1 Tuesday, 19 June 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: This afternoon we'll begin with a short

6 discussion of what I consider to be an important issue in this case. It

7 relates to the admissibility of some evidence that the Defence has

8 introduced and no doubt will continue to seek to introduce. I set out the

9 matter as follows, and after I have introduced the subject, I'll invite

10 the Defence and then the Prosecutor to make some submissions.

11 The indictment alleges that the accused, as commander of the

12 Bosnian Serb forces conducted a campaign of shelling and sniping upon

13 civilian areas and upon the civilian population in Sarajevo. By virtue of

14 those acts, the accused is charged with the crimes of terror, a violation

15 of the laws or customs of war; murder, a crime against humanity; inhumane

16 acts, a crime against humanity; and unlawful attacks on civilians, a

17 violation of the laws and customs of war.

18 We have heard 13 witnesses for the Defence. Some of them have

19 given testimony which, if believed, would establish that the ABiH

20 committed acts of violence against the Bosnian Serbs which led to

21 suffering on the part of the Bosnian Serbs and even a general state of

22 fear on their part. The question is whether this evidence is admissible.

23 It is admissible if it is relevant and probative. The primary issue is

24 relevance.

25 This evidence appears to answer the charges against the accused by

1 saying that the ABiH also committed acts of violence amounting to crimes

2 against the Bosnian Serbs.

3 Now, I'm not fond the Latin tag "tu quoque," because I do not find

4 it helpful to say that -- or to say simply that tu quoque evidence is

5 inadmissible. That tag masks -- obscures the real issue, which is whether

6 evidence is admissible. Such evidence is not admissible if it is not

7 relevant, and relevance remains the determinant of admissibility.

8 By "relevance" I mean evidence that is probative of the general

9 issue of the guilt or innocence of the accused or of some more specific

10 issue in the case. It is well acknowledged that the concepts of relevance

11 and probative value overlap. See, for example, Cross, a famous author on

12 evidence. He says one fact is not relevant to another if it does not have

13 real probative value with respect to the latter.

14 Applying that to the problem that we face, the evidence from these

15 witnesses will therefore be admissible if it assists the Trial Chamber in

16 determining the general issue of guilt or innocence of the accused or, as

17 I said, of some more specific issue in the case. And I remind everyone

18 that what we have here is a court of law, and we are not running a

19 university course in the history or sociology of the conflict in Sarajevo.

20 The issue is important, because if the Trial Chamber is not

21 satisfied about the relevance of this kind of evidence, then it should be

22 excluded. In some cases this would mean excluding the evidence of a

23 witness in its entirety and in others in some parts. So against that

24 background, I invite first the Defence, Mr. Tapuskovic, to make some

25 brief submissions, having in mind the questions that I posed to you in

1 relation to the evidence of certain witnesses whom we have already heard.

2 Mr. Tapuskovic.

3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. And

4 thank you, Mr. Presiding Judge. I understood well the framework you

5 established concerning the scope of my answers in response to the

6 proposition you've expressed, and I'll do my utmost to do it in such a

7 short time.

8 You know very well that as early as our pre-trial brief we stated

9 our basic position to the extent necessary. We never contested the fact

10 that all international humanitarian law is applicable to any and every

11 war. However, we contested all of the core facts of the indictment in

12 spite of a judgement that had been issued before. We believed from the

13 start that it would be necessary for us to refer to the time and

14 circumstances which set a background for all of the things mentioned in

15 the various counts of the indictment.

16 First and foremost, we were aware that we had to deal with things

17 by which a campaign of attacking civilians and civilian facilities was

18 stipulated in the indictment. I can tell you right away that it would be

19 difficult for Defence to bring a single witness that was an eyewitness to

20 many of the things that the indictment is based on, the indictment against

21 Dragomir Milosevic. We might be able to bring one witness who would be

22 able to spoke on one incident. In our belief, we don't even need experts.

23 However, we will bring them here in order to deal with certain aspects of

24 Prosecution evidence, in order to tackle the exemplary cases which were

25 supposed to confirm the facts set out in the indictment and its annexes.

1 It is belief, with all due respect for the Chamber, that such

2 representatives -- such representative events based on the evidence put

3 forth by the Prosecution did not prove the guilt of the accused beyond a

4 reasonable doubt. It is something that we believe can be assessed even

5 now at this moment, even without a single piece of evidence on our part

6 being assessed as probative on the part of the Chamber. Therefore, we

7 based our belief that we can deal with the issues from the indictment;

8 although, we were not aware of the entire framework of the things that we

9 had to deal beyond the scope of the indictment.

10 Up until this moment, we don't know what the extent of adjudicated

11 facts will have, the adjudicated facts of the preceding case, and we find

12 ourselves before an insurmountable problem and that is how to choose the

13 witnesses to brought here, since we lack the witnesses who were there at

14 the time and place of the incidents that serve as the basis of this

15 indictment.

16 We short-listed the number of witnesses and documents that would

17 be introduced through those witnesses and in written form, which were not

18 introduced in the Galic case, and here I primarily mean the written

19 evidence on the activities of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. We could do

20 nothing else but go through each of the Sarajevo municipalities, and they

21 go way beyond Stari Grad, in order to be able to bring, say, two witnesses

22 per municipality to be able to tell you what they went through at the time

23 since there were no other witnesses. The only witnesses are

24 the people who were there and then, and those were the people who took up

25 arms to defend their houses. These were no idle people sporting weapons

1 on certain hills, doing the things that the accused is accused of.

2 Your Honours, if we look at item 5 of the indictment, the part

3 that you, Your Honour, began your introductory remark today, in item 5 it

4 says that there was a campaign of sniping activity and shelling of the

5 civilian population of Sarajevo.

6 In item 7 it is stated that the Serb forces had a dominant view

7 and control of the citizens of the city, as well as they were in the

8 position to terrorise the civilian population of Sarajevo.

9 In item 13, again we have the mention of the civilian population

10 of Sarajevo.

11 In item 14, the attacks on Sarajevo civilians were deliberate, and

12 so on and so forth.

13 Item 16, attacking civilians.

14 And item 18, sniping and shelling against civilians. The life of

15 virtually of which every Sarajevo inhabitant became a daily struggle, and

16 so on and so forth.

17 And we move on. In almost each and every count there is a mention

18 of civilian population and civilian areas. This goes all the way until

19 the end and only towards the end of the indictment there is a mention of

20 "a conflict." Only after this stage of the proceedings and after all the

21 evidence we saw, our learned friends from the Prosecution say that it is

22 not in dispute that there were combat activities, that there is no dispute

23 about the fact that there was suffering on both sides. It is mentioned

24 only now. However, in the indictment, the entire situation is treated as

25 if there was nothing else but the civilians who were the sole target of

1 those who were opening fire upon them.

2 The entire indictment is set out in a way to show that it was an

3 unprotected civilian setting which comprised no one but civilians. This

4 would have been one of the most serious crimes I have ever heard had it

5 been like that. It could be compared to any great sieges of cities

6 throughout history. However, we are bound to the circumstances and the

7 time relevant to the indictment.

8 As a Defence counsel, it is my only role, first of all, to deal

9 with the problem of the location of Sarajevo, of what Sarajevo is. Is it

10 only the old town, or is it also Grbavica, Hrasno, Nedzarici, and

11 Dobrinja? Is Sarajevo only Hrasnica, or is Sarajevo also Ilidza, Ilijas,

12 Rajlovac, and Vogosca?

13 And to conclude -- or, rather, not to conclude, I am still at the

14 beginning, rather. In item 7, and that is why we brought some witnesses

15 here, and I believe it became clear during the Prosecution case as well,

16 was that this item 7 that insists that the city was besieged and exposed

17 to non-stop artillery and sniping attacks and that the sniping artillery

18 attacks came predominantly from the positions in the hills around Sarajevo

19 from where the attacker had a clear, dominant view of the city and its

20 civilian population.

21 Even during the Prosecution phase of the case -- even during the

22 Prosecution case based on undisputable documents and witness testimony, it

23 was shown that on Mojmilo hill, Strpsko Brdo, Humsko Brdo, Colina Kapa,

24 Debelo Brdo, and so on and so forth that there were Muslim forces there.

25 Therefore, this very important hypothesis of the Prosecutor which managed

1 to survive through the Galic case we believe in -- should be put into

2 question in all its aspects.

3 There are several different aspects to that problem that need to

4 be dealt with in order to see whether the VRS forces were indeed at

5 Spicasta Stijena or at Trebevic and Zlatiste, as well as the Jewish

6 cemetery since these were the only locations from which the Serb forces

7 could act. However, they had no range to reach the city, and which leaves

8 Metalka the only location from which the Serb forces fired throughout the

9 war.

10 The witnesses we've been bringing for you to see are the people

11 from those locations, and they are able to tell you and show you whether

12 one can do any sniping from certain locations and who could have opened

13 fire from certain hills. This is all for you to consider.

14 What we believe is very important is the nature of intermingling

15 parts of the city. We cannot determine who was in the graver situation,

16 whether it was the people in old town or the ones at Nedzarici or in

17 Grbavica or Hrasno or Ilijas or Ilidza or Vogosca. All those

18 micro-locations were set in a way that each of them had difficulties of

19 their own. All this needs to be put in the framework of the indictment

20 and the time relevant to it, between August 1994 until December 1994 and

21 then from December 1994 until May and June 1995 and then up to the end of

22 the war of the.

23 Having considered all this, we have to go through each of the

24 periods and who could have been possible, could have been able to decide

25 to stop the suffering of all Sarajevo inhabitants. We cannot distinguish

1 between those who were in Lukavica and those in old town or those in

2 Hrasnica as opposed to Ilidza or those in Grbavica as opposed to the ones

3 in Ilijas. It is only then that we can assess this statement of the

4 Prosecutor which says that this sole primary goal was to terrorise

5 civilians or, rather, in our view that it was the situation at the time

6 where the suffering on the part of civilians was unavoidable.

7 If we employ the tu quoque principle, we need to deal with the

8 enormous number of civilian casualties in Sarajevo caused by the reckless

9 people who held no regard for the number and type of casualties. There

10 was a great wish on the part of the VRS not to allow to suffer the same

11 fate as was suffered by those who remained in Sarajevo.

12 I do understand your question as to the importance of this, but

13 especially towards the war it was increasingly important to keep your

14 positions and to do nothing else, irrespective of several other aspects

15 that I have been mentioning such as the -- such as history, strategy, and

16 everything else, although some of such aspects may have been present at

17 the outset of the war.

18 In such circumstances, we are able only to bring such witnesses

19 which can testify to the daily life of people in any and every part.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: I understand you to say that the primary goal was

21 not to terrorise civilians. You have said "sole," but I think you should

22 say "primary," not "sole," because "primary" is the word used in the

23 indictment. The primary goal was not to terrorise civilians and that

24 suffering on the part of civilians was unavoidable, but the Prosecutor

25 might then say to you, What about the evidence of persons taking up

1 positions in the Metalka building and shooting at civilians in trams or

2 elsewhere and causing injury or death to them? And they might ask the

3 question whether that is not enough evidence of an intent to inflict

4 terror.

5 Again I want to stress that we are not in the stage of closing

6 arguments. I am just exploring.

7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Robinson, as I

8 said at first, of course this is no closing argument, but it is our view

9 that not a single incident which is supposed to be a representative sample

10 of what was happening was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Of course

11 we can discuss the nuances that need to be assessed, of course, at a

12 certain stage so as to be able to determine whether some consequences

13 could have been foreseen and therefore prevented. However, we believe

14 that already on the basis of what -- the things we have as to anything

15 being proven beyond reasonable doubt, it is precisely the Metalka building

16 that was not proven in that case -- in that way, as well as many other

17 incidents encompassed in the indictment. We will try to prove that, or,

18 rather, we will ask you to assess that based on the evidence brought forth

19 up until now.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Well -- yes. Don't elaborate. I

21 understand the position you're taking. You're saying that on the evidence

22 the Prosecution has not established the sniping and shelling of civilians

23 by the Serb forces.

24 Is there anything else you wish to say, because we could now hear

25 from the Prosecutor.

1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, what I could say at the

2 end is that if the Prosecution really believes that it is not in dispute

3 that there were -- that there was combat and that all suffered, then what

4 remains is that we should listen to what we have until the end so you

5 could hear the people who were in the old town, who lived in other places.

6 We are not going to bring too many more witnesses so that you can

7 see how things proceeded, what happened. And we are not disputing that

8 circumstances of war lead to the things that happened, but we do insist on

9 the time that these incidents that took place that are cited in the

10 indictment, and all of this during the time that Dragomir Milosevic was

11 commander. And of course, all of this is something that we have to see

12 what it looked like when the decision comes about the adjudicated facts.

13 We are deeply convinced, as I said before, that the adjudicated facts

14 cannot be inherited or transferred or applied to a time period that has

15 nothing to do with what preceded it, other than in the most general of

16 things, and that is why we were forced through our witnesses to point out

17 to you some of the most general background things from the beginning of

18 the conflict, which determined many things which followed.

19 [Trial Chamber confers].

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Waespi -- sorry. Mr. Tapuskovic, yes.

21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my colleague saw at

22 one point that what I said and was in the transcript has nothing to do

23 with what I actually stated. This is page 8, lines 6 to 10. Perhaps we

24 can listen to that again and then have it retranslated, because it has

25 nothing to do with what I said.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, can you just tell us what it is? I don't

2 think we have the time to -- is it on the page now? No. It's line 8 --

3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Page 8, line 6. If this is not what you said,

4 then what did you say?

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just let us know what your position is on that

6 issue.

7 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] This changes the meaning entirely

8 of what has been said. Defence counsel would like to check, please.

9 Maybe we could hear it again and translate it again to make sure that the

10 meaning is right. Here we have a string of words, but --

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just repeat it. Just repeat it. Just tell us

12 what you said and we'll have it interpreted now.

13 Mr. Tapuskovic, just tell us what you said so we can hear.

14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't know -- I

15 don't know English, so this is something that my colleague noticed. This

16 is the point. I cannot follow what is said in English. If it was in

17 French I would be able to follow that.

18 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is important that

19 you know that the translation -- maybe I should translate it for him.

20 Maybe I should translate the paragraph for him, but the fastest way of

21 proceeding is to correct the translation and make sure it matches with

22 what Mr. Tapuskovic has said.

23 The tu quoque principle is mentioned, and from what I read on the

24 transcript the meaning is totally different from what has been said.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, what is wrong with what I am is suggesting?

1 Let Mr. Tapuskovic now say what he wanted to say.

2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, but we need enough time. I

3 just need to tell him, let him know what has been translated into English,

4 because it's in English, and I have to tell him where the mistake is. If

5 you give us enough time to do that, then I shall be able to tell him.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: I think you're making much of this, but let --

7 take a minute then.

8 [Defence counsel confer]

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I did mention the tu quoque and

10 what was written in the transcript, if we're talking about that principle,

11 we should deal with the large number of civilian victims in Sarajevo

12 because of people who were not careful, who did not take care about the

13 number and the type of victims. Please, I did not say anything in that

14 sense, anything like that.

15 I was talking about, and I have to say this now slowly, that the

16 Serb side and that people who stayed in Sarajevo and that we are leading

17 evidence on experienced horrors in Sarajevo itself, and these were victims

18 who had nothing to do with combat actions, and the sense was precisely

19 that and the Serb side in that sense did not respond in any way to what

20 the Serbs were experiencing in the town. But that was one of the main

21 reasons why the Serbs had to take care of this, to protect themselves in

22 their own territories in order for this not to happen to them as well.

23 So the tu quoque principle has nothing to do with that. The

24 tu quoque principle had to do with the fact that the Serb side in the same

25 way that it was experiencing the things that were going on to the people

1 there was allowing itself to do to the people who stayed on the site where

2 the Serbs were living. That is the sense. Perhaps I didn't say that in

3 exactly same words, but I did not say that the victims were victims of

4 people who were not the careful. No. These were the victims of the most

5 horrific crimes. Yes, I have to put it like that now. Which was

6 important as information for those on the other side so that they could,

7 in the last year of the war, preserve whatever it was that they had at

8 that period of time under their control.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

10 Now, Mr. Waespi, I'd like you to attend carefully to -- to this.

11 I think I'm coming closer to understanding what the Defence is saying.

12 They are saying that the case that you have presented is not a proper

13 reflection of what happened in Sarajevo and that when one looks at it

14 through the narrow prism of the sniping and shelling incidents that you

15 have presented, you get a completely wrong picture.

16 They are inviting us to look at it more broadly, in the context of

17 a general state of armed conflict, and in that general state of armed

18 conflict, there are acts of violence perpetrated by the ABiH that led to

19 the suffering of Serbs. And in that general state of armed conflict, what

20 the Defence is saying is that it will not be possible for the Trial

21 Chamber to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the primary purpose

22 of the -- of any acts of violence committed by the Serbs was to inflict

23 terror on the civilian population. They're inviting us to say that

24 because it was a general state of armed conflict, and I believe they would

25 want to say that in that situation it is not possible for a Trial Chamber

1 to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt about this particular thing, which

2 is that this particular charge, which is that the Serbs' primary

3 intention, primary purpose, was to inflict a state of terror on the

4 civilian population.

5 I have confined myself to the terror charge, because I believe

6 that is -- that's a very troubling area, and I don't know whether the

7 Defence was extending this argument to the other charges, the crimes

8 against humanity and the other charges. I'm not sure, maybe

9 Mr. Tapuskovic can tell us that later, but certainly I know they are

10 applying it to the charge of terror.

11 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, it is correct that the Defence is

12 entitled to put their side of the case and perhaps even their side -- or

13 the Serbian side of background of context. The Prosecution did the same

14 with our expert, Robert Donia, with some of our witnesses Ismet Hadzic who

15 tacked about Dobrinja 92. So I have no problem with that part of the

16 evidence coming in, at least to provide some background as to the armed

17 conflict, to the intensity of the armed conflict. Maybe 1992, but maybe

18 certainly 1995, the May June 1995 offensive by the ABiH.

19 But, Mr. President, the Prosecution's case is indeed that the

20 majority overwhelming majority of the crimes committed inside the

21 territory, the territory under the command and control of the ABiH was

22 committed by the SRK from outside, and it is first the primary duty of the

23 Defence if they want to put the case to distinguish these parts of armed

24 conflict to which we agree having occurred to the incidents, to the

25 shadowed and unshadowed and incidents of a specific date.

1 Mr. President, the Prosecution has been very, very careful in

2 adducing evidence to show for each of these incidents that there was no

3 military target nearby, that there was no battle occurring on at that day.

4 Some witnesses said it was quiet for a specific period of time. I give

5 you the example of the witness who talked about the Simon Bolivar

6 waterline shelling I think 18th of June 1995. The witness was asked, you

7 know, was it quiet and so on. So to exclude what the Defence calls

8 inevitable suffering of civilians.

9 If there was a big battle raging on that day in Dobrinja,

10 centering perhaps on the Simon Bolivar school, of course there could be a

11 bullet or a stray bullets or perhaps even a mortar which was

12 intentionally -- unintentionally fired could have exploded on the

13 Simon Bulevar school. But this did not happen the Prosecution suggests.

14 So first of all, because, Mr. President, these incidents, I think,

15 27 incidents of sniping and shelling were illustrative of a much broader

16 number. The Defence has got to isolate them and tell us that there was

17 indeed a battle going on, that these targets, the victims, were not

18 victims of intentional, direct, perhaps indiscriminate targeting but

19 unfortunate victims of war. That would be in our submission a good

20 Defence or a proper Defence. But to show to Defence witnesses huge lists

21 of ABiH armory and ammunition they might have used in June, May 1995, just

22 doesn't help in relation to these specific incidents.

23 The second point I wanted to add, Mr. President, is the famous

24 paragraph 7 of the indictment. The Defence is -- is entitled to show

25 through witnesses, perhaps documents, that some of the vantage points they

1 say were in the hands of the ABiH, and I assume their defence will be that

2 from these vantage points the ABiH shot at their own people. Otherwise, I

3 cannot see why a defence argument could be relevant, because from the

4 perspective of the Prosecution, for sniping you indeed need a direct line

5 of sight between the sniper and the victim.

6 I believe we have established it beyond reasonable doubt for all

7 our incidents on the numerous unshadowed incidents of sniping from

8 Spicasta Stijene or the Jewish cemetery or other famous sniping spots.

9 For shelling, Mr. President, Your Honours, you do not need that.

10 You can launch mortars as was done time and again into Sarajevo, the urban

11 part of Sarajevo under ABiH control without looking at the target. So it

12 doesn't matter whether the SRK was sitting on these famous vantage points,

13 but we say, Mr. President, that the most important vantage points and

14 indeed the territory, the controlling territory around the city was --

15 which was clearly under siege was occupied by the SRK and not by the ABiH.

16 Let me maybe just mention a couple of other points. And I just

17 repeat it. I think I might have said it in the opening that in relation

18 to the indictment period, the Prosecution doesn't say that all the wrong

19 doings were done by the SRK under the command and control of the accused.

20 We admit that people from within the territory, military members

21 of the ABiH or MUP members may have committed war crimes, but again that

22 does not entitle the SRK to do likewise and shoot back and target at

23 civilians. Because we have heard, maybe not today but I think on another

24 day, the defence of necessity. Again, necessity, responding to something,

25 doesn't allow targeting civilians so that's not a defence.

1 Maybe the last point I wanted to make, Mr. President, is the

2 suffering of the Serbs, and I am in fact grateful for that last

3 intervention by the Defence, because perhaps for the first time I realised

4 it more what the Defence means by -- by the sufferings of the Serbs inside

5 the -- inside the territory controlled by the ABiH, because originally I

6 thought the argument by the Defence was because Serbs were suffering

7 inside the confrontation lines their friends and their family, fathers,

8 outside were angry because of that and in response they would retaliate,

9 or retaliation is perhaps even the wrong word, they would fire into the

10 city. That was, I thought, the Defence argument, but today I understood

11 the Defence saying that the suffering of the Serbs inside was so big that

12 it kind of overtook the suffering of the other people inside the

13 confrontation line. At least that's the way I understood the Defence

14 argument.

15 But again, my point is that if some people, and I agree to that,

16 unfortunately suffered, some Serbs, some Croats, some people suffered not

17 because of the SRK actions but because of ABiH or MUP actions, why does

18 that take away of the suffering and the terrorising of the other people

19 inside the confrontation lines, suffering caused by the SRK? It doesn't

20 take anything away, Mr. President. We don't think it's a defence. And it

21 is certainly not a defence, Mr. President, and it's not relevant for the

22 Defence to bring evidence of suffering of people outside the confrontation

23 lines.

24 Why is Hadzici important, suffering of Serbs in Hadzici for the

25 charges in the indictment? We don't see the relevancy. Again, unless the

1 Defence says because people in Hadzici, Serb people in Hadzici were

2 suffering, they fired shells or were sniping into the city. That's the

3 only link I can see, and the way I understand it that's not the way the

4 Defence puts forward its case.

5 That's all I can say. I hope I have answered your questions. I'm

6 ready to -- to answer anything else if you have more issues.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, I don't know whether you have

10 anything to say in reply. Not for more than five -- five minutes. I

11 would be interested to find out, however, whether the general argument

12 that you have presented in relation to terror would also be applicable to

13 the other charges such as crimes against humanity and unlawful attacks and

14 violations of the law of war.

15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there are some

16 nuances here that we could talk about when all of this is over. For

17 example, if we're talking about the notorious air bombs that are talked

18 about here, and of course then we can put the question of -- and now I'm

19 only speaking in notes. So when this is discussed, perhaps, in cases that

20 such means are used, I'm only talking about this, that if it were to be

21 proved that the army of Republika Srpska used something like that then it

22 could have been be aware, the person who was doing this, that civilian

23 casualties could be the result. I'm just mentioning an example. And we

24 will come to that on condition it is proved who and if anyone used air

25 bombs.

1 Now I'm only talking about it as something that we can discuss if

2 this becomes necessary. However, when we're talking about crimes directly

3 against civilians, for that you would need to have an order, and this is

4 something that the court of first instance did in the Galic case. I'm not

5 going to go back to that. One of the Judges provided a very valuable

6 opinion regarding those orders in that case. So this is a different topic

7 that deserves to be dealt with at some other point in time.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. Don't say any more about that. Are

9 you finished now? Well, let us conclude. I thank both parties for their

10 submissions. The submissions were useful in part, but I don't think they

11 were directly to the -- to the question which has been troubling the

12 Chamber for some time, and that is the relevance, the admissibility of the

13 evidence.

14 The Chamber has heard the submissions, and we take them into

15 account. We'll continue to monitor the evidence of witnesses in the same

16 way that we have monitored the evidence of all witnesses in the case, and

17 we will determine on an individual basis the admissibility of evidence on

18 the basis of the accepted criteria of relevance and probative value.

19 Let us have the witness brought in.

20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we just wanted to

21 deal with a procedural issue. We announced that earlier.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And my colleague Ms. Isailovic

24 will deal with that.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Ms. Isailovic.

1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Certainly, Your Honour. This

2 might be a procedural issue, but -- which is based on substance. This has

3 to do with the witness testimonies of the Defence, and the Defence would

4 like to see the names of these witnesses on the 65 ter list. We would

5 like these witnesses to testify under the same conditions as Prosecution

6 witnesses. Pursuant to Rule 21(4)(e) of the Statute. Article 21 of the

7 Statute of this Tribunal.

8 The Defence benefits from what seems to be fewer resources than

9 the Prosecution, because we are two to a team. We have two assistants,

10 one of whom must be present in the courtroom at all times and print out

11 all the documents, whereas the Prosecution does not have to do this. We

12 are understaffed if we compare our position to that of the Prosecution.

13 We have accepted these harsh working conditions, conditions which we have

14 accepted, and we have kept our promises, but we would like to be assisted

15 by the Chamber.

16 We have turned to the Registrar of this Tribunal, which is the

17 easiest way of proceeding as far as we are concerned and returned to the

18 registry to be assisted as regards the witness testimonies of our

19 witnesses.

20 Now, let me explain. During the pre-trial defence conference,

21 Your Honour, you invited us to look into other ways of providing evidence

22 in order to cut down on the Defence time, time which had been allotted to

23 the Defence to present its case. And the case had looked into various

24 other possibilities, and we had planned to do away with some witnesses,

25 but we would like to hear nine witnesses whom we feel are particularly

1 important to the Defence case, but pursuant to Rule 92 bis of the Rules of

2 Procedure and Evidence.

3 It so happens that the Defence team has only two Defence counsel.

4 We are at all times present in the courtroom, and we need to prepare these

5 testimonies in writing beforehand. These testimonies need to be signed by

6 the witnesses.

7 We have asked to be helped by the Registry, but for the time being

8 we have been -- we are hanging out to dry, so to speak, and we are faced

9 with a rather serious problem as things stand today, because we need help

10 from the Registry. We need to be able to use these witness statements.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the specific help that you seek?

12 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we asked to be able

13 to use the office of the ICTY in Sarajevo. More specifically, in order to

14 be able to meet up with seven witnesses. We have specified on what dates

15 and what time, two hours per witness, and we have asked to have a printer,

16 because I shall take charge of this. I've got a portable computer, but I

17 don't have a portable printer so that I can take this with me to Sarajevo.

18 And we felt that this was a very reasonable request to use the premises

19 there, and we got a harsh response; it is not for the Registry to look

20 after this.

21 As the Defence was not quite sure of the fairness of this answer,

22 we felt that this was an unreasonable response, and to meet your

23 requirements, i.e., another way of presenting our evidence through our

24 witnesses, we are turning to you today, and we would like to say that

25 those witnesses already on the 65 ter list that have already been approved

1 by the Bench, if we are to spend only three days on this because we can't

2 spend time than that, we need this kind of help. And we feel that this is

3 quite a reasonable request, and we do hope to get it from the Registry of

4 this Tribunal.

5 And let me repeat, pursuant to Article 21, paragraph 4(e) provides

6 for evidence adduced by the Defence under the same conditions as evidence

7 adduced by the Prosecution, and this is the request we put to you.

8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Isailovic, can I ask a question for

9 clarification? Are you asking the Chamber to order the Prosecution to

10 make available for you -- the Registry or the Prosecution, to make

11 available to you a room in the OTP building in Sarajevo and a printer for

12 the purpose of taking you witnesses there and to extract a statement from

13 them under Rule 92 bis? Is that what you're asking us to do?

14 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Judge Harhoff. I should also

15 like to add that we would like to be assisted by the Victims and Witnesses

16 Unit, because we intend to cut down on our costs, because instead of

17 bringing our witnesses to The Hague, we will ask them to come to Sarajevo

18 and Belgrade given that most of these people live in Sarajevo. The

19 Defence does not have any premises in which it could ask these witnesses

20 come to. So we would just like Article 21, paragraph (4)(e) to be abided

21 by, Article of the Statute of this Tribunal.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Waespi.

24 MR. WAESPI: Yes. I'm not a hundred per cent sure who owns these

25 ICTY facilities in Sarajevo, but I know for a fact that there is indeed a

1 representative from the VW down there, which is certainly not OTP, and

2 there are some other facilities, and even OTP, although I, you know,

3 cannot give sort of a binding commitment, but I'm sure we could make

4 available a printer, an office down there. That could certainly be

5 accommodated from our perspective.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, that's very heartening to hear. It may be

7 that the problem can be solved in this way, and I certainly thank

8 Mr. Waespi for that invention. But what I should say is that we have

9 heard the submissions that have been made, and we treat it as -- as a

10 motion. We are not in a position to give a ruling on it now. We need to

11 consider it. Obviously we'll have to look at all the ramifications. We

12 also have to look at the case law of the Tribunal in this matter. But if

13 the problem can be resolved informally, in the manner suggested by

14 Mr. Waespi, then that would be the best -- best solution.

15 So we leave it there, Ms. Isailovic. Be in touch with the

16 Prosecutor. See what help you can get. In the meantime, the Chamber

17 will, in the exercise of its functions, prepare a response to the motion

18 that you have made.

19 Let the witness be brought in.

20 [The witness entered court]

21 WITNESS: WITNESS T-7 [Resumed]

22 [Witness answered through interpreter].

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness T-7, you remain subject to the

24 declaration that you made yesterday.

25 Mr. Tapuskovic.

1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Examination by Mr. Tapuskovic: [Continued]

3 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Witness.

4 A. Good afternoon.

5 Q. Yesterday, we dealt with the photograph at the end of the day.

6 Could we have the photograph placed before you again, please. This was

7 DD003969.

8 You explained this photograph yesterday. Could you clarify,

9 please, once again? Where did you dig trenches, looking at this ridge?

10 What is it called this ridge?

11 A. It's called Ablakovina, and I dug behind that ridge, about 30

12 metres behind that ridge. From the spot where I dug, the distance to the

13 Serbian positions was just as long if not longer on the road leading

14 towards Pale where the Serbian army was or the road leading to

15 Mount Jahorina where the Olimpik facilities were.

16 Q. I didn't ask you this yesterday. Who made this photograph?

17 A. I did.

18 Q. At the time?

19 A. No. I made the photograph after the war when I returned to live

20 in Sarajevo. It was then that I made this photograph for the Galic trial,

21 but it was not included in the evidence and I just happened to take it

22 with me now, fortunately.

23 Q. Can you please tell me, in the street where you lived at the time

24 of the conflict, was there something going on that you could testify

25 about?

1 A. Yes. I made this photograph in order to make it plain to the

2 Court that in these streets which are quite steep and face the slopes of

3 Mount Trebevic, the Muslim forces positioned a car there and attached a

4 mortar to the car. Sometimes they would attach an anti-air machine-gun

5 and that they would shoot from.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Waespi.

7 MR. WAESPI: I think it's easier, again, if first -- the question

8 was very, very broad, and that -- which is part of the problem. If the

9 time-frame would be cleared right now. That's also relevant for the issue

10 of relevancy.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the period you're dealing with here,

12 Witness, month, year -- or year first and month?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, from 1993 to the moment when I

14 left I eyewitnessed such events. Whenever there was parliamentary

15 delegation coming, new journalists, new cameramen, in order to illustrate

16 what the situation was in town during the war --

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: You said from 1993 to the moment that you left.

18 At what time did you leave?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the 9th of June, 1994.

20 MR. WAESPI: I object to the relevancy of this evidence if it's an

21 observation sometime before the month of June 1994.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Tapuskovic, we have an objection as to

23 the relevance of this evidence as occurring in the pre-indictment period.

24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I still do not know

25 the scope of adjudicated facts in June of 1994. We can ask the witness

1 about this period of time, about the circumstances at the time. However,

2 let's have this photograph and this evidence admitted into evidence,

3 because it is very important in order to establish the situation in the

4 summer of 1994. This witness said it was in June. This is very important

5 to portray how things unfolded in Sarajevo at the time given the

6 circumstances. This is something that this witness could testify about.

7 I think that the events of June of 1994 are very important. These are the

8 things that happened just before this witness left Sarajevo.

9 At any rate, shooting from mortars and other weapons, from cars

10 and trucks is something that is quite important in order to grasp the

11 events in Sarajevo, also during the time covered by this witness, all the

12 way up to June 1994. This is very important in order to comprehend the

13 events in Sarajevo. We cannot say that it is irrelevant, especially given

14 the fact that we also have to analyse to some degree the events which

15 preceded the period of time for which Dragomir Milosevic is charged. This

16 is a very important fact.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Waespi, we are going to rule that it is

19 relevant essentially because the indictment period begins the 10th of

20 August, and this is June. So it's June 1994, it's just two months away.

21 But I'm a bit troubled by the argument that Mr. Tapuskovic has raised, and

22 not for the first time, about the pending nature of the adjudicated facts,

23 and I'd like to hear both of you on this point, because that argument

24 would only be valid, it seems to me, if you can show that the Prosecution

25 had made an application for a certain fact to be treated as adjudicated

1 and that it relates to this very -- very issue that the witness is

2 speaking about, and that issue is spending before the Appeals Chamber, and

3 therefore you need to lead evidence on it because don't know the status.

4 Otherwise, I don't see that it is open to you generally to say

5 that this may relate to an adjudicated fact and the issue is pending

6 before the Appeals Chamber. That can't be a general response, I think. I

7 don't see how that could be correct.

8 So we are going to rule the evidence relevant and allow the

9 question to be answered, but I just wanted to hear you on that particular

10 question, Mr. Waespi, on the adjudicated fact argument.

11 MR. WAESPI: I believe that in Galic the issue of mobile mortars

12 played also a role, but it also can only be relevant in this case if there

13 was an adjudicated fact, as you rightly point out Mr. President, that says

14 that there was indiscriminate or any type of shelling into that area where

15 the witness says there was a mortar, ABiH mortar, placed. So that would

16 play against the argument that the SRK would have been shelling this area,

17 you know, indiscriminately, rather than actually being a legitimate

18 military target although it's probably gone when the truck is removed. So

19 only in that sense.

20 If there is a linkage between, as you rightly point out,

21 Mr. President, a specific adjudicated facts to which the Defence is

22 entitled to adduce evidence; only on these circumstances would the Defence

23 argument be relevant.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, very briefly on that point, the

25 adjudicated fact point, because we are allowing the evidence but not on

1 that ground, on the ground that it is relevant. What do you mean by

2 referring to the adjudicated facts?

3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] When referring to adjudicated

4 facts, I am referring to a number of facts contained in the trial

5 judgement, which simply cannot be transferred to the period of time for

6 which Mr. Milosevic is charged. That period of time is only relevant

7 where in light of his action, his responsibility, and so on.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: But do have in mind one, a particular adjudicated

9 fact, that relates to this -- to the issues raised by this evidence?

10 Because you can't be at large.

11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, yes, I can.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't --

13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Just wait a second, so I can

14 consult my colleague.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

16 [Defence counsel confer]

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, please look at the

19 fact 173 and then a whole number of facts following it which link these

20 type of events with terror of civilians, intimidation of civilians. There

21 are a number of facts for the period between 1992 and 1994.

22 The Prosecution wants all of them to be admitted as uncontested

23 facts. These are the facts that I was referring to. We were able to find

24 them quite quickly.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, that's very good of you. You're much

1 better than I am because I don't have them here.

2 We will proceed, but I'm really interested in the principle. We

3 have said that we will allow the evidence because it is relevant. Whether

4 it's -- it's to be allowed on the basis of the adjudicated fact argument

5 is another matter.

6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Witness, now we have admitted this photograph

7 into evidence, but I need to understand better what it really shows; so

8 therefore, I would like to put a number of questions relating to this

9 photo.

10 First of all, which area of Sarajevo is it really taken from, and

11 what is the direction that we are looking? We're looking up on some hills

12 from somewhere, but where is that and in which direction are we looking?

13 That's the first question. Can you answer that?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The photograph was taken from

15 the centre of the town looking from the bridge of Gavrilo Princip facing

16 Mount Trebevic.

17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may be of some

18 assistance.

19 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. I would prefer to hear it from the witness.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] See, here, I don't know how familiar

21 you are with the town. On the right-hand side, my right side, is the

22 military barracks of General Kukanjac, and then on the other side is the

23 centre of the town. This is the spot from which the took the picture

24 facing Mount Trebevic, because I wanted to show that it was a steep street

25 in the direction of Mount Trebevic from where the bullets were fired on

1 Serbian positions. And if you want me, I can elaborate on why this was

2 done.

3 JUDGE HARHOFF: No thank you, but what is the direction that we're

4 looking by compass? Are we looking towards the north, or the north-east

5 or ...?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is south-east. East is this

7 way, so this is south-east.

8 JUDGE HARHOFF: So we're looking south-east, in the direction of

9 south-east?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that that's correct.

11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. Now, imagine this, that you and I

12 would be walking up the hill that you can see on the photograph where

13 there is snow. If we walk in a straight line up, then we would come to

14 the ridge where you have made some red and blue markings. And 30 metres

15 behind that ridge you say there were trenches. Whose trenches were they?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I dug trenches for the army of

17 Bosnia and Herzegovina, because I was resident of that part of the town.

18 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand. And then you told us that a little

19 further on, if we were to continue our walk, then we would stumble on the

20 Serbian trenches; is that correct? What would the distance be between the

21 two lines of trenches at this particular point?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I told you, some 30 metres. I

23 dug in several locations, and the closest they were, the two armies, was

24 in that location, except for the Jewish cemetery which is an urban area,

25 and they were positioned there in two buildings facing each other.

1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. Lastly, on the photo you have put a

2 blue spot on top of the peak that is behind this ridge. It's further up

3 and further away. What -- what would we find on top of that peak where

4 the blue point is?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't be able to say. I really

6 don't know what is located there.

7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Okay. I'm asking because I thought -- I'm asking

8 because I thought that this was a separate mark that you had put there to

9 say that. But could you then tell us who held the territory?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. I think it's just a natural

11 feature of the mountain.

12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. Who held that area where the blue

13 point is?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This point is above the Serbian

15 positions but high above them.

16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. Thanks. I understand you to say that

17 it was held by the SRK. Is that correct? That the area behind the

18 region, on top of the next peak where the blue point is, that area was

19 held by the Romanija-Sarajevo Corps.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: What's your answer?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's precisely so. Everything

22 above the road was held by the army of Republika Srpska.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: We must adjourn now for the break.

24 --- Recess taken at 3.50 p.m.

25 --- On resuming at 4.11 p.m.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: So, Mr. Tapuskovic.

2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

3 Q. Witness --

4 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters apologise. We seem to have a

5 technical problem.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute. The interpreters have a technical

7 problem. Has that problem been resolved?

8 THE INTERPRETER: It seems so. Thank you.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let us continue.

10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Do I need to repeat my question?

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, repeat it.

12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Witness, in addition to what you already stated as regards the

14 headquarters in your street, there was another command there, wasn't

15 there?

16 A. Yes. Across from the military command there was the headquarters

17 of the 1st Mountain Brigade commanded by a certain Zulic. So in Bistrik

18 there were two mountain brigades, the 1st and the 10th.

19 Q. Who commanded the 10th Brigade?

20 A. Musan Topalovic, aka Caco.

21 Q. What was happening there? You mentioned the mortars in the

22 direction of the hill. As for the commands in your street, did they open

23 fire in any other directions?

24 A. I wanted to say that the fire from those mortars created a lot of

25 unrest or displeasure among the people.

1 Q. You've already touched upon that.

2 A. There were some inter-Muslim conflicts. I felt in my apartment

3 when the Grbica school mortar would go off. Musan Topalovic's brigade was

4 there. I followed that grenade, that shell, which landed on the quarters

5 of the special forces of Dragan Vikic that were in another part of town.

6 There were inter-Muslim clashes over territory in the city itself.

7 Q. How many times did you see that happen?

8 A. About twice since I was often digging trenches outside the city.

9 I saw that happen twice while I was in my apartment.

10 Q. While we're on the subject of your street, what else was happening

11 with the inhabitants there?

12 A. Since I mentioned inter-Muslim clashes, the most pronounced one

13 was when Alija Izetbegovic, the Supreme Commander, tried to rein in

14 Musan Topalovic, Caco, and his brigade. At least that's what the official

15 justification was. And he was attacked in his own apartment. A police

16 team was dispatched to arrest him, while at the same time Caco's units

17 were blocked on the slopes. In that courtyard which was shared by

18 apartment as well, I saw that 8 out of 10 policemen were captured, and

19 they killed his personal security detail by shots in the head.

20 Later on, we were taken down as hostage, all the people from the

21 building, and then there was crying because there were children there and

22 women, and someone had asked for a knife. Then we were told to stand in a

23 circle, and the remaining two policemen were then killed. They slit their

24 throats and made us watch.

25 Q. Did something like that happen to the civilians, too, the people

1 who lived there?

2 A. Caco was the most notorious of Alija's commanders. There were a

3 number of them who were pre-war criminals. Caco was particularly

4 connected to the suffering of the Serbs. It is well-known that he would

5 take individuals and entire families to certain pits in the city, and he

6 wouldn't kill them by bullets. As he himself said it was expensive to

7 spend a bullet on a Serbian life, and he used to kill them in other ways.

8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the end of his

9 answer. The interpreter failed to understand.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute, please. Would you repeat the end

11 of answer that you just gave. The interpreter wasn't able to get it.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I guess it referred to the part

13 where people were being slaughtered at the Kazamati [phoen] location, the

14 pits, because they didn't want to spend bullets on killing them. He

15 slaughtered them during the night and shots would have revealed his

16 position. He feared that the Serb positions could be opened -- that the

17 fire could be opened from Serb positions.

18 Q. I would like to tender this photograph. I still believe it hasn't

19 been -- you decided to accept it, but I don't remember it having been

20 assigned a number.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.

22 THE REGISTRAR: As D241, Your Honours.

23 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, what you're saying is, of

24 course, very serious, but were you an eyewitness of these throat-slitting

25 events you just mentioned?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. And not only myself. All of

2 the inhabitants of the four surrounding buildings were eyewitnesses to

3 that. Caco made all of us go down to the yard as hostages. And in the

4 conversation with Mr. Izetbegovic, he said he would kill us all if

5 Alija Izetbegovic persisted on taking him in. We were all made to watch.

6 We were ordered to watch. My wife did not want to. She turned her back

7 on the entire scene, and I covered her but watching that I almost fainted.

8 I dream about that even today. I remember that as the gravest of moments

9 of this war for me. A lot of us watched that. It is well-known in

10 Sarajevo. We provided statements before the court as did others. It is a

11 fact.

12 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] So he was searched for by

13 Alija Izetbegovic; is that correct? I just wanted to know whether Caco

14 was searched for himself by Alija Izetbegovic.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Alija Izetbegovic is the late

16 Bosnian president. It was on his orders that the army and the police went

17 there to arrest him and to have a change in command. They had something

18 against Mr. Caco because of his conduct, and I guess there was some other

19 political reasons in the background that I'm not familiar with. However,

20 they must have had their reasons to try and deal with Caco by using a

21 number of troops and policemen; although, Caco had almost 4.000 troops

22 under him.

23 As we know, Caco was killed later that night, and his soldiers

24 were tried after the war. It was in the press that they admitted to

25 killing some 800 people, that group, that is.

1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Can you tell Their Honours what it was that you were able to

3 observe in town? Did you move about, and what could you see personally,

4 you yourself?

5 A. I was one of the few in Sarajevo who had both a work and a war

6 obligation, so to say. I was with a state institute for 15 days every

7 month and the other 15 days were spent digging trenches for two years. I

8 saw and went through a lot.

9 An interesting thing that my -- that I might say here is that once

10 it was night, at the beginning of the war soldiers and police would come

11 out onto the streets and the town was plundered, ravaged in a very short

12 time. Therefore, having such commanders around who organised troops was

13 the main reason of concern in -- for the life in the city, because they

14 were plundering. They were not only stealing from the city, but they were

15 also stealing from their own people. They would go into apartments and

16 houses and ask people to collect gold and foreign currency for the needs

17 of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and people gave, and several times at

18 that.

19 Later on they realised that there wasn't much use of doing that.

20 And the citizens complained to the mayor saying that much was taken from

21 them without much effect, and he gave a statement to the press. He was

22 asked when the situation would improve and when the war would stop and the

23 city be freed. He said, On that day and at that moment when the last

24 citizen of Sarajevo has given his last dollar. It is a very concrete

25 statement depicting the overall atmosphere in the city. They were just

1 looking around and trying to spot places to plunder rather than fight the

2 war.

3 And then there was trading on both sides. The Muslim side had

4 some Serbs captured, and on the other side the Serbs had food, drinks, and

5 cigarettes, and then there was trade. One packet of cigarettes for one

6 Serb.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Thank you. The narrative has been

8 long enough.

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10 Q. I wanted to ask you what it was that you saw concerning civilians.

11 Were you able to observe anything regarding the army and weapons?

12 A. Whenever I went to dig trenches I could on occasion see the

13 schools where the Motorised Brigades were quartered, and I could see the

14 weaponry they had, and I could see their weaponry in much of their

15 positions where I was forced to dig. There were troops and weapons there.

16 I saw several tanks in town, several mortars.

17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Where did you see the tanks in

18 particular?

19 A. At Ciglane, the brick factory close to the Kosevo stadium. There

20 was a tunnel. They were inside it, one or two of them, and the other two

21 were across the road in a park of the construction and civil engineering

22 faculty.

23 Q. What was your worst fear once out in the street?

24 A. The Serbs in Sarajevo were afraid both in their apartments and on

25 the street. Anyone could come to your apartment without knocking. They

1 would barge in, and they always found whatever it was they were looking

2 for, although such a thing never existed in that apartment prior to their

3 arrival. They would simply plant a bullet or a handgun or a bomb, and

4 then they would tell the host that it was found in the apartment. One of

5 them would plant it and another would find it, so to say. And then they

6 would take away such a person or the entire family, and they would go

7 missing.

8 Q. What about in the street?

9 A. Even worse. One would always get stopped and asked for his or her

10 ID, every bridge, every square. And I since they could recognise us by

11 the last name, as is customary in Bosnia, people would be taken away and

12 would disappear.

13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the end of his

14 answer.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute. Could you please repeat the end

16 of your answer for the interpreter.

17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] There was a mention of sniping,

18 but it hasn't been recorded in the transcript.

19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters' note, that is the part of the

20 answer that we did not understand.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: The last thing we have you as saying is, "And as

22 is customary in Bosnia, people would be taken away and would disappear."

23 What came after that?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. What I said was that we

25 could tell each other by our last names, and when the ID cards were

1 checked at the check-points, people were taken away. Some just

2 disappeared. People just simply disappeared. And the worst of it was

3 that after that the person who was watching would give a sign to a sniper

4 somewhere on a high-rise building, and then the person would be followed

5 and later would be shot at or wounded. So this is something that happened

6 on a regular basis. I'm a sportsman, an athlete, so I say that sometimes

7 you could see the snipers walking in threes with their weapons and it

8 looked like Sarajevo was hosting a firing-range championship.

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. All right. Thank you very much. I asked you if you were an

11 eyewitness of any of these events.

12 A. Yes, I was. On the bridge in Novo Sarajevo, New Sarajevo, across

13 from the radio television Sarajevo I was coming back and then I could see

14 that there was a check under way there, and I stopped and those people who

15 were checking the IDs stood a little bit apart, and I could hear them

16 repeating, "Blue shirt. Yes, yes blue shirt." I didn't know what this

17 was about, and then when I passed, I could hear the blue shirt being shot

18 and it was some person called Savo Smth [phoen] Who was wearing a blue

19 shirt, and he was killed there.

20 Q. And how did you get by? Did they check your ID?

21 A. Yes. I passed through, but I really have to say that sometime

22 just before the war I bought a car from a friend and his father. I kept

23 the ID. He was a Croat. His name was Ivan Sabic, so I put my photograph

24 in this ID document, so I would cross with no problems. Later when there

25 was a war between Muslims and Croats, I put my own photograph back because

1 it was easier to be a Serb in Sarajevo at the time than a Croat.

2 Q. Thank you. And can you please tell us how long you stayed in

3 Sarajevo and when you left it? When I say Sarajevo, I mean that part that

4 was under the control of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

5 A. On the 9th of June. Yes, on the 9th of June, 1994, I crossed.

6 The situation was already quiet. In 1994 there was already cooperation

7 between the two sides, so it was possible to go for two-day visits on

8 either side. So I used that opportunity to cross over, and then I stayed

9 on my side.

10 What can I say? What I saw, I saw. The consequences of war.

11 Every building bore the traces of shots. On the streets I could see

12 defence walls, and I could see tunnels being broken through -- through a

13 whole line of buildings in order to avoid going along the road. There was

14 also a memorial spot from Grbavica where there was a crossing at the

15 faculty of electrical engineering. Everywhere you could see curtains from

16 sheets placed every 20 metres or so that the citizens could protect

17 themselves from snipers and also that cars would be able to pass along

18 there.

19 Q. And what happened with you? What were you doing in Grbavica?

20 A. Immediately I started to teach at the faculty of electrical

21 engineering, and I worked there until late September, and then from

22 October to December, for three months I spent that time on the front line,

23 on the road. That I talked about earlier and about which His Honour the

24 Judge says that that was until the -- until 1994. But actually, I say

25 that that road and the lines were there until the end of the war. They

1 didn't move.

2 So as I said, I was at the line for three months, and one of the

3 Serb army commanders asked everybody, all those who were on work duty,

4 professors, lecturers, workers from the Energoinvest company to replace

5 the army of Republika Srpska on the lines for a certain period of time

6 because on Mount Treskavica there was still major fighting going on

7 between the Muslim and the Serb armies. So I stayed there for three

8 months, and I can say that I was there with my colleague who also was on a

9 spot that was exposed up there, but I can say that throughout that time we

10 actually spent the time playing chess, and there wasn't really that much

11 to do. It was quiet, and that was fortunate for us.

12 Q. And how long did you state there?

13 A. Then after that, in December I became the dean of the sports

14 faculty in Pale, and I wasn't exposed to any kind of combat or any kind of

15 war experiences. After that, all I remember is that there was a weapons

16 depot that was bombed by NATO forces, and that was perhaps 400 metres as

17 the crow flies away from my university building. I know everything was

18 shaking and it was quite a powerful explosion that shook us all up. It

19 was quite unpleasant.

20 Q. And do you think that we could look at another photograph and then

21 finish with that? That is photograph -- actually, a set of four

22 photographs, DD003970. I think that this is the fourth photograph in the

23 sequence.

24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, perhaps we can show

25 the photograph on the ELMO. It will go faster.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Why not. Yes.

2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Who took this photograph, and what is depicted here?

4 A. I took the photograph immediately after the war. I took the

5 photograph from the side from which I was digging. These are Serb houses.

6 I wanted to show how that looked on the other side, because everybody is

7 claiming that one side is shooting and the other side wasn't.

8 The building on the right side is a building in the Beogradska

9 Street that the Muslim forces captured Ljubljanska Street as well as

10 Beogradska Street. That's the building, and they did manage to reach

11 Beogradska Street from Ljubljanska Street and there was a gas explosion in

12 the building so the building broke in two. In one part there were Serbs

13 and the other part there were Muslims, so I would come there from one side

14 to do something -- to do some work and the Muslim forces would say the

15 Serb forces were on the second floor walking around and the Muslim forces

16 were in the basement on the first floor. I just took it so I would show

17 the circumstances. And also from the other side depicting Serb building.

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, this photograph, I would

19 like it to be admitted into evidence, and I am finished with my questions.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.

21 THE REGISTRAR: As D242, Your Honours.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Waespi.

23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] We did not admit the sealed

24 document DD03978, and this document relates to the identity of the

25 witness. Could please this document please be given a number.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit it, yes. We admit it under seal.

2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes D242 under seal.

3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

4 Cross-examination by Mr. Waespi:

5 Q. Good afternoon, Witness.

6 A. Good afternoon.

7 Q. I just have a few questions for you. It shouldn't take that long.

8 A. I will gladly answer your questions.

9 Q. First of all, the commander you mentioned that told you to replace

10 some of the VRS on the front lines for a certain period do you remember --

11 and I think that it relates to the time you were in Grbavica, from October

12 to December 1994. Is that correct?

13 A. Yes, that's correct.

14 Q. And do you remember the name of the commander?

15 A. I really am not able to remember either the name or the face.

16 Q. And do you remember what unit he commanded?

17 A. I know that he was a tall, dark-haired man.

18 Q. Yes. And what unit did he belong to? What military unit?

19 A. I really don't know.

20 Q. Just going back to a point you talked about, that's the -- when

21 you crossed or you were at a bridge in Novo Sarajevo, and you said that

22 there was some incident involving a blue shirt, I guess a person wearing a

23 blue shirt. Do you remember talking about that?

24 A. Yes, yes, yes.

25 Q. And when exactly was that?

1 A. I would be wrong if I mentioned any date. Perhaps I could just go

2 by the season. All I can say is that it was autumn, but I really don't

3 know the day or the month.

4 Q. And which year was -- would that be, 1992, 1993, 1994?

5 A. 1993. 1993.

6 Q. And do you know the name of that person who was concerned in this

7 incident, the person who was a victim as you say, the person who I guess

8 wore the blue shirt.

9 A. I did state name. Savo. That's what I heard. Later I heard that

10 a certain Savo was killed, and he was wearing a blue shirt.

11 Q. So you didn't learn that on the spot that he was killed. Somebody

12 else told you later that this person was killed.

13 A. Well, when we left we heard that there was some kind of shuffle

14 and that you could sense that there was a sniper and everybody fled. And

15 I know that this happened on the bridge or just across the bridge that he

16 was hit, but nobody was hanging around. Later I heard that that person

17 that was there was a person by the name of Savo and Savo is a Serbian

18 name.

19 Q. So did you see that person with the blue shirt yourself there?

20 A. No, no.

21 Q. Very well. Let's move on to another brief topic, and that is the

22 issue of Caco, the famous Caco who was, I understand, taken out by the

23 Supreme Commander, shall we say, Alija Izetbegovic. When was he killed?

24 A. He was killed -- I don't want to get it wrong. I think it was

25 around the 20th of October, 1993. I cannot give you the exact date, but I

1 think it's more or less than -- that's the night that he was killed. He

2 was taken to the Main Staff and killed.

3 Q. Yes. And he was, I believe you testified along these lines, the

4 commander of one of the Muslim brigades. I think it was the 10th Muslim

5 Mountain Brigade. And --

6 A. That is correct.

7 Q. And I take it from your evidence he was a troublemaker and his

8 commander decided to eliminate him. That's what happened.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. The last subject is related to the picture we saw at the end of

11 your evidence that was a destroyed building. Now, there was a lot of

12 destruction in -- in the old town in late summer and fall of 1992; is that

13 correct?

14 A. No. The lines of separation, I didn't really see that other than

15 the Jewish cemetery section towards the Serb side where some buildings

16 were damaged, but I claim that out of a hundred mosques not a single one

17 was destroyed or shelled, and there was no question of any demolition of

18 the old town. There were no grenades or shells of such force that could

19 make that sort of damage. Perhaps a building roof would be damaged or the

20 window glass would shatter. That was the sort of damage, nothing more

21 than that.

22 Q. Okay. Let's look at a couple of -- of pictures. If turn

23 number 03171 could be retrieved, please. And while that's being done, do

24 you know the mosque, because you talked about mosques, of Kobilja Glava?

25 Do you know that mosque?

1 A. The Kobilja Glava. I know that there was Zulfikarpasic mosque on

2 Kobilja Glava. I know that there was a mosque at Kobilja Glava, and if it

3 did, this is outside the town. So I wouldn't necessarily know about it,

4 but I know that in the town of Sarajevo itself out of a 100 mosques none

5 of them were destroyed or suffered serious shell impact. I know that in

6 my apartment there is a hole. That is the kind of more serious damage

7 that was inflicted.

8 Q. Well, the Kobilja Glava mosque was in the --?

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic?

10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The witness said for the sake of

11 truth the mosque next to me was damaged with a hole, and the transcript

12 states "my apartment."

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. There was really a hole

14 on the mosque.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you for that clarification.

16 Mr. Waespi.

17 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.

18 Q. So you only know about the mosques which were in the centre of

19 your town as you say. You don't know what happened to other mosques like

20 Kobilja Glava, which was near the Kosevo stadium, not too far away from

21 the centre? So you don't know what happened to these mosques?

22 A. Everything in Sarajevo, including those 100 mosques, actually 95

23 per cent of those buildings were located in the old town or in the centre.

24 I wouldn't really know much about the other parts of the town. I really

25 didn't venture out of Old Town too much other than when I was taken for

1 digging.

2 Q. Very well. Let's look at the building which is centred in the

3 Old Town, I suggest. Do you see what this picture represents? Do you

4 know it?

5 A. Yes. I assume that that would be the town hall.

6 Q. In fact, it's the old post in the centre of Sarajevo.

7 A. Yes, yes, you are right. You're correct, the old post office.

8 Q. That looks fairly damaged, does it not?

9 A. No. Look, it wasn't really damaged. None of the walls were

10 damaged. It was burned. The building just burned, but it wasn't knocked

11 down or damaged. All the walls are still standing. I know that because I

12 passed by a hundred times during the war. It looked exactly like this.

13 Q. Yes. So you agree with me that this is a fairly unusable

14 building, an old symbol. A symbol of Sarajevo was made unusable rather by

15 shells or firing incendiary rounds doesn't matter. It was rendered

16 unusable. Would you agree with me about that?

17 A. I do agree in the same way that none of the buildings in the Serb

18 side could be used. They all looked just like this one. Any high-rise

19 building, any tall building that was shelled, burned, and looked exactly

20 like that, but none of them had their walls damaged, and now they've all

21 been restored and everything looks very nice. None of them had to be

22 knocked down in order to build a new one.

23 Q. So when you say that nothing really happened to the Old Town, you

24 mean it all looked like that? It was burned down, it was unusable, but

25 the walls were still standing. That's what you accept that happened to

1 the Old Town of Sarajevo?

2 A. No, no. I wouldn't put it like that, because from the location

3 where my apartment was, other than the places that were covered by nylon

4 sheets, all the buildings throughout the war had their brick walls

5 exposed. The brick was exposed. That's what they looked like.

6 Q. Very well. Let's look at another instance of a building which you

7 might say is still in great shape, the library.

8 MR. WAESPI: If the next picture could be shown, please. Just the

9 next page of the same sequence.

10 Q. Do you remember the library, the old library?

11 A. Of course. I lived very close by.

12 Q. And what was the state of the library in July, August 1992? Do

13 you agree with me that it was shelled from outside the city it, that it

14 burned, and that it's in a horrific -- it was in a horrific state in

15 summer of 1992? Do you agree with me?

16 A. I agree that it was in a horrific state, and I deplore damage to

17 cultural buildings. It was in the same condition as the post office, but

18 I watched the building when it was burning, and when I watched I was in a

19 lot of doubt, when I saw flames from the second floor. And I'm not quite

20 sure who could have done that. Was it the Serb side or was it perhaps

21 from the inside. I cannot be sure, but the indications would seem to

22 point to something quite different, because if something is burning from

23 the inside, and I could see the flames from the building, then --

24 Q. So you're suggesting today that the Muslim forces, whoever was

25 inside the confrontation line, they destroyed their own library, their own

1 national library, a symbol of pride? That was done by the inhabitants of

2 Sarajevo, is that what you're saying?

3 A. I really did not say that. All I am saying is that some true

4 expert investigation may show that what you stated could actually have

5 happened, but, yes, I was also in the bread line in Miskinina Street. It

6 just was fortunate that I wasn't killed or wounded. But with quite a lot

7 of arguments, I could claim that it was a shell that was fired on one's

8 own people.

9 Q. And whether --

10 A. If we had time to go into it.

11 Q. And when did this incident at Miskinina Street happen, the bread

12 line incident?

13 A. It was sometime in May.

14 Q. Of which year?

15 A. 23rd of May. It was right at the beginning of the war, in 1992.

16 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Witness.

17 Mr. President, if these two -- or these two photos. It's in fact

18 I think a three-page exhibit could be tendered, please.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

20 THE REGISTRAR: As P774, Your Honours.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, you're just in time either to

22 re-examine if you wish or to make a point.

23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to put just one

24 question to the witness while we still have this photograph on the screen

25 in front of the witness.

1 Re-examination by Mr. Tapuskovic:

2 Q. [Interpretation] It was said here that books burned, Muslim books

3 burned. It was a library. Whose library was it?

4 A. Of the city of Sarajevo.

5 Q. Whose cultural heritage was contained in that building?

6 A. Well, of course it all burned. I have some information that all

7 of that was actually removed in time.

8 Q. Which books were not removed perhaps?

9 A. Well, I really couldn't answer which books were and which books

10 weren't. I think that not all of it burned and that was what was meant to

11 be removed was removed, but I don't know which.

12 Q. Thank you very much.

13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness T, that concludes your evidence. We

15 thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give it. You may now leave.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My pleasure.

17 [The witness withdrew].

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: And the next witness is, Mr. Tapuskovic?

19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the next witness is

20 Predrag Carkic. He has no protective measures. T-8, correct.

21 [The witness entered court]

22 WITNESS: PREDRAG CARKIC

23 [Witness answered through interpreter].

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.

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

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

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit. And you may begin, Mr. Tapuskovic.

3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

4 Examination by Mr. Tapuskovic:

5 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir. Could you please give us

6 your first and last name?

7 A. Predrag Carkic.

8 Q. You were born on the 30th of November, 1963?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Please wait for me to finish my question before answering. And

11 you were born in Sarajevo; correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And you've been living in Sarajevo -- or, rather, you lived in

14 Sarajevo in the neighbourhood called Pofalici?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. That was your family house where you lived?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. You completed your elementary school and your secondary school,

19 technical secondary school, in 1984; correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. You worked in Energoinvest? I started making mistakes myself.

22 You have to wait for my entire question to be recorded in the transcript

23 before answering.

24 So you worked in Energoinvest in Pofalici; correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. I have to show you a map on the monitor, and let us try to cover

2 the questions related to the map as quickly as possible. This is 2872

3 under 65 ter.

4 Could we zoom in on the northern part, please.

5 Can you read the names of the streets?

6 A. Barely. I can't really see it.

7 Q. What about now?

8 A. It's fine now.

9 Q. Could you please point to the street where your family house was

10 located?

11 A. [Marks]

12 Q. Thank you. Could you mark it with a letter C.

13 A. [Marks]

14 Q. And where is the company where you worked? Could you please point

15 to that?

16 A. [Marks]

17 Q. Sir, could you please very briefly tell me -- or, rather, tell the

18 Court what happened in early 1992 to you and you were family.

19 A. We lived in the neighbourhood of Pofalici. Humska Street, 145B

20 was the address. Everything was normal up until the month of March, when

21 a member of the wedding party was killed in the Old Town. From that time

22 on, we had guards, night guards. We made arrangements with our Muslim

23 neighbours since there were no Croats living there, to stand guard

24 together in order to avoid any problems or preempt any problems. That's

25 how it was up until the 16th of May.

1 Q. Thank you. Can you tell the Court this, you are referring from

2 March, April, up until May. What about these guards? Did people standing

3 guard, be it Serbs or Muslims, have weapons?

4 A. Some did. Not all of us had weapons. Mostly we had to trust each

5 other. Some Serbs had weapons as did some Muslims, and the rest of us

6 didn't. So we would go together to stand guard and then if a Serb had a

7 weapon then a Muslim didn't, and vice versa. That was the arrangement.

8 Q. Did you occasionally carry a weapon?

9 A. Not then.

10 Q. And when did you carry a weapon?

11 A. When the member of a wedding party was killed in the Old Town,

12 some of us Serbs from Pofalici at our own initiative headed towards the

13 intersection by the secondary school for economic technicians in order to

14 make a protest there. When we arrived there, our people from the TO gave

15 us weapons, and this is when I had a weapon myself.

16 Q. You said that people stood guard until what time, without there

17 being a conflict?

18 A. There was no conflict up until the 15th of May.

19 Q. And what happened then?

20 A. That's when the first attack came. Most likely the Muslim forces

21 tested positions.

22 Q. Just a moment, please. In the preceding period of time did

23 something happen to your family?

24 A. Yes. From the 2nd May up until perhaps the 10th of May women,

25 children, and the infirm were taken out of the city through Zuc towards

1 Rajlovac, and then from Rajlovac we went to Tvrdimici and then onwards to

2 Pale. It wasn't just the case with may family. Other neighbours of ours,

3 Serbs, did that.

4 Q. And how many people departed via Zuc and other places?

5 A. Definitely 200 or 300 people, if not more.

6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Which year are we talking about?

7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Witness, can you tell us what period of time you were referring

9 to?

10 A. Right now I was referring to 1992.

11 Q. The date?

12 A. From the 1st of May until the 13th of May.

13 Q. And what happened on the 15th of May?

14 A. The Muslims attacked our neighbourhood. The combat lasted for

15 about half an hour, and then everything went into a lull.

16 In the morning on the 16th there was an all-out attack on Pofalici

17 from all a directions.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Docherty.

19 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President, I object to this evidence on the

20 grounds of relevance. This is -- some background is all right and I let

21 this -- I did not rise for a while, but we're now getting into fairly

22 detailed day-by-day, blow-by-blow accounts from the middle of May 1992, 26

23 or 27 months before our indictment opens, and I submit that the evidence

24 is not relevant to rebutting any of the charges that are laid in the

25 indictment.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, what do you say to that?

2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours; Mr. President, I

3 was about to ask the witness what he experienced on the 15th of May. It

4 is relevant because based on document I received on Friday from the

5 Prosecution, on that day about 63 people were killed in the presence of

6 this witness. I have received a document whose translation will be

7 complete in a couple of days. The witness knows the people who were

8 killed on that day. He was captured himself and taken to prison.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Sorry.

10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The relevancy is --

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. Tell us what the relevancy is, yes.

12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The relevancy lies in the fact

13 that the suffering inflicted during those several days actually led to

14 this terrible situation in the very beginning of the events in 1992. This

15 is what was fatal for the rest of the conflict. On that day alone, 65

16 people were killed based on the documents we have, based on the documents

17 that the Prosecution has.

18 When I wanted to hear from the witness what he had experienced on

19 that day, whether he was wounded, whether he was taken to the prison, and

20 generally what happened to him, including that he was an eyewitness to the

21 death of a large number of victims, some of whom he knew, which

22 traumatised him for the rest of the life. And this is what marked that

23 period until the end of the war. This was one of the most important

24 events for inspiring fear and was relevant to all of the events which took

25 place until the end of the war, and this is contrary to the claims of the

1 Prosecution that that was the Yugoslav People's Army that was there. No.

2 It was unarmed civilians who were there and who were killed.

3 This is one of the eyewitnesses, perhaps the only eyewitness that

4 I can bring before this Court who can confirm about what had happened on

5 at that day, what happened to him, whom he saw, whom he was able to

6 recognise among the victims.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, we are not going to allow this

9 piece of evidence. We find that --

10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: We are not going to allow this piece of evidence.

12 We find that it is not relevant. If you have evidence from this witness

13 which relates to the indictment period or fairly near to it but not 27

14 months away, then you can lead that evidence from the witness.

15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this witness

16 confirms that paragraph 7 of the indictment is not something that is

17 tenable. If you look at paragraph 7 -- or count 7 of the indictment then

18 you can see what I'm talking about, why is this not tenable; that these

19 positions were established on the 7th of April, 1992. These positions

20 were taken all the way up until 1995 with a lot of victims.

21 What this witness is supposed to show is that it is not true on

22 that on the 7th of April these positions were formed, or before then. But

23 what he's going to say is that the gravest and most difficult combat took

24 place in May in Pofalici, and it went all the way up until September and

25 that's when the positions were established and the hills taken.

1 This shows that this paragraph of the indictment, paragraph 7 of

2 the indictment, which is very important, shows just how untenable this is,

3 that the hills were taken before April of 1992. This is the essence in a

4 way of the indictment, and this witness is supposed to show that the

5 combat aimed at taking the hills took place much later and that a lot of

6 people were killed in one day alone during that combat. So what this

7 witness has to say is radically different from this item of the

8 indictment.

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, if you have evidence that relates

11 to that part of the indictment, paragraph 7, and I read it: "Even before

12 this date armed forces supporting the Serbian Democratic Party and

13 elements of the JNA, including units of the 4th Corps of the 2nd Military

14 District, occupied strategic positions in and around Sarajevo," if you

15 have evidence from this witness which relates to that, then you can lead

16 it.

17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I want to ask him. I want to

18 hear from him. He spoke of May. The entire population of that

19 neighbourhood crossed over to the other side, and I want to know what

20 happened to the people who remained there with a rifle. He himself had a

21 rifle, and he should tell us about what happened to him when on the 15th

22 of May he found himself there with a rifle.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Docherty.

24 MR. DOCHERTY: And I would object to that, Mr. President. In

25 fact, I do object to that. I understand the Court's ruling to be that the

1 witness can testify about matters which relate to paragraph 7 of the

2 indictment and paragraph 7 of the indictment does not have anything to do

3 with what happened to this witness if he remained in Pofalici following

4 the events of the middle of May 1992.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, you must following the ruling

6 that I made. If the witness has evidence concerning the question of who

7 occupied strategic positions in and around Sarajevo even before the 7th of

8 April, 1992, then you can lead that evidence from the witness. That's my

9 ruling, so follow it.

10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Witness, can you tell me who occupied those positions at the time

12 you were referring to?

13 A. There was no one at the position except for us, the civilians.

14 And on -- on Hum, Hum hill, there was the police. There were no troops,

15 no soldiers. Up until that day we were together with our neighbours the

16 Muslims. We had an agreement to stay together at night so as to avoid any

17 conflicts and problems. There were no soldiers or paramilitaries there.

18 Q. When did soldiers appear?

19 A. Their soldiers appeared on the 16th. The Patriotic League, the

20 Green Berets, the special forces of the MUP and so on.

21 Q. And what followed?

22 A. The 16th of the morning they attacked from the direction of

23 Velesici and Buca Potok as well as the tobacco factory on Drinska Street.

24 They attacked from all directions. The fight lasted for about two or

25 three hours and then everything fell silent. Since I had a rifle I came

1 back home to fetch some ammunition and there was no one there. My father

2 was missing. My neighbour was missing. So I returned to the local

3 commune building in Pofalici and there was no one there, not even the

4 people that I had left there. They all fled.

5 I started moving towards the forest at Zuc hill, and at the foot

6 of it, towards Buca Potok, the Muslim soldiers were there.

7 Then I returned to the house of Zoran Bakic that was on fire, as

8 were many other houses in Pofalici. I hid since two armed men passed by,

9 and I hid in that burning house.

10 There was an old house of a certain Janko Cangalo there next to

11 that one. There was an old bus there, and I hid underneath it and awaited

12 night-time. I tried to pull out twice during the night but I could not.

13 In the morning on the 17th around 6.00 a.m., five Muslim soldiers

14 came towards the bus where they found me and took me prisoner. I managed

15 to gather from their accent that they came from the Sandzak region. One

16 of them took out a knife and hit me on the head with the butt.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute. This does not relate to the

18 direction that I gave. Does he have any evidence about who occupied those

19 strategic positions in and around Sarajevo? That's what I want to hear.

20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. At that moment where were you? Can you tell us? This place where

22 you lived, where you were, what was it?

23 A. It was my home. There were no soldiers there.

24 Q. No, no, no. You said it was an elevation.

25 A. No. My house was at the foot of Hum hill. The police were up on

1 the hill and nothing else.

2 Q. And who --

3 A. The Muslim police.

4 Q. Was anyone else there?

5 A. Absolutely not. Until the 16th, when we were attacked.

6 Q. How about the JNA?

7 A. Absolutely not. Not a single soldier.

8 Q. Why did they attack?

9 A. I guess because we were Serbs.

10 Q. Who took up position at that elevation?

11 A. Muslims.

12 Q. Which other elevations?

13 A. Pofalici Brdo, Hum, and then they moved towards Zuc after I was

14 taken prisoner.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Did he say what month this was? No, no, what

16 month? What month of the year is this?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 16th of May, 1992.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: And for how long did the Muslim forces occupy the

19 Hum elevation?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Throughout the war.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Until the end -- when you say throughout the war,

22 what do you mean? Until what year? Let's be specific.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Until end 1995.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

25 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, you said that you were

1 attacked. Were you armed? "You" meaning civilians who were there. Did

2 they carry weapons?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not all of us. As I said a moment

4 ago, about a dozen of people had rifles. The others did not. I did,

5 however.

6 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] And were there -- was there any

7 crossfire? Was there any shooting?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely not, until the 15th and

9 the 16th when there was the fighting in Pofalici.

10 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you.

11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. When you say that there was shooting as late as that, what

13 happened?

14 A. They captured me, and as we were passing by Mr. Neno Pikula's

15 house I was at gunpoint, I saw a terrible scene in front of that house.

16 Dozens of my neighbours were there like sardines, one next to another.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Docherty.

18 MR. DOCHERTY: I'm sorry, Mr. President. I don't mean to rise and

19 interrupt so often, but I feel I have no alternative but to object to what

20 I see as the continuing elicitation of irrelevant evidence. And the Court

21 has made clear that this witness's evidence in pre-indictment period is to

22 be limited to the indictment and this scene awful and heart-rending as it

23 is, I do not see as relevant, I do not see as within the Court's ruling,

24 and I object to it being elicited.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, I'm not sure that it can be as fine tuned

1 as you have put it. If the incident is -- is related or has some

2 relationship to the occupation of the strategic positions, then it may be

3 scene as -- as relevant.

4 What else do you want to find out, Mr. Tapuskovic, about this

5 particular incident?

6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] This specific incident speaks

7 about the fact that inter alia this position and the hill and the place

8 where this man resided in the course of those few days, all those

9 strategic positions in the north of that part controlled by the army of

10 Herzegovina, including Hum, Zuc, Oric and all other strategic locations in

11 the territory as well as Grdonj were taken over in May and that item 7 of

12 the indictment is incorrect; that the strategic positions were taken up

13 before the 7th of April. That is one thing.

14 Another thing is that the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina occupied

15 those and that from the north between -- or starting from the 15th and the

16 16th, the entire northern part throughout the war, as the witness said,

17 was in the hands of the soldiers of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the

18 entire northern slope of the hill.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: I consider it relevant, Mr. Docherty, for this

21 reason: That it helps to make more credible Mr. Tapuskovic's case that

22 the hills were occupied by the -- by the Muslims, and it is that

23 occupation of the hills by the Muslims that enabled them to exercise this

24 dominance over the Serbs and to -- indeed to inflict violence on them. So

25 from that point of view I -- I consider it to be relevant.

1 It's time for the break, though, and so we'll adjourn.

2 --- Recess taken at 5.35 p.m.

3 --- On resuming at 5.56 p.m.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we save this

6 map, please, and I wish to tender it as such.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

8 THE REGISTRAR: As D244, Your Honours.

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Mr. Carkic, what happened to you after you were pierced with a

11 knife? As you said, you were hurt in your left upper arm.

12 A. When I was captured by the Muslim forces and as we passed by

13 Neno Pikula's house, I saw dozens upon dozens of my neighbours who had

14 been killed.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Where did these Muslim forces come from, the

16 forces who captured you?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Judging by their accent, I was

18 pretty sure they came from Sandzak. Muslims from Sandzak who came to

19 Sarajevo.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you able to say whether any of them came from

21 the hills which they occupied?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was an attack on Pofalici that

23 day. They came down from Hum hill, from the direction of Velesici, Buca

24 Potok, and from the direction of Drinska Street and the tobacco factory.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: You see, Mr. Tapuskovic, you're bent on one

1 thing. I'm trying to assist your case. That is what makes it relevant,

2 that they came down from Hum hill.

3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Witness, sir, please explain from which directions the Muslim

5 forces arrived. As you said, they came from the direction of Hum. Do you

6 know what had taken place a few days prior to that, or did you only follow

7 the events of the 15th and the 16th?

8 A. Only the 15th and the 16th. They probably -- the Muslim police

9 had occupied Hum hill, because there was a transmitter there not far from

10 my house. They occupied that position and denied access to everyone.

11 On that day, the 16th when we were attacked, they came from the

12 direction of Hum, Velesici --

13 Q. Can you show us where Velesici is, as well as Buca Potok, on the

14 map?

15 A. Hum Hill, Velesici. From the direction here.

16 Q. Can you indicate arrows from all of those places towards your

17 house?

18 A. [Marks]

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: What was the distance between Hum hill and your

20 house?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] About one kilometre to the tower.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. And then what happened?

25 A. I'm repeating this for the second time. Next to Neno Pikula's

1 house they were lined up like sardines, one next to the other. And they

2 led me from there.

3 Q. Thank you. Did you recognise any of your neighbours?

4 A. Two. In that confusion and fear I recognised two of them.

5 Q. Do you remember their names?

6 A. The late Zoran Ignjatovic and the late Radovan Buha.

7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, on Friday I

8 received this document from the Prosecution, DD003799. We're going to

9 have to keep the map before I show the document, so perhaps we can save

10 and tender the map as a Defence exhibit with the markings of the witness

11 on the map with the arrows indicating the directions from which the units

12 that captured the place where he lived had come.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We admit it.

14 THE REGISTRAR: As D245, Your Honours.

15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we look at DD003799, which

16 I received at my request only on Friday from the Prosecution, and the

17 translation of which is going to be finished, according to information

18 that I have, in four days' time. So until Thursday.

19 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President, last Wednesday the Defence asked us

20 for some documents that were given to the Prosecutor while she was on a

21 mission in Banja Luka. We were able to get all of those documents and

22 give them to the Defence on Friday within 48 hours. There was no time to

23 translate documents. The document which Mr. Tapuskovic has just called

24 for is 20 -- 19 or 20 single-spaced pages, all of it in Cyrillic alphabet,

25 B/C/S.

1 Although we gave it to them because it was at their request, we do

2 not have a translation. I do not know what this document says. I have

3 not been able to take a look at it in English, and therefore I have

4 serious reservations about its being used. The Defence, as I say, asked

5 for this document six days ago, and as I say, we were able to get it to

6 them, but we have not been provided with a translation, and yet counsel is

7 wanting to use it in court.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you have to use it through this witness,

9 Mr. Tapuskovic, or can it be used through another witness who will testify

10 later, by which time you would have had it translated?

11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think that I'm

12 not going to have another witness with such experiences at Pofalici. He

13 has just said that he recognised among the victims two persons, and he

14 gave their names, and those two persons are here on this list, and I would

15 like to show you pages 4 and 8 in B/C/S. This is already on the e-court,

16 and for the witness to be able to confirm.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us know the -- show us the heading of the

18 document. Is it a list of names? The document, is it a list of names?

19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, a list of names with

20 explanations. And then on the following page -- actually, on the third

21 page, before the names, there is information about the substance of the

22 document, and the witness can confirm that. And then these two persons

23 are on the list of victims, and the witness recognised the bodies of these

24 persons as he was passing by them on that day.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Here is what we will do. Show us the information

1 that will tell us where the document came from. That is

2 information about its provenance. And then you can show us the particular

3 passages. They're short, then they can be translated; but we must have

4 enough information to tell us what the document is about.

5 If the Prosecutor is embarrassed by this in the sense that he

6 wouldn't have had enough time to cross-examine properly, I'll take that

7 into account, and it may very well be that I will allow him to ask further

8 questions of this witness at another time. That will be very regrettable.

9 So let us proceed that way. First let us see the information on

10 the document that tells us about its provenance. Let us see the heading

11 and have that translated.

12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, one day ago,

13 yesterday, we completed the examination of a witness who was not

14 protected, that is Dukic Branislav. Then we showed the Court the document

15 which was admitted into evidence from which it can be seen that these

16 documents were presented to the Prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, they years

17 ago. At our request we received this document relating to Pofalici and

18 Dobrinja. We received it. And then from this document, which we managed

19 to receive from the Prosecution at our request the other day, quite

20 properly I believe that the document concerning Pofalici, and if the

21 Prosecution also has the document --

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: You're not listening to what I'm saying. I'm

23 trying to assist you. The Prosecutor has a perfectly good point. The

24 document is not translated. It is 19, 20 pages. So ordinarily I would

25 simply disallow you, but I'm trying to find a mechanism, a way to have you

1 use the document now, and I outlined what that mechanism is. It is a way

2 that will provide us with information to make the document sufficiently

3 intelligible to us so that we can understand it and so that the Prosecutor

4 can ask questions about it. And the first stage in this process must be

5 what is there in the document that tells us what it is, and who prepared

6 it and when it was prepared? Is there anything in the document that gives

7 that information?

8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The document from which it can be

9 seen how the document came about, and the document was tendered with

10 Witness Dukic, I can find that document, because the document that was

11 presented to the Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte was accompanied by this

12 material relating to Pofalici and the victims at Pofalici. This document

13 bears the Prosecution numbers, and on page 3 you can see what it's about.

14 The document was prepared by the association from Bosnia and Herzegovina,

15 from Republika Srpska, which was tendered through Witness Dukic.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you saying, then, that information I am

17 seeking is on another document, not this one? Is that so?

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the document DD --

19 if we can look at Document DD0003786 that we presented yesterday and

20 which was admitted as our exhibit, first we can look at that.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us look at that document.

22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And this document was translated.

23 And this is that document, Your Honours.

24 Under Article 11 you can see Sarajevo, and then you can see

25 Pofalici first. And based on that document, we asked the Prosecution for

1 the accompanying documents to this document, and that's when we received

2 this document, Pofalici, which we then introduced into the e-court under

3 number --

4 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not get the number of the

5 document.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the number that you just said? The

7 interpreter didn't hear it. You said you introduced it into the e-court

8 under number...

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] DD0003786. 3786. And that

10 document is in front of you. It was introduced or admitted as

11 Exhibit D238. This is Exhibit D238.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is it signed? Is it signed by anybody, this

13 document we're looking at now?

14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The document -- the document was

15 signed by Madam Carla Del Ponte attesting that she received the

16 accompanying material in May 2004, and then this document is part of the

17 accompanying collection of documents which I would like to show to the

18 witness.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: I know it is signed by Mrs. Del Ponte to show

20 that she received it, but what I was asking was, Was the document itself

21 signed, say, by the person who prepared it? It may not have been. I just

22 want to find out.

23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] There is no signature here, no.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, I think -- does the witness know anything

25 about the association that prepared it? The Association of Prisoners of

1 War of Republika Srpska?

2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, we can ask the witness if

3 he knows anything about the work of this association and the compiling of

4 documents necessary for their work.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know President Dukic and the

6 Vice-president Jovicic, nicknamed Slavoj [phoen]. I know the two of them.

7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. And did they take any information from you?

9 A. No.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. So this document prepared by the

11 Association of Prisoners of War of Republika Srpska sets out the evidence

12 of crimes committed against Serbs, and it was given, it says, to

13 Ms. Carla Del Ponte by the delegation of the association on the 31st of

14 May, 2004, in Banja Luka.

15 So move now to the document which you have and to the names that

16 you wish to show the witness.

17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] If we can show the witness page 3

18 of the document in B/C/S.

19 Q. And I would like to ask the witness to read only the paragraph in

20 front of the first name that is mentioned here. Can you please read

21 allowed this passage.

22 A. "After armed attacks on the 16th of May, 1992, by the military and

23 police units of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the capture of

24 the settlement of Gornji Pofalici, in an attack on an undefended column of

25 Serbian citizens numbering about 3.000 men, women, children, and the

1 elderly, and organised terror on the Serb population which remained in the

2 settlement the following persons were killed."

3 Q. Thank you. Can we now look at page 4. It should be page 9, so

4 let's go to the next page. Next page. Page 4 and then we need to look at

5 paragraph 9. Do you see the name next to paragraph 9?

6 A. Yes, I do.

7 Q. Where did you see this man, Buha?

8 A. Near the house of Neno Pikula, killed and bent over. I guess he

9 tried to run away or something, so he was basically slumped over a fence.

10 Q. Can we look at the next page and paragraph 24. You mentioned that

11 name earlier. Where did you see that person?

12 A. Across the street when I was speaking earlier how they were lined

13 up like sardines. Among them was also the late Zoka Ignjatovic. He was

14 lying there dead. His legs were -- his leg was wounded. Parts of the leg

15 were missing.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we are going to get

18 the translation in a few days. I would like to have this document

19 tendered just for identification with an identification number.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just for these paragraphs that have been read

21 out, or do you -- or are you seeking the admission of -- just for these

22 paragraphs.

23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, marked for identification.

25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, we'll mark just these paragraphs as

1 D246.

2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. The witness could

3 also have looked at the end of the document to see the total number of

4 victims on the list.

5 It's the previous page.

6 Q. Who is the last person on the list and what's the number?

7 A. Number 65, Ranko Sojic.

8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Just this, Your Honours. Could

9 we mark this for identification as well?

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. It's been suggested that we mark the

12 entire document for identification. When we come to deal with the

13 admission, then we will deal with the admission of the specific parts.

14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Mr. Carkic, could we now hurry up in order to complete this as

16 soon as possible? What happened to you afterwards? Where were you taken?

17 A. The Muslim soldiers pushed me in the car that is known as Kedi in

18 our area, and then across a hill called Ham [phoen] they took me to

19 Velesici. They beat me there for an hour and held me in house near a

20 mosque, and from there they took me to the central prison.

21 Q. What happened to you in the central prison and how long did you

22 remain there?

23 A. I remained there for 12 days. On the 17th when I was brought

24 there to the main prison, the first thing they did is they took iron bars

25 and wooden sticks and beat me with it. There was some glass on the --

1 shattered glass on the ground, and a soldier kicked it with his boot and

2 then put it all in my mouth.

3 Q. Thank you. And then what happened after 12 days?

4 A. We were exchanged on the 28th of May at the Vrbanja bridge. They

5 exchanged 25 of us for 25 of them.

6 Q. Which dates it was?

7 A. It was on the 28th of May that I was exchanged. From Tilava a

8 neighbour took me to Pale to see my son whom I basically hadn't seen, my

9 wife, and my wife's sister, and my mother.

10 Q. Did you join any army?

11 A. I did after two days. I went to Grbavica again, and I joined the

12 army of Republika Srpska.

13 Q. Where were your positions?

14 A. At Grbavica. From the Brotherhood and Unity Bridge as it was then

15 Miljacka to Strojorad and from Strojorad to the stadium of Zeleznica.

16 Q. And how long did you remain there?

17 A. The entire war, until 1995.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: What happened to your mouth when the shattered

19 glass was put in your mouth?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In addition to the glass, they also

21 put salt in my mouth and it hurt my mouth badly. They also put salt in my

22 eyes. On that day, I watched as they killed an older man called

23 Gavrilovic with iron bars. He used to work as a doorman.

24 I went later to the doctor's, and the doctor told me that I was

25 fortunate that they put salt into my mouth because it acted as

1 disinfectant. However, I lost all my teeth due to all the beating. It's

2 such a terrible trauma that I cannot live with it. Even to this day when

3 I go back I feel very uncomfortable.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic. That's the story now.

5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. However, His Honour Judge Robinson asked you about the glass. Did

7 something happen to your mouth?

8 A. Yes. There was blood pouring out of my mouth. And when the

9 Muslim soldier saw that, he poured salt into my mouth. He started cursing

10 my Serbian mother, and he said that the blood wasn't salty enough, and he

11 had to put salt into my mouth because of that. And then after several

12 minutes he started pouring a beer into my mouth and then proceeded to beat

13 me with iron bars and wooden sticks.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's a terrible story, and you have our sympathy.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A true one.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: I think it's one the worst stories I've heard in

17 my eight and a half years here.

18 Let's proceed.

19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. I wasn't interested in that part of the witness's story, but

21 nevertheless, I would like to hear about the positions where you were.

22 What did you do there throughout the war?

23 A. I was just an ordinary soldier. After all the traumas I

24 experienced, the ones that I described to you, I didn't want to allow for

25 this to happen to me or to anyone else ever again. This is why I defended

1 the front line, the positions. I told you where the line went. I was

2 just an ordinary soldier there.

3 Q. And what did you do there as an ordinary soldier? What was your

4 task?

5 A. Just to defend the front line, to ensure that what happened to me

6 on the 16th of May, 1992, would not happen again. Children were being

7 born if Grbavica. There were a lot of unprotected people there. Soldiers

8 from the federation were shooting at me, and I was shooting back.

9 Q. Tell me this, please, we need to cut this short, but tell, me do

10 you know --

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have the substance, the importance of this

12 witness's evidence, which really is the evidence that he has given about

13 the location of the Muslim soldiers in the hills and that they came from

14 there to -- from those hills to attack him and his neighbours.

15 We are very sorry about what happened to you.

16 That's really the significance of the evidence. I don't know

17 whether you need to carry it on any further.

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just another

19 matter. This witness eyewitnessed another event.

20 Q. Can you please tell it us, do you remember the period from March

21 or December --

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is this event? What is this event? Does it

23 in any way relate to the paragraph 7 of the indictment. I'm trying to get

24 you to concentrate on the important aspects of your case, Mr. Tapuskovic.

25 Does in it in any way relate to the points that you very properly made

1 about paragraph 7 and in relation to which I have allowed you to lead

2 evidence from this witness? If it doesn't, I'm not going to allow it.

3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think that I have

4 completed with that topic. I would like the witness to clarify some other

5 matters concerning the period of time when Dragomir Milosevic was the

6 commander of SRK.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I think that we've exhausted the

9 other topic.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: So you're now moving to the time when the accused

11 was the commander of SRK. Let us hear what you want from this witness.

12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. First if you could tell us something about 1994 when you were

14 involved in the conflict, when you were at the positions. Tell us

15 something about what you did there.

16 A. It wasn't perhaps until October that the fierce attacks of Muslim

17 forces began. We defended Grbavica, and from time to time we went to a

18 place called Kijevo. We had our positions there as well. There were

19 frontal attacks coming from all sides.

20 Q. And when was it the calmest?

21 A. Sometime in May.

22 Q. Was there an event that you remember in 1995?

23 A. On a lovely sunny March day, it was the 11th of March, 1995, it

24 was a day that will never be erased from my mind as long as I live. We

25 sat in Grbavica. It was peaceful, quiet. There were five of us soldiers

1 sitting at the table drinking coffee, and then in front of us less than a

2 metre away there were a couple of girls playing hopscotch; and then all of

3 a sudden we heard a couple of shots and the two girls fell dead right in

4 front of us. We fell to the ground as well, and later on we pulled those

5 girls out. Their names were Lalovic and Ucur.

6 Q. Where were you, the soldiers?

7 A. Right near them. The sniper didn't fire at us but, rather, at the

8 girls who were right there playing hopscotch.

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions, Your

10 Honours.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. Thank you. Mr. Docherty.

12 Cross-examination by Mr. Docherty:

13 Q. Just a few questions. My name is John Docherty. I'm one of the

14 prosecuting attorneys on this case. You served in the Sarajevo-Romanija

15 Corps from when and until when, beginning and ending dates if you could,

16 please.

17 A. From the 1st of June, 1992, until the end of war.

18 Q. Now, you've given some testimony it today about events at the

19 beginning of the armed conflict. Who was the first commander of the

20 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, the corps commander?

21 A. I think it was Stanislav Galic.

22 Q. Was there anyone before General Galic?

23 A. I truly don't know.

24 Q. Do you recognise the name Tomislav Sipcic?

25 A. No.

1 Q. So you wouldn't know then that Tomislav Sipcic was a regular

2 career officer in the Yugoslav People's Army and the first commander of

3 the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps? Can you answer out loud, please, sir? It's

4 for the benefit of the court reporter who needs to put down what's heard.

5 A. I didn't know.

6 Q. General Galic, who you do know, was also a regular career officer

7 in the Yugoslavian People's Army; is that correct?

8 A. I know that from the 1st of June, 1992, when I joined the army of

9 Republika Srpska I just know about the army of Republika Srpska. There

10 was no longer any JNA at that point.

11 Q. Well, I'm asking you about the commanding officer of the corps in

12 which you served, and you've identified General Galic as the 1st Corps

13 commander that you remember, and the question I asked you whether you know

14 that General Galic was a career officer in the Yugoslav People's Army

15 before becoming commander of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.

16 A. On the 1st of June, 1992, I became a soldier of Republika Srpska,

17 and I had never heard of Stanislav Galic.

18 Q. Did you learn anything about him during your service with the

19 corps?

20 A. I had the person who was superior to me, my platoon and my

21 company, and there was no other need for me to know anything else. I saw

22 my battalion commander only once and that was on television too. There

23 was no need for me to see him, and I had no occasion to see him.

24 Q. Let's go at this a little different way then, sir. During the

25 time that you were in the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, the corps had -- I'll

1 just -- I'll just list some standard military equipment, and I'll ask you

2 to say "yes" or "no" according to whether the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps had

3 these things. Radios.

4 A. Most likely they did, but I can't confirm that since I didn't see

5 that.

6 Q. Artillery pieces?

7 A. In my area, no.

8 Q. What about in other areas?

9 A. My area was between the bridge of Bratsiva-Jedinstva and up to

10 Strojorad and the stadium and there were no pieces there.

11 Q. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant to ask you were you aware of

12 there being pieces in other areas?

13 A. I suppose so.

14 Q. And without going through a long list of military equipment, isn't

15 it correct that the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps had equipment from the

16 Yugoslav People's Army? That that's where the SRK's equipment came from?

17 A. The JNA took away all of their equipment. What they left were old

18 inoperable pieces, and our people did our best to fix them.

19 Q. And is it not correct that the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps is the

20 4th Corps of the 2nd Military District of the Yugoslavian People's Army

21 under a new name?

22 A. That is not correct.

23 Q. Now, you've testified that you were not aware of General Galic's

24 career before he became your corps commander; correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And you did not recognise the name of General Sipcic; is that

2 correct?

3 A. I never heard of it.

4 Q. You -- in your own words, "most likely the SRK had radios." You

5 can't confirm that. Is that correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. You suppose that there were artillery pieces in areas other than

8 the area where you were stationed, but you don't know that; is that

9 correct?

10 A. I know only about my area. There were no artillery pieces there.

11 Q. And in your area throughout your time with the

12 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps you served as a private soldier; correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. You did not command other troops, did you?

15 A. No.

16 Q. You were not a member of the corps staff at the Lukavica barracks,

17 were you?

18 A. No.

19 Q. If --

20 A. There was no need for me to go there.

21 Q. If there were orders issued by General Milosevic to snipers in the

22 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, that is not something you would personally know

23 about, is it?

24 A. This is the first time I see General Milosevic.

25 Q. And so the answer is no, you would not know about orders he might

1 have issued to snipers or to mortar companies or to artillery units within

2 the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps. That's not something that you have personal

3 knowledge of; is that correct?

4 A. No. No.

5 Q. Now, in 1992 your testimony is that Muslim forces had control of

6 Zuc and Hum hills; is that correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And your testimony is that these were Sandzak Muslims and not

9 Muslims from Bosnia itself; is that correct?

10 A. They were mixed. At the moment of my capture those people

11 happened to be from Sandzak. As for the whereabouts of my Muslim

12 neighbours, well, I don't know where they were.

13 Q. But you testified also that earlier, before these very bad events,

14 you and your Muslim neighbours took turns mounting what I'll call a

15 neighbourhood guard; is that correct?

16 A. We were together until the 16th of May.

17 Q. Relations were good, is that correct, until then?

18 A. Relatively speaking.

19 Q. Let's go back to the hills. Sarajevo sits in -- I'll call it the

20 bottom of a bowl, and the upper part of the bowl is formed by the

21 mountains that ring the city; is that correct? And again, sir, I just

22 have to ask you to answer out loud, please.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Both Zuc and Hum are within that ring of hills, aren't they? They

25 are within the city of Sarajevo itself; correct?

1 A. Well, it's not. Zuc Hill and Hum Hill are part of Sarajevo.

2 Q. So the hills that surround the city and which look down on the

3 city also look down on Zuc and Hum, don't they? I'm just trying to get

4 the geography straight at this point, sir.

5 A. I am not certain.

6 Q. You're not certain. Okay. And in any event, you --

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.

8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think it would be

9 fair to ask of the witness which are those hills that are higher than Zuc

10 and Hum, otherwise the question posed is not defined clearly.

11 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President, what I'm trying to establish is that

12 there are hills surrounding the city that look down on the city, and I

13 don't think it necessary to go into particular names, and in fact I think

14 it would be misleading because we would have to start at one point right

15 around the clock with a list of names. I think the general point can

16 stand.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: But aren't you also trying to establish that

18 there are hills that look down on Zuc and Hum?

19 MR. DOCHERTY: Yes. And what I'm saying is I don't believe that

20 we need the names of those hills. I'm talking about the general geography

21 of the Sarajevo valley.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, I think -- let the witness just say.

23 Do you know the names of the hills that look down on Zuc and Hum?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is Trebevic, although I don't

25 know about the view.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Move on, please.

2 MR. DOCHERTY:

3 Q. Your testimony, sir, was that during 1992, when Pofalici was

4 attacked, that the attacking forces came down from Zuc and Hum hills;

5 correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. You also testified that they came from the tobacco factory. Do

8 you remember giving that evidence?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And that would not involve coming down a hill; is that correct, to

11 get to Pofalici from the tobacco factory, it's all on the same. Do you

12 see what I'm saying?

13 A. The place that was attacked by the Muslim's units is below Zuc and

14 Hum Hill and below the altitude of the Velesici settlement and we were

15 besieged.

16 Q. And I understand that, but what I'm trying to clear up is this

17 business of coming down hills. Some of the forces came down hills,

18 attacking forces, some of them did not; correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And you did in the give evidence concerning control of other

21 strategic points within the city of Sarajevo such as bridges, crossroads,

22 important buildings, and so on; is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And in fact, during the time in Pofalici the combat was at fairly

25 close quarters; is that correct? There were attackers and defenders on

1 the same level at close range; correct? You look puzzled. Is the

2 question unclear? I can try again.

3 A. I did not understand.

4 Q. I'll try again. The actual fighting within Pofalici was between

5 attackers and defenders who were at close range and at the same level, the

6 same altitude, the same height, what have you. Do you understand? Is

7 that more helpful?

8 A. There was no fighting in Pofalici until that very day, the 16th of

9 May, 1992.

10 Q. And on the 16th of May 1992, the fighting was at close range

11 between opposing forces that were at the same level.

12 A. I wouldn't put it that way.

13 Q. Would you -- the part that you disagree with be the close range or

14 the relative altitudes?

15 A. The altitude.

16 Q. And the fighting, however, was at close range; is that correct?

17 You agree with that portion?

18 A. Yes.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just tell us why you wouldn't agree that it was

20 at the same level?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because Zuc Hill and Hum Hill, well,

22 we were below both. Those Muslim units were higher up, whereas we were

23 below. The Muslims were up there on those elevations, and the settlement

24 of Pofalici is below in a depression. They controlled the area.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

1 MR. DOCHERTY:

2 Q. Did you give testimony when Mr. Tapuskovic was asking you

3 questions about those forces coming down the hill? I remember you drawing

4 the arrows on the map and telling the Bench that it was a distance of

5 about a kilometre. The forces came down the hill to Pofalici; correct?

6 And Pofalici is where the fighting occurred; correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Later on in the armed conflict, during the time that General

9 Milosevic was the corps commander, you were a soldier in Grbavica;

10 correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And there are several tall buildings in Grbavica, are there not?

13 There's the --

14 A. Three.

15 Q. Well, there's -- do you know the building called Metalka?

16 A. Only heard of it. It was not within the area of responsibility of

17 my company.

18 Q. There were three tall buildings, you said, within your area of

19 responsibility; is that right? Sir, I'm sorry, could you answer out loud?

20 A. There were three buildings.

21 Q. I'm sorry, I don't mean to pester you, but when you nod your head

22 the court reporter can't take it down. You just have to use words.

23 A. There were three buildings inhabited by civilians. It is

24 otherwise called Soping, or the yellow high-rises.

25 Q. And from those high-rises it is possible for snipers to shoot

1 across the Miljacka river into the area of the army of Bosnia and

2 Herzegovina; is that correct?

3 A. No.

4 MR. DOCHERTY: One moment, please, Your Honour. I'd like to show

5 the witness 65 ter number 02825.

6 Q. Sir, do you see a photograph on the monitor in front of you?

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 Q. Look at the upper part of the photograph. There are some

9 buildings that are red and white, white roofs, high-rise buildings. Do

10 you recognise those buildings?

11 A. No.

12 Q. You said you were stationed in Grbavica; is that correct?

13 A. Yes. Yes. But from the Brotherhood Unity Bridge towards

14 Strojorad and from Strojorad towards the stadium. There was no need for

15 me to move to the right or to the left.

16 Q. So you don't recognise the scene that's in this photograph?

17 A. No.

18 MR. DOCHERTY: Well, Mr. President, I have no more questions for

19 this witness.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Any re-examination, Mr. Tapuskovic?

21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, one question only.

22 Re-examination by Mr. Tapuskovic:

23 Q. [Interpretation] You talked about Grbavica, Witness. Can you

24 determine the geographical location of what was close to Grbavica?

25 A. Within my area of responsibility or from it I could see the high

1 school for economics, then the Bristol Hotel.

2 Q. No, I meant the hills.

3 A. Yes, I understand. Debelo Brdo, and their sharpshooters were able

4 to target us from there. There was Mojmilo hill as well.

5 On the 30th of January, I was wounded from there.

6 Q. Thank you.

7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Carkic, once again the Chamber expresses its

9 sympathy. Your evidence has been concluded. The Chamber thanks you for

10 coming to give it, and you may now leave. We are going to adjourn, so you

11 will just leave with us.

12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.59 p.m.,

13 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 20th day

14 of June, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25