130827IT

Page 15691

1 today. Is that well understood?

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's what I was trying to say, yes.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

4 Then, Mr. Lukic, let's move on.

5 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]

6 Q. [Interpretation] Once again, good morning, Dr. Donia.

7 A. [Interpretation] Good morning.

8 Q. I am just going to add something to what you told us this

9 morning. You dealt with some excerpts here from the Assembly. Was there

10 a fear of genocide among the Serb people at the time?

11 A. [In English] You're asking me to assume that the Serb people

12 experience these feelings, and it's difficult for me to jump into that

13 world. I think that I could say that many Serbs have been persuaded to

14 fear a recurrence of genocide by the constant drum-beat of references to

15 historical genocide on the part of the leaders, intellectual and

16 political, of the Bosnian Serb movement.

17 Q. Already at that time the Serbs in Croatia had lost the status of

18 a people; right? They were proclaimed a national minority and in the

19 Constitution of the Republic of Croatia at that?

20 A. Again, that's a distinction in Yugoslav socialist nationality

21 theory, that this is kind of unrecognisable to most other people, most

22 people outside of Yugoslavia. But within the -- accepting the

23 definitions of those terms as they existed in socialist political

24 thought, Yugoslav socialist political thought, that's correct. They had

25 been, say, recharacterised from being a constituent people to being a

Page 15692

1 minority, which is in that Yugoslav system a demotion.

2 Q. Is it correct that Serbs or at least Serb politicians in

3 Bosnia-Herzegovina tried to avoid that descent, if you will, in terms of

4 status, that is to say to be demoted from the status of a people to a

5 status of a minority, and does that affect the rights that a certain

6 group of people enjoy in a certain state, first and foremost, in

7 Yugoslavia, the state that they lived in before that?

8 A. I sense two somewhat different questions here. Let me address

9 the first one first. I know of no effort that was made on the part of

10 other political forces, other political factions, in Bosnia to demote the

11 Serbs from the status of a constituent nation to a minority. I don't

12 believe that that was, at least not seriously, proposed by anyone. It

13 wasn't really a part of the political conversation. It may be that the

14 interpretation of Serb politicians was that these acts amounted to

15 ignoring the constituent status of the Serbs, but there was, to my

16 knowledge, no effort to ever demote them, as had happened in Croatia and

17 therefore no opposition to it.

18 Q. Is it correct that through out-voting, simple out-voting and the

19 loss of status by not being a constituent people anymore, would the

20 Serbs, in fact, become a minority?

21 A. No. I think, you know, out-voting happens every day in every

22 democratic system. Part of living in a democratic state is losing once

23 in a while, and the meaning of this term that the Serbs assigned to it

24 was I think part of this internal lexical convention that prevailed

25 within the Bosnian Serb movement that assigned to this notion of losing a

Page 15693

1 vote, a far greater, in fact, constitutional significance than it

2 actually had. And I don't think that losing a vote or even a lot of

3 votes necessarily translates into converting a people, a "narod," into a

4 minority.

5 Q. At the time the divisions in Bosnia were not democratic, they

6 went along ethnic lines; is that correct?

7 A. Well, there -- no, I don't think that's correct. They were

8 democratic in the sense that they were the result of voting and the

9 results of voting or they were a product of voting. The -- not only the

10 constitution but the way in which electoral districts were held --

11 elections were held gave some weight to the ethnicity of the voter as he

12 or she self-identified. But it certainly was still, in my view,

13 democratic and at different levels. The -- there were different rules

14 for the Presidency, different rules for the Assembly, and different rules

15 still for the voting in the particular -- in the 109 municipalities of

16 Bosnia. But they were all in the broad sense democratic.

17 Q. So your testimony today is that in Bosnia there weren't any

18 divisions along ethnic lines?

19 A. That's a very different question. I have not testified to that

20 whatsoever, no.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Next question, please, Mr. Lukic.

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Could you please give me an answer. I don't see your answer.

24 Were there any divisions along ethnic lines?

25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you said:

Page 15694

1 "So your testimony today is ..."

2 You're seeking confirmation of what you consider to be the

3 testimony of the witness today, and by saying "that's a very different

4 question. I have not testified to that whatsoever, no." It's a clear

5 "no" answer to your question. That is not what Mr. -- or the witness

6 says he testified to today, and you couldn't be surprised by that answer

7 if you have carefully listened to his testimony today.

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I listened to the testimony of this

9 witness very carefully all the time --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I'm not seeking any further comments from

11 you. I think I was clear enough and I already -- before you insisted on

12 an answer you had got already, I said - which I hardly ever say - "next

13 question, please, Mr. Lukic."

14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Mr. Donia, today in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in the Assembly and in

16 the Presidency, are the same systems in place, systems of protection for

17 the three peoples in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Muslim, Croat, and Serb

18 peoples, as was the case in the communist times, as you called them. Is

19 it correct that the Dayton Agreement and the Dayton constitution gives

20 the same guarantee and the same protection to each and every people,

21 through the institute of protecting vital national interest?

22 A. No. I would say they are similar, but not the same. The

23 protection is not as absolute in the Dayton constitution, if you will, as

24 it was in the -- in socialist provisions.

25 Q. Is it correct that this protection is now part of the Presidency

Page 15695

1 as well, not only in the Assembly, which had not been the case earlier?

2 A. You're drawing me into an area that I'm not terribly familiar

3 with. I'm just hesitant. It would be a speculative answer. I'm sorry,

4 I'd rather not answer it.

5 JUDGE ORIE: You're not invited to speculate. If you don't feel

6 comfortable to answer the question, please tell us and Mr. Lukic will

7 then put his next question.

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. We're going to abandon this topic and I'm going to ask you this:

10 In your research, did you come across a statement made by

11 Mr. Alija Izetbegovic, who said that for him a united Bosnia-Herzegovina

12 is more important than peace and that he is prepared to sacrifice peace

13 for the sake of a single Bosnia-Herzegovina?

14 A. Yes. He made that statement in the context of a longer

15 proclamation in which he expressed his abhorrence of war and noted that

16 for him, as a very last resort, he would resort -- he would sacrifice

17 peace if it was guaranteed to assure a single Bosnia-Herzegovina. That

18 was in February of 1991 in the Assembly of the Bosnian parliament.

19 Q. In your view, what is the difference between the right to

20 secession of Croats and Muslims from Yugoslavia in relation to the right

21 of secession of the Serbs from Bosnia-Herzegovina? Are both justified or

22 is one justified and the other one unjustified? In that historical

23 context, how do you see that?

24 A. Well, that's a -- really a legal question that goes to the

25 interaction between the two constitutions, Bosnia-Herzegovina and

Page 15696

1 Yugoslavia, which in turn goes directly to the question whether it's

2 justified or not. And I just can't comment on a legal issue like that.

3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we see P2001 again. We need

4 page 22 in e-court in English and page 30 in B/C/S.

5 THE WITNESS: Which report is that now, Mr. Lukic?

6 MR. LUKIC: It's report on the Assembly of Republika Srpska. And

7 it's --

8 JUDGE ORIE: Would you refer to the item, Mr. Lukic.

9 MR. LUKIC: It's two pages less. It's page 20 in your --

10 JUDGE ORIE: I'm asking the items. They're numbered as items.

11 MR. LUKIC: It's 42, 37th Session on 10th of January, 1994. It's

12 the last paragraph on this page in English and it's on the middle of the

13 page in B/C/S.

14 Q. [Interpretation] We see here that President Karadzic already in

15 the beginning of 1994 mentions that the territory held by Serbs in

16 Bosnia-Herzegovina will possibly go down by 50 per cent. In your

17 research, what sources did you get to or what conclusion did you reach?

18 When did the international community decide that the division in Bosnia

19 should be 51 to 49 per cent, 51 per cent for the Muslims and Croats and

20 49 per cent for the Serbs?

21 A. If I may, just one moment, I believe the translation in English

22 came through that it was down by 50 per cent. I think that we all agree

23 it went down to 50 per cent in the territory of Bosnia. And this

24 occurred after the -- about the time that the Contact Group plan came

25 into play when the Bosnian government and -- it's actually was in the

Page 15697

1 debates and the Bosnian parliament found that there was strong opposition

2 to the Owen-Stoltenberg plan because it only gave about I think

3 30 per cent of the land to Muslims, to the -- to the Bosnian government

4 side. And so after that, the -- this percentage game that the

5 international community wanted to play resulted in the notion of

6 approximately slightly less than 50 per cent to go to the

7 Republika Srpska.

8 Q. On the basis of the documentation that you studied, would you

9 agree that after that period a time of constant pressure against the Serb

10 side started to agree to 49 per cent and that that is the time when the

11 international community openly sided with the Muslims and Croats in this

12 war in order to achieve that balance of 49/51 per cent?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Your view would not change even if you knew that representatives

15 of UNPROFOR confirmed this question of mine?

16 A. I would -- wanted to see that they had, in fact, confirmed it as

17 you asked it, and frankly it wouldn't change my opinion here. In view of

18 the big picture, I don't think the -- that change that you're talking

19 about really took place.

20 Q. Was the war in Bosnia actually a war for territories?

21 A. In part, yes.

22 Q. The other two peoples in BH, did they want to control as large a

23 part of the territory as possible too?

24 A. I think we've established that the Serbs did not want to control

25 as large a part of the territory as possible, that their goals were quite

Page 15698

1 specific, they were ambitious but not as large as possible. And I don't

2 believe that the objectives of the other two peoples were either. The --

3 it's questionable whether the Muslims as a people or the representatives

4 who claimed to be representatives of the Muslim people really had such

5 goals. They favoured a unitary Bosnia which didn't recognise these kinds

6 of distinctions. But certainly the Croats did not have that kind of

7 ambition, no.

8 Q. The Croats at the time, did they also aspire for a separate

9 state?

10 A. Many of their leaders did, yes.

11 Q. Let's look at page 33 in e-court now of your report, that's the

12 English version, and page 44 in Serbian. It is number 72. It is

13 probably page 31 in your report itself. You're talking here about a

14 homogenous relocation of refugees. The person who has the same name as I

15 do, Mr. Lukic, says the following: We succeeded in carrying out the

16 homogenous relocation of refugees in the beginning of war. Which

17 refugees is he talking about here, the Serb refugees or the refugees from

18 another ethnic community? How do you understand this?

19 A. It's not clear. It could pertain to all -- refugees of all

20 groups or only to one or two. Just not clear in this passage what he is

21 referring to. I think he's referring to the broad process of relocating

22 refugees rather than -- he's very likely referring to the broad process

23 rather than anything specific to one group.

24 Q. Is it possible to conduct a homogenous relocation to somebody

25 else's territory and to put people from another area in one place in

Page 15699

1 another's territory? It seems obvious that here we are talking about

2 Serb refugees.

3 A. Well, the -- that question presupposes that you have fixed

4 boundaries and established areas. And I think if you assume that

5 context, then I think the answer to your question is: No, you can't do

6 that. However, he's speaking about the beginning of the war at a time

7 when boundaries either didn't exist or were being formed, that is,

8 boundaries between areas of control by the various factions, and in some

9 cases were very porous. So I don't know that that really helps us

10 clarify the likely referent here.

11 Q. You never talked to Mr. Lukic and you never asked him what he

12 meant by this?

13 A. No, I only actually have spoken with one Mr. Lukic and he's in

14 the courtroom.

15 Q. Okay. Let us briefly look at page 66 in English and 89 in the

16 B/C/S. It should be 64 and the item is 155. As we can see, at the

17 session of 24th March 1992 President Karadzic is saying the following:

18 The policemen have been forced out of the municipalities of Stari Grad,

19 Gorazde, and I think from Visegrad as well. "Milicioneri" means

20 "policemen," can we agree on that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. What can you infer from this text? Who is throwing or forcing

23 out whom?

24 A. Well, it was of course Karadzic's position that the Bosnian

25 government police, police loyal to the unified MUP, were throwing out

Page 15700

1 Serbs. I think the reality on the ground, the evidence suggests, was

2 much more mixed. The first actual division of a police station that I

3 know of took place in Bosanska Krupa in early September of 1991, and in

4 that circumstance local SDS leaders actually led the Serb policemen out

5 of the station of the joint -- the unified MUP to another village nearby

6 and established a separate Serb police station. The situation in

7 Stari Grad and in -- and in Pale was complex and actually kind of

8 contested. The process seems to have been started on about the

9 2nd of March, 1992, at the time of the barricades when some of the

10 Serbian policemen from the Stari Grad station participated in the actual

11 manning of the barricades and thereafter ceased to come to work in the

12 Stari Grad station. So it's a mixed picture, I would say, in terms of

13 who initiated these things, although it clearly was Karadzic's position

14 here and he expressed it on many other occasions that all of this was

15 initiated by the government side and expelled Serb policemen.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, is this what you wanted to ask the

17 witness, the -- whether what Mr. Karadzic describes is what happened in

18 the municipalities he mentioned, whether that was the overall picture?

19 Is that what you wanted to -- because it was unclear to me whether that

20 was your question.

21 MR. LUKIC: I think it was overall picture at that time as well,

22 only here we have some concrete examples --

23 JUDGE ORIE: No, you ask, "What can you infer from this text?"

24 The text says our policemen are thrown out in the three municipalities he

25 mentioned, and then -- the question was: What can you infer from

Page 15701

1 this ... ? What you wanted to know whether that was representative for

2 what happened everywhere? Is that -- what was your question? I'm just

3 guessing about what you were asking the witness. I've heard his answer.

4 If that's what you wanted to ask him, then no problem; if it's not then I

5 would --

6 MR. LUKIC: I wanted to clarify first these three stations but I

7 don't think I got the answer I envisaged and I would like to pursue a bit

8 more on this issue.

9 JUDGE ORIE: You asked him who was thrown out. I think the

10 witness answered that in those three instances.

11 Karadzic referred to --

12 THE WITNESS: I really don't know the specific situation in

13 Gorazde in Visegrad, so I can only say the final result was that pure

14 Serb police force took over there, but I don't know how that happened. I

15 do in the case of Stari Grad, as I indicated, try to give you some feel

16 for those details.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then you gave a bit of an overall picture

18 being very mixed.

19 THE WITNESS: Yes.

20 JUDGE ORIE: If that's what you wanted to know, Mr. Lukic --

21 otherwise, try to focus your questions such a way that you get answers to

22 the questions you put.

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. You say government forces or the forces loyal to the government,

25 are you primarily referring to Muslims when you say that and an

Page 15702

1 occasional Croat?

2 A. Well, it again depends on the period. At the very beginning of

3 the war from 1991 until sometime in, let's say, I think March of 1992,

4 there were, in fact, two very closely co-operating heads of MUP, I think

5 it was Delimustafic and a Serb whose name I can't remember right now. So

6 I mean, they worked very closely, I thought, to try to keep MUP unified

7 and of course in the long run failed. And after that period of time it

8 was indeed primarily Muslims who made up the MUP which organisationally

9 was the same one that had existed prior to 19 -- prior to April 1992, but

10 owing to the Serb withdrawal as ordered on May 30th -- or, I'm sorry,

11 March 30th was almost completely devoid of Serbs.

12 Q. This division is by no means a democratic one. It's a division

13 along ethnic lines.

14 A. You're -- the -- that's not a dichotomy. It was not democratic

15 in the sense that it was accomplished, at least in part, by force. And

16 it, in the end, produced a largely ethnic division between the police --

17 the MUP of the Republika Srpska on the one hand and the MUP or the police

18 of the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

19 Q. What was the role of General Mladic at these Assembly sessions?

20 Was he entitled to pass any decisions or to vote for anything or was he

21 merely allowed to make proposals?

22 A. In principle, he was a guest and didn't have a right to vote, for

23 that matter didn't even really have a right to formally make a proposal.

24 There was a lot of flexibility, particularly in the earlier sessions, of

25 the Assembly in which the guest came to number in the tens and often took

Page 15703

1 the liberty of making proposals and even voting. So it's not

2 inconceivable that he may have at some point actually engaged in those

3 activities, but I don't know that he ever did. He was, I think, an

4 influential voice, making suggestions, advocating policies, and engaging

5 in the discussions about those policies.

6 Q. On page 79 in e-court, paragraph 2, 107 and paragraph 1 in the

7 B/C/S - and I'm talking about your paper - it's item 185 under number 2,

8 or rather, the paragraph that begins with "secondly," we see that

9 General Mladic is seeking a state of war to be proclaimed. So we are

10 talking about the session held on the 12th of May, 1992. You would agree

11 that the state of war was not proclaimed and that this proposal of

12 General Mladic went unheeded?

13 A. Yes. Could I possibly implore the usher to refill my water. I

14 think the ushers have inadvertently engaged in the policy of separation

15 of the water and the glass.

16 Q. All of us are here pressurised by time and space. Doctor, I had

17 quite a few more questions but I promised the Chamber and you that I

18 would finish during the first session. I am sorry to have been a burden

19 to you, and at this point I have no further questions.

20 THE WITNESS: It's been no burden, Mr. Lukic. I thank you.

21 JUDGE ORIE: I establish, Mr. Lukic, that you finished even

22 before the end of the first session this morning.

23 Ms. Bibles, do you have any further questions for Mr. Donia?

24 MS. BIBLES: I do, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE ORIE: How much time would they take approximately?

Page 15704

1 MS. BIBLES: No more than 15 minutes and perhaps considerably

2 less than that. I could -- I'll certainly get started before the break

3 and may finish by the break.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's get started. If you feel that at 10.30 you

5 would need no more than five minutes, please indicate so that we could

6 consider to take the break slightly later; but if it would be seven,

7 eight, or more minutes then we'll take the break anyhow.

8 MS. BIBLES: Thank you, Your Honour.

9 Re-examination by Ms. Bibles:

10 Q. First I want to go back to a matter that I need to clarify with

11 respect to P2001 relating to highlights 258 and 259. I believe you

12 corrected the date of the 20th Assembly, and I want to make sure that we

13 corrected that to -- to the accurate date. I believe we gave a date in

14 July. Could you give us an accurate date for the 20th Assembly relating

15 to those two highlights?

16 A. As I recall, it was the 16th and 17th of July, 1992.

17 Q. Is it possible that would have been the 14th and 15th of

18 September for the 20th Session? I'm sorry.

19 A. It certainly is my recollection. That is obviously not correct.

20 Q. To go -- turn full attention now to cross-examination. Last

21 Thursday you were asked questions relating to the transformation of the

22 JNA, and that would be the second section of your Sarajevo report. You

23 were asked some specifics about Kijevo and I'd like to go back to that

24 area. Can you tell us why you used the Kijevo battle in your report?

25 A. I used it for two reasons: Number one, General Mladic had a

Page 15705

1 very -- well, the leading role in the Serb forces in that battle; and,

2 number two, it is cited by General Mladic himself in Assembly sessions,

3 and also in this wonderful book of interviews that was done with him

4 during the war time by Jovan Janjic, as a seminal event in the evolution

5 of the conflict in both Croatia and Bosnia.

6 MS. BIBLES: Your Honours, if I could ask the Court Officer to

7 bring P2001, e-court in English page 78 and page 106 in B/C/S and looking

8 at highlight 184.

9 Q. In looking at highlight 184, is that one of the segments that you

10 were just relating to?

11 A. Yes, one of them, the first paragraph.

12 Q. Could you read -- and this is a segment. Could you review this

13 highlight or read this highlight very quickly for us?

14 A. I'll read in English:

15 "'The Knin'" --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please do it at such a speed of speech

17 that the interpreters can follow you.

18 THE WITNESS: I wonder if it would be useful to identify it in

19 B/C/S so the translators could use the actual B/C/S that General Mladic

20 used in the original.

21 MS. BIBLES: And perhaps, given the time, Your Honours, I would

22 bring attention to the first paragraph specifically of excerpt 184.

23 Q. And by way of question, who does General Mladic refer to in this

24 first paragraph in that excerpt?

25 A. He refers to Milan Martic who was the chief of police, he was the

Page 15706

1 minister of MUP, minister of internal affairs, of the break-away Serb

2 polity in Croatia, the Serb Republic of Krajina.

3 Q. And now I'd like to shift direction to a series of questions that

4 you were asked yesterday regarding the nature of the 16th Assembly and

5 the six strategic objectives. You were also asked whether you were aware

6 that Ratko Mladic came to Bosnia on the 9th of May, 1992. Do you recall

7 that line of questions?

8 A. Yes, I do.

9 Q. Are you aware of any information or evidence that Ratko Mladic

10 was involved in the discussions regarding the strategic objectives prior

11 to the 16th Assembly?

12 A. Yes. There is a reference in his diary to a meeting which he

13 attended I believe several days before the six strategic goals were laid

14 out by Karadzic on the 12th.

15 MS. BIBLES: Your Honours, if the Court Officer could bring

16 P00352, which is one of the Mladic notebooks, to our screens. I would

17 ask for e-court page 262 in English and e-court page 270 in B/C/S.

18 Q. We're looking now at -- it appears that we have both versions on

19 the screen now. Could you tell us what we're looking at here?

20 A. This is an enumeration of the, in this case, seven strategic

21 goals in which in the notebook General Mladic attributes these to

22 Mr. Krajisnik. The -- obviously the seven goals do not correspond

23 completely with the six goals that were laid out on the 12th, and in fact

24 the seventh one was the one that was not -- did not -- was not carried

25 forward to the final enunciation. But otherwise they are recognisably

Page 15707

1 those that were laid out on the 12th.

2 Q. And I believe you have reflected in your testify that he

3 attributes these to Mr. Krajisnik.

4 MS. BIBLES: If we could turn to the next page in e-court,

5 please.

6 Q. I'll ask two questions: First, could you briefly tell us what

7 that seventh strategic objective was.

8 A. To establish links with the RSK, the Republic of Serbian Krajina,

9 that polity within the boundaries of Croatia that lay in Croatia and was

10 a break-away -- as I characterised, a break-away republic.

11 Q. Can you tell us based on your read of this page what other

12 individuals were present -- apparently present at this meeting?

13 A. Bozidar Vucurevic, who was a very prominent SDS leader in western

14 Herzegovina, and Mr. Karadzic, of course, was also present. That's I

15 think the only persons we can determine from this excerpt that were

16 present.

17 MS. BIBLES: I'll ask if we could go back to the previous page.

18 Q. Could you tell us what the date of this meeting is.

19 A. This is dated the 7th of May, 1992.

20 Q. And just briefly, are you aware of whether or not there were

21 similar meetings relating to Bosnia on the 6th of May, 1992, reflected in

22 this notebook?

23 A. Yes, as I recall there was a meeting on the 6th which without

24 enumerating them also discussed the goals to be outlined for the

25 Republika Srpska.

Page 15708

1 MS. BIBLES: And, Your Honour, at this point I have no further

2 re-direct.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Bibles.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, have the questions in re-direct triggered

6 the need for any further cross?

7 Then, Mr. Donia, this -- if Mr. Mladic would like to consult

8 then -- because Mr. Donia might be gone if we don't take the opportunity

9 now.

10 [Defence counsel and accused confer]

11 MR. LUKIC: It seems that Mr. Mladic would have some questions

12 based on the re-direct.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Then I suggest the following: That you consult with

14 Mr. Mladic during the break and that you put any additional questions to

15 the witness after the break.

16 Ms. Bibles.

17 MS. BIBLES: Your Honour, perhaps before we go to break it would

18 be a good time, before Dr. Donia leaves, to move to admit the exhibits

19 P1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, they're all MFI'd.

21 Mr. Lukic.

22 MR. LUKIC: We will have the same objections we had before on

23 those reports.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll consider it over the break now having

25 heard the testimony of the witness, at least if I could say 99 per cent

Page 15709

1 of the testimony of the witness, and we'll then decide after the break.

2 Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom. We need you

3 for a short while after the break, Mr. Donia.

4 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

5 [The witness stands down]

6 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break and we'll resume at five minutes to

7 11.00.

8 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.

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

10 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

11 Mr. Lukic, no need to remind you of the limits of the areas to be

12 covered at the present stage of the examination of the witness.

13 MR. LUKIC: It's exactly in these limits.

14 [The witness takes the stand]

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17 Further cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:

18 Q. [Interpretation] Doctor, I've already said that we have no

19 further questions, but I'm coming back with a few. It won't be long.

20 We'll go into a bit of history now. Let's see whether you are familiar

21 with this. Do you know when the Independent State of Croatia was

22 established in 1941 what happened to the Serb population in the village

23 of -- the village of Kijevo?

24 A. I specifically -- for Kijevo, I do not know.

25 Q. I will put something to you. Fifty inhabitants of Kijevo in 1941

Page 15710

1 were invited to a meeting and they were all killed except for one who

2 managed to escape. You never came across this information? They were

3 killed by Ustasha formations.

4 A. I came across information that the town -- village of Kijevo had

5 been, in fact, the subject of these -- of attacks by the Ustasha and that

6 there were casualties, but I did not go into the specifics. I looked at

7 it only in the broader context of the Ustasha killings of Jews, Serbs,

8 Roma, and so on.

9 Q. At the time when things were happening in 1991 in Kijevo,

10 Mr. Mladic was not commander. He was Chief of Staff of the 9th Corps of

11 the JNA. Are you aware of that?

12 A. Yes, I'm -- acknowledge that, yes.

13 Q. Spiro Ninkovic was the commander. Are you aware of that?

14 A. Yes, you're -- you refreshed my memory that that was indeed the

15 case.

16 Q. At the time, that is to say the time that we are talking about,

17 do you know that the barracks in Sinj, Zadar, Split had all been under a

18 blockade for six months already by then without water, electricity,

19 et cetera?

20 A. Well, I think I've written about in the report and acknowledged

21 in testimony that these blockades existed of various "kasarna" in

22 Croatia. I didn't go into the details about exactly which one were, how

23 long they were, and whether they were totally without water or

24 electricity. So I can't confirm that specifically, but there was no

25 question that a number of those "kasarna" were -- had been isolated and

Page 15711

1 that were under siege.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I suggest that we -- that you first deal

3 with the questions and then consult with Mr. Mladic, that whatever

4 remains then can be added to your questions, because otherwise it will --

5 the further examination will be interrupted again and again. You have an

6 opportunity before Mr. Donia will be excused to consult.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Do you know that at that time General Perisic was commander of

9 the barracks in Zadar? Did you come across that information?

10 A. No, I don't recall coming across that information. I have no

11 reason to dispute it.

12 Q. All right. Did you come across information to the effect that in

13 the barracks that were under siege people who were killed in the barracks

14 had to be buried in the barracks themselves under floors?

15 A. No. As I say, I didn't really go much beyond the fact that they

16 were -- the sieges were established and that there were JNA troops in

17 them.

18 Q. Now, as regards the incident in Kijevo itself, did you come

19 across information to the effect that a corpse, the corpse of

20 Zeljko Vranjes, was supposed to be taken through Kijevo? He was

21 returning home from Switzerland. He was arrested in Vinkovci, taken to

22 Sibenik, beaten for a few days there, until he was killed, and then he

23 was thrown on a dump in Sibenik and he was found there, picked up, and

24 driven through Kijevo in order to be buried in Civljani, his own village?

25 A. No.

Page 15712

1 Q. Did you know that at the time in Kijevo a police station had been

2 established whose komandir was Ante Bajan and that they prevented this

3 column from passing through, the people who were supposed to bury

4 Zeljko Vranjes?

5 A. Of these items that you've mentioned, I have written about and

6 can confirm that a police station was established by the Croatian MUP in

7 Kijevo and that it did engage in -- put up blockades, preventing passage

8 of persons and goods. The rest I do not have any knowledge of.

9 Q. Did you come across information to the effect that it was

10 precisely because of that that Milan Martic was called upon, or rather,

11 the police to resolve the problem with the Croatian MUP and that was the

12 reason why both the policemen and the military took part in this?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Did you come across information that precisely during those days

15 the commander of the barracks in Bjelovar was killed, Rajko Kovacevic, a

16 lieutenant-colonel?

17 A. Again, I don't know the name. There were certainly -- certainly

18 casualties at that time in a low-level sniping and shooting that was

19 going on, but I don't know specifically the names of the individual

20 casualties.

21 MR. LUKIC: Give me one second. I just have to consult with the

22 General.

23 [Defence counsel and accused confer]

24 JUDGE ORIE: Low volume and I hear it even through my earphones.

25 Mr. Lukic.

Page 15713

1 MR. LUKIC: I have only one more question.

2 Q. [Interpretation] At that time, on the 19th of September, did you

3 know that a column had been attacked, a column that was withdrawing from

4 the Karlovac barracks? And the leader of the column had his throat slit

5 and all the soldiers were killed. That happened at Koranski Most, the

6 Korana bridge, on the 19th?

7 A. I can't confirm that, no.

8 Q. Thank you, Doctor. Thank you for your answers. This is indeed

9 the end of your examination now.

10 JUDGE ORIE: And I can confirm that, Mr. --

11 Low volume, only a very short consultation. I confirmed ...

12 [Defence counsel and accused confer]

13 MR. LUKIC: If I can ask for --

14 JUDGE ORIE: No, no more questions, Mr. Lukic. The last question

15 you put to the witness after having consulted with Mr. Mladic resulted in

16 an answer that the witness didn't know. So that can -- the lack of

17 knowledge of the witness cannot have triggered any need for further

18 questions. So we leave it to that.

19 Mr. Donia -- Mr. -- no, Mr. Mladic, we'll now first excuse

20 Mr. Donia before we continue.

21 Mr. Donia, I'd like to thank you very much for having come to

22 The Hague. You know the route by now I take it, and for having answered

23 all the questions that were put to you by the parties and by the Bench.

24 And you are excused. I wish you a safe return home.

25 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour. It's been an honour to be

Page 15717

1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated.

2 Mr. Turkusic, you'll first be examined by Ms. Harbour. Ms.

3 Harbour is counsel for the Prosecution and you'll find her to your right.

4 You may proceed, Ms. Harbour.

5 MS. HARBOUR: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 Examination by Ms. Harbour:

7 Q. Could you please state your full name for the record.

8 A. Emir Turkusic.

9 Q. You previously testified in the trials of Dragomir Milosevic,

10 Momcilo Perisic, and Radovan Karadzic; is that correct?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. And you've also given several statements to the

13 Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal; is that correct?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. You've had an opportunity to review an amalgamated statement

16 containing relevant information from your prior testimonies and

17 statements; is that right?

18 A. That's correct.

19 MS. HARBOUR: Could I ask that 65 ter number 30183, which is a

20 statement dated 19 July 2013 be placed on the monitor.

21 Q. Dr. Turkusic, do you recognise the document that is on the

22 screen?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And what is this document?

25 A. This document is the amalgamated statement that I recently

Page 15718

1 signed.

2 Q. And the signature at the bottom of the page, do you recognise the

3 signature?

4 A. Yes, that is my signature.

5 MS. HARBOUR: And if we could please go to the last page of the

6 document.

7 Q. Do you recognise the signature on this page?

8 A. I do.

9 Q. Did you have an opportunity prior to testifying today to review

10 this statement in your own language?

11 A. Yes, I read it in its entirety, in detail.

12 Q. You identified several corrections that need to be made to this

13 document, and I'm going to go through those with you now. At

14 paragraph 17 of the statement it currently states:

15 "Both errors lead to a delay in impulse after firing ..."

16 This should instead read:

17 "Both errors lead to a change in impulse after firing ..."

18 Is that correct?

19 A. That's right.

20 Q. At paragraph 36 in your comment related to the first document,

21 the B/C/S original of this statement states that "the projectile

22 originated from the south-west." This should be changed to "south-east";

23 is that correct?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. In paragraph 47 it refers to a number KV9405. This should

Page 15719

1 instead refer to KV9404; is that correct?

2 A. That's correct.

3 Q. In paragraph 50 the reference to "south-west" should be changed

4 to "south-east"; is that correct?

5 A. That's correct.

6 Q. In paragraph 65 halfway through the paragraph is a sentence that

7 reads:

8 "And then you have alpha degree and that is on what our

9 calculation is based."

10 And you would like to clarify that this sentence should instead

11 read:

12 "And then you can calculate the alpha angle."

13 Is that correct?

14 A. That's correct, precisely.

15 Q. And for the final correction that you identified, if we could go

16 to paragraph 117, in your comment related to 65 ter 15718 you refer to

17 the signatures of yourself and Nedim Bosnic. This should refer to

18 initials and not to signatures; is that correct?

19 A. That's right.

20 JUDGE ORIE: In the report I have it says already "initials." So

21 I'm talking about -- let me just have a look. Paragraph 117, last item:

22 "This is my report and I recognise my initials and those ..."

23 That's what I have in my hard copy. Then apparently there are

24 two versions.

25 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours.

Page 15720

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

2 MS. HARBOUR: I believe I can clarify the issue. In the original

3 92 ter filing we attached a provisional translation which was

4 subsequently revised. In the revision process, since it had to be

5 consistent with the original Bosnian statement, the word "signature" was

6 changed to "initials," and now the witness would like to correct that to

7 reflect that it should indeed be "initials." And the revised translation

8 was distributed about a little over a week ago, I believe.

9 JUDGE ORIE: And that revised version was attached to the 92 ter

10 motion?

11 MS. HARBOUR: The version attached to the 92 ter motion was the

12 unrevised translation, and in the meantime as of approximately a week and

13 a half ago the revised version has become available.

14 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

15 JUDGE ORIE: We will sort this out and -- Ms. Harbour. Because

16 what I was provided with is a version which contains already all this, so

17 we'll check carefully what was attached to the 92 ter motion. Perhaps I

18 received already a more recent one, but it's clear at least what the

19 testimony of the witness is in this respect.

20 Please proceed.

21 MS. HARBOUR:

22 Q. Dr. Turkusic, with these changes if you were asked the same

23 questions today that you were asked in preparation for this statement

24 would you give the same answers in substance?

25 A. Yes, I would.

Page 15721

1 Q. Now that you have taken the solemn declaration, do you affirm the

2 accuracy of the truthfulness of this statement?

3 A. Precisely so. I confirm.

4 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, at this time I would like to tender

5 65 ter 30183, which is this amalgamated statement.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.

7 MR. LUKIC: We have the same objections we had in our motion

8 filed on the 9th of August, 2013.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Could you just remind me exactly what the basis of

10 the objections ...

11 MR. LUKIC: I don't have that motion with me since I have only

12 documents from Dr. Donia with me. I'll have it in a couple minutes

13 probably, but I know that we mainly objected to the expert nature of the

14 statement.

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE ORIE: The document will be MFI'd. Under what number,

17 Mr. --

18 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 30183 will be MFI P2009, Your Honours.

19 JUDGE ORIE: And keeps that status for the time being.

20 Ms. Harbour.

21 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, there are 37 associated exhibits for

22 this statement which have not yet been admitted into evidence.

23 Ms. Stewart has supplied the Chamber and the Registry and the parties

24 with this list via e-mail. Thirty-three of these documents have never

25 been assigned exhibit numbers and four have been marked not admitted and

Page 15722

1 we would tender all of those 37 exhibits pursuant to Rule 92 ter as

2 inseparable and indispensable parts of the 92 ter statement.

3 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest that at this very moment that

4 Mr. Registrar, having received the list, will provisionally assign

5 numbers and that we will then decide at the end of the examination of the

6 witness about admission.

7 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, if there's any question about whether

8 any of these exhibits are inseparable and indispensable to the witness's

9 statement, I would request to be informed at this stage, while the

10 witness is still on the stand, so that I can address and tender the

11 documents through the witness rather than leaving them to a separate

12 mechanism of tendering at a later stage. And although I've planned only

13 a small number of questions for the witness, I would use additional time

14 as necessary to ensure that each of these associated exhibits are

15 admitted into evidence. And in the alternative, we would request the

16 Chamber to admit these documents pursuant to Rule 89(C), as the witness

17 statement provides information establishing both relevance and

18 authenticity for each document.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, a specific question, not admission in

20 general, but whether you consider them inseparable and indispensable to

21 the witness's statement. On the basis of the assumption, of course, that

22 the statement would be admitted into evidence.

23 MR. LUKIC: I have to admit I'm looking at that door to get those

24 documents. If we can just postpone this after the break. I don't have

25 documents with me. I really cannot answer at this moment.

Page 15723

1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour, I suggest that you start your

2 examination-in-chief and that we'll then hear from Mr. Lukic whether

3 there's any dispute about the inseparability and indispensability of

4 these documents.

5 MS. HARBOUR: Okay.

6 I would now like to read a public summary of the 92 ter evidence

7 of this witness and I've explained the purpose of this summary to the

8 witness.

9 Dr. Turkusic was a member of the counter-sabotage protection unit

10 of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia and

11 Herzegovina, which was known as the KDZ, in 1994 and 1995. The witness

12 and his team conducted numerous ballistic investigations into shelling

13 incidents in Sarajevo. He provides evidence of the KDZ's role in

14 shelling investigations, the method of determining the direction of fire

15 of a mortar round, the accuracy of mortars, and the nature of modified

16 air-bombs. He discusses in detail investigative documentation relating

17 to many shelling incidents. His team was responsible for determining the

18 type of projectile that was used in these incidents. He was involved in

19 analysing the craters caused by mortar impacts and was also involved in

20 identifying and analysing projectile fragments gathered at various crime

21 scenes. The witness can attest to the significance of markings found on

22 some of these fragments, most notably the markings found on mortar

23 stabiliser fins which revealed that they were manufactured in

24 Krusik Valjevo in Serbia and the year and the month.

25 Dr. Turkusic testifies in particular about the Markale II

Page 15724

1 shelling incident on the 28th of August, 1995, in which a 120-millimetre

2 mortar shell detonated outside the entrance to the city market. This is

3 scheduled incident G18.

4 Dr. Turkusic describes the atmosphere of panic and fear at the

5 incident site. He notes the stabiliser of the projectile bore markings

6 which indicated that it was manufactured in Valjevo, Serbia, in

7 July 1993. He explains that the 120-millimetre mortar round is an

8 anti-personnel projectile, designed to destroy manpower. It sprays its

9 shrapnel in a horizontal fashion close to the ground. Dr. Turkusic

10 discusses the minimal possible angle of descent and the direction of fire

11 of the projectile. He also provides evidence about four other shelling

12 incidents impacting close to the city market around the same time as the

13 Markale II shelling, using mortars bearing the same Krusik Valjevo

14 markings.

15 And this concludes the public summary.

16 Your Honours, I now have a few questions for this witness and in

17 addition if there is dispute about the inseparability and

18 indispensability of the documents, I will go through any documents that

19 may not be admitted as associated exhibits.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll hear from Mr. Lukic later. So if it

21 would be possible to -- do you have any questions which are not affected

22 by our judgement on inseparability and --

23 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, I have a few. So I will go through those now

24 and then we can determine how to proceed.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Let's start with that, yes.

Page 15725

1 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please have 65 ter 19301A on the screen.

2 Q. Dr. Turkusic, in your statement you comment on many documents,

3 most of which refer to a series of letters and numbers, MK M74. The

4 document on the screen is one of these. This document is discussed at

5 paragraph 114 of your statement. You state that this is a standard CSB

6 report, reporting that four 120-millimetre rounds fell on the

7 28th of August, 1995, all bearing the marking KB9307, MK M74. And I

8 would like to ask you, during the investigation where would you see the

9 MK M74 markings?

10 A. These markings are embossed in the propelling part of the shell

11 near the stabiliser or in the inside near the main charge and near the

12 trigger. So they're virtually embossed. That's a method of applying

13 these markings, which indicate the type of projectile and the month and

14 year of the manufacture. They also carried information. KV in Cyrillic,

15 it's KB, and I think that that means Krusik Valjevo factory.

16 MS. HARBOUR: Could I tender this document into evidence?

17 MR. LUKIC: I don't see the witness on the document. Has he any

18 role in composing the document?

19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bibles [sic], would you like to ask the witness

20 or would you just -- Ms. Harbour, yes, I apologise.

21 The witness recognises as a typical example of which might be a

22 basis for admission. I leave it to you, Ms. Harbour, whether you would

23 like to --

24 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honour. Perhaps I will go through the

25 next document which shows the witness's role in this particular incident

Page 15726

1 and then I'll tender them both together.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.

3 MS. HARBOUR: If we could please have 65 ter 15722A, page 1 in

4 the English and in the B/C/S. Actually, could we move to page 2 in both

5 languages, please.

6 Q. Dr. Turkusic, this document in front of you contains two KDZ

7 reports analysing projectiles from the 28th of August, 1995, shellings

8 that we've just saw discussed in the last document and you comment on

9 these reports at paragraphs 115 and 116 of your statement. The second

10 paragraph here indicates that the explosion was in

11 Branilaca Sarajeva Street, the business premises of UPI. Do you know how

12 far these business premises or this building was from the Markale II

13 explosion site?

14 A. Well, I guess it would be around 200 metres, that is, to the

15 south from Markale II close to the Miljacka river that flows towards

16 south. So I would estimate the distance to be approximately 200 metres.

17 MS. HARBOUR: If we could please turn to page 4 of this -- I

18 believe page 4 of this document.

19 Q. Dr. Turkusic, do you see -- can you tell from this page whether

20 you had any involvement in this investigation?

21 A. Yes, because we operated as a team. There were a lot of objects

22 that we analysed simultaneously and it would happen that a case would be

23 dealt with -- by one person and then finished by another person. I think

24 that that is why my name is stated here and I think that we have also

25 the --

Page 15727

1 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down. Thank you.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could I ask you to slow down so that the

3 interpreters can follow you. Could you resume from where you said:

4 "I think that that is why my name is stated here" and you thought

5 that you "have also the ..."

6 Could you resume from there.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, my name is typewritten here

8 because I drafted the document. The signature is of Ekrem Suljevic, I

9 think, a member of our team because we all worked together, prepared the

10 document, and co-operated. To the right is the signature of --

11 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear the name --

12 JUDGE ORIE: Could you --

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- who co-ordinated our work and

14 you have his signature and a stamp, whereby the document became official.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you repeat the name of the person who signed.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe this is Ekrem Suljevic's

17 signature.

18 MS. HARBOUR: I think the name that the interpreters didn't get

19 was the other signature.

20 Q. What is the other signature on the page, to the right?

21 A. To the right is the signature of chief of the department,

22 Mirza Jamakovic, whose signature and stamp made the document final and

23 confirmed it as such.

24 MS. HARBOUR: And if we could now turn to page 5 of this

25 document.

Page 15728

1 Q. This is a second KDZ report for a second shell as part of the

2 same incidents of four shells hitting on the 28th of August, 1995. And

3 we can see from the second paragraph that the shell hit the BKC building

4 which is on the same street, the Branilaca Sarajeva Street. How far was

5 this from the Markale site?

6 A. Approximately the same distance as the previous one you asked me

7 about, a couple hundred metres.

8 MS. HARBOUR: And if we could just go to the last page of this

9 document.

10 Q. Again, I'd like you to take a look and see if you can determine

11 whether you had any involvement in this investigation.

12 A. That is correct. As in the previous instance, my name is

13 typewritten, which confirms that I practically wrote this document,

14 entered the established facts, and due to some reason, probably my

15 absence at the moment, it was signed also by Ekrem Suljevic and the

16 authenticity and accuracy of the document was confirmed by

17 Mirza Jamakovic, the chief of the department.

18 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, I'd like to tender now both of these

19 documents that we discussed. This one is 65 ter 15722A and the prior one

20 was 65 ter 19301A.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.

22 MR. LUKIC: Now we don't have objections.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.

24 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 19301A will be Exhibit P2010 and

25 65 ter 15722A will be Exhibit P2011, Your Honours.

Page 15729

1 JUDGE ORIE: P2010 and P2011 are admitted into evidence.

2 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please have 65 ter 29162 and the last page

3 in both the B/C/S and the English.

4 Q. And, Dr. Turkusic, what we're calling up is a report of a

5 shelling on the 19th of July, 1995, where the stabiliser contained the

6 marking KB9504 and this is discussed in paragraph 52 of your statement.

7 Now, in the penultimate paragraph you can see a reference to the UTU M62

8 fuse. Could you explain for the Chamber what is the UTU M62 fuse?

9 A. The report was compiled by Ekrem Suljevic who was a member of our

10 unit and he signed it. My comment about the fact that it was an UTU fuse

11 was based on the conclusion of my colleague in view of the type of the

12 shell and the effect of its exploding immediately and causing an

13 undelayed explosion, that the fuse was mounted at the top of the shell,

14 shape-charged shell.

15 Q. So if you could just -- I'm not sure that that's completely

16 clear. If you could just tell us what is a UTU M62 fuse?

17 A. It's a fuse which is placed at the top of the shell and it is

18 adjustable so that it causes instantaneous explosion at the slightest

19 touch. It can also be adjusted so that it has a delayed effect by

20 programming a relative unknown period of delay of explosion of the shell

21 to allow it for the shell to penetrate the surface. So that is the

22 delayed fuse which are activated when you want to destroy some

23 fortifications or penetrate through an obstacle as opposed to the fuse

24 which is activated immediately on impact and which are always used to

25 destroy manpower because the explosion takes place immediately upon

Page 15730

1 contact with the surface.

2 Q. During an investigation, how would you be able to tell if a -- an

3 immediate contact fuse was used?

4 A. According to the traces on the hard surface, if the surface was a

5 hard one, its main explosive effect and the dispersion of shrapnel

6 happened at the point of impact with the surface, and the effects are

7 recognisable by the fact that in three-dimensional geometry of space the

8 place of explosion can be recognisable and an indisputable conclusion can

9 be reached that the explosion took place immediately at the moment of

10 contact with the surface.

11 Q. And how would you be able to tell in an investigation if a

12 delayed fuse was used instead?

13 A. So if the effect of the explosion is such that it causes a

14 penetration of the location or an obstacle that one wishes to destroy, we

15 can see an in-depth effect of explosion resulting in destruction of an

16 embankment or any other obstacle and its devastating effect deep under

17 the place of explosion.

18 Q. And would it be possible for a contact -- an immediate contact

19 fuse to embed in the ground?

20 A. The body of the shell fuse is made of aluminum. It is a very

21 light and soft metal. At impacting hard surface, it become completely

22 deformed and only small pieces of it can be found. So in the proximity

23 of the centre of explosion it is very soft and usually become completely

24 destroyed; however, it is possible sometimes to find some pieces

25 depending on the explosion and depending on the surface on which the

Page 15731

1 shell fell.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour, could I ask clarification of one of the

3 previous answers, whether I understood it well or not.

4 I read from one of your answers, and it is about a delayed fuse.

5 You said:

6 "We can see an in-depth effect of explosion resulting in

7 destruction of an embankment or any other obstacle and its devastating

8 effect deep under the place of explosion."

9 Did you intend to say effect deep under the place of explosion or

10 devastating effect deep under the place of impact?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that it is

12 essentially the same because there are many possible obstacles in view of

13 their mechanical qualities. However, as you said, from the moment, or

14 rather, the point of impact with the obstacle, one does recognise this

15 in-depth destructive effect. It is that kind of fuse. However, if the

16 contact with the surface happened instantaneously, then in depth in the

17 soil there is no such trace. It is a well-known thing that instantaneous

18 shells, when they fall into tree-tops, they are activated immediately

19 when they impact the tree-top. It does -- there is no in-depth effect.

20 It disperses within the tree-top.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for this clarification.

22 Ms. Harbour, I'm looking at the clock. Perhaps it is time for a

23 break.

24 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honour. That's fine.

25 JUDGE ORIE: If Mr. -- first of all, let's ask the usher to

Page 15732

1 escort the witness out of the courtroom.

2 [The witness stands down]

3 JUDGE ORIE: In order to prepare for any decision and any further

4 submissions on admission of the associated exhibits, Ms. Harbour, have

5 you given the full list of the documents you want to tender in this

6 context so that Mr. Registrar can already provisional prepare a list with

7 numbers?

8 MS. HARBOUR: Yes. Ms. Stewart circulated the list yesterday via

9 e-mail, and all of the documents for which there's no exhibit number

10 listed are the ones we're tendering which haven't yet been marked. And

11 then there are four at the end of the list which have an exhibit number

12 listed which have been marked "not admitted."

13 JUDGE ORIE: That's because it was announced that they would be

14 introduced through a later witness.

15 MS. HARBOUR: It's because they were found not to be inseparable

16 and indispensable from a prior witness's testimony.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

18 Mr. Registrar, do you have sufficient information to prepare?

19 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

20 JUDGE ORIE: The representative of the Registry may need further

21 contact with you, Ms. Harbour, during the break.

22 We take a break and we'll resume at 20 minutes past midday.

23 --- Recess taken at 11.59 a.m.

24 --- On resuming at 12.27 p.m.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Before the witness will re-enter the courtroom,

Page 15733

1 Mr. Lukic, inseparable and indispensable on any of these documents?

2 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, we addressed extra documents tendered

3 through this witness and I will just maintain our objections from our

4 motion.

5 JUDGE ORIE: You -- I mean there are a few issues. I think we --

6 some of them were added to the 65 ter list, if my memory serves me well.

7 Then we have the issue of the witness statement where the issue of expert

8 knowledge or expert skills applies, that's the second issue. And then

9 the third one is whether these documents are inseparable and

10 indispensable part of the statement of the witness. I was -- you

11 referred to your submissions, but I make three partition on these issues,

12 Mr. Lukic.

13 MR. LUKIC: We feel that it's introducing the documents through

14 the backdoor, so I cannot agree with that. And I would just maintain the

15 objections we had in our motion.

16 MS. HARBOUR: Can I respond, Your Honours?

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

18 MS. HARBOUR: In the Defence's response they didn't actually

19 address the issue of whether the documents are inseparable and

20 indispensable; they simply noted that they were in excess of the

21 guidance. And we also recognised that and in our initial motion made

22 arguments as to why an exception from the guidance is warranted in this

23 case to show because the documents are necessary to meet our burden of

24 proof, show a pattern of terror attacks from the same mortar batches

25 which originated from Serbia. And the documents that we presented

Page 15734

1 through this witness are all documents that he's able to and has

2 authenticated and provided relevant information about in his statement

3 which is why we submit that in addition to an exception to the guidance

4 being warranted, they are also inseparable and indispensable and meet the

5 92 ter standard.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I split it up into three issues because

7 the first we have to deal with at this moment is whether they are

8 inseparable and indispensable in relation to the statement as -- I asked

9 for it because it was not my memory that you had dealt with that

10 specifically. Are you able to tell us whether, apart from -- whether you

11 have other objections, whether you consider those documents not to be

12 inseparable and indispensable for the understanding of the statement if

13 that would be admitted?

14 MR. LUKIC: I don't understand how it comes that it is introduced

15 13 new documents if it's indispensable -- it's not separable from the

16 statement --

17 JUDGE ORIE: I think we -- that's another question --

18 MR. LUKIC: But it comes to the same question. How come that

19 they disclosed it -- I actually know now when we got 92 ter statement

20 from this witness in February 2012.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour, any --

22 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honours. Actually, this is a new

23 statement that we had to take from the witness pursuant to the Chamber's

24 instructions, and we included all of the documents that are listed as

25 associated exhibits as part of this statement and ensured that the

Page 15735

1 witness addressed sufficiently both the relevance and authenticity of the

2 documents, which does render them inseparable and indispensable from this

3 statement.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.

5 MR. LUKIC: I cannot agree. I will leave it to Your Honours.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber unanimously has decided to admit the

9 documents, all of them, into evidence. Let's go through them -- there

10 are so many. Mr. Registrar will -- has provisionally assign numbers

11 which run from P2013 up to P2042. He will distribute that list. They're

12 all admitted into evidence. We still have the four documents which

13 are -- to which numbers were already assigned, that is, P1102, 1103,

14 1107, and 1108. Those were marked not admitted.

15 Mr. Lukic, any specific submissions from those four?

16 MR. LUKIC: I cannot even follow the numbers you are giving --

17 JUDGE ORIE: Well these --

18 MR. LUKIC: I don't have it on this list. Oh, yeah, I have it at

19 the end [overlapping speakers] --

20 JUDGE ORIE: At the very end. The last four BiH report on

21 shelling, that's the first one, 21st of June; the second one, expert

22 analysis --

23 MR. LUKIC: You see, expert analysis, we exactly objected to

24 expert analysis by a fact witness. And we have objections to previously

25 admitted documents also as being expert -- expert opinions and expert

Page 15736

1 findings. So that's why we objected. And I don't know whether you

2 decided to admit those documents previously only based on that they are

3 part of the statement or you decided that they are not expert opinions

4 and expertise.

5 JUDGE ORIE: I think they were not admitted because they were not

6 an inseparable and indispensable part of the statement which was then

7 presented.

8 MS. HARBOUR: These actually were marked not admitted in the

9 context of a different witness similarly situated. Precisely Your Honour

10 considered they were not inseparable and indispensable to his statement.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

12 Any further specific observations as to the inseparability and

13 inseparability of these documents in relation to the statement of the

14 present witness?

15 MR. LUKIC: Nothing further.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Nothing further.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE ORIE: P1102 up to -- P1103, P1107, and P1108 are admitted

19 into evidence.

20 I think we have dealt with the issues you needed before we would

21 continue, but I have one other unrelated item on my agenda, that is, a

22 memorandum of the Prosecution concerning the 30th of August dead-line for

23 filing 92 bis and 92 quater motions. The Prosecution, I think, is

24 seeking leave to file two additional motions after the dead-line. Is

25 that well understood, Mr. --

Page 15737

1 MR. GROOME: That's correct, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Do you -- could you give us an indication as you

3 would still intend to file them, well, before Christmas or before --

4 MR. GROOME: Well, the first one is a Srebrenica bar table

5 motion, Your Honour. And the Prosecution intends, according to the

6 Chamber's guidance, to attempt to tender many of the documents relevant

7 to the Srebrenica portion of the case through Mr. Rick Butler who appears

8 next week. Depending on how that goes the Prosecution would be preparing

9 a bar table motion within about two weeks after that for the documents.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yeah.

11 MR. GROOME: The other bar table motion that was referred to is a

12 rather small one, but it involves documents that don't fall into the

13 clear categories that we have been creating for the other bar table

14 motions and we expect that that will be done at some time closer to the

15 end of the case. We expect to rest our case towards the middle of

16 November, so in any event nothing will happen before Christmas.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

18 Mr. Lukic, any --

19 MR. LUKIC: We don't have objections.

20 JUDGE ORIE: You don't have objections.

21 Under those circumstances, the Chamber grants the request and

22 expects of course the bar table motion related to Mr. Butler somewhere in

23 the second half of September.

24 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE ORIE: We then can move on, I think.

Page 15738

1 Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

2 [The witness takes the stand]

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Turkusic, Ms. Harbour will now continue her

4 examination.

5 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honour, before the break we were discussing

6 65 ter 29162 and I would just like to now make sure that that is offered

7 into evidence.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections, Mr. Lukic? I have to check what it

9 was exactly. Ms. Harbour -- it's still on the screen.

10 MS. HARBOUR: And it is authenticated and discussed by the

11 witness at paragraph 52 of his statement.

12 JUDGE ORIE: And it's not yet part of the list prepared by --

13 it's not.

14 Mr. Lukic.

15 MR. LUKIC: I don't know then which list I have because it is on

16 my list.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and it's the most recent list and you'll

18 receive a copy of it. Mr. Registrar will prepare for that, but this one

19 is not on the list prepared by Mr. Registrar.

20 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

21 JUDGE ORIE: It turns out that I made a mistake and perhaps

22 Ms. Bibles -- Ms. Harbour, I apologise. Apparently this one is still on

23 the list and therefore is admitted already then.

24 MS. HARBOUR: Thank you for the clarification.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.

Page 15739

1 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 29162 will be Exhibit P2012.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and appears on the list and is part of those

3 who are admitted.

4 MS. HARBOUR:

5 Q. Dr. Turkusic, I have only one more question for you. While you

6 were present on the ground to investigate the Markale II shelling

7 incident, did you make any observations about the hardness of the ground

8 where the shell impacted?

9 A. The shell fell on the road, that is, firm asphalt surface which

10 is customary in urban areas. At the point of impact - and that always

11 happens when a shell falls on a hard surface - there was a clear rose

12 pattern with shrapnel traces and a symmetry that could be used

13 excellently for determining the angle of descent, the azimuth, and also

14 the angle of descent of the shell itself. So that is what I have to say

15 about the surface.

16 Q. In particular, was -- would there be anything to distinguish the

17 shell -- the area where this shell landed from, for example, a pedestrian

18 path?

19 A. Well, places that we could call pedestrian paths are surfaces

20 that are softer and a shell usually leaves a deeper trace or impact or,

21 like in Markale I, the stabiliser that is part of the shell and it is a

22 passive body during the explosion. It was speeded up by the vacuum that

23 occurs because of the explosion and it impacted the ground even asphalt

24 because it is softer, it is meant for pedestrians.

25 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, I have no further questions for this

Page 15740

1 witness.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Harbour.

3 I'm afraid that I did not fully understand the last answer.

4 Could you -- neither did I fully understand the question to be quite

5 honest. Let's look at both.

6 Witness, you said where the shell landed was firm asphalt

7 surface. The -- a pedestrian path is usually composed of what?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understood the question to be to

9 describe the difference between a shell falling on a very firm surface or

10 if it were to fall on a surface which is actually a pedestrian path. It

11 is a well-known thing that in -- well, that's it, isn't it?

12 JUDGE ORIE: I was trying to split up various questions because

13 if you compare the two it's always good to know where we know what is the

14 composition of the surface where the shell landed. You said it was firm

15 asphalt. We do not know, however, although you qualified it as softer,

16 what is usually the composition of a pedestrian path.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a question of pure physics,

18 actually. We can have two surfaces that are of the same firmness -- I

19 beg your pardon, equally hard. However, one can be solid and

20 impenetrable and another one can be less hard and penetrable, although

21 their surfaces are equally hard. So that is the basic difference between

22 very hard and firm surfaces on which there is heavy traffic, where

23 automobiles move, and so on. And also, there can be others that can have

24 a firm surface but are otherwise not that hard because they are meant for

25 pedestrians. If a shell were to fall on both surfaces, although both of

Page 15741

1 them are the same on the surface, they are equally hard, there's going to

2 be an elastic impact and perhaps the fuse is going to bounce off. And in

3 another case there can be this plastic clash or impact, as we say in

4 physics. And then the stabiliser of the shell can pierce the surface

5 where the shell fell. It is a well-known thing that the stabiliser of

6 the shell, due to the explosion that occurred underneath it, where there

7 was a vacuum, it can be accelerated additionally and it can impact the

8 surface. Now there are two possibilities: If the surface is very firm,

9 like in this case, then it bounces off; then there is this other

10 possibility, that the surface is not hard enough and then the stabiliser

11 literally sticks into it.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you're talking about a vacuum due to the

13 explosion underneath the stabiliser element of the explosion. Would the

14 explosion only create a vacuum or would it also create a back-throwing

15 force?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ultra-fast explosions, like those

17 of TNT, happen very -- within a very short span of time. And then there

18 is an expansion, three-dimensional, pushing the parts of the shell that

19 is bursting at that point in time. That is the moment when in the centre

20 of the explosion, due to this effect of expansion, there is high vacuum.

21 This high vacuum, of course, we're talking about only parts of seconds,

22 it literally speeds up the stabiliser that is moving towards this vacuum.

23 So it is accelerated additionally. As for the other effects on the

24 surface, I've already described that. If you wish, I can make an analogy

25 which would explain these two phenomena.

Page 15742

1 JUDGE ORIE: If you can easily explain it for us, you are invited

2 to do so. Whether we are --

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very simply --

4 JUDGE ORIE: Whether we are sufficient understanding to follow it

5 is a matter still to be seen. Yes. Please --

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You will, certainly. If you take a

7 steel of same quality, you make a sheet 1 millimetre thick and a piece of

8 sheet 10 millimetres thick and you take these two sheets that have equal

9 firmness because we have the same steel, we fire from a handgun. The

10 thin sheet can be pierced by the bullet and the thicker one cannot. So

11 this is the analogy identical to the fall of a shell on a surface that is

12 of equal firmness but different hardness.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I understand that. If it's only a thin layer,

14 it may go through, whereas if it's a thick layer of the same material --

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.

16 JUDGE ORIE: -- it may stop. Now, that does not yet answer my

17 last question which was about the vacuum. You said the explosion itself

18 would create a vacuum and therefore would speed up the stabiliser fin in

19 its trajectory towards the centre of the explosion. Is that what you

20 said?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Now, apart from creating a vacuum at the centre of

23 the explosion, would in the immediate vicinity of the explosion within

24 centimetres, decimetres, would it also create a force away from the

25 vacuum and throwing everything away from the centre of the explosion due

Page 15743

1 to that explosion itself?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It has to do with the sequence of

3 events. At the point of detonation, the area expands because that is how

4 explosives operate, this sudden expansion tears the shell into small

5 pieces and throws it away from the point of impact. Shortly afterwards

6 the consequence is the vacuum by expanding the mass from this point

7 outwards and this is where the pressure occurs. Since simultaneously the

8 tail fin of the shell which is rather massive and has its inertia and

9 speed, it is moving towards the centre where the vacuum is, it gains

10 additional speed. As a result, the tail fin impacts on the surface at a

11 slightly higher speed than the speed of the shell itself.

12 JUDGE ORIE: And it is not thrown away as a first -- as a first

13 effect of the explosion, like the shrapnel pieces?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is sucked in because the

15 shrapnel have already left the location. They were pushed away by the

16 explosion and they have already gone away from the place where the vacuum

17 is created, while the tail fin, due to the fact that it's still being on

18 the move, comes under the influence of the vacuum.

19 JUDGE ORIE: And the tail fin initially is not subject to the

20 same force which pushes back the pieces of shrapnel. It is also on the

21 outside part of the explosive body of the -- body of the shell, is it not

22 subject to such a force throwing it and if it is in certain speed perhaps

23 reducing the speed of the tail fin due to this explosive effect?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The tail fin of the shell, a

25 stabiliser which is a pipe-shaped part, it has fins at its end which are

Page 15744

1 physically attached to it and they create a physical body. Both the pipe

2 and the fins make a stabiliser which is a mechanical part and that is a

3 passive part of the shell. Its role is only during the firing and the

4 trajectory of the shell. When it comes to the explosion, the entire

5 stabiliser has no active role in the impact of the shell. It has no

6 intended role.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

8 Mr. Lukic, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?

9 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I am, Your Honour. I don't know if the

10 Prosecution received a list of our documents for the cross-examination.

11 I was on line with our Case Manager and I don't know if the complete list

12 was sent or not.

13 MS. HARBOUR: We haven't received the list.

14 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you will receive it very soon.

15 MR. LUKIC: Hopefully.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Otherwise you're invited to make a hard copy

17 and provide it to Ms. Harbour. Please proceed.

18 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:

19 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Turkusic, good afternoon.

20 A. Good afternoon.

21 Q. On behalf of the Defence of General Mladic, I'm going to put some

22 questions to you. My first question is this: When we discussed some

23 issues without you, I would like to know whether you have been called

24 here as an expert witness or as a fact witness.

25 A. Well, I believe I was called to appear as a witness.

Page 15745

1 Q. In your testimony, are you presenting things that are not

2 personally known to you but come from second-hand sources?

3 A. If I'm doing that, I always emphasise that. If I'm not familiar

4 with something myself, I will say so. If there is something that I'm not

5 certain about, something in our reports, I will always say "most

6 probably" or "most likely."

7 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel kindly speak into the microphone.

8 Thank you very much.

9 MR. LUKIC: I'm trying.

10 Q. [Interpretation] The documents that you have - and you know which

11 documents I'm talking about - include the documents that you yourself did

12 not create?

13 A. That is correct. However, creating documents is a relative

14 notion. We operated as a team --

15 Q. Just a moment, please. I am talking about documents primarily

16 issued by the SUP, by public security stations, and that sort of

17 documents that you did not take part in any way whatsoever or your

18 colleagues from the KDZ.

19 A. Yes, that is correct. And these documents have been attached.

20 Q. You explained today the occurrence of vacuum. Now I'm going to

21 take a slightly reverse approach. I'm going to ask you about the charge.

22 Does it have any effect on the fact whether the stabiliser will become

23 embedded into the surface or not?

24 A. Standard charge of the shells is TNT which is initiated by fuse

25 with the booster accentuated explosion and I think that this is a

Page 15746

1 standard charge that is applicable throughout the world since the

2 Second World War. My direct answer to your question would be: It has no

3 effect.

4 Q. I don't want this to remain unclear. Maybe I did not phrase my

5 question properly. What I meant was whether the shell has primary and

6 secondary and --

7 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please pause between

8 questions and answers.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you to make a pause between question and

10 answer. And could I also invite you, when you're talking about the

11 charge, you most likely are talking about the explosive charge and we

12 have two charges. I think the one is the explosives within the body of

13 the shell and the other is the charge -- the propelling charge for the

14 shell. Could we always try to make -- if you would agree that we have

15 these two different charges, always to clearly express which charge you

16 are referring to, either in question or in the answer.

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18 Q. In accordance with the Judge's instructions, I'm going to ask you

19 about the propelling charge. Does it have any effect on the stabiliser

20 being embedded into the surface?

21 A. Yes, it does. If the angle of firing, which is a little below

22 90, if it is activated in such a manner that the charge is being

23 intensified due to a longer range, the shell will reach a higher

24 elevation due to its trajectory. From such elevation, the shell will

25 continue to flow towards the ground under the influence of gravity. If

Page 15747

1 it falls from a higher height, its acceleration becomes higher. The sum

2 of all these accelerations, the speed of the stabiliser additionally

3 increased by the vacuum would create a stronger effect by its being

4 embedded into the surface regardless of what kind of surface we are

5 talking about and we mentioned various examples of that.

6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters from the French booth are

7 kindly asking that the -- that both persons slow down. Thank you.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The interpreters are again asking us not only

9 to make a pause between question and answer, but also to slow down your

10 speed of speech.

11 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. You will notice that I am making a pause after your answer,

14 waiting for interpretation. It's not that I am being rude, but this is

15 the procedure and I am sure that you are familiar with it.

16 You answered in a specific way, but I'm going to ask you this:

17 If we take that the angle of the mortar is 50 degrees, the mortar barrel,

18 and we fire a shell with the first charge and the sixth charge, is the

19 angle of the shell going to be different in that case?

20 A. The angle of firing ...

21 Q. You may proceed.

22 A. Since this is a parabola of slanted round, the angle of firing

23 will be the same in both cases. There is some minor difference in the

24 descent angle as well, taking into consideration all the relevant

25 factors, like the height, wind, et cetera.

Page 15748

1 Q. Under such circumstances, if we have identical angles and when

2 there is no increase of the descent angle, will the charge have any

3 influence? The propelling charge, will it have any influence on whether

4 the tail fin is going to be embedded in the surface or not?

5 A. In my view, it would have relatively little influence.

6 Q. Very well. Thank you.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could I ask for a clarification. If the

8 propelling charge is considerably higher, let's say 6 instead of 1, you

9 said if the angle of fire is still the same, 50 degrees, would the speed

10 of the projectile be considerably higher upon firing if you would use 6

11 instead of 1?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it would. The higher the

13 charge, the propelling force marked by G which is the multiplication of

14 the earth's gravity, if you have more charges you have more acceleration.

15 The shell will fly out of the barrel at an increased speed consistent

16 with an increased level of charge.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would this have a result on the speed of

18 impact of that shell? Would it also -- would it also arrive at the point

19 of impact with an increased speed compared to a shell with only one

20 propelling charge -- a propelling charge of 1?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since with higher charge the shell

22 will reach a higher vertical elevation, then during free fall it will

23 travel towards the ground for a longer time and it will be subjected to

24 the gravity of a higher level and consequently would reach the ground at

25 a higher speed.

Page 15749

1 JUDGE ORIE: And would have -- would that have an impact on that

2 depth, if at all, from which the tail fin would embed in the ground?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it would in terms that the

4 stabiliser would travel at a higher speed, but it all depends on the

5 surface that it is landing upon. If you have extremely solid surface, it

6 will have no impact or influence whatsoever.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but if the surface would be the same for a

8 propelling charge of 1 compared to a propelling charge of 6, it would

9 have an impact on the speed of arrival at impact and would have an effect

10 on how the shell would embed in the ground if the surface again is the

11 same in this comparison. Would you agree to that?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I understood you correctly, if

13 we have an extremely hard surface which is practically inpenetrable for

14 the tail fin, as was the case in Markale II where we had an asphalt

15 surface, the speed of the fall of the shell and the possible embedding of

16 the tail fin into the surface would end up in this way: The stabiliser

17 would at any rate bounce off the surface in an elastic way.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I was not referring to any specific example.

19 I was just referring to the theoretical aspects of the speed of firing of

20 the projectile and the speed of arrival upon impact of the projectile.

21 But Mr. Lukic will now put further questions to you.

22 Mr. Lukic, as a result of the answers I received on my previous

23 questions, could we always also clearly distinguish between what happens

24 in a specific situation and what happens in general. Because I

25 understood the answers of the witness that with such a hard surface that

Page 15750

1 the speed might not be of great influence on embedding, but perhaps with

2 a different surface it might have such an impact. So we always have to

3 clearly distinguish between a specific situation and between questions

4 which are put in general terms.

5 Please proceed.

6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

7 Q. Let us just deal with this then. Is it correct that in your view

8 this would not be influenced in any way if the surface is susceptible to

9 the tail fin falling into it, that is to say that the charge would not

10 affect that in any way?

11 A. If the surface is a thin layer of asphalt relatively soft or if

12 it's a patch of grass, then if the shell were to arrive at a higher speed

13 it would embed itself into the surface.

14 Q. When you say "higher speed," do you mean a bigger angle of

15 descent or a higher charge?

16 A. I mean a higher charge and that directly has to do with the speed

17 of descent.

18 Q. All right.

19 JUDGE ORIE: I have to insist on a clear use of the language.

20 "Speed" is not the same as "angle of descent." "Speed" is not the same

21 as "a higher charge." They may all be related, but the speed is the

22 result of the charge, the propelling charge, used and the angle of fire

23 which is related to an angle of descent. Would you agree with that,

24 Witness?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, precisely.

Page 15751

1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So therefore let's try to use the words as

2 precise as possible, not mixing up different concepts.

3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. It seems that I didn't quite understand something here. Does the

5 charge have anything to do with the angle of descent and the angle of

6 firing -- well, that's clear. Does the charge have anything to do with

7 the angle of descent, that is to say, the angle at which the shell hits

8 the surface?

9 A. The firing of a shell, a mortar shell, substantially differs from

10 a projectile fired from a rifle or a cannon. It's rather similar to a

11 howitzer, though. The shell is fired up into the air and it falls at a

12 relatively large angle. Ballistics relates this directly to gravity.

13 During the flight of ascent of the shell and also as the shell descends

14 from the maximum highest point as it moves towards the ground. So the

15 launching charge is bigger and then there will be a greater height

16 involved and then practically at the same angle of firing the shell will

17 fall on the ground. If we were to draw the trajectory of different

18 charges, we would have a group of curves that have the same points where

19 they start and end, but the height is different.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one question in this respect. If I

21 fire a projectile with the same angle of firing that is -- well, let's

22 say, 60 degrees, is it your testimony that the projectile would travel

23 just as far if fired with one propelling charge compared to how far it

24 would travel - I'm not talking about altitude - how far it would travel

25 with six propelling charges? Is that your testimony?

Page 15752

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

2 JUDGE ORIE: You said:

3 "... the same points where they start and end ..."

4 But for different charges at the same angle of fire they would

5 not end -- they would not end at the same place. Would you agree with

6 that?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon. Slip of the

8 tongue. With a completely identical firing angle, we would have

9 different ranges with all of these trajectories. A higher charge would

10 cause a parabola that would exceed the previous ones in terms of distance

11 and in terms of height.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.

13 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic, unless you think it would be time for

14 a break.

15 MR. LUKIC: Maybe we have couple of more minutes, but maybe it

16 would be wise to be able to provide the Prosecution with the list.

17 Obviously they haven't received it yet. We have --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we could take the break now, as you wish. I

19 think we are one hour on our way since the previous break, so that is --

20 MR. LUKIC: For us it's an excellent time for the break.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Then we would ask the usher to escort the witness

22 out of the courtroom.

23 [The witness stands down]

24 JUDGE ORIE: And we'll take a break and we'll resume at

25 20 minutes to 2.00.

Page 15753

1 --- Recess taken at 1.20 p.m.

2 --- On resuming at 1.40 p.m.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.

4 Mr. Lukic, the Defence has expressed some concerns about the

5 expert type of evidence this witness gives. At the same time, you are

6 further exploring not only the evidence of matters the witness observed

7 himself but also in this expert field.

8 [The witness takes the stand]

9 MR. LUKIC: Challenging the knowledge of the witness and

10 obviously it's very poor in this field.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I'm not expressing any view on that yet.

12 That's your judgement on poverty or not. At the same time, of course the

13 witness testifies here, it's evidence, so whether -- and I'm not in any

14 way -- and we discussed it during the break among the Judges, I'm not

15 stopping you in any way of asking these questions which are related to

16 the statement, but at the same time the Chamber considers the value of

17 this witness primarily to be found in matters he observed himself and

18 investigated himself. Of course it's perhaps impossible to separate it

19 from his experience and his skills. But a focus on that might assist the

20 Chamber very much.

21 Please proceed.

22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I will go through the

23 witness statement and I will start right now.

24 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Turkusic, you are a doctor of chemical

25 technology?

Page 15754

1 A. A doctor of chemistry, doctor of science in chemistry.

2 Q. During the war -- actually, what kind of training did you have

3 before the war and during the war?

4 A. An engineer. I was an engineer of chemical technology.

5 Q. An engineer. That's why I was wondering about this. Actually, I

6 don't know if you have your statement with you. Would it be helpful if

7 you had your statement before you in B/C/S?

8 A. Yes.

9 MS. HARBOUR: I can provide that, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Immediately on the second page, that is Roman numeral II,

13 1992-1994, you said that you joined the 1st Dobrinja Brigade. At that

14 time you lived in Dobrinja as well; right?

15 A. That's right.

16 Q. Who was commander of that brigade?

17 A. Ismet --

18 Q. Was it Ismet Hadzic?

19 A. That's right.

20 Q. How many APC's did the Dobrinja Brigade have?

21 A. I don't know about that, maybe one.

22 Q. You don't know about more than one?

23 A. No.

24 Q. From the Dobrinja Brigade you moved to the centre for specific

25 production?

Page 15755

1 A. That's right.

2 Q. The centre for that production, military production, was at the

3 faculty of science and -- the mechanical faculty; is that right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. At the centre for military production, you worked on the

6 manufacturing of hand-grenades and tromblones; is that correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Where did you manufacture shells for rifle grenades?

9 A. Rifle grenades, regardless of whether they are purely explosive

10 or shape-charged, we manufactured them at the faculty of mechanical

11 engineering. That's the building right next door. The parts that were

12 manufactured there were assembled into a final product.

13 Q. At the centre for military production you worked with

14 Mr. Berko Zecevic; is that right?

15 A. Yes, that's right. He was at the centre, too.

16 Q. He was head of the centre, wasn't he?

17 A. It was Faik, Faik Kulovac or Kulovic.

18 Q. Mr. Zecevic was one of the senior personnel there; right?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Within this centre you also manufactured chemical rifle grenades;

21 right?

22 A. I'm not aware of that.

23 Q. All right. Now we're going to try to refresh your memory a bit

24 and I'm going to show you 1D1198 in e-court.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Before we move to that document, could the witness

Page 15756

1 explain to the Chamber what "shape-charged" exactly means? We just don't

2 know. You used the expression. He said:

3 "... regardless of whether they are purely explosive or

4 shape-charged ..."

5 What -- could you explain what do you mean by "shape-charged"?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me first answer to the first

7 part of your question concerning shaped charge. These shells are fired

8 from a rifle. So you have a bullet in the rifle without the bullet

9 itself, there's only gunpowder. After triggering the pressure created by

10 the powder, there is a grenade which is attached to the top of the barrel

11 and that is how it is launched. Generally speaking, this is a rifle

12 grenade.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have a question --

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now, according to the structure it

15 can be a hand-grenade, a fragmentation grenade that produces an identical

16 effect, or its structure can be such that upon impact it has a piercing

17 effect to an obstacle or an armour. Due to the low level of charge in

18 both cases these grenades are of relatively low strength and are actually

19 used only in infantry battles.

20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have a question, please. At page 69, line 22,

22 you are interpreted as having said the following:

23 "So you have a bullet in the rifle without the bullet itself ..."

24 I don't understand that. How do you have a bullet without the

25 bullet?

Page 15757

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was clear. If you imagine a

2 rifle bullet and you take the lead ball out of it and you press the top

3 you have only the gunpowder charge inside the bullet; however, this

4 gunpowder charge during firing creates pressure that will eject the

5 grenade from the top of the rifle and the rifle grenade is shaped in such

6 a way that it has a tail fin similar to that of a mortar shell in order

7 to fly through the air, it has a very small range and very small power of

8 destruction.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Where you said a bullet without a bullet, could you

10 also express it as a cartridge without a bullet mounted on it?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Without the ball. Practically,

12 that makes it a manoeuvre ammunition by the way it looks, by the way it

13 is constructed, et cetera.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We don't have a translation of this

16 document, at least we were unable to locate it, so I'm going to use it to

17 a limited extent and I'm going to ask the witness to read for us what

18 this is about.

19 Q. Can you please read the date in the incoming stamp, who the

20 recipient is, and what kind of document this is. Who is the sender?

21 A. Army of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Main Staff of the

22 armed forces, the centre for special-purpose production,

23 1st of September, 1992. The date of the document itself is the date much

24 before I joined the unit. The total number of copies, three. The title

25 is: The production of war assets in war conditions certain aspects of

Page 15758

1 unhindered production, September 1992, which is two years before I joined

2 the unit.

3 Q. When did you join the centre for special-purpose production?

4 A. If I remember correctly, 1994.

5 Q. We know that this centre was disbanded in December 1994 -- 1992.

6 A. Oh, I'm sorry. I think I joined the KDZ in 1994. I spent a

7 relatively short time working at the centre in September 1992 -- I don't

8 have that date in my memory. I don't think it's correct.

9 Q. All right. Let us look now at the next page. You can see here

10 the list of -- it says in its operations so far, the centre of

11 special-purpose production produced the following war assets, second

12 bullet point: Chemical rifle grenades.

13 A. What is your question?

14 Q. Does this remind you that during your work there, chemical rifle

15 grenades were indeed manufactured and do you know what their charge was?

16 A. I was not involved in their production and I don't know anything

17 about their charges.

18 Q. There's also special rifle grenade ammunition produced.

19 A. What are you referring to?

20 Q. Five -- fifth bullet point which says special rifle grenade

21 ammunition.

22 A. All right. What is your question?

23 Q. Would you agree that your description that for the firing of

24 rifle grenades manoeuvre ammunition was being used is incorrect, that

25 there is also a detonator cap in the special rifle grenade ammunition?

Page 15759

1 A. No. It is a well-known fact that during war games, bullets

2 without balls are being used which only have a noisy effect of firing.

3 The weight in grams of gunpowder in these cartridges is irrelevant.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please slow down. We --

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So the difference between the

7 manoeuvre ammunition and the rifle grenade ammunition basically is this:

8 The manoeuvre ammunition doesn't have the weight of gunpowder as a

9 relevant factor, whereas in special rifle grenade ammunition it is very

10 important how many grams of gunpowder are in every cartridge. It is by

11 precision weighing and re-combining the gunpowder in manoeuvre ammunition

12 and re-filling it with gunpowder one can get a standard rifle grenade and

13 that is what is called special rifle grenade.

14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Was some special type of gunpowder used?

16 A. There is no special type of gunpowder. You have gunpowder for

17 rocket motors in the form of sticks. There are gunpowder for firing, but

18 the differences between guns and mortars are only slight. The grains are

19 a bit higher and nitrocycline nitrocyloid [as interpreted] gunpowder is a

20 newer one as opposed to the old smoke gunpowder which has completely been

21 made redundant.

22 Q. Thank you. Let us now look at page 3 of this document. This is

23 this portion which contains signature. Does this refresh your memory

24 that the chief of the centre was Mr. Berko Zecevic?

25 A. The chief of the centre for research and development.

Page 15760

1 Q. So this chief of CNP is not enough?

2 A. Well, research and development is a subarea.

3 Q. Do you recognise Mr. Zecevic's signature?

4 A. It seems to be his signature, but I haven't seen it in practice

5 too often in order to be able to recognise it.

6 Q. In order for us to establish the time-line, would you agree that

7 you moved to the KDZ from this centre?

8 A. Yes, that is correct.

9 Q. Did any of your colleagues from this centre went to work for the

10 KDZ?

11 A. One of my colleagues went to the CSB KDZ in Sarajevo and I think

12 I was the only one who joined the KDZ of the MUP.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic, no speaking aloud. If you want to

14 consult with counsel, brief consultations at low volume are allowed,

15 nothing else.

16 [Defence counsel and accused confer]

17 JUDGE ORIE: Low volume, Mr. Mladic.

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. After you went to the KDZ, did you continue your co-operation

20 with Mr. Zecevic?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Did you invite him to attend the investigation after the

23 Markale I incident in February of 1994?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Now I'd like to move to paragraph 9 of your statement, where you

Page 15761

1 say that you never encountered a situation, that's the last sentence in

2 this paragraph, that you absolutely never encountered any credible

3 information that would lead to a conclusion that the Bosnian government

4 forces were deliberately targeting civilians in Sarajevo. Are you

5 familiar with the evidence given by Mr. Herenda who said and described

6 some specific situations when upon orders of his superiors he fired at

7 the Sarajevo population inside the territory controlled by the ABH?

8 A. I have never heard such a statement. In case it is completely

9 true, it does not in any case refute the last sentence of my paragraph 9.

10 Q. Did you obtain information that on the 9th of November, 1993,

11 from the territory controlled by the ABH two shells were fired at

12 ZAVNOBIH building when four boys and a teacher were --

13 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Lukic please repeat whether they were

14 killed or wounded.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you're invited to --

16 MR. LUKIC: Yeah.

17 Q. [Interpretation] I have to repeat my question --

18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the last part. Four boys and a teacher

19 were wounded or killed?

20 MR. LUKIC: Killed.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Killed.

22 Could you answer the question?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This assertion presented in the

24 form of a question is something that I am hearing for the first time and

25 I personally believe that this is only part of a propaganda campaign that

Page 15762

1 goes always hand in hand with a war by twisting the facts and this is

2 also a form of ammunition that is used in any war.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you would have answered the question by

4 saying that you hear for the first time from this. If you do not know

5 anything else, you could not possibly express any opinion about whether

6 it's propaganda or not. These general opinions are not assisting the

7 Chamber.

8 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.

9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Let us now look at Exhibit P497. That's a Prosecution exhibit.

11 We need page 5 in B/C/S and page 1 in English because along with photo

12 number 5 we only have the text in English. In your opinion, where did

13 this mortar shell come from?

14 JUDGE ORIE: The exhibit not to be shown to the public because

15 it's under seal.

16 MR. LUKIC: Sorry.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.

18 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

19 Q. [Interpretation] From up or down? And let me tell you this, the

20 street is -- just a moment, Safeta Hadzica 102. So this is area that is

21 under the control of the BH army.

22 A. The question remains as you had put it. First of all, why do you

23 claim that this is a mortar shell?

24 Q. If you disagree, do correct me.

25 A. I don't know what kind of shell this is.

Page 15763

1 Q. Irrespective of type, can you tell us whether this shell hit that

2 wall in this case in such a way that the back part of the shell was

3 underneath the shell or --

4 A. Underneath judging by the picture.

5 Q. Thank you. We just have a little bit time left. Now I'd like to

6 ask you the following: When you carried out investigations -- well,

7 first of all, did you often go to the scene itself?

8 A. As far as war conditions allowed and since no such investigations

9 were carried out in previous wars, this was the case relatively often.

10 Q. Did you personally go out on to the scene or your colleagues --

11 actually, my question was whether you spent more time on the ground or in

12 the lab?

13 A. I cannot tell. I cannot assess that. Given the war dynamic, I

14 was everywhere, I and my colleagues, and different teams were

15 established, different combinations. Reports were started and finished,

16 but at any rate we worked as a team consisting of a variety of experts.

17 So we checked each other, supplemented each other's information, and

18 tried to leave a report, an analysis, that would be as faithful as

19 possible with regard to anything that we dealt with.

20 Q. Thank you. This is the end of our working day.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, could I ask one question. I think I

22 understood the testimony, but just to be sure about that. When we looked

23 at this picture Mr. Lukic asked you whether the back part of the shell

24 was underneath the shell. I think you said underneath judging by the

25 picture. Did you mean to say from what you see on this picture that the

Page 15764

1 tail end of the shell must have been lower than the point where the shell

2 impacted on the wall? Is that how I have to understand your answer?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely. However, I have this

4 reservation in terms of this being a picture of an incident that I'm not

5 aware of. However, judging by what we see in the picture, the shell

6 would have come from down conditionally speaking. Although it is

7 possible that such traces can be left. In many cases there are

8 ricochets, so different projectiles leave different traces, but judging

9 by this picture that's what it seems to be like.

10 JUDGE ORIE: So that it would have hit the wall in an upward

11 direction. Is that ...

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With the tail turned down, yes.

13 Now, in the meantime, whether there was a ricochet or not, it amounts to

14 speculation as far as I'm concerned. I could only speculate now. I

15 really don't know.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.

17 We adjourn for the day and would like to see you back tomorrow

18 morning at 9.30. Meanwhile, I instruct you that you should not speak or

19 communicate with whomever about your testimony, whether that is testimony

20 you've given today or whether that is testimony still to be given in the

21 days following. If you've understood this well, you may follow the

22 usher.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand. Thank you.

24 [The witness stands down]

25 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day and ...