learned friend. He is saying IX-17 whereas he is supposed to be looking

22 at XI-17.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're right.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic. It's good to see

25 cooperation between Defence and Prosecution.

1 MR. RE:

2 Q. I'm starting again, I'm sorry, 01069656, XI-17, Od Puca 11, is

3 that the building you're referring to?

4 A. That's what we're talking about.

5 Q. Let's go back to the video.

6 At 14.41, 42, what street is that one?

7 A. That is Od Puca Street.

8 Q. So 14.59, earlier you referred to the city walls. Is that another

9 shot of the city walls?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Whereabouts?

12 A. Above the western entrance into town, towards Pile. This is the

13 side facing the eastern part.

14 Q. What sort of damage can you see to the walls on the right?

15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm sorry for

16 interrupting. But this is damage that was already identified in the

17 previous footage. So it would only be fair if my colleague would say that

18 in the so-called Grbic film we saw the same thing, so let's not show one

19 and the same thing twice and depict it as double damage. So it is the

20 very same thing that is simply being shown and identified twice.

21 MR. RE: I'm not arguing with that. I was told I wasn't allowed

22 to lead or put words into the witness's mouth as to where it was.

23 JUDGE PARKER: That's being a little cheap.

24 MR. RE: May it please, Your Honour. I withdraw that comment.

25 Q. Can you confirm, Mr. Vukovic, that is another shot of the city

1 walls that you saw earlier in P66, the Grbic video?

2 A. Yes, yes, that was already seen.

3 Q. Just stop there.

4 You can see a roof in the photo -- in the video at 15.08. And

5 there's a hole in the roof, a red roof, and a roof which has mottled

6 tiles. Where are those two roofs?

7 A. As I follow this footage, this is block number 8 in our

8 identification list. I could not tell you which building this is exactly,

9 but that would be its approximate locality.

10 Q. We've stopped at 15.04. Whereabouts is that? There's a building

11 with some --

12 A. It's the same block. If you mean the building that has a damaged

13 roof, that is a building that is facing the Stradun. And it is within

14 block number 8.

15 Q. Which street -- you said it's facing the Stradun. Do you mean

16 it's on the corner of the Stradun?

17 A. No. It's somewhere around the middle. Actually, it's in the part

18 of block 8 where the festival building is. I think it is vis-a-vis that

19 building.

20 Q. What's the side street? When I said on the corner of Stradun, I

21 meant facing Stradun. And there's a gap between those two buildings,

22 meaning there's a street there. What's that street that runs from the

23 Stradun southwards?

24 A. I cannot tell you with any certainty. Perhaps it's Getaldiceva.

25 That's just an assumption. I have very few elements that could indicate

1 what this really is.

2 Q. Okay. We'll stop again at 15.08. Can you be more specific as to

3 which street those two buildings are in?

4 A. Again, it's block number 8. It's closer to Poljana Paska

5 Milicevica. I cannot tell you exactly which street it is.

6 Q. How close is it to the Onofrije fountain?

7 A. At least two streets or two rows of buildings away from the

8 Onofrije fountain.

9 Q. Just taking you back to 15.09, the holes in the roofs of those two

10 buildings, what can you say about the damage to those particular roofs?

11 A. It is direct impact. The roof structure was damaged as well as

12 the attic structure. I don't know whether that is sufficient.

13 Q. Just stop here. At 15.14, you can see a man dressed in overalls

14 wearing a beanie on his head appearing to be doing some building work on

15 a -- while standing on what looks like a balcony. Can you identify which

16 street is just behind -- which street he's facing from that building

17 there?

18 A. It's facing Od Puca Street.

19 Q. From this wider view at 15.19, does that assist you in identifying

20 the damage -- the location of those buildings with the holes in their

21 roofs we saw a few seconds ago?

22 A. Could it please be focussed a bit, then I could be able to tell

23 hopefully.

24 This is the building that faced Stradun.

25 Q. I can't see what you're referring to. Can you -- there's a

1 building in the corner. That's the Stradun. Is that the one on the

2 corner with the square --

3 A. No, no, no, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about

4 the building that was on the previous still.

5 Q. Do you want to go back?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Okay. Just so it's written on the record, we're looking at a shot

8 at 15.20. There's a building to the right -- the one at the bottom of the

9 screen on the right, is that the building on the corner of Stradun and the

10 square in which Onofrije fountain is?

11 A. Yes, yes, that's the building.

12 Q. And what's the street that -- the next street parallel to the

13 square in which the Onofrije fountain is, that runs between those two

14 buildings?

15 A. Od Garista is the street. And it's a covered street. It's around

16 the middle of this block.

17 Q. Can you now see from looking at this wider shot where -- in which

18 street were located the buildings with the holes in the roofs.

19 A. The only thing I managed to identify here is the first, second,

20 third, fourth street from Poljana Paska Milicevica, the one with the hole

21 in the roof, the one facing Stradun. That's what we had seen in the

22 previous footage before these two roofs that you want me to talk about

23 now. I wasn't sure then, but I am sure now where this building is.

24 Q. The streets running from Garista, Zlatariceva, Gunduliceva, and

25 Cubranoviceva, in that order.

1 A. Would you please repeat that. From the Pasko Milicevic square

2 towards the east, there is Garista.

3 Q. Followed by Zlatariceva.

4 A. The next one after Zlatariceva is Gunduliceva, and the one after

5 that Cubranoviceva. I'm talking about the building at the corner of

6 Cubranoviceva and Stradun. That is block number 8.

7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could I please have

8 this clarified. I don't really understand what the witness's statement

9 is, not only in relation to this particular building, but a series of

10 buildings that we have been dealing with for the past hour and a half or

11 two, or rather that Mr. Re has been dealing with over the past hour and a

12 half or two. So what is the statement of this witness? Which street?

13 Which building? I don't find that to be very clear. Perhaps it's not all

14 that important that things are not clear to me, but I wish it could be

15 made clear.

16 MR. RE:

17 Q. Could you identify from the map, Mr. Vukovic, that's the plan, you

18 said in block 8, which building it is that we are talking -- that you're

19 talking about here.

20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not understand the witness's

21 answer.

22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Again, I have to object,

23 Your Honour. Now the witness is looking at the list of damage. Since

24 he's looking at the list of damage, of course it's going to be easy for

25 him to find what it is. And we were trying to have him identify things

1 with the assistance of the videotape, not to have him simply read out from

2 584. I thought that he was simply supposed to recognise things from the

3 videotape.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, I think you're quite mistaken. The

5 witness has turned simply to Exhibit P172, and he is there looking at the

6 grid systems.

7 MR. RE:

8 Q. You've told us it was on the corner of Cubranoviceva and Stradun.

9 A. Yes. It's the fourth street from Poljana Paska Milicevica. If

10 that is Cubranoviceva street, then it is Cubranoviceva and Stradun.

11 Q. What's the building number?

12 A. It is block number 8. The building number is 13.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 MR. RE: Could I just inform the Trial Chamber for Your Honours'

15 benefit, we have actually plotted on to a computer-generated chart the

16 buildings which we anticipated that Mr. Vukovic would identify from the

17 video. If I were to do this in respect of every building that he looks at

18 and the map, we would be here for a long, long time. Just in the

19 interests of efficiency, I can discuss this with my friend afterwards as

20 to whether he agrees with the ones we put on the map. Because we can

21 certainly identify them from the plan grid.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

23 MR. RE:

24 Q. Moving back to the video, 15.25, is this the city walls?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Whereabouts?

2 A. This is above the Pile gate. So it's the western side.

3 Q. All right. 15.35, the camera has turned out of the Old Town.

4 What's the building it's looking at at the moment?

5 A. We see two buildings. In front, we see the Pucic palace, and the

6 Imperial Hotel is in the background. This is the building of the

7 interuniversity centre, right below the greenery.

8 Q. 16.01, what is depicted there? What has the camera moved to?

9 A. Could you please give me a broader context.

10 Okay.

11 Q. We're now looking at -- we've shown 16.01 to 16.07. What are we

12 looking at?

13 A. 16.07 shows the entrance into the block where the Jadran

14 restaurant is. There were two orange trees in front here, but one of them

15 was felled by the impact.

16 Q. Just stop there. 16.15, you can see some debris on the ground

17 there. Can you indicate what that is from your experience of inspecting

18 buildings in the Old Town after the 10th of December.

19 A. There is a specific thing here. Broken plastic telephone booths,

20 shards of this plastic, and also the tree that was just felled. That's

21 what I can see. And also occasional shrapnel damage.

22 Q. 16.25, there's a building with a hole in the roof. Can you

23 identify that building.

24 A. I haven't seen it yet.

25 Q. Just there. 16.23, I'm sorry.

1 A. I cannot see it from this camera angle, or rather I cannot

2 recognise it.

3 Q. 16.28, there's a red-roofed building with a hole in it. Can you

4 recognise that building, or where it is, the location in the Old Town

5 where the building is?

6 A. It is the block that is on the western side of Stradun.

7 Q. Which block is that --

8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Northern.

9 MR. RE:

10 Q. Just tell us which block that is on the plan which you have in

11 front of you.

12 A. I cannot tell you with certainty, but this is this zone in any

13 case, near the Franciscan monastery.

14 Q. What number is the zone you pointed to?

15 A. A37. I think that's there. I cannot really memorise each detail

16 of the roofs. Perhaps I can memorise the streets, but not the roofs.

17 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please wait for the

18 translation to finish before he starts speaking. Thank you.

19 JUDGE PARKER: The translation was underway, Mr. Petrovic, when

20 you commenced your submission. So we've lost part of you -- or all of

21 you.

22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness, on line

23 18 -- line 19 page 37 [as interpreted] said this was block 2, 3, or 7, but

24 in the transcript, it says A37. And this is an obvious mistake. Thank

25 you.

1 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

2 MR. RE:

3 Q. There are 17 numbers marked on that plan. In which block or zone,

4 which number is it out of the 17? That's all we want to know.

5 A. I've already said, I'm not sure whether this is one of the three

6 blocks that I'm talking about. So it could be 2, 3, or 7. This would be

7 my closest estimate.

8 Q. 16.36 and 16.37, can you recognise where those buildings are?

9 A. Yes. These are parts of the Franciscan monastery. This is the

10 east wing which is very close to the festival building. And you can still

11 see traces of smoke there.

12 Q. There were two holes in the red roof, which is at 16.37, one near

13 a -- looks like a bell tower sort of structure, and one at the end of it.

14 Is that roof of the Franciscan monastery or complex?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. 16.42, you can see a building directly -- building opposite the

17 smoldering or smoking building. Which one is that?

18 A. That's the building that I talked about. This is the fourth

19 street from the Paska Milicevica Poljana, and you can also see that from

20 this angle.

21 Q. Is that the one you described as having a direct impact to the

22 roof?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. 16 --

25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise for interrupting my

1 colleague. But for precision, this is a building which is in zone 8,

2 number 13. That is how the witness marked it a little bit earlier, if I'm

3 not mistaken. That's the first thing.

4 Second thing, those two hits on the Franciscan monastery building,

5 we saw that earlier, but we saw that from the courtyard of the monastery,

6 and now we're looking at it from the street. So I just wanted to clarify

7 that.

8 MR. RE:

9 Q. Let's go to 16.43. We've seen -- we've looked at the city walls

10 before. Is that a similar shot of the city walls Showing a large missing

11 chunk of debris on the walkway.

12 A. This is also a part of the western section of the wall near the

13 Franciscan monastery at a place where you can see the front of a former

14 waxworks, where candles were made. And this is a facility that burned

15 down.

16 Q. 16.53, what is that a shot of?

17 A. This is the dome of the Franciscan monastery bell tower, and it's

18 facing to the east. I think the hit came from the east.

19 Q. You're describing a hole towards -- on the left-hand side of the

20 cupola towards the top. Is that correct?

21 A. Yes, yes.

22 Q. Did that happen on the 6th of December?

23 A. I don't know. I was not a part of that inspection, so I'm not

24 able to confirm that.

25 Q. 16.55, there's a shot of some houses showing some roof damage. Do

1 you know where those houses are?

2 A. No, I cannot. It's too small, and it's not something that you

3 would see every day.

4 Q. Is that the same for the still at 17.00 or 17 minutes?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. 17.08, there's a close-up shot of an attic missing its walls but

7 retaining its roof. Do you know where that is? We'll keep moving it. It

8 may --

9 A. This is in that upper part that I was talking about. These are

10 either blocks 2 or 3 in that sector of town.

11 Q. Is that the northern part of the Old Town?

12 A. North of Stradun.

13 Q. 17.10 appears to be another shot of the city walls or walkways.

14 Whereabouts is this one?

15 A. Would you rewind it a little bit. I have not managed to identify

16 the exact place.

17 This is below Minceta on the part of the walls from Minceta

18 towards the eastern sector. That area is called Peline. That's the

19 street which runs along the walls, and this is a shot of that part of

20 town. And the -- this is damage on the walls. This is just a rough

21 orientation, and I'm not exactly sure what street we're looking at, this

22 street that we can see diagonally down below.

23 Q. At 17.23, there were people repairing roofs. Do you know where

24 that is, which part of town it's in?

25 A. Could you please rewind it a little bit, but I think if it's in

1 the same sequence, then that is also the northern part of town.

2 Q. 17.25, 26, 27, you see people repairing roofs. And 17.30. Stop.

3 A. Stop. Here you can see a series of houses going towards Stradun,

4 and we can see these two square green windows. Behind them is the Od

5 Polaca Street in the top part, so it's in the background. In the

6 forefront of the frame is the continuation of the Nikola Bozidarevica

7 Street, yes, the Nikola Bozidarevica Street. We would need to see exactly

8 what that street is called. The street that goes from Stradun towards

9 Prijeko.

10 MR. RE: Could the witness be shown P13.

11 Q. While we're doing that - that's at 17.33 - Mr. Vukovic, I'll just

12 take you back about 8 seconds. The streets or the location of where the

13 people are repairing their roofs at 17.29, do you know where that is?

14 A. Based on this, you can conclude what it is.

15 Q. I'm just showing you a street plan of Dubrovnik. Go back to

16 17.33. I'm sorry, you said: "Based on this, you can conclude what it

17 is." Which area are we talking about?

18 In 17.33, where are you looking from and to? Which street are you

19 referring to?

20 A. Well, I don't know if I can say it.

21 Q. Which part of town --

22 A. You're looking from the north part of the walls, from the north

23 part of the town from the walls.

24 Q. Just indicate on this St. Vid tower area, looking down towards

25 Stradun.

1 A. Yes, that is in this area here. And you're looking towards here.

2 That is that part here. It's very difficult to say what it is. It could

3 either be Zamanjina Street.

4 Q. Or?

5 A. Or Kuniceva. So that would be that area there.

6 Q. Okay. Thank you. If we just go back a few seconds, the rooftop

7 damage we're looking at and the people repairing at 17.29 and 17.30, is

8 that in the same area you've just been describing, the same approximate

9 area?

10 A. Yes. That would be that broad camera angle.

11 Q. At 17.38, you can see a building with a hole in the roof. It's a

12 corner building. Where is that building?

13 A. It's on the crossroads of the Izmedju Polaca and Nikola

14 Bozidarevica Streets. I think that is still block number 8. It's the

15 bordering area.

16 Q. Was that a building you inspected yourself?

17 A. No. Not that building. I only looked at one building in that

18 block, and that was the Od Polaca.

19 Q. What sort of damage can you see on the roof of that building?

20 A. I can see that it was a direct hit, and that the roof structure

21 was damaged. The only thing is that I don't know if there were any

22 additional consequences beneath the roof. But what I have said, I have

23 said on the basis of this footage.

24 Q. Stop there. 17.56 to 17.58, can you recognise the buildings shown

25 in that still?

1 A. Yes. If you're thinking of the building with the green windows,

2 that is a block that faces Stradun, and that was a block where I was. And

3 this is a building that I visited.

4 Q. Which cross street -- sorry, what's the nearest cross street?

5 A. We can see the street in the background. It's a building facing

6 the Od Polaca Street. Could you please just rewind it a little bit.

7 A little bit more, please. Stop.

8 I think that this is Miha Pracata Street, which goes from Stradun

9 to the southern section of town.

10 Q. The transcript reads "Od Polaca." Do you mean Od Puca?

11 A. Od Polaca.

12 MR. RE: I note the time, Your Honours. Your Honours probably

13 want to know how much longer I will be.

14 JUDGE PARKER: You're spot on, Mr. Re.

15 MR. RE: There's about 3 minutes left of this video. At the

16 current rate, that should take about 10 minutes, I'd think, to complete.

17 I also wish to have the witness mark with some circles on the overhead map

18 which I tendered yesterday of locations. I drew a legend in white on the

19 side, and there's one other exhibit that I wish to take him to. So I

20 would hope an hour or so.

21 JUDGE PARKER: It seems to be three times the estimated length of

22 examination of this witness.

23 MR. RE: In the original assessment, it probably would have been.

24 The difficulty the Prosecution has had has been with the Exhibit P51/ID

25 and having to go through --

1 JUDGE PARKER: Just looking at the last letter to the Chamber,

2 which indicated three hours for this witness. You've now had eight.

3 MR. RE: I'll try and finish in half an hour tomorrow if I could.

4 JUDGE PARKER: We have been patient, Mr. Re. But a lot of this

5 detail seems closer than appears to us presently to be necessary.

6 MR. RE: All I can say is in the absence of any agreement as to

7 the extent of damage and where it occurred in the Old Town, unfortunately

8 we felt compelled to take the witness through fairly specific detail.

9 JUDGE PARKER: We will adjourn now and resume tomorrow. Could we

10 indicate that there is the question of the submissions about the fitness

11 of the accused. I think it would be appropriate if they were heard first

12 thing tomorrow morning, and then we'll continue with this witness. We

13 don't want that question to just keep being put off. So we will resume

14 tomorrow morning.

15 [The witness stands down]

16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,

17 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 6th day of May,

18 2004, at 9.00 a.m.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25