1 Friday, 7 May 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.09 a.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. Good morning especially,
7 Mr. Vukovic. May we remind you of the affirmation you took at the
8 beginning, which is still applicable.
9 Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
10 WITNESS: SLOBODAN VUKOVIC [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 Cross-examined by Mr. Petrovic: [Continued]
13 Q. Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Good morning, Mr. Vukovic. During the break yesterday afternoon
15 and evening, did you perhaps remember the building where your mother
17 A. I didn't even try to think.
18 Q. All right.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
20 P172, the one on which he started marking something yesterday.
21 Q. Could you please look at page 10, or rather, the map of insula
22 number 10. I don't know if it's on the ELMO properly, because I can't see
23 it on my own monitor.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Can it please be zoomed out a
25 bit, because we can't see it properly. Thank you.
1 Q. So could you please mark for us the house where you say your
2 mother lives. Could you please show it on this map, and could you please
3 shade that particular building, if that's not a problem.
4 A. [Marks]
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could this document
7 also be admitted into evidence? My colleague kindly provided the same map
8 of insula number 10 which does not have any markings on it, so we have
9 P172, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the drawing that I am
11 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received, Mr. Petrovic.
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
13 THE REGISTRAR: This document will be marked D79.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could the witness
15 please be shown document P63, tab 9.
16 Your Honour, since this is a very voluminous document, I
17 photocopied the pages that are important for us here from that particular
18 document so that our work would be facilitated as much as possible. So
19 could it please be distributed to everyone, yourself included. So this is
20 P63, tab 9.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Petrovic.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, these are pages 1100
23 -- 1190745. That's one. The other one is 90 -- 01190750, and also the
24 translation into B/C/S. All of this from tab 9 of this particular
1 Q. Mr. Vukovic, on page 1 of this document -- please look at the
2 first page of this document. Please be so kind as to put it on the
3 overhead projector. It's going to make things easier. Would you please
4 be so kind as to put a circle around building number 4, the one that is
5 marked on this map.
6 A. [Marks]
7 Q. Thank you. Please look at the next page of the document and then
8 tell us: Is this the building that is at Buniceva Poljana number 6? In
9 order to assist you, the document in question is a document of the
10 Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments. Mr. Vetma and
11 Mr. Franic are the authors of this document and it has to do with the
12 damage sustained by buildings in the Old Town in the period from 1991 to
13 1992. So can you see Buniceva Poljana number 6 here?
14 A. It is this building here, and it's also half of this building
15 which can be seen in the background.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 JUDGE PARKER: The record should reveal that the witness
18 identified neither of the buildings in the foreground on the left and in
19 the right half of the photograph, but a building somewhat in the
20 background between the two, which is in the second quarter from the left
21 of the photograph.
22 Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. So the building at Buniceva Poljana number 6 is what can be seen
25 on this photograph on page 2; is that right?
1 A. Partially, yes.
2 Q. Now, please look at page 3 in B/C/S. The translation is here.
3 Before we move on to that, could you please be so kind as to answer the
4 following question: The house where your mother lives, was it hit on the
6 A. No.
7 Q. Thank you. Please be so kind as to tell us, since I showed you
8 the building in Buniceva Poljana number 4, I showed you the building at
9 Buniceva Poljana number 6, and you showed and marked here for us a few
10 minutes ago yet another building altogether as the building where your
11 mother lives. When looking at the map of the town of Dubrovnik, do you
12 know how to mark where your mother's home is?
13 A. I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. Could you please
14 repeat it for me.
15 Q. The question is as follows: On the map of the town of Dubrovnik,
16 do you know how to mark the place where your mother lives?
17 A. I've already done that on the other diagram.
18 Q. Since you told us yesterday that your mother lives at Buniceva
19 Poljana 4 or Buniceva Poljana 6, I presented to you yesterday report 10-3,
20 which pertains to Buniceva Poljana number 4, and I now showed you a
21 document where Buniceva Poljana number 6 can be seen, and at the beginning
22 of the morning session, you marked a completely different building for us.
23 My question is: Do you know at all, on the map of the town of Dubrovnik,
24 or rather, the Old Town, how to mark where your mother lives?
25 A. In order to make things clearer to you, Mr. Petrovic, I'm just
1 going to give a brief answer. My statement, namely 4 or 6, does not
2 diminish the importance of my lack of security in terms of the number
3 itself. I was not sure whether it was 4 or 6 or something else. So this
4 number is totally irrelevant. However, what is quite unequivocal and what
5 I can confirm most definitely is that what I marked - excuse me - what I
6 marked with the little dots is definitely my mother's house. I'm just
7 asking you whether you are sure enough as to what you're talking about,
8 and are you familiar with the situation in Buniceva Poljana?
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this document, which
11 is an extract from P63/9, where the witness marked the building of
12 Buniceva Poljana number 6, could it please be admitted into evidence as a
13 Defence exhibit?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I just add something to this?
16 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, certainly. Mr. Vukovic, yes.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Actually, in order to make things
18 clearer, Buniceva Poljana is irregularly shaped. Its structure of
19 buildings and entrances to buildings are not customary in terms of what a
20 square usually looks like and what the entrances into the buildings are.
21 The buildings are entered into from small approaches leading to the
22 square, although even these little approaches are called Buniceva Poljana.
23 And the entrance is underneath this, and I can tell you exactly where it
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, can the exhibit please
1 be admitted into evidence, or rather, the document that I proposed.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, the document is already in evidence,
3 and this extract hasn't been specifically marked, so I don't really see
4 that we need it again.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the first page of this
6 document was marked by the witness. He put a circle around Buniceva
7 Poljana number 6, and he did that on the ELMO. And that is why I would
8 like to have this admitted into evidence.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me. Can I just say something
11 JUDGE PARKER: Just a minute. I had overlooked that,
12 Mr. Petrovic. Thank you. It will be received as an exhibit.
13 THE REGISTRAR: The drawing is D80.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Vukovic --
16 MR. RE: Can I -- just for a moment. Mr. Vukovic -- my learned
17 friend Mr. Petrovic I think stopped him just before he was trying to
18 complete an answer, and he indicated --
19 JUDGE PARKER: He was completing a further statement. I've
20 allowed him one opportunity to do that, and I think, Mr. Re, if you want
21 to take it up, you can in re-examination.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I withdraw
23 this. Sorry.
24 Q. Mr. Vukovic, you said that from some friends or colleagues of
25 yours, you learned that allegedly the damage sustained by the Old Town was
1 17 million US dollars. Is that what you told us here?
2 A. Yes. 17.5 million US dollars. That was on the basis of the
3 preliminary report. However, there was another figure that was bandied
5 Q. I'm just asking you if that was what you said yesterday, or
6 rather, the day before yesterday before the Court. If that is what you
7 said, that will suffice and I don't ask you anything else.
8 In the document that was admitted before this Honourable Trial
9 Chamber and which is in tab P63, or rather, in Prosecution Exhibit P63,
10 tab 9 -- and could that document please be given to the witness. This is
11 a document which is an estimate given by the Institute for the Protection
12 of Cultural Monuments. This document was compiled by Vetma and Franic.
13 The total estimate of the damage for 1991 and 1992, Mr. Vukovic, is around
14 5.200.000 dollars. Could you please be so kind as to tell us how come it
15 is possible that Vetma and Franic gave an estimate of 5.2 million and that
16 your estimate is --
17 MR. PETROVIC: [In English] That's tab 6, and we now need tab 9.
18 MR. RE: I object to the form of the question. The witness --
19 it's not the witness's estimate. Mr. Vukovic's evidence was what he
20 heard. It is not his own estimate. The way it's been presented to him is
21 as if it is his own estimate which he has come to himself.
22 JUDGE PARKER: I think that's right, Mr. Petrovic.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm going to rephrase
24 my question, then.
25 Q. You were informed that the damage was 17.5 million dollars. If I
1 tell you that Vetma and Franic placed the total damage for the entire
2 period of 1991 and 1992 at 5.2 million, please tell me: Which one of
3 these two estimates do you believe more?
4 A. First of all, for your own information, I have to say that what
5 you received from me was unofficial information. It was received, if I
6 can put it that way, an institution that has to do with reconstruction in
7 an operative fashion. So there were two versions that they made. One was
8 based on what our estimate was, the one that we had done, and the other
9 one was amended, or supplemented, because at that moment not all the
10 indirect damage was taken into account in terms of the damage due to
11 detonations and vibrations, and those that caused such destruction. So I
12 really cannot make any further comment with regard to this particular
13 piece of information, because actually all three documents show that the
14 material that we worked on meant that it had to be improved all the time,
15 and it indicated that the damage was certainly not at the levels that were
16 initially established. This figure of 17.5 million dollars, I cannot tell
17 you when it was established, whether it was established before what my
18 colleagues Mr. Franic and Mr. Vetma did or after that. So if we
19 understand this to be a process that went on and that in a way was being
20 amended and supplemented, then I think that we can believe all three
21 pieces of information, but this process of supplementing information
22 actually went on from the moment when my colleagues Mr. Franic and
23 Mr. Vetma started with the figure of 5.2 million, and then it moved on to
24 17.5 million, and 54 million ultimately.
25 I'm telling you that all of this is unofficial because I did not
1 take part in it myself. I cannot give you an exact figure, but I can tell
2 you that I believe all three elements.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
4 P63, tab 9.
5 Q. Mr. Vukovic, since I cannot see what's in front of you, is that
6 the book, the cultural heritage destroyed during shelling in 1991 and
7 1992? What does it say on that page?
8 A. You mean what does it say at the top?
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please pause between answer
10 and question. Thank you very much.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Could you please look at and please tell us, first of all, whether
13 this book recording the damage refers to the complete period of 1991 and
15 A. I'm not familiar with this material. I've already said this. And
16 after my expertise in 1991, I no longer participated in further
17 processing. This material was obviously drafted after that, so that I
18 cannot tell you what this document is about, at least as far as my
19 recollection from that period.
20 Q. When your first information -- if your first information was 17.5
21 million and then was later reduced to 5 million, does that mean that the
22 damage shown in the preliminary report was exaggerated?
23 A. I don't think you understood me properly. There is a process
24 whereby it was first 5 million, then 17 million, and then the final number
25 was 54. So I think it does not go from 17 to 5, but it goes in the
1 sequence that I mentioned.
2 Q. And when was this? Who told you about that information about 17
3 million, and when did they tell you?
4 A. I found this out unofficially, before I came to The Hague, meaning
5 before 10 or 15 days ago.
6 Q. And who asked you that?
7 A. I asked some of my colleagues from the Institute for
8 Reconstruction, which deals with the operative part and which bears the
9 burden of organising and managing the restoration of Dubrovnik following
10 the destruction.
11 Q. And who told you this?
12 A. I think that it was Mr. Vjekoslav Vierda who -- I don't know what
13 his post is at the moment. He was an official from the reconstruction
15 Q. Did he take part in the assessment of the damage in 1991, 1992?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Are you sure that he told you that?
18 A. No.
19 Q. And can you please tell me: Which period does this damage refer
21 A. We didn't talk about that. In a way, it was just indicated or
22 shown through these two figures, and that was all that I obtained at that
23 time, and I considered that sufficient.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I don't need this document any
2 Q. You testified before the Trial Chamber that in the period that
3 we're discussing, you came to the Old Town once or twice a week in
4 October, November, and December of 1991. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes, based on what I remember. I wasn't keeping a diary, so this
6 is just an approximate statement.
7 Q. When you went to the Old Town, did you go along the walls of the
8 Old Town?
9 A. No, I did not.
10 Q. Did you go to the Franciscan monastery during your visits?
11 A. No, I did not go to the Franciscan monastery in that period.
12 Q. Did you go to the Dominican monastery?
13 A. No, I did not.
14 Q. Did you pass through the small streets of the Old Town, except for
15 those streets which lead to your mother's house?
16 A. No. I mostly focused on getting there as soon as possible, so it
17 was like tunnel movement. I always used the same route. I would go
18 partially along the Stradun, then Od Puca Street, so I would not be
19 exposed -- I would not be seen from Zarkovica, where I would be exposed to
20 sniper fire.
21 Q. Did you know where any shell fell and what it damaged in the
22 course of October, November, and December 1991?
23 A. I did see the damages on Stradun. I think we're talking about two
24 or three impacts on the sidewalk. And this is what I recall at the
1 Q. You mentioned on the 5th of May, when you were asked by my learned
2 colleague - this was on page 11 of the unofficial transcript - that
3 following the shelling in October, you came to the Old Town and then,
4 after the October shelling, you describe that there were fragments of
5 stone everywhere, that there were roof tiles and pieces of the facade
6 strewn all over, that the Boskoviceva Street was damaged in particular.
7 Is that true, what I have just quoted you as saying?
8 A. Well, I would first like to see the material so that I can connect
9 it all. Boskoviceva Street was also shelled in that period, before the
10 6th, and I remember very well that there was this rubble there that you
12 Q. On page 11, you said that on your route from Pile, Stradun, along
13 the Stradun to your mother's, there were fragments of stone everywhere,
14 fallen roof tiles, and facade fragments. This was from the transcript on
15 the 5th of May.
16 A. Well, "all over the place" is something you can take as a relative
17 description. In that period, particularly in November, there were scores
18 of hits all over town, so it was just something that stuck in my memory
19 during that period, and that is how I described it.
20 Q. Now, you're telling us about October, if I'm not wrong.
21 A. Yes, I'm now talking about the period prior to the 6th of
23 Q. Would you please tell us, when you say "preliminary report," when
24 you look at a preliminary report, why is the report a preliminary one?
25 A. That is a good question, and I think it will probably give you
1 answers to all your questions about that. A preliminary report is used as
2 a term for something that is subject to certain changes. From the outset,
3 when you begin to work on such material, in a way it's an open situation
4 where details are constantly being added. What we did at that stage was
5 precisely that; we opened up this process, we began it.
6 Q. Was there a final report ever compiled?
7 A. No, I don't know that.
8 Q. Could you please tell us: Why was there such a hurry to complete
9 these preliminary reports?
10 A. Well, I don't know the reasons, but it was clear, in a way, that
11 this material should be presented to the international public so that such
12 cultural and historic entity should be shown to the world and the damage
13 made to it, so that we could gather the means and the funds in order to
14 restore such a damaged cultural heritage, meaning the whole town. I was
15 not privy to the whole scenario, but we did carry out that project with a
16 great degree of enthusiasm, and we were internally motivated to complete
17 this work.
18 Q. What was the most important thing that was to be determined in
19 this preliminary report?
20 A. I think we were to determine the extent of the damage. We wanted
21 to see what the overall extent of the damage was, and in my assessment,
22 since I am an architect and a planner, to determine the degree of damage,
23 the type of damage we're talking about, and also to see how possible was
24 it to still continue to use those buildings and how we could organise the
25 reconstruction stages gradually, and so on.
1 Q. Could you please provide us with brief answers since we are short
2 of time and we would like to complete your testimony as soon as possible.
3 A. Yes, of course.
4 Q. As I -- as far as I understood from your questioning so far, or
5 your testimony so far, and based on your answers from my learned friend
6 from Mr. Re, the dates when certain things happened are of secondary
7 importance in relation to the actual extent of the damage and to what
8 actually happened.
9 A. May I respond? It's not of secondary importance, but it wasn't of
10 primary importance, or it's not of lesser importance.
11 Q. How important was it for you to determine the kind and type of
12 projectiles which caused the damage?
13 A. That was not so important for us. We just wanted to see what the
14 source of damage was so that we could see what the effects were on the
15 building in terms of the damage that occurred.
16 Q. Were you interested in the direction where the projectiles came
17 from that caused the damage?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Were you interested in knowing the characteristics of the shell or
20 other means which caused the damage?
21 A. I've already said that. It was important for us as previous
22 information, because we knew that, for example, mortar shells had a
23 different kind of damage. It was more of a surface damage, while tank or
24 other types of shells went more deeply, and they caused greater extent of
25 damage. So that our prior knowledge was that, before we set out on our
2 Q. What did you know about Howitzer shells?
3 A. We simply knew that they were more dangerous than the mortar
4 shells in terms of their post-explosion effect. And I know in my own
5 personal experience that I was most afraid of such tank or cannon grenades
6 or shells. I don't know whether they were Howitzers, I'm not a
7 professional in that sense.
8 Q. In how many places did you find the remains of Howitzer tank or
9 any other kind of shell which hit the town?
10 A. I can tell you with certainty that it was in one street. This
11 was, I think, in block 11, close to the area next to Strossmayerova
12 Street. We were told that this shell did not explode.
13 Q. How do you recognise the remains or the parts of an exploded
14 Howitzer shell?
15 A. It makes a narrower crater. That was our kind of estimate. So
16 its impact or energy of impact was much greater. But this is my own
17 interpretation, so please take it with a certain degree of reserve.
18 Q. Does the damage depend on the angle of impact?
19 A. Well, I'm not a ballistics expert, so I can't answer that
20 question, but perhaps we could conclude something like that based on what
21 we see on the ground.
22 Q. Do you know anything about impact angles?
23 A. I do now, but at that time I did not know anything about that.
24 Q. At the time when you were drafting the report you didn't know
25 anything about that?
1 A. My knowledge of that was very superficial.
2 Q. Was there a police investigation and an on-site investigation
3 conducted by the police about the events that we are discussing here and
4 have been discussing over the past few days?
5 A. As far as I know, I don't think so, but I cannot be sure about
6 that. As far as I know, it was not conducted.
7 Q. In your team, did you have a criminal investigations technician,
8 perhaps, who did the investigation to find out how the damage was caused?
9 A. I already said that we were the technical team that was supposed
10 to record the technical damage, but we did not deal in the criminal
11 investigation side of that.
12 Q. Did you have anybody in your team who was a ballistics technician
13 in order to determine the cause and the manner of the damage?
14 A. Well, we could not allow ourselves such a luxury, in view of the
15 circumstances that we were working in.
16 Q. Replying to a question from my learned friend on May 5th on page
17 39, you said that the information about when and how a building was
18 damaged was received also from the people who lived there or from
19 neighbours. What did you do in cases where there were no people who
20 actually lived there?
21 A. Mostly the situation was that the tenant or the neighbours were
22 there. If we were dealing with a building that was burned down
23 completely, then we would hear what the neighbours had to say about it, or
24 from those who happened to be in that building during the shelling but who
25 had taken shelter. Of course, they were not in the building during the
1 shelling itself.
2 Q. The buildings that had completely burned down, what did you know
3 about the causes? Why did these buildings burn down completely?
4 A. We were talking about flammable projectiles, which -- incendiary
5 projectiles which hit the building. We had information about whether this
6 was -- we did not have information whether this happened to be a mortar or
7 a tank shell, so it was not something that was relevant to us at the time.
8 Q. Are you claiming that the fires were caused by an incendiary
9 projectile, that they could not have been caused by another type of
11 A. Well, I cannot know that. All that we knew was that the fire was
12 caused by a projectile that had hit the building.
13 Q. Could you please tell us whether you found any remains of any
14 agent that had caused this fire in any of the buildings.
15 A. Are you thinking of the completely burned-out buildings? No, we
16 did not find them in any of those buildings. Perhaps in one. That was a
17 building in block 9.
18 Q. I'm asking you about totally burned-out buildings.
19 A. Yes. Yes. We did find some traces. This is a building in block
20 9. It's a ground-floor building, which was completely burned down. We
21 found traces of a yellow powder, a green/yellow powder, at the place where
22 the shell hit. So it was very close to the place where the building
23 burned down, in the immediate contact zone.
24 Q. Did you try and find out where exactly the fire started from when
25 a building was hit?
1 A. Well, we did establish that the building had burnt down due to a
2 projectile that contained some sort of an incendiary mixture. And mostly
3 the fire usually started from roof down.
4 Q. Okay. We will come to the details later on.
5 A. I withdraw this.
6 Q. When talking about roofs, you've told us, if I understood you
7 correctly, that even prior to 1991, efforts were made to make the roofings
8 differ in terms of their colour; is that right?
9 A. Yes, that's right.
10 Q. When was the rector's palace renovated?
11 A. I don't know the exact answer, but that was one of the vital
12 facilities to be reconstructed after the earthquake.
13 Q. I'm not asking you about the earthquake.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. When you were looking at the map, that is, the aerial photograph
16 that you've brought here and that was distributed here, we see that the
17 rector's palace has a bright red roof.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. The same type of a bright red roof can be found on the
20 municipality building.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
24 Prosecution Exhibit P174.
25 Q. Since there are many buildings here, please make your answers very
1 brief, because this will take, otherwise, a very long time.
2 Please look at the building marked IX-5. Who gave you the
3 information about the time when the building was damaged and the cause of
5 A. Please, could you just give me the graphic representation of this
6 damage as well.
7 Q. I think that what you have in front of you will suffice. I'm
8 asking you, on the basis of your report, who gave you the information as
9 to when and how this building was damaged?
10 A. This may be enough for you, but it does not suffice for me.
11 Q. On the basis of the report you have in front of you, can you
12 answer my question as to who gave you the information with regard to when
13 and how the building was damaged?
14 A. I believe this comes under the third category, everything that
15 hasn't burned down completely. That's the second and the third category.
16 The fourth category is the mildest one, and this was obtained on the basis
17 of inquiries with tenants and neighbours surrounding the building. That's
18 as far as I can remember. But I can't say specifically for this case
19 whether it was the neighbour or the tenant.
20 Q. Therefore, you don't know who gave you the information as to the
21 date and cause of damage?
22 A. No. I don't have enough information for me to remember what the
23 exact situation here was.
24 Q. What did Ms. Karaman do while inspecting this building?
25 A. She was there together with me. She accompanied me, in a way, and
1 was present during our inspection.
2 Q. My question was what she specifically did during these
4 A. Well, I cannot say for this specific building where she was, how
5 far she was from me, what she was doing. She was my technical assistant,
6 as a colleague, she was a member of the team who worked on this specific
8 Q. How do you know that the building was hit by a 100-millimetre
9 mortar shell?
10 A. Well, we established that on the basis of the size of the crater.
11 Now, as for determining whether it was 120-millimetre or 80-millimetre,
12 that was of less importance for us at the time. But based on the size of
13 the crater that the shell produced, we would draw a conclusion that a
14 heavier calibre must have been at hand here, in this case a
16 Q. Did you find any traces?
17 A. Well, the traces in terms of the damage, such as the crater. If
18 you're referring to the remains of the shell, I believe that in this case
19 we found none.
20 Q. Please look at the building marked IX-7. For this specific
21 building, you wrote that the remains of the shell were found, the fins or
22 the wings; is that so?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Who provided you with the remains of the mine -- of the shell?
25 A. The tenants of the building.
1 Q. How could you say that the remains of the shell were found in that
2 particular building?
3 A. Well, I know from Mr. Brandjolica that he was a music teacher, an
4 older gentleman, and it wasn't really a collection of arms, as far as I
6 Q. Did you have any other evidence to prove this?
7 A. I did not deal with the forensic processing of it. For us, the
8 fact that the building was hit sufficed. The fact that there was damage
9 incurred, and that based on the character of the damage, it must have been
10 a mortar projectile. We said it was a 92-millimetre here because based on
11 the size of the crater, that's what we concluded. Now, whether this was a
12 120-millimetre or an 82-millimetre, that was of less importance.
13 Q. Please look at the building marked IX-9. Why is there no
14 information as to the time and the date of your inspection?
15 A. Well, it must have been a technical mistake.
16 Q. Given that you established that there was indirect damage done,
17 how could you conclude that the damage had been caused by a 120-millimetre
19 A. Probably because an impact had been established on a neighbouring
20 building, on an adjacent building, which had the same characteristics and
21 on the basis of that and from conversations with the tenants, we concluded
22 that there must have been some sort of a causal link between the two.
23 Q. Are you -- how did you make sure that this damage was not made by
24 a light machine-gun or some sort of -- other sort of, for instance,
25 anti-aircraft gun?
1 A. I've told you that we didn't deal with the ballistics of it, nor
2 with the forensic processing of it, so for the level of our technical
3 expertise on it, what we established here was enough.
4 Q. Who told you as to when the building was damaged?
5 A. It must have been either the tenant or the neighbour, although I
6 think in this case it was a tenant.
7 Q. I'm asking you specifically.
8 A. I can't remember.
9 Q. Please look at the building XI-11. Did you find any remains in
10 this particular building?
11 A. Just a second, please. I have to find the building first. I
12 don't have it here. You said XI-11?
13 Q. Yes. That is -- sorry; IX-11.
14 A. Oh, I see. Yes. Yes, I was here.
15 Q. Did you find the remains of any shell or any other explosive
17 A. As far as I can see, we found none here, but we found traces of
18 it, based on the damage, which indicated the cause of damage. We
19 established that this is where the impact took place. We established the
20 scope of the damage, that is, the surface damage. And we were given
21 additional information from the tenants, as far as I remember from my
22 conversation with Ms. Batinic.
23 Q. Please look at building IX-12, IX-12. Who entered this correction
24 under the column "type of projectile"?
25 A. I cannot say with any precision whether it was a typographical
1 error, but I think it's insignificant.
2 Q. What type of a projectile allegedly produced the damage?
3 A. This was our interpretation. Now, whether it was 120-millimetre
4 or 82-millimetre, I've already discussed this earlier.
5 Q. But do you know?
6 A. No. We have not really said with any certainty whether it was the
7 120-millimetre or the 82-millimetre.
8 Q. But who told you that it was either the 120-millimetre or the
9 82-millimetre projectile?
10 A. I've said earlier that the residents themselves already had some
11 earlier experience from the different scores of hits, and, on the other
12 hand, the traces of damage indicated such a cause of damage.
13 Q. Do you know who told you this particular information?
14 A. No, not for this specific case.
15 Q. Please look at the building IX-13.
16 A. Yes, I have taken a look at it.
17 Q. Did you find any traces of a shell or any other agent in this
19 A. I can't remember whether I found any. I mean, I personally. But
20 we -- it was something we learned from Mr. Smok. It was in the attic, and
21 I remember that conversation very well.
22 Q. Do you know from what direction the projectile hit this particular
24 A. Well, here we can read that the building received two hits, one in
25 November and the other on the 6th of December. The one in November, that
1 was actually the building in front that was directly hit.
2 Q. I'm not asking you about what can be read here. We can all of us
3 read very well. My question was: Do you know where the shell came from,
4 from which direction it came?
5 A. No, we did not try to establish that.
6 Q. Please look at the building IX-17. What building are we talking
7 about here?
8 A. I don't understand what the drift of your question is. Do you
9 want me to show it to you on the map?
10 Q. No. I don't want you to show it to me. I'm interested in what
11 building it is, in what street -- in the street.
12 A. One of the buildings in that street that we marked with the number
13 17. I can show it to you.
14 Q. Why didn't you put the house number here?
15 A. It must have been a technical error, a typographical error,
16 something that was left out while it was being typed out, and I must say
17 that the report was being typed out in very difficult circumstances. There
18 was no electricity, no -- so it must have been due to that. But I do have
19 the information in the graphical.
20 Q. Did you find any traces of a projectile in this building?
21 A. I would first have to read this in order to try and refresh my
22 memory. I don't know.
23 Q. Did you read it?
24 A. Yes, I have, but as I've said, I would first have to try and
25 identify where the building is based on the graphical representation that
1 we have, because we always have the text together with the graphical
2 representation. As I've said, it must have been an error in the textual
3 part, and if there was such an error ever, then we would always consult
4 the graphical representation.
5 Q. Did you understand my question? I am asking you whether you found
6 the remains of a projectile.
7 A. I can't remember.
8 Q. You can't remember?
9 A. My answer to you is: I don't know.
10 Q. Fine. Who told you about the date or the time of the damage
12 A. It must have been the tenants or the neighbours. I can't
14 Q. Who was it, specifically?
15 A. I don't think I can say this with any certainty at present, but
16 the source of information must have been either the tenants or the
17 neighbours surrounding that building.
18 Q. Please look at building IX-18. Did you try and establish the
19 direction from which the projectile arrived in this building?
20 A. Well, yes, to the extent that we -- when we went up there, we did
21 not try and find out exactly where the impact was, but we tried, in our
22 graphical representation, to establish this.
23 Q. What is the graphical representation?
24 A. That is the representation of the projectile and the
25 representation of the building. These are the two graphical
1 representations always accompanying the text.
2 Q. Is that the P72 document that we call it?
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: P172.
4 A. Well, I don't know exactly.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Please could the witness be shown
7 Q. Is that what you were looking for?
8 A. In part, yes.
9 Q. What else do you need in order to be able to answer the question?
10 A. I need a diagram where the position is exactly pointed out, and
11 also our assessment of the damage. It's with the little arrows, so the
12 same criteria were applied and everything is the same, but I simply don't
13 know why this was not included in the material. It would have been faster
14 and easier for you and for me and for the Trial Chamber to be able to
16 Q. So do you know from which direction this projectile came, the one
17 that caused this damage? Just give me a brief answer. There is no need
18 to dwell on this.
19 A. Well, listen. I went to see 63 buildings, and 13 years later,
20 please allow me to refresh my memory.
21 Q. But do you know or do you not know?
22 A. Well, I'd have to refresh my memory. I'd have to look at this.
23 Q. Would you look at IX-19, please. Where was this building hit from?
24 MR. RE: I object to that question. The witness has repeatedly
25 said he was not looking for or trying to assess where the fire was coming
1 from. He said he doesn't know where it was coming from. It wasn't his
2 purpose. My learned friend asked him in relation to every building, where
3 was it hit from. That is different to where was the impact.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I explain?
5 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] In the indictment, my client is
7 charged with 450 buildings. It is my right to establish, through putting
8 questions to this witness and any other witness, that this is damage that
9 was caused, allegedly, by operations of units under the command of my
10 client. So if the witness is asked this question and says he doesn't
11 know, then we quickly move on.
12 JUDGE PARKER: I quite agree, Mr. Petrovic.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Do you know where the projectile came from, the one that allegedly
15 damaged this building IX-19?
16 A. The description says on the southern side, the southern facade,
17 the profile stone gutter, and that the damage was caused by shrapnel. So
18 that could be some indication where the projectile could have come from,
19 but I never studied that, or was I involved in that at the time, to see
20 where the projectile came from.
21 Q. It seems that it came from the south, judging by this description.
22 A. Yes, but you have to understand that the town is not placed
23 orthogonally but that its position is somewhat different.
24 Q. Who told you about this particular building, IX-19?
25 A. It could have been either the tenants or the neighbours.
1 Q. Who was it specifically?
2 A. Specifically, I cannot remember.
3 Q. Would you please look at IX-20. Who gave you information about
4 this building?
5 A. This is one of the major buildings. These were buildings that
6 figure prominently when the entire town is viewed. So we resorted to
7 personal observation, because we could observe the building even from a
8 distance. Now we can only establish that before the 6th of December,
9 there was no damage on the Orthodox church.
10 Q. My question is: Who provided you with this information?
11 A. As far as I can remember, our observation was carried out in a
12 similar fashion as it was with regard to other major buildings. So this
13 was personal interpretation, if we can put it that way, because we were
14 able to see for ourselves on the spot, and also even from a distance we
15 could see the roof.
16 Q. As far as this building was concerned, was it the priest who
17 explained things to you, as was the case in the Franciscan monastery? Did
18 the priest explain what happened?
19 A. Here we had a situation where, as far as I can remember now, at
20 least a bit, we went to see a gentleman -- I don't know exactly what his
21 position was. He was an orthodox priest, at any rate. And he lives in
22 the street of Izmedju Polaca. When we observed his apartment, we had
23 additional information about this, if I can put it that way, as far as I
24 can remember. I know that together with my colleagues, I talked to the
25 man about his building too, because he had an apartment in town, and I
1 think that at that moment it was even possible from that apartment to see
2 parts of the Orthodox church, especially the roof, parts of the roof.
3 Q. How long did all of that last?
4 A. Well, I think it lasted a bit longer, but on several occasions.
5 What I'm trying to say is that we came and went to the same place several
6 times, and that is how we completed our report.
7 Q. I'm asking you that because, according to the preliminary report,
8 you spent a total of ten minutes at this particular place, because already
9 at 12.40 you were at IX-21.
10 A. This just shows you that at that moment, as we were touring what
11 we could. Because the interior was not accessible to us, we mostly
12 observed things from the outside, and then we returned, and then we
13 learned things indirectly, if I can put it that way, from neighbouring
14 buildings. And we pointed that out, and we see the time span involved.
15 Q. What's the name of the man who gave you this information?
16 A. I don't know exactly. He is not the only person, because in the
17 neighbourhood there were several persons.
18 Q. What's the name of the other persons who gave you information
19 about the cause and type of damage?
20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. Please look at X-7. Who told you about the damage sustained by
22 this building?
23 A. I think it was the neighbours who told us.
24 Q. Who told you about the damage specifically?
25 A. I don't know exactly.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could I just have a moment, Your
2 Honour, please.
3 [Defence counsel confer]
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. What about the date when you were purportedly at this building?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you remember having been there?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. How can you remember?
10 A. I remember because this was within my movement through that
11 street, and I don't think that we could have missed this building while we
12 were doing this investigation.
13 Q. You were moving along this street. How do you know that you went
14 to this particular building at number 12?
15 A. Well, we were. I don't know how I'm supposed to answer this, how
16 do I know that I was at that building. I mean, I did not take any
17 pictures in order to document each and every step I made. So I don't know
18 what this means, how come I know that I was at that building? Well,
19 probably on the basis of this description and all the other information
20 that I signed.
21 Q. What is it in this description that jogs your memory that you
22 actually were there?
23 A. Well, that street. That's what jogs my memory. And that is what
24 I can be reminded by now.
25 Q. Did you see all the buildings in that street? Did you visit all
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 of them?
2 A. I cannot remember that right now, but systematically we toured all
3 buildings and practically we established whether there had been any
4 damage. As I said already, we systematically went to all buildings, and I
5 told you that at the beginning.
6 Q. Were all buildings in that street damaged?
7 A. I don't know exactly. Again, I'd have to look at the diagram.
8 Q. Did you find any remains here? Of shrapnel, that is, at this
10 A. On the basis of this description, I cannot remember exactly, but I
11 can only confirm what was written here.
12 Q. Please look at X-10. On page 75 of the transcript from the 5th
13 of May, in response to a question put by my colleague whether you went to
14 that building, you said: "I don't know exactly, but what is written does
15 point to that."
16 A. Excuse me. What was the date that you referred to? When did I
17 make this statement?
18 Q. On the 5th of May this year, on page 75, line 4.
19 A. You mean in my statement?
20 Q. In the transcript before this Honourable Trial Chamber, page 75,
21 line 4.
22 A. I'd have to look at this transcript in order to know what this is
23 about. I cannot give you an answer now.
24 Q. I am telling you about what you uttered two days ago before this
25 Trial Chamber.
1 A. Believe me, I haven't got any transcripts in front of me, and I do
2 not analyse what I said. Could you please be so kind as to tell me: You
3 said on the 5th of May. And as far as I know, it's not May, and what year
4 are we talking about? Was I meeting with the investigators in May 2000?
5 Q. The 5th of May this year, you were in this courtroom, sitting in
6 this same courtroom on that same chair, and you said that.
7 A. Oh, yes. If that is what it says, then I stand by it.
8 Q. So you don't know whether you were there at that building?
9 A. No. I know that I was there. The question was, as far as I can
10 remember, is whether I recognise this building in terms of the damage
11 sustained, and that is the only thing I can remember now, because I don't
12 have any transcript in front of me and I don't have any analysis that I
14 Q. Fortunately, we have a transcript.
15 A. There's no dilemma. I went to that building. I remember that
16 very well. I entered it from the lower door, and I know that, and that is
17 how we recorded it too.
18 Q. Who told you about this building, when it was damaged and how and
19 by whom?
20 A. I think I said then that it was the neighbours, people who have
21 apartments in the neighbourhood, and that is what we could see at that
22 moment and several times when we tried to deal with this.
23 Q. When I ask you who told you about this, that is to say its people
24 who were talking. So if I ask you who told you, then you're going to tell
25 you that you know who told you or that you do not know who told you. So
1 do you know who told you about the damage of this building?
2 A. Specifically, I do not know the name and surname.
3 Q. Do you know from which direction this building was damaged?
4 A. According to the photograph that can be ascribed to this facility,
5 the direction cannot be established. The ridge can be seen here, but
6 really, this is not my line of work and I cannot make any comments about
8 Q. Please look at XI-15. What did you establish at this building as
9 the cause of fire?
10 A. I don't think we established any causes, but the effects were
11 rather indicative.
12 Q. I am asking you about the cause.
13 A. As far as the cause is concerned, we didn't establish anything.
14 Q. Do you know where the fire started on this building?
15 A. Well, look. It started from the roof, most probably.
16 Q. How do you know that it started from the roof?
17 A. Because in a way it was caused by the impact, and then fire
18 followed. That is also the information that we got from neighbours in
19 other buildings.
20 Q. Who told you about this specifically?
21 A. I don't know specifically.
22 Q. Is this your assumption that the fire started from the roof?
23 A. It is an assumption, but it is supported by certain
24 interpretations of the neighbours who were in the immediate vicinity, or
1 Q. Who are the neighbours who said this to you, and what did they
2 tell you exactly?
3 A. I don't know the names of these people exactly, but I'm just
4 saying that this was the principle according to which we worked, that is
5 to say, putting questions to neighbours. I've said that several times
7 Q. Where were these neighbours? Were they in a shelter when all of
8 this was happening? Did they tell you about that? Or were they standing
9 there and watching what was going on?
10 A. I don't know specifically about this building, but they went to
11 the lower parts of the houses, as my mother did. That is to say, those
12 parts that were less open to hits from the air. Since these streets are
13 narrow, I think that this was a realistic assumption, or rather,
14 assessment. And they knew how many impacts came on the basis of
15 detonation, and also what was caused by the impacts.
16 Q. I'm asking you about this specific building.
17 A. This specific building shares the fate of all of those who burned
18 down, so it doesn't distinguish itself in any particular way.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could we please take a
20 short break now?
21 JUDGE PARKER: Certainly, Mr. Petrovic. It's a convenient time.
22 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. Mr. Vukovic, we're still on building XI-15. How did you determine
2 that this was a directly hit building with an incendiary bullet or
4 A. Based on the testimony of the neighbours who heard the impact, and
5 that was how we concluded that, besides the damage, the building also
6 burned down.
7 Q. Did those neighbours see the impact that you're talking about?
8 A. Yes, they most probably did.
9 Q. Where were those neighbours?
10 A. I don't know exactly.
11 Q. Where do those neighbours live? In which buildings?
12 A. From the buildings which are in the immediate vicinity of this
14 Q. Do you remember who those people were?
15 A. No.
16 Q. On the 5th of May of this year, in this courtroom, why did you
17 say, on page 68, line 25, speaking about the same building, that this
18 category of damage - we're talking about a building that burned down -
19 could have been the result only of a direct hit?
20 A. Because the other examples also indicated and proved this theory.
21 I'm talking about the buildings that burned down and which I personally
23 Q. Can fire spread from one building to another?
24 A. Yes, it can go from one building to another, and this was
25 indicated when such was the case. These were partial traces of burning,
1 and I can show you exactly where these examples are.
2 Q. On that occasion, you didn't say that the neighbours told you that
3 the building burned down as a result of a direct hit, but you said that
4 the damage, meaning that the whole building burned down, was caused by
5 only -- just a direct hit.
6 A. Well, when we're talking about buildings that burned down
7 completely, we're talking about instances of a direct hit. When we're
8 talking about buildings that -- where the fire carried on or transferred
9 from one building to another, we're talking about partially burned
11 Q. In other buildings were there cases where they were directly hit
12 but were not burned down, were not set on fire?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Were there any buildings that had incendiary material in them?
15 Did you check that?
16 A. I don't know what you mean when you say "incendiary material" or
17 "flammable material."
18 Q. Were there any gas cannisters, ammunition, fuel; things like that?
19 Did you check that?
20 A. No, we did not check for things like that, but we did see places
21 where the explosions occurred which bore traces of the yellow-green
23 Q. And why is that not stated in this report about the building that
24 burned down that we're looking at right now?
25 A. Because this building burned down completely and the information
1 that we put here was sufficient for us to determine the type of damage
2 that was inflicted and the potential source, based on our experience of
3 the damage.
4 Q. How do you know that this -- how do you know that this building,
5 XI-15, did not contain explosives or petrol?
6 A. I told you that we were not conducting a criminal investigation
7 and that this level of information was sufficient for us, the information
8 that is stated here, as well as the information about the cause of the
9 building burning down.
10 Q. How do you know that this building was not set on fire?
11 A. Well, I've told you that we were not carrying out a criminal
13 Q. Do you allow the suggestion that these buildings were set on fire
14 on purpose?
15 A. I did not encounter such cases because the tenants would
16 definitely know if this was the case; if not the tenants, then those who
17 were the immediate neighbours would know of something like that.
18 Q. Can you differentiate between a deliberate fire and an explosion?
19 A. I think that in our specific case, this difference was not
20 relevant; it was only a question of whether the building burned down or
21 not, and that the most probable cause was a hit by an incendiary
22 projectile, a projectile carrying incendiary agents, and that in some way
23 this caused the subject damage.
24 Q. But do you rule out other possibilities of why the building burned
1 A. No, I cannot rule them out.
2 Q. So it could be the case that this was a deliberate fire?
3 A. Well, I cannot say whether it was so or not. It's possible that
4 there was some flammable materials in the house, so this could have caused
5 an even greater fire following the initial impact, but the actual first
6 fire could have only been caused by a projectile hit.
7 Q. Are you still standing by that even though that you didn't find
8 any traces of projectiles?
9 A. We did not conduct a criminal investigation. We did not dig among
10 the debris. So it was not possible to go through all of this debris.
11 There were piles of it. It's possible that the debris also contained
12 remains of exploded shells.
13 Q. But you didn't look for those remains and you didn't find them.
14 A. No, we were not able to do that. This was a situation in which it
15 was impossible to dig through the rubble in order to look for evidence to
16 see what the real cause was, whether it was a mortar or a 120-millimetre
17 shell or an 85-millimetre. This was something that could not have been
18 done for reasons of time constraints, for practical reasons, and also for
19 reasons that had to do with safety.
20 Q. Do you know that the house marked as the house -- the Grbic house
21 was the location of the Belgrade Beko shop?
22 A. Yes. I think that was a shop on the corner.
23 Q. Do you know that that shop burned down that day?
24 A. That was part of the building in the Od Puca Street, where I
25 didn't go out on inspection. But I remember it quite clearly. We're
1 talking about the Grbic house, which burned down to the ground, including
2 this -- these premises that you're asking me about.
3 Q. Do you know that the building across the street housed a shop of
4 the Titograd textile company?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. And that building also burned down to the ground?
7 A. I don't know exactly. I was not in charge or I didn't process
8 that block, so I don't have that information.
9 Q. Do you know that the building next to the festival palace, Od
10 Sigurate number 1, housed a shoe shop of Obuca Belgrade and that also
11 burned down?
12 A. That information is not something that I am aware of.
13 Q. Do you know that the house in Od Puca 11, which belonged to the
14 Serbian church district, also housed a shop called Srbin, and that also
15 burned down?
16 A. I don't know that.
17 Q. Isn't it a little bit strange that out of the six buildings that
18 burned down, four of those buildings were buildings which housed shops or
19 business spaces or premises of companies from Serbia or Montenegro?
20 A. To tell you the truth, I did not check that kind of statistical
22 Q. Would you please look at building XI-16. Who told you about the
23 damage on this building?
24 A. We got our information in the same way, by directly viewing the
25 damage. This was done by the team that inspected the building and also
1 they interviewed the neighbours.
2 Q. Who told you when this building was hit? Do you know or do you
3 not know?
4 A. I don't know the first and last name of the person, no.
5 Q. Could you describe more closely who it was?
6 A. I don't know exactly which building we're talking about. If it's
7 possible, I would like to identify it on the map and then I could recall
8 exactly what building we're talking about.
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
10 P172, unless he already has it.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have the graphic image. I
12 only have the text.
13 This is the corner building.
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. I am asking you if you can describe to us who provided this
16 information to you. So could you please focus on that in your answer. To
17 describe more closely, since you don't know exactly who it was, to just
18 give us more details about who it was.
19 A. Well, I cannot recall the entire procedure. It's impossible, I
20 think, for anybody to do that, unless this was documented in some other
21 way, filmed by camera or something like that.
22 Q. Well, thank you very much. If you don't know, then that is all
24 Do you know from which direction this object was -- this building
25 was hit?
1 A. No. I don't know the direction of the impact, but based on the
2 damage, you can see potentially the direction that the shell came from.
3 But we didn't really consider that, so I cannot give you the answer.
4 Q. Could you please look at building XI-17. Who told you about the
5 damage on this building?
6 A. It was the neighbour's from buildings 18 and 19.
7 Q. Who?
8 A. I don't know exactly who it was. I know that this building housed
9 the apartment of Mrs. Bibica. I remember that very well. This is an
10 older lady. It was very cold, and she was just receiving her meals. I
11 remember her very well. She was an infirm old lady in a large apartment,
12 which, luckily, was not damaged. And I think we were talking with her
13 cousins. They were helping her. And I remember that conversation very
15 I also remember a conversation there with a colleague of mine who
16 actually lives in block 19, which borders on this one. And I also talked
17 with his mother. And that is where we received this information from that
18 you're just talking about now.
19 Q. So those two old ladies explained that this was hit by
20 120-millimetre mortar shells?
21 A. I think that this lady, Mrs. Bibica, was not the one who told us
22 that, but there were two or three younger persons who were actually
23 helping her, whereas my mother's -- my colleague's mother is a very
24 healthy, lively lady, and she could have told us about that.
25 Q. How old do you think she was?
1 A. I think she was in her 70s.
2 Q. So this lady in her 70s explained to you that this building was
3 directly hit with two incendiary projectiles of 120-millimetre calibre,
4 mortar shells?
5 A. In that same building, there is an attic apartment where a
6 relatively young woman lived with her father, and she also was able to
7 testify as to what we are talking about. So we were able to confirm our
8 information to quite an extent.
9 Q. Dear Mr. Vukovic, everything that you have been telling us for the
10 past three days is pure improvisation. Mr. Vukovic, this is a building
11 which was completely demolished. There is no apartment of Mrs. Bibica.
12 There is no longer any attic apartment. Everything that you are saying
13 you are improvising. Please, can you look at that.
14 A. Well, may I tell you something about what you have said about
15 improvisation. Improvisation perhaps is something that we're using in
16 order to recall something, but Mrs. Bibica's apartment covers 18 and 19.
17 This is also the case of the attic apartment, and if you can show me a
18 photograph, I will tell you exactly which building we're talking about.
19 But what you are talking about is building 17, and we are finding out
20 information about 17 from these other buildings. So we're not improvising
21 here. We're talking about fact, and the record speaks for itself.
22 Q. How long did you stay in these two virtual apartments?
23 A. It was not just two apartments. There were --
24 MR. RE: I object.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I withdraw my comment.
1 Q. You described conversations with two old ladies. How long did
2 those conversations last?
3 A. Concerning Mrs. Bibica, I think we spoke with her on several
4 occasions. One time the conversation was a little longer. We even had
5 tea, as far as I can remember.
6 Q. These ladies, one of them infirm and the other in her 70s, on the
7 6th of December, the town is being shelled, and they are on duty
8 observing, looking, and noting down; is that what you're saying?
9 A. Are you at all familiar with the situation prior to the 6th and on
10 the 6th in all these apartments in the town? If I may ask this
11 counter-question to you.
12 Q. Would you please answer my questions at the moment.
13 A. They were not awaiting that, but they sensed what was to happen. I
14 told you already that every hit would first hit your heart and then the
15 roof of your building. So they were very well aware of what was happening
16 in their town and in the surroundings.
17 Q. And they were aware of the fact that these were two incendiary
18 mortar shells of 120-millimetre calibre?
19 A. No. They heard the number of impacts, the explosions, and it was
20 our estimate that it might have been the mortar shell or an 82-millimetre
21 shell or something similar.
22 Q. Did you find any traces? Did you at all look for them?
23 A. No, we did not. But if we happened to find them, then --
24 Q. I'm asking you about this specific building.
25 A. Which? 17, 18, or 19?
1 Q. I've told you clearly. We're talking about the building XI-17.
2 We've been talking about it all along and you are very well aware of it.
3 Od Puca number 11. So did you in that particular building find any
4 specific remains of a projectile?
5 A. I think the case here is similar to that in number 19. This was
6 just a pile of rubble. And we did not go on to investigate the projectile
7 directly involved in this hit. We didn't go through the remains. We saw
8 that the building burnt down, and based on our interviews with the
9 neighbours, we inquired --
10 Q. But I'm asking you about the remains.
11 A. We did not find them and we did not look for them.
12 Q. Did you establish the direction from which the damaging projectile
14 A. No, we did not. I think that according to this description, we
15 can see that it was hit at the northern facade. Now, of course, we should
16 verify as to what "north" means in this case, because we don't have the
17 orientation here, and it would enable me to give you a more precise answer
18 to your question.
19 Q. This is one of those buildings for which you told us yesterday
20 that you did not dwell on them at all, since the buildings have completely
21 burnt down. This is something you've told us yesterday.
22 A. Yes, in terms of investigating its interior. We viewed the
23 building from the outside and then made our conclusions on the basis of
24 what we saw looking at it from immediate vicinity and from the buildings
25 immediately adjacent to it.
1 Q. When I asked you how it was possible that on the 16th [as
2 interpreted] of December you were present at three different buildings at
3 11.00, you offered as an explanation the fact that for those buildings
4 that had completely burnt down you did not linger there at all.
5 A. Yes. Because the only thing that we could conclude was from what
6 we saw from outside. We concluded that the building had burnt down, and
7 then from subsequent contacts with the people from the neighbouring
8 buildings that had not shared the same fate, we would learn more about the
9 impact itself. There were even traces on the facade that would provide
10 some indications, visual indications, as to the impact of the projectile.
11 Q. Did you in any of the reports state the source, the persons you
12 received information from, the name of a particular neighbour or a
13 bystander who watched the shells fall, or the name of a tenant, or anyone?
14 Is there anywhere any annotation of that?
15 A. Yes. I believe that there is. We put it in brackets. It was the
16 information we learnt at the time and that we did not think was very
17 important. We did not conduct any police investigations that would
18 require us to have in a written form the source of the information.
19 Q. Therefore, for you it was sufficient to have a 70-year-old lady
20 say that two shells had fallen and that this was a fact that you could
21 then simply put into your report?
22 A. This wasn't the only indication. It was one of the indications
23 and it wasn't the exclusive source of information that we deemed relevant
24 at the time.
25 Q. In this building, was there a shop held by a Serb?
1 A. I cannot answer this with any certainty, because I did not keep
2 that sort of statistical data, either prior to that moment or afterwards.
3 Q. Just a moment, please. Please take a look at the building XI-24.
4 Who had told you how this damage came about?
5 A. As far as I remember, this is a smaller building which wasn't
6 really on our way when moving around the town. So I cannot say with any
7 precision, but I believe that this was the case of us inquiring with the
8 neighbours and possibly with a tenant, but I'm not sure.
9 Q. Of course you don't know who you talked to or who you obtained
10 information from?
11 A. No, I don't know their names, but I know that we got the
12 information from conversations with them, among other things. I think
13 this is one of those examples where, as far as I remember, we found traces
14 of a shell, of an unexploded shell. It was 24, 23, or 22. I'm not sure
15 because they're all very small buildings, but I'm certain that it was in
16 that area, as far as I remember.
17 Q. Would you please tell me: What does this estimate of the area
18 mean, 12-25 square metres? So what sort of an estimate is that, from 12
19 to 25 square metres? This is double the size of -- the 25 square metres
20 is double the size of 12 square metres.
21 A. This might even be a typographical error, from 12 to -- it must
22 have been 20 to 25. But I'm certain that this was the area of that
23 particular building.
24 Q. How did you measure the area?
25 A. We would visually make an estimate with the naked eye.
1 Q. Did you make a diagram of it?
2 A. No, we didn't.
3 Q. Did you take any photographs?
4 A. No, not us personally, but as I've said, there was a colleague of
5 ours who, based on our information, would go to photograph some of the
7 Q. Do you know from which direction this particular building was
9 A. I cannot remember at this time. I don't think we investigated
10 this, this information for this particular building, just as we didn't for
11 any other building.
12 Q. Please look at the building XI-42. Who told you about this
13 particular damage?
14 A. It was the same situation; we inquired after this information.
15 Q. Do you know who provided the information?
16 A. I don't recall the name exactly.
17 Q. How did you come to the conclusion, given that it is stated here
18 that it is an indirect hit of a mortar shell of 120 and 80 --
19 82-millimetre, how did you come to the conclusion as to the type of the
21 A. Well, we concluded here that it was an indirect hit, that the
22 building was damaged due to the shrapnel coming from the impact on one of
23 the neighbouring buildings.
24 Q. How do you differentiate between the shrapnel of a shell, of a
25 mortar shell of 120 millimetres and of a mortar shell of 82 millimetres?
1 How do you differentiate between the two, based on the shrapnel?
2 A. No, we don't conclude that on the basis of the shrapnel. It's not
3 the shrapnel that would indicate the size of the shell. It would rather
4 be the traces of a shell on the neighbouring building, and we interpreted
5 it as having been made by those two projectiles. That is, based on the
6 traces of the impact of a 120-millimetre shell and an 82-millimetre shell,
7 we came to the conclusion that they could have been the causes of damage
8 on this particular building.
9 Q. And you of course differentiate between the shrapnel of a
10 120-millimetre shell and an 82-millimetre shell?
11 A. No, you did not understand what I said. We did not conclude that
12 on the basis of the shrapnel but on the basis of the impact that
13 ricochetted and hit this particular building.
14 Q. And where is it stated in your report?
15 A. Well, this is an explanation for you to try to let you know how we
16 came to the conclusion, but we didn't have the luxury of explaining in a
17 police fashion the entire process to establish the ballistic and forensic
19 Q. In your estimate, how many shells landed on the Old Town?
20 A. Well, I don't know, nor did I investigate that type of statistics.
21 I can't say.
22 Q. Do you know if anyone was killed in any of the buildings within
23 the Old Town on the 6th of December, 1991?
24 A. Inside a building, I don't know. I did not analyse such data. I
25 only know that my friend Pavo Urban got killed.
1 Q. I'm asking you specifically: Do you know of anyone having been
2 killed in his own building in the Old Town on the 6th of December, 1991?
3 A. I don't have any such information, nor am I informed about that.
4 Q. Do you know whether on the 6th of December, in any of the
5 buildings in the Old Town in Dubrovnik, anyone had been wounded?
6 A. I don't know that either.
7 Q. What sort of a conclusion would you draw based on what I'll tell
8 you now: That no one was wounded, no one got killed in any of the
9 buildings in the Old Town on the 6th of December, 1991?
10 MR. RE: I object to the question.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Re.
12 MR. RE: I object to it on the basis of the relevance of the
13 witness's opinion, based upon facts which my learned friend has put to the
14 witness. That's a matter for the determination of the Trial Chamber. It
15 is unclear what the purpose of the question is. And it only invites, in
16 my submission, speculation from the witness.
17 JUDGE PARKER: I think the --
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
19 JUDGE PARKER: -- question, Mr. Petrovic, invites pure speculation
20 by the witness. He does not purport to be qualified to speak in any way
21 about such a question. You're putting something to him which you should
22 in the end perhaps be putting to us. We may not be qualified, but we may
23 have to decide the matter.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. The gist
25 of what I wanted to achieve was to ask an expert for the damage whether he
1 had noticed anywhere the type of damage that could have caused the death
2 or wounding of anyone within a building in the Old Town.
3 A. I think that each and every impact was a potential threat to the
4 people who were there.
5 Q. Thank you. How are you able to know anything about -- and do you
6 know anything about the removal of rubble from the streets of the Old Town
7 in October and November 1991?
8 A. I don't know about it in any detail. I only know that the streets
9 were being cleared up in order to ensure that they are passable. I even
10 think that Boskoviceva Street had been boarded up so that people would
11 avoid it, because there was the danger of some construction material
12 falling down from the roofs. That's what I know. And I know that the
13 protection of the cultural and historical heritage was done by boarding up
14 these buildings. And this is the only thing that I can tell you now in
15 relation to your question.
16 Q. Please tell us: What are the dimensions, approximate dimensions,
17 of the largest part of a stone facade or a roof, part of a roof or part of
18 the pavement that you were able to see as rubble in the streets of the Old
19 Town at that period?
20 A. Do you also refer to the 6th of December?
21 Q. Yes.
22 A. Well, after the 6th. Well, the largest piece.
23 Q. Yes. How many that you could see in the street?
24 A. Well, let me tell you. I don't know if you need the length, if
25 you need the area. Well, approximately one metre or thereabouts.
1 Q. One metre in length?
2 A. Yes. And I believe that was the case of a balustrade in front of
3 the St. Blaise's. I can't tell you exactly, because I didn't really keep
4 the statistical data.
5 Q. So you say that the largest piece you saw was one metre in length?
6 A. Yes, approximately. That's my estimate, with hindsight.
7 Q. Excuse me. Were we able to see yesterday and the day before this
8 balustrade of the St. Blaise's in the video clips shown in this courtroom?
9 A. I've told you that this is my faint memory of it, but I did see it
10 in the Franciscan monastery, in the Boskoviceva Street, and in other
11 places. I don't recall exactly where.
12 Q. As for all the rest you saw, it is smaller than the dimensions you
13 referred to just now, considerably smaller?
14 A. Yes. But most of this was smashed into pieces. I should say that
15 it is the type of effect that one sees after a fire, when an entire
16 construction goes down, and then the type of rubble and the dimensions
17 that you refer to are quite different. But what I saw here, it is
18 approximately within that order of magnitude, including that, so smaller
19 ones, for the most part.
20 Q. Please be so kind as to tell us the following, then: What was it,
21 then, that had obstructed Stradun in terms of free passage for cars and
22 pedestrians on the 6th of December, 1991?
23 A. I think we've seen it on footage, and I can say that again: It is
24 pieces of buildings and furniture, different types of debris, then also
25 parts of tiles, roof tiles; then -- it was the type of material that
1 simply made these big heaps in the middle of the street.
2 Q. How high were the heaps?
3 A. Well, you see, it is hard for me to say. Sometimes they were
4 smaller and sometimes they were bigger. But if you're asking about the
5 range, it was, say, from 10 to 15 centimetres up to, say, half a metre, a
6 metre. It depended on the cause of the damage.
7 Q. In Stradun, on the 6th and 7th, where was there debris and rubble
8 in a heap of half a metre, as you had put it?
9 A. Well, primarily in front of the buildings that were, in a way,
10 that had burned down. So, in a way, as far as I can assess now, or as far
11 as I can remember now, that would be the place.
12 Q. So it's these two buildings, the festival building, the festival
13 palace, and also the other one near it, Od Sigurate number 1?
14 A. Yes, in part, yes.
15 Q. All right. Tell me, then: What was it that prevented you and
16 other pedestrians from moving about? What prevented vehicles from moving
17 about, as you testified in this courtroom two days ago?
18 A. I've already said. These were pieces that were there in the
19 street. So it was obstructed passage. It was difficult to move about. I
20 told you that because that was my impression. Quite simply, movement had
21 been considerably hampered in relation to what it was like usually in
23 Q. What do you know about the removal of rubble on the 6th of
25 A. The removal of rubble, I don't know anything about it directly,
1 and on the 6th, anyway, nothing could be removed. What was being done was
2 fires that were being put out. It was dark. It was impossible to
3 intervene. So the rubble that we are referring to now, in my estimate, at
4 least where I moved about, was not a primary concern. Its removal was
5 not. What people focused on was putting out the fires. So when entering
6 town in this night-time atmosphere, that is what I managed to observe.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could I please have
8 the following document distributed. It is a document which was submitted
9 to the Defence the night before last. It is part of the document
10 concerned. As our colleagues informed us only last night, about 7.00,
11 this is a document that was submitted by this witness who is now
12 testifying before you, Your Honour.
13 MS. SOMERS: Excuse me, Your Honour. If I could just correct the
14 record. It was not last night. We turned it over the first day of
15 cross-examination, or just before cross-examination, I believe. There is
16 a record of receipt. There was -- a telephone call was made by
17 Ms. McCreath to the Defence and left in their locker. The day before
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you permit, it was
20 the night before last, around 1800 hours. Could you please consult your
21 case manager. The night before last. That was the 5th of May, wasn't it?
22 MS. SOMERS: Right. Night before last. I believe the initial
23 suggestion was last night.
24 JUDGE PARKER: If counsel are conducting a private debate, they
25 should not do it in this court.
1 MS. SOMERS: Apologies.
2 JUDGE PARKER: This has happened before.
3 MS. SOMERS: Apologise, Your Honour. It was directed to the
4 Chamber so the Chamber would understand that it was to correct the record
5 as to when the information that was given to us was turned over. Thank
7 JUDGE PARKER: Whether either of you are correct is not of
8 particular concern. What is apparently clear is that a document was
9 handed over at very late notice. The issue is: What is it, and what's
10 its relevance?
11 Are you going to explore that with the witness? Or if you are, go
12 ahead, Mr. Petrovic.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. My
14 observation primarily had to do with my regret regarding the fact that I
15 could present this to you in the English language. That is the primary
16 reason why I made any reference to it. Otherwise, regrettably, we are
17 used to having material disclosed to us at a very late date.
18 Q. Mr. Vukovic, did you hand this document over, the one that we're
19 talking about, the one that is before you?
20 A. Yes, I did hand it over, but that was my very own assessment, my
21 very subjective assessment, in terms of the presentation of that material
22 that I thought would be relevant in terms of the interpretation of my
24 Q. Please be so kind as to read on page 2 the heading that is there,
25 and then I'm going to put a question to you. Could you please read the
1 heading for the Trial Chamber, please.
2 A. "The location of direct --"
3 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please slow down. The
4 interpreters do not have this document. Could it be placed on the ELMO,
5 please. Thank you.
6 JUDGE PARKER: If you'd pause a moment, Mr. Vukovic, we'll get the
7 document into a position where it can be seen by the interpreters, which
8 will help the process considerably. It may mean you'll have to turn a
9 little to read it. I'm sorry about that.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Vukovic, would you please be so kind as to read this again,
12 but slower, of course, the heading of this document.
13 A. "Localities of direct impacts by projectiles during the shelling
14 of the historical nucleus of Dubrovnik, October, December 1991."
15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: November.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vukovic.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have another
19 document placed before Mr. Vukovic, namely, P63, tab -- Your Honour, my
20 colleague has informed me -- Your Honour, my colleague --
21 JUDGE PARKER: We are just confused by a translation or an
22 interpretation a moment ago. Is the date in the heading October to
23 December, October to November?
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, October, November.
25 October, November. It's a mistake in the interpretation. And that can be
1 done by the interpreters themselves.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note that they tried to correct it
4 JUDGE PARKER: That was the effect that was done and that's what
5 made us doubtful for a moment. We're all of the one mind. Now,
6 Mr. Petrovic, you had a query.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I wanted
8 to ask for another document now. Could we leave this document before the
9 witness, and could the witness please be given P63, tab 6, annex 3. Along
10 with that document, that is.
11 Your Honour, this is a report. This is a report of UNESCO experts
12 about the damage sustained by the Old Town in the months of October and
13 November 1991.
14 Q. Mr. Vukovic, do you have this in a language you understand, this
15 document that I referred to just now?
16 A. If this is all, all of this that I have before me now, if that is
17 what you want me to confirm, then yes, I have got it, yes.
18 Q. It's just annex 3 of a very voluminous document which, for reasons
19 of practicality, we put before you. Otherwise, everyone in this courtroom
20 is fully familiar in detail with the content of this document.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] P174 is no longer needed, so
22 perhaps you can remove it from the witness's table so there's not too much
23 material there. [In English] Mr. Usher, please leave the document which is
24 list of report of war destruction. Just leave the document on the ELMO.
25 We just do not need any more this binder P174.
1 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Vukovic, while --
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, would you like me to
3 pause, if needed? It is document P63, tab 6, annex 3, that accompanies
4 the report. In the original, the document is in the French language, and
5 we have translations into English and B/C/S.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for pausing, Mr. Petrovic. We've caught
7 up with you.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Mr. Vukovic, could you please give me very brief answers to the
10 next set of questions since we have a very large number of buildings that
11 we have to go through. Is it correct that the day before yesterday, when
12 looking at the so-called Grbic video, on page 22 of the transcript, 36:04
13 - that's the second of the footage involved - did you say that that was
14 Siroka Street and the damage in Siroka Street? Just give me a brief
15 answer yes or no.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. In annex 3, on page 6 of annex 3, or rather -- just a moment,
18 please. On page 7 of annex 3, do you see, under numbers 25 and 26,
19 information about two houses in Siroka Street?
20 A. Yes, I do see it. It is numbers 25 and 26.
21 Q. Yes. Thank you. Under number 30 in the document that you handed
22 over to us, that's the document that's on the ELMO -- the document is on
23 the ELMO, Mr. Vukovic.
24 A. Oh, you mean this.
25 Q. Under number 30, you see yet again information about damage in
1 Siroka Street numbers 5 and 8 respectively?
2 A. Yes, I can see that.
3 Q. Please take a look at this. Yesterday, when watching the
4 so-called Jokic video, which is P145, at 0 minutes, 8 seconds, page 38 of
5 the transcript, did you show us the damage on the Sponza Palace?
6 A. I cannot remember that particular moment now exactly, but if that
7 entered the transcript, then it is possible that what you're saying is
9 Q. The document that you provided to us, under number 9, do you see
10 the Sponza Palace?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. In annex 3, on page 1, under number 6 is the Sponza Palace also
13 noted there?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Mr. Vukovic, in watching the Jokic video footage yesterday, at
16 minute 1:20, 1:37, 1:38, page 40 of the transcript, did you not show us
17 the damage in Boskoviceva Street?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. On your document, under number 17 and 18, do you see the buildings
20 in Boskoviceva 1 and Boskoviceva 3?
21 A. 17 and 18. Yes.
22 Q. On page 5 of the annex that you have in front of you, under number
23 18, and on page 6, under A, B, C, and D, do you see the damage at
24 Boskoviceva 1, Boskoviceva 3, Boskoviceva 2, and Boskoviceva 4?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. Are these buildings at the beginning? As a matter of fact, they
2 are corner buildings of Boskoviceva and Stradun?
3 A. The description is quite detailed and quite reliable, so what it
4 says here and what you say is more or less the true location.
5 Q. Yesterday, on page 41 of the transcript, Jokic video P145, at 1
6 minute, 44 seconds, did you not show us the damage on houses which are on
7 the corner of Stradun and Dropceva Street, describing that these were
8 houses on the corner of Stradun and Dropceva in the direction of Prijeka
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Could you please look at your document now, under number 20,
12 residential building Dropceva 2.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Is that a corner building on Stradun and Dropceva Street?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Could you please look at annex 3 now, on page 6, under number 20.
17 Do you see the words "Dropceva number 2" there?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. Yesterday, in this same Jokic video, P145, third minute, at 3
20 minutes, 20 seconds, did you not show us the damage in Siroka Street?
21 A. I would need to look at that footage, because I cannot recall
22 everything that I said, where it was in the footage and at what minute. I
23 would have to remind myself.
24 Q. Which building did you identify at 3 minutes, 20 seconds in P145
25 in Siroka Street?
1 A. I do not remember that.
2 Q. In looking at the same footage, P145, did you not point out to us
3 the courtyard of the Franciscan monastery?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Earlier today, earlier today, did you not tell us that during the
6 period that we're talking about, you did not enter the courtyard of the
7 Franciscan monastery?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Does that mean that you didn't know what the courtyard of the
10 Franciscan monastery looked like, for example, on the 5th of December,
12 A. I need to give you a more detailed answer here.
13 Q. Could you please respond whether you personally were there and saw
14 the state of the courtyard of the Franciscan monastery before the 5th of
15 December or on the 5th of December, 1991, and did you see what it looked
17 A. That particular example is not something that I saw personally,
18 but I heard from others about it.
19 Q. Thank you. Yesterday, at 5 minutes, 17 seconds -- from 5 minutes
20 to 17 seconds to 6 minutes, 54 seconds of the JNA video, you showed us
21 what the Franciscan monastery looked like, the courtyard and the other
22 buildings of the Franciscan monastery; is that correct?
23 A. I was just showing you what I was seeing.
24 Q. In your document, under number 27, do you see the Franciscan
25 monastery complex?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. In annex 3, page 8, under number 35, does it say and do you see
3 it, the Franciscan monastery? Does it state that?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. Yesterday, at the JNA video at 7 minutes, 32 seconds, did you not
6 show us the damage on the Minceta tower?
7 A. I think that that interpretation is not correct. I did not say
8 that Minceta was the subject of my inspection, and I did not record the
9 damage there.
10 Q. Under number 40 of your list, do you see that it states Minceta
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In the same video, at 10 minutes, 25 seconds, you pointed out the
14 library, the Franciscan monastery library, for us.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You also told us that it had suffered a direct hit. How did you
17 know that the library of the Franciscan monastery suffered a direct hit?
18 A. I didn't say that the library had suffered a direct hit, but the
19 roof of the block suffered a direct hit, where the library is located.
20 That would be the correct interpretation of what I said.
21 Q. To the question of how do you know that this was on the 6th of
22 December, you said that it was on the 6th of December for sure because if
23 it had not occurred on that day, it would have already been cleared. And
24 I'm talking about the rubble, the mortar that you can see, the plaster in
25 that footage.
1 A. Yes, because this facility is too important for me not to know
2 something like that.
3 Q. Do you know when the footage was recorded that we saw yesterday,
5 A. No, I don't know if what we saw yesterday is what we're talking
7 Q. Were you present when this footage was filmed?
8 A. No, I wasn't.
9 Q. While looking at the same video, P145, at 14 minutes, 59 seconds,
10 did you not point out the damage for us on the walls near the Pile gate?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Are the walls near the Pile gate the western section of the wall?
13 A. Yes. The walls have their eastern and their western sections, so
14 in relation to the position of the town, this is the western section of
15 the walls.
16 Q. Do you see on your list, under number 39, the western walls of the
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. In annex 3, page 5, under number 17, do you see a description of
20 the damage of the Pile gate there?
21 A. Let me see. I need to give you a clarification. My
22 interpretation, based on the footage yesterday, referred to the passable
23 walkways on the upper part of the walls, and we did not discuss the gate.
24 The actual location is above the gate.
25 Q. The same footage, did you not tell us yesterday -- actually, it
1 was the day before. I apologise. Not yesterday. At 17 minutes and 33
2 seconds, indicate to us the damages around the St. Blaise's tower?
3 A. I did not mention the St. Vid tower, but I did say that it was the
4 northern part of the walls, if I'm interpreting what you're trying to say
6 Q. Yes, that is exactly what I wanted to ask you. Under number 41 on
7 your list, the northern section of the walls, at Buz, or Buza.
8 A. Yes, that is that section.
9 Q. Could you please look at annex 3, on page 10, one line before last
10 -- no. I apologise. The very last line. Do you see it?
11 A. Yes. Yes, I do.
12 Q. That it states there the northern part of the wall from Buza?
13 A. Yes. It says there that that was the gate, but there it says the
14 northern sector of the walls at Buza. So this would be a more specific
15 reference to that area.
16 Q. Yes, and it supports what you are saying.
17 A. Well, I am not sure whether in my testimony yesterday or the day
18 before I talked about that specific location or a place that was a little
19 bit farther away.
20 Q. Yesterday, at 9.42, on the footage of P145, at 18 minutes, 35
21 seconds you showed us two holes in the roof of the Dominican monastery.
22 A. I remember that, yes.
23 Q. Under number 8 on your list, do you see the Dominican monastery?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Could you please now look at annex 3, page 1, under number 4, the
1 Dominican monastery.
2 A. Yes, I see that.
3 Q. Yesterday, at 9.50 a.m., you showed us on the footage P145, at 20
4 minutes and 4 seconds, a hole on the wall of Mali Arsenal, the Small
5 Arsenal; is that correct?
6 A. I'm sorry. I wasn't following you. Could you repeat that.
7 Q. Yesterday, while viewing footage of Exhibit P145 at 20 minutes, 4
8 seconds, did you not show us a hole in the roof of the Small Arsenal?
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. On your list, under number 7, do you see the Small Arsenal?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. In annex 3, page 10, under number 1, do you see that the -- it
13 states the Small Arsenal facility?
14 A. Yes, I see that.
15 Q. Yesterday, at 9.55 a.m. -- 9.53 a.m., in footage of Exhibit P145,
16 at 20 minutes, 34 seconds, did you not point out the Large Arsenal, the
17 Gradska Kavana, the city cafe, with a hole in its roof?
18 A. Yes, that is correct.
19 Q. Could you please look at your list under number 4 and see if it
20 does not state the Arsenal there.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Could you please look at annex 3, page 4, number 8. Does it not
23 describe the Large Arsenal?
24 A. Yes, it does.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if we can, perhaps we
1 could go on our break now. This is a good time, if you agree. Thank you,
2 Your Honour.
3 JUDGE PARKER: We will have a break now.
4 --- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 12.48 p.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. Mr. Vukovic, would you be so kind as to tell us if yesterday,
9 while viewing the video P145, at 21 minutes, you described the damage at
10 the old port, at the entrance to the old port in Dubrovnik.
11 A. What is the question? I'm sorry.
12 Q. The question is as follows: Whether yesterday, while you were
13 viewing the P145 at 21 minutes, you described the damage at Veliki
14 Valobran or Veliki Mul.
15 A. Well, these are two different things. If you mean at Veliki Mul,
16 that is the pier, whereas the Valobran is another thing. I was talking
17 about Veliki Mul, where the ships dock.
18 Q. Could you please look at your list, under number 5.
19 A. Yes, I can, and I see it says "Veliki Mul."
20 Q. Would you please be so kind as to look at annex 3, page 10, under
21 number 5. Here it also mentions Veliki Mul as having been damaged.
22 A. It says Veliki Valobran here, and I don't know what that is, that
23 the projectile hit the wall.
24 Q. Isn't Veliki Mul and Veliki Valobran one and the same thing?
25 A. No. There must have been an error in the translation. Where --
1 there was ever a bench there at Veliki Valobran or is there a bench
2 actually at the pier, at Veliki Mul?
3 A. I can only assume. We also have Porporela, which is another of
4 these piers there, and there is also a bench there, but I can't really
5 seem to find a connection between the two.
6 Q. Would you please take a look at the list of the Institute for the
7 Protection of Cultural Monuments. Under number 10, it reads there that
8 the town bell tower --
9 A. Yes, I see that.
10 Q. -- was damaged in October 1991.
11 A. Yes, I see that.
12 Q. On the list, it also reads that the Jesuit church, the church of
13 St. Ignatius, had also been damaged, and that's under number 14, and
14 that's in the period of October and November 1991.
15 A. Yes, I see this.
16 Q. Is this the building that you marked at this aerial photograph
17 yesterday, this aerial photograph of the Old Town of Dubrovnik?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Under number 32, contained in the list of the locations of direct
20 hits incurred during the shelling of Dubrovnik in October and November
21 1991, also read Rupe granary, that is, the Rupe museum.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You've also marked this location on the aerial photograph that you
24 were placing some marks on.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. In this document specifying the locations of direct hits in the
2 period of October and November, does it include the town port and the St.
3 Ivan fortress under number 3 -- under numbers 2 and 3?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Please be so kind as to tell us the following: The document that
6 you've brought and given to the Prosecution, is it the report on the
7 destruction of Dubrovnik in October and November 1991, made by the
8 Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments?
9 A. If you mean this particular material that comes behind this cover
10 page, then my answer is yes.
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to tender
12 this document as a Defence exhibit.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, it will be received.
14 THE REGISTRAR: This document is D81.
15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Vukovic, is it true that, apart from the buildings contained
17 in the document P174, which bears your signature as a person who
18 established the damage, you are unable to confirm with any certainty when
19 the damage was made to any other buildings in the Old Town in Dubrovnik?
20 A. I am able to confirm this only for some of the buildings.
21 Q. Is it true that in relation to the buildings that we dealt with in
22 the latter part of the examination, you have no direct knowledge as to
23 what the condition of this building was prior to the 6th of December,
25 A. I don't have any detailed information, but I am referring to those
1 buildings where it was evident, evident because of the significance of the
2 building and the information that I was able to obtain with regard to
3 those, and it was for those buildings that I was able to establish this
4 with certainty. Now, as for the other buildings, I wasn't even involved
5 in any detailed examination of those, nor did I dispose of the information
6 that could indicate that particular information.
7 Q. If I understood you correctly, the buildings that you inspected,
8 you're not actually claiming that they were damaged on any given date,
9 apart from just saying that they were damaged.
10 A. I think that all the indications pointed to the fact that it must
11 have happened on the 6th, but even had I not been present on-site and
12 viewing the buildings, I was able to reach this conclusion based on the
13 knowledge of the degree of damage incurred on the 6th of December.
14 Q. You did not see any of the damage, nor did you record any
15 information related to that, nor did anyone else record it; isn't it true?
16 A. No, I did not record it in the sense in which you're asking me,
17 but I'm referring you back to what I said earlier: The conclusions I was
18 able to make, I was able to make them based on the information present at
19 the site that I inspected.
20 Q. And these conclusions, on the basis of the remains that were shown
21 to you were actually made on the basis of these two video footages that
22 you saw?
23 A. Yes, and on the basis of what I was able to find out during my
24 visits to the Old Town after the shelling, and when I was able to confirm
25 when moving along Stradun as -- and identify as recent damage.
1 Q. Please tell us -- just a moment.
2 [Defence counsel confer]
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Isn't it true that, in relation to many pieces of information
5 contained in your report P174, that for many of them you said that they
6 contained typographical errors?
7 A. Yes, but only in relation to the time.
8 Q. Is this an official document that was supposed to be used to show
9 the causes, the degree, and the time when the damage was incurred?
10 A. Yes, on the basis of the preliminary report.
11 Q. How come there are no corrections if there are, as you say, so
12 many typographical errors in many places?
13 A. I did not participate in the compilation of the final version, if
14 indeed there is any final version. I know that in the process of the
15 reconstructions of these facilities, many amendments were made to the
16 report in terms of the degree of damage, the cost of reconstruction, and
17 that would be it in relation to that issue.
18 Q. Can any of the contents of the report be matched? Do they tally,
19 indeed, your original notes?
20 A. In the part related to the specific site, the specific building,
21 and with regard to the degree of damage specified there --
22 Q. Would you please be so kind as to answer my question. Can we
23 match any of the contents of the report that is P174 with any of your work
24 products, any of your notes that you submitted to the institute? Can we
25 match them?
1 A. I don't know if you can, but if you ask me, I would actually be
2 able to answer that question.
3 Q. Well, please do.
4 A. Well, I'm not sure what you mean -- what you want me to answer
6 Q. Where are the original records of your inspections?
7 A. I don't know. You should ask my colleagues in the Institute for
8 the Protection of Cultural Monuments whether they actually filed the
9 material anywhere. I didn't need the material subsequently, and I didn't
10 inquire after it, and I don't know if they actually filed it.
11 Q. A typographical error of 12 to 25 square metres, you said that was
12 a typographical error just a moment ago when we were going through that
13 relevant document. This typographical error is substantial. It is very
14 important for the determination of the cost of damage.
15 A. Yes, but it is not of such a nature that one could draw a general
16 conclusion -- that one couldn't draw a general conclusion based on it.
17 Q. Could you please tell us whether there was a shelter in the Old
18 Town in Dubrovnik in October, November, and December 1991.
19 A. Yes; as far as I know, there were two shelters. I don't know if
20 there are any other ones. I won't speak, of course, of those shelters in
21 individual buildings like the one where my mother was, but I know that
22 there was one in the St. Ivan, St. John fortress, and in the Revelin
23 fortress. Those were the two shelters that I'm aware of. Now, I can't
24 vouch for shelters in individual houses.
25 Q. In most of your answers, you stated that you received information
1 from neighbours. Where were the owners of those buildings?
2 A. You have to be aware of the nature of ownership at the time. If
3 you're referring to the apartments themselves, this is an entirely
4 different matter that requires a different answer. If by saying "owners,"
5 you mean owners of business premises, then I wouldn't be able to tell you
6 specifically about the owners.
7 Q. Tell me where the persons who resided in those buildings were if
8 most of the information you got you actually got from the neighbours.
9 That's what you said.
10 A. Yes. That's what I said. And what I already said was that at the
11 time, the people were already returning to their apartments to see what
12 the situation was like. Some of the flats were damaged, others weren't.
13 Parts of them weren't. They tried to be present there during the
14 identification of the damage in order to be able to restore, to make these
15 flats of theirs habitable.
16 Q. How come the neighbours remained in their apartments whereas those
17 you're talking of in these reports went elsewhere?
18 A. The situation varied. Of course, the buildings that have
19 completely burnt down, their tenants couldn't go back. But as for those
20 falling in the categories 2, 3, 4, as they were returning home, one could
21 contact the owners of the apartments, and of course the neighbours were
22 those who shared similar fate.
23 Q. Well, who went to the shelters, then?
24 A. The shelters were used when the alarm was sounded, and we were
25 trying to obtain information when we could contact the people.
1 Q. And were those alarms sounded at the time when the town was
3 A. Yes. Well, I think so. Now, who went to the shelters and when, I
4 can't say. I know for sure that my mother did not go to these shelters,
5 but I can't say for the others.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask for another
7 document to be distributed, which is both in English and in Serbian. It's
8 a document which, under Rule 65 ter, had been disclosed to the Defence
9 under number 350. It's an excerpt from the document.
10 Q. Please, Mr. Vukovic, tell us: Is this a report of the Institute
11 for the Protection of Cultural Monuments that we have been talking about
12 all this while?
13 A. This is the first time I see this document. This is an excerpt
14 from somewhere.
15 Q. The cover page, does it match what -- does it look like the cover
16 page usually made by the Institute for the Protection of Cultural
17 Monuments of Dubrovnik?
18 A. I couldn't say that with any certainty.
19 Q. What is it about it that makes you suspicious about it being a
20 document of the Institute for the Protection of Monuments?
21 A. I wouldn't be able to answer this question because I don't know
22 what the title -- the headings of the usual correspondence of the
23 institute looked like.
24 Q. During your testimony, you talked about the aerial bombing; isn't
25 that true?
1 A. Yes, it is. But could you be more specific with regard to the
2 locations that I mentioned in that context.
3 Q. Didn't you see the JNA aircraft bombing Srdj?
4 A. Yes, I did. Not only aircraft, but also the gunships, from the
6 Q. Doesn't the description of what you saw -- isn't the description
7 of what you saw read on page 2 of this document?
8 A. Correct. I cannot confirm the time because I did not keep any
9 records of that. I know that it was before the 6th of December. But
10 whether it was on the 6th of December itself is something I cannot
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could this document
13 please be admitted into evidence as a Defence exhibit.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
15 THE REGISTRAR: This document is D82.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Mr. Vukovic, how did you manage not to get drafted into the
18 Croatian army in October, November, December 1991?
19 A. As an architect, just like my other colleagues, I was supposed to
20 be at my regular job, and we were supposed to take care of the material
21 there. That was the reason why, actually, things were not the way you had
22 put it, why I did not join up from the very beginning.
23 Q. Could you leave the town of Dubrovnik if you wanted to?
24 A. Do you mean in that period?
25 Q. I mean in that period.
1 A. I cannot remember any more, but I think it was increasingly
2 difficult to leave. If you're asking me about my experience in this
3 regard, I had no wish or intention of leaving, but I did care about my
4 wife and my young daughter. I wanted them to go to a safer place. They
5 went on the Marina ship, like many others did, as far as I know.
6 Q. Did you try to get out at all?
7 A. No. I never even thought of it. The thought never crossed my
9 Q. Why did it never cross your mind to leave town with your wife and
11 A. Well, I didn't want to leave because I had a feeling that finally
12 reason would prevail and that there would be no lethal situations like the
13 one that occurred on the 6th of December.
14 Q. Were all able-bodied men prevented from leaving Dubrovnik? Were
15 they forbidden to leave Dubrovnik?
16 A. I don't know about that.
17 Q. Did you see a person in uniform in the Old Town of Dubrovnik ever?
18 A. I cannot remember ever having seen anyone in uniform.
19 Q. Did you see anyone carrying out the duties of a policeman in the
20 Old Town of Dubrovnik?
21 A. I cannot remember. I don't think so.
22 Q. Did you ever see an armed person in the Old Town of Dubrovnik?
23 A. I didn't. I cannot remember any such thing.
24 Q. Did you ever hear of anyone passing through the town of Dubrovnik
25 or staying in the town of Dubrovnik with weapons?
1 A. I was not interested in this type of information, and I am not in
2 a position to answer your question, as you want me to.
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. No further
5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, thank you very much for your
6 cross-examination, and particularly the purpose which kept very much to
7 the point and therefore very much within time. Thank you.
8 Yes. Perhaps before I turn to you, Mr. Re, you might assist me,
9 if you would, please, with the document which you have been dealing with,
10 that which was the report of war destruction for October and November and
11 the localities of direct impacts.
12 Is this a document you had any part in the preparation of? That's
13 the document that is probably on the list in front of you. I'm referring
14 to Exhibit D81, the two pages.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I answer?
16 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. I'm asking you.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not have this document before
18 you, but I do know what you're referring to.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Is it something that you were involved in the
20 preparation of?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I was not.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Were you aware of it when you conducted your
23 examinations of buildings, inspections of buildings, in December of 1991?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for this document, in such a way,
25 no. But I did have some preliminary information from my colleagues with
1 whom we exchanged information in the Institute for the Protection of
2 Cultural Monuments before actually going to the localities that were
3 inspected on the 6th, or rather, after the 6th. At least, I availed
4 myself of this type of information, to a large extent, of course.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
6 Mr. Re.
7 Re-examined by Mr. Re:
8 Q. Thank you. Just to continue in relation to that particular
9 exhibit, D81, when did you obtain that document?
10 A. I obtained this document before I came to The Hague, so perhaps a
11 week prior to my departure. Since I asked for photocopies to be made for
12 me of the material that this institution had, notably for the buildings
13 where I carried out the inspections. I did not have any private
14 documentation of my own. Along with that, I obtained this document, which
15 I saw for the first time. I thought that it was of interest, for me, and
16 as far as I can see now, it is of interest for the Prosecution and for the
18 Q. In your cross-examination, I think it was today, Mr. -- It was
19 earlier today, Mr. Petrovic asked you about your visiting the Old Town
20 before the 6th of December to see your mother, and you talked about taking
21 back routes to avoid sniper fire. Do you know whether anyone was injured
22 in sniper fire, injured by sniper fire in that period?
23 A. I am not aware of a particular example, but I heard that a man had
24 been hit at the Pile gate. But whether that is correct or not is
25 something that I cannot confirm.
1 Q. Is that why you were taking these precautions?
2 A. Precisely for that reason, that we knew that Stradun was an open
3 target from Zarkovica. Quite simply, we tried not to be out in the open,
4 in terms of any kind of equipment that could be used for an attack, a
5 sniper, whatever. But at any rate, there was a danger involved, and
6 therefore, we did exercise caution when we went to town.
7 Q. Mr. Petrovic also cross-examined you about a paragraph in your
8 statement which contained the date of the 13th of December. I think you
9 more or less corrected that in your examination-in-chief to the 10th of
10 December, based upon the -- your first inspections of buildings. My
11 question is: When did you first discover this error in the date in your
13 A. I discovered that only recently, and I must say that this happened
14 after I had made my statement. I think I discovered that just before I
15 left, or perhaps a month before that, when the gentlemen of the
16 investigation came to speak with me in Dubrovnik.
17 Q. Did you bring it to the attention of the Office of the Prosecution
18 staff at that point?
19 A. I can't remember right now.
20 Q. Mr. Petrovic also asked you a number of questions about your
21 mother's address, and street numbering, I could say in general, in the Old
22 Town of Dubrovnik. You told the Trial Chamber in examination-in-chief
23 that you were born and raised in the Old Town. How do people in the Old
24 Town refer to addresses and places where people live, and shops and other
25 objects there?
1 A. That's a good question. Actually, our custom in town has to do
2 with visual identification of a particular place, not statistics like
3 house numbers.
4 Q. Do people commonly use street names -- sorry, addresses, such as 4
5 Od Puca, or 5 Stradun or 6 Izmedju Polaca in describing where they live or
6 where they're going to?
7 A. No. We resorted to visual identification. I'm talking about the
8 period when we went to inspect certain localities. We would identify the
9 small stone plaques at the door, at the entrance, and that was the number
10 identifying the houses that we came to inspect. So in line with that, we
11 wrote down certain information that had to do with addresses.
12 Q. I'm just talking generally. The practice in the Old Town of how
13 people refer to where they live and if they're going to visit a friend or
14 directing a person to a certain place, are street numbers used?
15 A. I've already said: Visual identification is what is resorted to,
16 as far as I can say, but I cannot speak on behalf of everybody.
17 MR. RE: Could the witness please be shown Exhibit P174, which is
18 the index and the ... And also Exhibit D80, and also Exhibit D79, please.
19 Q. D79 is the exhibit on which you have marked your mother's house.
20 Don't do anything at the moment. I actually wish you to mark where the
21 doorway is.
22 MR. RE: Would it be appropriate to mark on this Defence exhibit
23 or does Your Honour wish me to provide another identical copy of the same
25 JUDGE PARKER: Unfortunately, I don't see -- I don't have yet that
1 exhibit. I think it might be minimising the chance of confusion if there
2 was a separate identification.
3 MR. RE: Mr. Usher, could you please give that to the witness.
4 Q. Mr. Vukovic, I want you to look at an identical copy of the plan
5 you marked for the Defence, which was D79. And do the same on that one
6 for me, please, just sketch in your mother's house.
7 A. [Marks]
8 Q. And can you please mark on that map, as you would as an architect
9 if drawing, her doorway.
10 A. [Marks]
11 Q. You've used a little arrow to indicate her doorway. Could you
12 possibly write "doorway," D-O-O-R-W-A-Y, in English, on it.
13 A. W and then --? I understand you well. Doesn't it -- there's an R
14 and a W; right?
15 Q. Yes. W-A-Y.
16 A. [Marks]
17 Q. Thank you. Could you just leave that for one moment there. Can
18 you please now turn to Exhibit D80. There is a photograph. I just want
19 you to look at the photograph at the second page of D80. On the plan
20 towards your left, I want you to orientate yourself as to the angle from
21 where that photograph is taken, and I want you to draw an arrow with a
22 little circle from the spot from where it's taken. Not on that building.
23 Not on that one, but on the plan you've just marked. Could you just write
24 above that circle "photo," P-H-O-T-O.
25 A. [Marks]
1 Q. Thank you. And at the end of the line, which is on the right,
2 you've drawn a trajectory with a left and a right line. The left, is that
3 the church, and the right, is that the building which is shown in the
4 photo, marked as Buniceva Poljana 6?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Which is the building which you can see in the photograph? That's
7 the one which is on the right, with the three storeys. Can you please
8 hatch that in with crosses.
9 A. [Marks]
10 Q. All right. Okay. Can you just please put your name -- write your
11 name down at the bottom of that exhibit on that page and just put a date
12 on it.
13 THE WITNESS: 7th?
14 MR. RE:
15 Q. 7th of May.
16 A. [Marks]
17 Q. Okay.
18 MR. RE: May that be received into evidence?
19 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, it will be received.
20 THE REGISTRAR: This document is P177.
21 MR. RE:
22 Q. Can you please turn to -- in P174, two entries: X-3 and X-4.
23 A. I've looked at it.
24 Q. Okay. Perhaps the witness could just have back P177 for a moment,
25 and please turn to the next one, which is X-4, and that describes a
1 fountain. Can you just please mark on P177 where the fountain described
2 in X-4 is. Can you maybe draw a circle around the actual fountain.
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. And can you please just write underneath that, with an arrow,
5 fountain, F-O-U-N-T-A-I-N.
6 A. [Marks]
7 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vukovic. You were asked some questions about the
8 times recorded in the report, the report you prepared, and you were asked
9 about the fact that several described the same time of inspection of
10 different buildings. What was the significance of recording the time of
11 inspection as opposed to the date or the location or the damage in these
12 particular forms?
13 A. I don't know why it was decided to write in the time as well, but
14 I think that for us this was not very relevant, and it wasn't really, for
15 us, a very important reason to write it in.
16 Q. You also described to Mr. Vukovic -- sorry, to Mr. Petrovic today
17 about the difficult circumstances under which the report was compiled,
18 namely, no electricity, water, et cetera. How were the photographs which
19 were taken to accompany this report developed?
20 A. That is a fairly interesting question. Since there was no water,
21 we developed it in the sea. That is why the photographs were mostly black
22 and white, because at the time it was possible to develop them like that.
23 But I don't understand why the Institute for the Protection of Cultural
24 Monuments is not able to also use the same method to develop colour
1 MR. RE: While I'm asking the next question, can the witness
2 please be shown Exhibit P172.
3 Q. Mr. Vukovic, Mr. Petrovic asked you about the Serbian Orthodox
4 Church and damage to it, and you told him that you visited the priest in
5 his apartment. Are you able to say, if you look at the P172, which is
6 being brought to you, which is the list of maps, which apartment was his
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my learned colleague
9 is interpreting incorrectly the evidence. The witness never said at any
10 point in time that he had visited the priest. I don't remember him saying
11 that. Thank you, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
13 MR. RE: My recollection, or my note, says that he visited the
14 priest in his apartment. That's my recollection.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Time, though, is the issue, the time at which it
16 occurred, and I don't think there was evidence from him about that.
17 MR. RE:
18 Q. Mr. Vukovic, when did you visit the priest to talk to him about
19 the damage to the church? When was it in relation to the 6th of December?
20 A. This was definitely after the 6th, and it was at the time that we
21 were recording the damage in the building where his apartment is located.
22 I think that is the Od Polaca Street. I don't know the exact number, but
23 that was more or less the circumstance of the visit, but I don't know the
24 time, because we did perhaps go to certain places two or three times, so I
25 cannot tell you when this was.
1 Q. If you look in P172 are you able to tell us which is his
2 apartment? If you look at the map of, say, block 9, 10, 11, or whichever?
3 Are you able to give us the block number and the building number? That
4 would be suitable for the purposes of this question.
5 A. That is block 8, and that's somewhere in this row. So it could be
6 here, there, or there. I think there are two entrances there, and that's
7 somewhere in this area here.
8 Q. Okay. All I want you to do: Could you turn to block 8 in that
9 exhibit and just tell the Trial Chamber which of the buildings it was you
10 think the priest -- you visited the priest in. If you flick through,
11 you'll find a map which has an 8 marked on it, which corresponds to block
13 A. I'm thinking now. It's 49, number 49.
14 Q. Mr. Vukovic, we only have a few minutes left. Are you able to say
15 which one it is or not?
16 A. That's this building here.
17 Q. [Previous translation continues]... number 49?
18 A. [In English] Just a moment. [Interpretation] No. No. I'm
19 mistaken. I think that it's this one, 44, right here.
20 Q. You indicated, for the purpose of the record, block 8, 44, and
21 also putting your finger over possibly 41; is that correct? Meaning
22 either one or other of those buildings?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. Thank you.
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. You were also asked about recording the names of --
2 A. Excuse me. I made one mistake. It is difficult to identify the
3 buildings based on this diagram, on this section of the diagram. I wish
4 that I could have a larger diagram, where I could see a broader area. So
5 then I could see it more clearly, and then I could explain why I made a
6 mistake and instead of 44 I pointed to 49. But this is Od Polaca Street.
7 MR. RE: I'm not pursuing it.
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's not in the
9 transcript, "the area where I was," and this is not in the transcript, on
10 page 73.
11 THE INTERPRETER: 83, interpreter's correction.
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] "Where I did not go." That's what
13 the witness said, and we can check that from the audio recording of this
15 MR. RE:
16 Q. Mr. Vukovic, can we please move on to another area. I've only got
17 a couple of minutes left. Mr. Petrovic asked about your recording the
18 names of people who gave you information about damage to buildings;
19 neighbours, tenants and so on. Why didn't you consider it important
20 enough to record it in your notes and in your report? A very brief
21 answer, please.
22 A. This was an inspection in an apartment where I was not really
23 allocated to go, but since my colleagues were inspecting it, then I
24 indirectly obtained this piece of information. I didn't consider that
25 important for what you are asking.
1 Q. [Previous translation continues]... generally in relation to all
2 the building inspections you did. Please answer generally why you didn't
3 consider it important enough to record the names of the people who gave
4 you the information.
5 A. We did not have such instructions when we went out, so it was our
6 free assessment whether we should write down the names or not. So some,
7 or the majority of buildings do not have those indications at all.
8 MR. RE: While I'm asking the next question, can the registrar
9 please provide the witness with the photograph and the map he marked on
10 out of court.
11 Q. Mr. Vukovic, was it your understanding the building damage you saw
12 in Boskoviceva Street on the video and the questions Mr. Petrovic asked
13 you about today, that that damage was caused in November? That's the
14 buildings in the corner of Stradun and Boskoviceva Street.
15 Don't worry about that for the moment.
16 Mr. Vukovic, the question about Boskoviceva Street.
17 A. Excuse me. Would you please just repeat your question.
18 Q. You were shown a video that showed some damage to buildings on the
19 corner of Boskoviceva Street and Stradun, going up Boskoviceva Street.
20 Mr. Petrovic asked you about it. Was it your understanding that the
21 damage to those buildings, the balconies, et cetera, was caused in
22 November as opposed to December 1991?
23 A. No. My statement referred to the general destruction of that
24 building, and since the same building, according to information that was
25 available to me, was hit on the 6th as well, it didn't matter to me
1 whether it was on the 6th or before. In any case, there was a repeated
2 strike or impact on it on the 6th, and we could see pieces of roof tiles
3 and the building materials and rubble, and that was around the building,
4 and that provided that type of information to us, and it indicated to me
5 that these were the effects of the impact on the building on the 6th.
6 Q. Mr. Vukovic, you've also marked on a photograph, according to
7 instructions or a suggestion yesterday I gave you. Have you marked the 15
8 things which were on the list which was circulated to the Trial Chamber?
9 A. Yes. I marked it on the aerial image and on the map here that was
10 provided to me together with the other material.
11 MR. RE: May those two documents be received into evidence. And
12 can I just address, before my friend -- my friend is about to say
13 something. Can I address before he does.
14 JUDGE PARKER: I'd like to know exactly which documents they are.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
16 MR. RE: There are two documents. One is the overhead photograph,
17 and the witness appears to have marked the identical buildings on this
18 large copy of 03266206. Could I reassure my learned friend Mr. Petrovic,
19 who is on his feet, that I do not tender the second document to represent
20 damage in the Old Town. I tender it only because the witness has marked
21 it and he says it -- I think he will say it's easier for the two to be
22 read together, and it's only tendered on the basis of it being a map -- a
23 grid map as opposed to a representation by the Prosecution that this
24 proves the -- that proves category 1, 2, 3, or 4 damage.
25 JUDGE PARKER: That's terribly messy, Mr. Re.
1 MR. RE: Unfortunately, the witness marked on it during the break
2 yesterday and we discovered this afterwards.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. But that doesn't make it that much more
4 relevant or useful to us, does it? You've got markings on the aerial
5 photograph of those same buildings.
6 MR. RE: Yes, Your Honour. They're identical, yes.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Why do we need to complicate life with this one?
8 MR. RE: If the Trial Chamber doesn't feel that this will assist,
9 I don't push with the tender of it.
10 JUDGE PARKER: The concern with this is the one expressed
11 yesterday about the nature of what is depicted on it, and it's only going
12 to lead to concern and confusion, I fear. When the same information is on
13 another depiction, although an aerial photograph, it is nevertheless
14 discernibly the same, and that is not affected by those problems.
15 MR. RE: On that basis, I only move for the receipt into evidence
16 of that -- of the photograph, the markings on the photograph.
17 JUDGE PARKER: I'll hold it up for Mr. Petrovic, so he sees what
18 my mind is. Just that one.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you,
20 Your Honour.
21 MR. RE: Could I just get the witness, as I finish, to point
22 something out on that photograph which arose in cross-examination, and
23 I'll describe it to the record, if I can.
24 Q. Mr. Vukovic, could you please put that on the overhead projector,
25 the ELMO. You referred to a house in Od Puca which was burnt out and then
1 building numbers XI-17, and you referred to speaking to Mrs. Bibica and
2 going to her apartment. That was at building number 18 -- sorry, XI-18.
3 Can you just point out for the Trial Chamber, firstly, the building which
4 burnt down.
5 A. I assume that it's this building here, number 12.
6 Q. Right. And whereabouts is Mrs. Bibica's apartment?
7 A. In this area here.
8 Q. You're just indicating to the left of number 12 on the photograph;
9 is that correct?
10 A. Yes. Yes.
11 MR. RE: I apologise. That completes my re-examination, and I
12 thank Your Honours for allowing me the extra time.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Re. We will receive now the last
14 document you tendered.
15 THE REGISTRAR: This document, the aerial overview, is P178.
16 JUDGE PARKER: I am pleased to be able to tell you, Mr. Vukovic,
17 that that brings to an end your evidence. May we thank you for your
18 assistance and your lengthy attendance and patience, and we wish you a
19 safe journey home.
20 Could I indicate, in view of the time experienced with this
21 witness, that the Trial Chamber would reiterate its view that there ought
22 to be no need for two days with the two expert witnesses that remain in
23 their evidence in chief, in view of the detailed report that they have,
24 and we would suggest that an effort be made to deal with their evidence in
25 each case within one day rather than two.
1 Thank you again. We will adjourn now for the weekend. Monday
2 afternoon at 2.15.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.51 p.m.,
5 to be reconvened on Monday, the 10th day of
6 May 2004, at 2.15 p.m.