Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 6069

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.


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

16 lives?

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.

Page 6070

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

10 tendering.

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

25 exhibit.

Page 6071

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?

Page 6072

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

5 roof?

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

Page 6073

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?

15 Sorry.

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

24 is.

25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, can the exhibit please

Page 6074

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

10 else?

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

Page 6075

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

4 about.

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

Page 6076

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

Page 6077

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

14 1992.

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

Page 6078

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

14 institute.

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

20 to?

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

Page 6079

1 more.

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

25 moment.

Page 6080

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

11 described.

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

22 December.

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

Page 6081

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.

Page 6082

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

Page 6083

1 inspections.

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?

Page 6084

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

Page 6085

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

10 projectile?

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?

Page 6086

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

Page 6087

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

4 it?

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

Page 6088

1 was present during our inspection.

2 Q. My question was what she specifically did during these

3 inspections.

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

7 building.

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

15 120-millimetre.

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.

Page 6089

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

5 know.

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

18 shell?

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?

Page 6090

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

16 projectile?

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

Page 6091

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

18 building?

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

23 building?

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

Page 6092

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

Page 6093

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

11 incurred?

12 A. It must have been the tenants or the neighbours. I can't

13 remember.

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

Page 6094

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

6 P172.

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

15 follow.

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

Page 6095

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?


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.

Page 6096

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

Page 6097

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.

Page 6098

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

Page 6099












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 6100

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

9 building?

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.

Page 6101

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

13 conducted.

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

Page 6102

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

7 that.

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

25 tenants.

Page 6103

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

6 already.

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.

Page 6104

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

3 projectile?

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

13 building.

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

22 saw.

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,

Page 6105

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

10 buildings.

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

22 powder.

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

Page 6106

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

12 investigation.

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

25 down?

Page 6107

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

Page 6108

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

21 information.

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

Page 6109

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

23 right.

24 Do you know from which direction this object was -- this building

25 was hit?

Page 6110

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

14 well.

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?

Page 6111

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.

Page 6112

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?

Page 6113

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

13 arrived?

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.

Page 6114

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?

Page 6115

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.

Page 6116

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

6 buildings.

7 Q. Do you know from which direction this particular building was

8 damaged?

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

20 hit?

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?

Page 6117

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

18 information.

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.

Page 6118

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

Page 6119

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.

Page 6120

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

Page 6121

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

22 town.

23 Q. What do you know about the removal of rubble on the 6th of

24 December?

25 A. The removal of rubble, I don't know anything about it directly,

Page 6122

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

18 yesterday.

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.

Page 6123

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

6 you.

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

23 testimony.

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

Page 6124

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

Page 6125

1 done by the interpreters themselves.

2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note that they tried to correct it

3 immediately.

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.

Page 6126

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

Page 6127

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

8 correct.

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.

Page 6128

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

9 Street?

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?

Page 6129

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,

11 1991?

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

16 like?

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?

Page 6130












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 6131

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

11 tower?

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.

Page 6132

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,

4 P145?

5 A. No, I don't know if what we saw yesterday is what we're talking

6 about.

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

17 city?

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

Page 6133

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

5 properly.

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

Page 6134

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

Page 6135

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 --

Page 6136

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.

Page 6137

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,

24 1991?

25 A. I don't have any detailed information, but I am referring to those

Page 6138

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.

Page 6139

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?

Page 6140

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

5 specifically.

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

Page 6141

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.

Page 6142

1 Q. And were those alarms sounded at the time when the town was

2 shelled?

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?

Page 6143

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

5 sea.

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

11 confirm.

12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could this document

13 please be admitted into evidence as a Defence exhibit.


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.

Page 6144

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

8 mind.

9 Q. Why did it never cross your mind to leave town with your wife and

10 daughter?

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?

Page 6145

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

4 questions.

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

Page 6146

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

17 Defence.

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.

Page 6147

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

12 statement?

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?

Page 6148

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

24 document?

25 JUDGE PARKER: Unfortunately, I don't see -- I don't have yet that

Page 6149

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]

Page 6150

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

Page 6151

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

25 photographs.

Page 6152

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

7 apartment?

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.

Page 6153

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

12 8.

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.

Page 6154

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

14 session.

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.

Page 6155

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

Page 6156

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.

Page 6157

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

Page 6158

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.

Page 6159

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.