Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 3098

 1                           Tuesday, 3 February 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

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

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Good afternoon to everybody in and around the

 7     courtroom.  Madam Registrar, will you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Good afternoon,

 9     everyone in and around the courtroom.  This is case number IT-04-81-T,

10     the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Perisic.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  Could we have appearances

12     for the day, starting with the Prosecution, please.

13             MR. SAXON:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Dan Saxon for the

14     Prosecution, together with my colleagues Ms. Carmela Javier, Salvatore

15     Cannata, and Mr. Barney Thomas.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

17             And for the Defence.

18             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Good afternoon to all.  Milos Androvic, Tina

19     Drolec, Daniela Tasic, Novak Lukic, and I'm Gregor Guy-Smith appearing on

20     behalf of Mr. Perisic for the Defence.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith.  Good

22     afternoon to you, Mr. Poje.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Just to remind you that you are still bound by the

25     declaration that you made at the beginning of the testimony to tell the

Page 3099

 1     truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

 4             Mr. Guy-Smith.

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 6                           WITNESS:  JOZEF POJE [Resumed]

 7                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 8                           Cross-examination by Mr. Guy-Smith:  [Continued]

 9        Q.   Before you testified here yesterday, did you have an opportunity

10     to speak with the Prosecutor concerning the testimony you were about to

11     give?

12        A.   The last time I met with the Prosecutor was on Saturday.

13        Q.   And when you met with him on Saturday, did you have the

14     opportunity to go over your report as well as your previous testimony in

15     the Martic case?

16        A.   Yes.  During this meeting, I reviewed the documents that I

17     prepared in the case of Mr. Martic.

18        Q.   Did you have any discussions with the Prosecutor concerning

19     whether or not there was any further documentation that would be of

20     assistance to you with regard to some of the conclusions that you have

21     reached?

22        A.   No.  During this proofing session, we only worked with the

23     documents that I had already seen before and that we mentioned yesterday

24     here.  So there were no new documents that I received from the

25     Prosecution in my preparation for this testimony.

Page 3100

 1        Q.   With regard to the information that you had received before, did

 2     you at any time during the time that you were compiling your report come

 3     across the conclusions of a gentleman by the name of Rade Raseta, chief

 4     of security of the SVK Main Staff?

 5        A.   No, I did not.  I did not see any document where Mr. Raseta's

 6     name was mentioned.

 7        Q.   Were you aware of the fact during the time that you were

 8     compiling your report that there had been a fact-finding commission on

 9     the cause and manner of the fall of Western Slovenia - Slavonia, excuse

10     me.

11        A.   I only heard about that, but I did not really deal with that

12     issue.

13        Q.   With regard to the task that you had in terms of your report, you

14     said something -- you said actually two things yesterday, and I want to

15     talk to you about one of them, which is you said -- and I'm referring the

16     Court and counsel to page 3074, lines 14 through lines 20.  You were

17     asked the following question, which is:

18             "Now, would you be able to briefly talk the Court through the

19     methodology that you used to prepare the Martic report?"

20             And your response to that was:

21             "Concerning the main question in the report, the main issue,

22     which was who decided on the use of a multiple rocket-launcher Orkan, as

23     I already mentioned, I used literature mentioned earlier from which we

24     can see the following."

25             Now, my question to you, sir, is, when you said that, is it your

Page 3101

 1     position as you sit here today that the main issue in the report that you

 2     wrote in the Martic case was who decided on the use of the multiple

 3     rocket-launcher, Orkan?

 4        A.   When I studied the literature and reviewed the documents that I

 5     had at my disposal, from the documents one could see that throughout that

 6     period Orkan was under the command --

 7        Q.   Sorry, that's not my question.  My question is a very simple and

 8     direct one.  Was the main question in the report, the main issue, which

 9     was who decided on the use of the multiple rocket-launcher, is your

10     position as you sit here today that that was the main question that you

11     were tasked to deal with in your report, sir?

12        A.   The main question was the consequences of the shelling of Zagreb.

13     That was one question, and the second question was, what establishment

14     did Orkan belong to?  So that was the second question, and I had to give

15     a clear answer to those two questions.

16        Q.   Okay.  With regard to what you have just said, when you were

17     asked the question with regard to what your task was in the Martic case,

18     and I'm referring Court and counsel to page 5206, you responded as

19     follows:

20             "I would like --

21             And it's lines 6 through 18:

22             "I would like to say first and foremost the following; I'd like

23     to tell the Court this first:  The subject of my expert report was not to

24     deal with military action from February when the directive was written up

25     until May.  What my task and assignment was, that on the basis of the

Page 3102

 1     information I was given I should calculate the dispersion pattern during

 2     the shelling of Zagreb.  So I didn't deal with tactics, operation tactics

 3     or the deployment of the units themselves on either side, one or the

 4     other side.  That was not the task I was given or the assignment I was

 5     given.  I have read through all the documents, of course.  I have all the

 6     documents, but it was my task and my assignment that on the basis of the

 7     information I had at my disposal to calculate the dispersion pattern

 8     during the shelling of the 2nd and 3rd of May, 1995, to determine the

 9     dispersion pattern and to see what area is covered by that military

10     operation."

11             Is that what you testified to at that time, sir?

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

13        Q.   Thank you.  Now, with regard to the report that you have written

14     and has been the subject of some questions here - and I'm referring to

15     section 6.1 - I believe -- which is entitled, if I'm not mistaken:

16             "Who Ordered the Use of an M-87 Orkan VBR."

17             Is that the title of that section?

18        A.   Yes:  "Who Ordered the Use of an M-87 Orkan VBR."

19        Q.   Do you think that the matters we discussed yesterday concerning

20     what have been decided as adjudicated facts by this Chamber that Mr.

21     Martic ordered the use of the M-87 Orkan would be of assistance with

22     regard to the conclusion that you drew in this part of your report?

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry, beg your pardon.

24             MR. CANNATA:  I'm sorry to interrupt, but I wonder whether we can

25     clarify whether the witness is familiar with the notion of adjudicated

Page 3103

 1     facts, which has been referred to in the question of my learned friend at

 2     line 20.  I'm not aware -- I will check with the witness whether he

 3     actually knows the notion of adjudicated fact by a Chamber, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You want to check, or you say you will check?

 5             MR. CANNATA:  I will ask that this notion can be checked with the

 6     witness, whether he knows what an adjudicated fact is.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Do you understand the question, sir?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, I understand it.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What is it?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was aware of the judgement

11     through the media, so there is no document that I could show and say that

12     I studied a particular document which speaks of Mr. Martic being the

13     person who had ordered the shelling of Zagreb.  I did not have in my

14     possession such a document, no official document, and when I prepared my

15     report at that time, no one really knew that yet, okay?

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But sorry, I'm not yet satisfied.  I would like to

17     understand from you what you understand the term "adjudicated facts" to

18     mean.  I hear what you say about the judgement, but I'm asking about

19     adjudicated facts.  What do you understand that concept to mean?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To be honest with you, I don't

21     really know what that is supposed to mean.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

23             Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.

24             MR. GUY-SMITH:

25        Q.   Let me rephrase.  You have told us that you were aware of the

Page 3104

 1     judgement in Martic; correct?

 2        A.   Yes, I read about it in a magazine; I saw a report on TV; I saw

 3     it on the internet and so on; but I don't know any details.

 4        Q.   And if I understand your testimony, you were contacted after the

 5     Martic judgement had been rendered to testify in these proceedings.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Cannata.

 7             MR. CANNATA:  Yes.  Is the witness aware of when the judgement

 8     has been rendered?

 9             MR. GUY-SMITH:  The date that the judgement is rendered is

10     irrelevant to the question just asked.  The question is whether or not he

11     was contacted after the Martic judgement, meaning after he was aware of

12     the Martic judgement, but I'll rephrase if it's of assistance.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Please do.

14             MR. GUY-SMITH:

15        Q.   After you read about the Martic judgement, were you contacted by

16     the Prosecution to testify in these proceedings; and by these

17     proceedings, I mean right here, right now, yesterday and today.

18        A.   As I said yesterday, the Prosecution contacted me about 20 days

19     ago.

20        Q.   Okay.  Now, yesterday I put some questions to you about whether

21     or not you had particular information regarding Martic ordering the use

22     of the M-87 Orkan rockets.  Do you remember me doing that?

23        A.   Yes, I remember.

24        Q.   And you told us that that was -- for the most part, that was not

25     information that you had at the time that you were drafting your report;

Page 3105

 1     correct?

 2        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 3        Q.   My question to you is, had you had that information with regard

 4     to section 6.1 who ordered the use of an M-87 Orkan VBR, which is the

 5     subject matter of your report, would that information have been of

 6     assistance to you in making a determination as to who ordered the use of

 7     an M-87 Orkan VBR?  Just that.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Cannata.

 9             MR. CANNATA:  Your Honours, this question has already been asked

10     yesterday.  It's one question that has already been asked yesterday.  The

11     witness already gave his answer to the same question.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Can you give us a reference, please, Mr. Cannata.

13             MR. CANNATA:  Yes, if I have a minute to go through the

14     transcript, Your Honour.  Page 3093, and the exchange is at lines between

15     20 to 25.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Guy-Smith.

17             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Yes, I'm reading it.  That deals with a different

18     issue.  That deals with -- the question is, would that change your

19     analysis at all, sir, and my question here is, would it have been of

20     assistance to you, which is a different question.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And what was the question yesterday?

22             MR. GUY-SMITH:  The question yesterday was:

23             "With regard to the question or the issue of command and control,

24     had you been supplied with the information that Milan Martic in his

25     capacity as president of Republika Srpska Krajina and supreme commander

Page 3106

 1     of the SVK ordered the shelling of Zagreb, would that change your

 2     analysis at all, sir, with regard to the issue of command and control?"

 3             My question today is, with regard to the issue of the section

 4     entitled under 6.1, "Who Ordered the Use of an M-87 Orkan VBR," whether

 5     or not the information that Milan Martic had ordered the use of this

 6     particular device would have been assistance to him with regard to his

 7     analysis in this particular section, that being who ordered, not a

 8     question of command or control, but a question of who made the order.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Objection overruled.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Had I known earlier that Mr. Martic

11     had ordered the use of Orkan, I would have put it into my report, but

12     since I did not have that information that Mr. Martic had issued that

13     order, I only used the documents that I had at my disposal, such as the

14     directive, orders for reporting, the increasing of combat readiness,

15     where it is explicitly stated that the tasks will be assigned to an organ

16     by the commander of the Main Staff or Colonel Dilas, and that is what I

17     put in my report.

18             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I understand your answer, I understand why you

19     did what you did, and I thank you for your candour, and I have no further

20     questions.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

22             Any re-examination, Mr. Cannata?

23             MR. CANNATA:  Yes, Your Honour.  One small matter, please.

24                           Re-examination by Mr. Cannata:

25        Q.   Sir, good afternoon.

Page 3107

 1        A.   Good afternoon.

 2        Q.   I have one question for you this afternoon.

 3             Now, even if the shelling at Zagreb was aiming at military

 4     targets, even assuming that, would the Orkan rockets be suitable for

 5     firing on targets in a populated area such as Zagreb?

 6        A.   Because of blatant errors in the preparation of the initial

 7     elements, even if the preparation of the initial elements was complete,

 8     because of the great impact dispersion, I think that it was not normal to

 9     choose this weapon Orkan as the weapon to shell military targets in

10     Zagreb.

11             I calculated the impact dispersion of Orkan, and my calculation

12     was that it would have been 40 to 45 kilometres, and 1.278 times 1.384

13     metres, about 1.3 square kilometres, in other words.  This means that a

14     part of these rockets would fall or land on targets that are not military

15     targets.  They would land in the city itself, and, again, I want to say

16     that if the -- there was the intention to shell Zagreb, the right weapon

17     had not been selected.

18             MR. CANNATA:  Thank you very much, sir.  I have no further

19     questions, Your Honour.  At this stage, I will tender Mr. Poje's report

20     into evidence, which is 65 ter 4892.  Thank you.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.

22             MR. GUY-SMITH:  The Defence has no objection to the introduction

23     of Mr. Poje's report exclusive of issues concerning command and control

24     and exclusive of issues of who ordered -- section 6.1, who ordered the

25     firing of the M-87 Orkan for, if no other reason, the very simple reason

Page 3108

 1     that the gentleman has told us that had he had that information, he would

 2     have included it in his report, and it would have been the basis for his

 3     conclusion with regard to a relatively important issue concerning

 4     command, control, as well as the actual ordering of this particular

 5     device.  So with regard to this particular issue and another, we object

 6     to the introduction of the report.

 7             We are mindful of the Chamber's ruling in this regard as to what

 8     weight it will attribute to this particular area, and if the Chamber is

 9     inclined to have the report come in in its entirety so as not to hack it

10     up, then we would encourage the Chamber to give these conclusions, once

11     again with regard to the issue of command and control, no weight

12     whatsoever, but that's obviously an argument for another day.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Indeed.  I don't understand why this argument is

14     coming up at this time.  The report, then, is admitted into evidence.

15     May it please be given an exhibit number.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P497.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.  Any questions, Judge?

18             Thank you very much, Mr. Poje.  That brings us to the end of your

19     testimony.  I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for taking

20     the time to testify at the Tribunal.  You are now excused.  You may stand

21     down.  Please travel well back home.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

23                           [The witness withdrew]

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Cannata.

25             MR. CANNATA:  Your Honours, Mr. Thomas will take the next

Page 3109

 1     witness, and if I may be excused.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You are excused.

 3             MR. CANNATA:  Thank you.

 4             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you, Your Honours.  The Prosecution calls Mr.

 5     Turkovic, please.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 7             MR. THOMAS:  I should indicate, Your Honours, that Mr. Turkovic

 8     is a 92 ter witness.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

10                           [The witness entered court]

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Good afternoon, sir.

12             THE WITNESS:  Good afternoon.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May you please make the declaration.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

15     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

16                           WITNESS:  VEKAZ TURKOVIC

17                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  You may be seated.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr. Thomas, is there a statement by Mr. Turkovic?

21             MR. THOMAS:  There are two transcripts from his testimony in the

22     Dragomir Milosevic case, sir.  There is reference in those transcripts to

23     previous statements, but it's not intended to tender those as part of his

24     92 ter package.  There are some minor issues of clarification that I can

25     raise with him which would remove the need for those statements to also

Page 3110

 1     be admitted into evidence, sir.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I just wanted to know whether we have them or not.

 3     That's all.  Thank you so much.  You may proceed, Mr. Thomas.

 4             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you, sir.

 5                           Examination by Mr. Thomas:

 6        Q.   Mr. Turkovic, can you start, please, with your full name and your

 7     date of birth?

 8        A.   My name is Vekaz Turkovic.  I was born on the 24th of November,

 9     1972, in Sarajevo.

10        Q.   And what is your current occupation?

11        A.   I'm a computer programmer.

12        Q.   And during the war in Bosnia did you spend time as a crime

13     technician with the Sarajevo Security Services Centre, the CSB?

14        A.   Yes, that's right.

15        Q.   And related to your time as a crime technician and your duties as

16     a crime technician, did you testify in the case here against Dragomir

17     Milosevic?

18        A.   That's correct.

19             MR. THOMAS:  Your Honours, could we please have 65 ter 09398 on

20     the screen, please.

21        Q.   Mr. Turkovic, if you look at the top of that document we can see

22     that it is dated the 25th of April, 2007, and if we could go to --

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Thank you.

25             MR. THOMAS:  And if we could go to the next page, please, Mr.

Page 3111

 1     Usher.

 2        Q.   And do you recognise that as the commencement of your testimony

 3     given in the Dragomir Milosevic case?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Did you have the opportunity yesterday to review this transcript

 6     of your testimony on the 25th of April, 2007?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Is the transcript true and correct?

 9        A.   It is.

10        Q.   And if you were asked the same questions today, would your

11     answers be the same?

12        A.   Yes.

13             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you.  Your Honours, if that could please be

14     tendered as a Prosecution exhibit.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It is admitted.  May it please be given an exhibit

16     number.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P498.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

19             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you, Your Honours.  Thank you, Madam

20     Registrar.  Could we please have 65 ter 09399 on the screen, please.

21     Thank you.

22        Q.   Mr. Turkovic, again, we can see that it is dated the 28th of

23     April, 2007.

24             MR. THOMAS:  Madam Registrar, if we could -- Mr. Usher, I'm

25     sorry, if we could please have the next page.

Page 3112

 1        Q.   Again, sir, do you recognise that as the continuation of your

 2     testimony on the 26th of April, 2007?

 3        A.   I do.

 4        Q.   Did you have the opportunity yesterday to review the contents of

 5     this transcript?

 6        A.   Yes, I did.

 7        Q.   And is it true and correct?

 8        A.   Yes, it is.

 9        Q.   And if you were asked the same questions again today, would your

10     answers be the same?

11        A.   Yes, they would.

12             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you, Your Honours.  Again, if this could

13     please be tendered as a Prosecution exhibit.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It is so admitted.  May it please be given an

15     exhibit number.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P499.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

18             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you, Your Honours.  Thank you, Madam

19     Registrar.  There are three associated exhibits, Your Honour.  If they

20     could please also be tendered at this stage.  The first is 65 ter 01405,

21     which is referred to in the transcript as Prosecution Exhibit P00603.

22     That's the exhibit number in the Dragomir Milosevic case.  I'm sorry,

23     Your Honour.  Do we need the other two exhibits at this stage, or does

24     that need to be given an exhibit number before I move on to the other

25     two?

Page 3113

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Is this the exhibit?  You haven't asked about any

 2     exhibit to be given exhibit numbers.

 3             MR. THOMAS:  First, there are three exhibits referred to within

 4     the transcript, but this --

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sure.  I'm waiting for it to come on the screen.

 6     Were you not calling it?

 7             MR. THOMAS:  The first is 65 ter 01405.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Right.  So we're waiting for that --

 9             MR. THOMAS:  On the screen.

10        Q.   Mr. Turkovic, do you recognise that as the official report of the

11     incident that you referred to in your testimony that we have just

12     reviewed, the air-bomb incident of 1 July, 1995?

13             MR. THOMAS:  Sorry, we might need the next page of the B/C/S,

14     please, Your Honours.  Thank you.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I recognise it.

16             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you, Your Honours.  This is the exhibit

17     referred to in the transcripts as Exhibit P00603, and if that could

18     please be tendered in this case as a Prosecution exhibit.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  65 ter 01405 is admitted.  May it please be given

20     an exhibit number.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P500.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

23             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

24     The next exhibit please, 65 ter number 03307.

25        Q.   Mr. Turkovic, do you recognise this as the forensic investigation

Page 3114

 1     report related to the same incident?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you, Your Honours.  If this -- sorry, this is

 4     the exhibit referred to as P00604 in the Dragomir Milosevic testimony.

 5     If this could also be tendered as an exhibit in this case.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It is admitted.  May it please be given an exhibit

 7     number.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P501.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

10             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you, Your Honours.  Madam Registrar, could we

11     please have Exhibit 65 ter number 01383 on the screen, please.  Sorry,

12     01383B on the screen, please, and if we could scroll through, please, to

13     the next page.

14        Q.   Mr. Turkovic, do you recognise these as the photographs you took

15     in relation to this incident?

16        A.   Yes.

17             MR. THOMAS:  Your Honour, these photographs are referred to as

18     Exhibit P00605 in the Dragomir Milosevic testimony.  Page 4 of this

19     exhibit has already been tendered in this case as a Prosecution exhibit,

20     so if we could please tender pages 1 to 3 and 5 as a Prosecution exhibit

21     in this case, please.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  They are so admitted.  May they please be given an

23     exhibit number.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P502.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  Yes, Mr. Thomas.

Page 3115

 1             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you, Your Honours.  I have a very brief

 2     summary of the testimony contained in the admitted transcripts and

 3     exhibit, so if I could read that at this stage.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You may.

 5             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you.

 6             During the war in Bosnia, Mr. Turkovic worked as a crime

 7     technician for the Security Services Centre or CSB in Sarajevo.  His area

 8     of responsibility included Hrasnica, Butmir, Sokolvici Kolonija, and the

 9     Igman road.  Mr. Turkovic's duties included examining crime scenes and

10     collecting physical evidence.  Around 80 per cent of the crime scenes he

11     examined were caused by shelling, sniping, or other wartime activity.

12     Mr. Turkovic investigated the scene of an air-bomb incident which

13     occurred in Bunicki Potok Street, Hrasnica, on 1 July, 1995, and this,

14     Your Honours, is scheduled incident A8.  Thirteen people were injured in

15     the incident, two of them seriously.  Mr. Turkovic determined that the

16     air-bomb struck one building before ricochetting and exploding on Bunicki

17     Potok Street.  He determined the source of fire to be VRS-held territory

18     of Ilidza.

19             And finally, Your Honours, I have just have a few questions by

20     way of clarification and addition relevant to the materials that

21     constitute the 92 ter package.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes.

23             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you.

24        Q.   Mr. Turkovic, firstly, I want to expand a little bit on your

25     background, as it is relevant to your work as an investigator.  Were you

Page 3116

 1     living in Sarajevo when war broke out in 1992?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   After war broke out, did you join the military police?

 4        A.   I did.

 5        Q.   And during your time in the military police, did you receive you

 6     any training, or did you acquire any experience in investigation?

 7        A.   Yes.  I was trained as a crime scene technician, and the training

 8     lasted for six months.  I think it was completed in 1993.

 9        Q.   Just in general terms, can you explain to Their Honours what that

10     training consisted of?

11        A.   Well, the training consisted in training crime scene technicians

12     how to gather, secure, and transport all evidence from crime scenes as a

13     result of different types of crimes that were committed there.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry.  I'm sorry.  I don't understand that

15     answer.  "... training consisted in training crime scene technicians how

16     to gather, secure, and" -- oh, I beg your pardon.  Thank you.

17             MR. THOMAS:

18        Q.   At what stage did you join the civilian police, the CSB?

19        A.   To tell you the truth, I don't remember the date.  I can explain

20     the circumstances, but I truly don't remember the date.

21        Q.   At the time you investigated this air-bomb incident in Hrasnica,

22     had you commenced your work with the CSB?

23        A.   Yes, I had.

24        Q.   Do you know or can you give us your best indication of how long

25     you think you had been with the CSB at the time you investigated that

Page 3117

 1     incident?

 2        A.   For a year or two, according to my recollection, but I don't

 3     remember exactly.

 4        Q.   Now, what methodology would you adopt when you would arrive to

 5     investigate the scene of a shelling such as occurred on 1 July 1995?

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Is that still background?

 7             MR. THOMAS:  It is still background, but it's obviously now

 8     becoming linked to the 1 July incident, Your Honour.  So he has tendered

 9     a report relating to 1 July, and I just want him to clarify what steps he

10     took to reach the conclusions that appear in that report.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And that was not covered in the Milosevic case?

12             MR. THOMAS:  No, Your Honour, because they tendered the

13     statement, and it's referred to in the statement.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You may proceed.

15             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you, sir.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Is it my turn?  Well, mostly when

17     it came to shelling we would immediately proceed with the investigating

18     the crater itself.  Most often they hit the ground with shells, so we

19     would analyse craters, and typically we would determine the types of

20     weapons.  Normally, there were mostly two types of shells that hit

21     Sarajevo.  Some were not of rotational nature, if I may say so.  I

22     apologise.  Depending on the weapon that launched them, the shells would

23     either rotate as they flew and thus maintain their trajectory and at the

24     end produce a very typical crater that we would call a rose.  That was

25     one type of shell.  And then there was a different type of shell that

Page 3118

 1     didn't rotate but had stabilising wings that would stabilize it during

 2     the flight.  I apologise.

 3             Those are two main categories of shells that landed on Sarajevo.

 4     So that was the first item we would determine.  Following that, based on

 5     the position of the crater and the centre of it, the rose that was

 6     produced as a result of the explosion and various shrapnel, based on

 7     that, we would establish approximately the direction, the direction from

 8     which the shell had arrived.

 9        Q.   Now, you've mentioned a rose.  Can you explain to us what that

10     is?

11        A.   A crater normally had a rose-like appearance.  It was similar to

12     a rose, even though it sounds bizarre, but that's how it looked.  So

13     there was a centre of the crater, and then around the crater, since

14     normally shells arrived at an angle, there would be damage produced by

15     shrapnel behind the crater, and that was in the flower-like shape that we

16     called a rose.  I can give more details if necessary.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Let's get clarification.  Does the bomb that has a

18     stabilizer and that doesn't rotate, does it also make a rose?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course.  Since all shells

20     come at an angle, most shrapnel land behind crater, and in that case the

21     crater is of a different shape.  Normally, it's shaped as a letter V, and

22     it's opposite from the direction in which the shell had arrived.  The

23     rotating shells produced smaller roses due to the rotation of the shell.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Mr. Thomas.

25             MR. THOMAS:

Page 3119

 1        Q.   Was this the same methodology you applied in your investigation

 2     of the 1 July 1995 air-bomb incident in Hrasnica?

 3        A.   Based on the experience and based on that methodology, yes, but

 4     in this case there was no crater, at least not in the final location

 5     where the explosion occurred, so we had to do it a bit differently.

 6        Q.   So can you explain to us what you did differently?

 7        A.   To tell you the truth, there was very little that was different

 8     except that there was no crater.  We came across rocket mortars that were

 9     under the ground.  We tried to find a bomb, but there was no crater, and

10     it seemed as though the bomb had not exploded there.  We thought that the

11     unexploded bomb landed in that yard and that there was another one that

12     landed on the house.  So we continued digging and failed to find a bomb,

13     even though we dug several metres into the ground.  So we concluded that

14     it was that bomb that landed there and that it ricochetted and ended up

15     on the house where it actually exploded.

16        Q.   In your report, you are able to identify a source of fire.  From

17     what are you able to identify a source of fire?

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.  I can't hear you.

19             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Never mind.  I'll let it go.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Thomas.

21             MR. THOMAS:

22        Q.   Mr. Turkovic?

23        A.   Based on two ricochets -- we assumed those were ricochets, so

24     based on those two ricochets we were able to establish the trajectory of

25     the bomb, and it indicated approximately the source from which it was

Page 3120

 1     launched and the final location where it exploded.

 2             MR. THOMAS:  If we could please have, Your Honours, Exhibit P500

 3     on the screen, please.

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 5             MR. THOMAS:  And the pages I'm looking for are page 3 in both the

 6     English and B/C/S versions, the second to last paragraph in the English

 7     version and the final paragraph in the B/C/S version.  Thank you, Mr.

 8     Usher.

 9        Q.   Mr. Turkovic, in the report that we have on the screen, in the

10     third line down of the English version, there is the finding that:

11             "... the projectile had been fired from the aggressor's positions

12     in the north, the surrounding area of Ilidza."

13             I just want to ask you, please, who held those positions?  Who is

14     the aggressor in that context?

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Where are you reading, sir, on this page?

16             MR. THOMAS:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.  It's the second-to-last

17     paragraph.  It's the sentence that begins:

18             "After the arrival at the site ..."

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.

20             MR. THOMAS:

21        Q.   Mr. Turkovic, you can see there that the finding is that the

22     projectile had been fired from the aggressor's positions in the north,

23     the surrounding area of Ilidza.  My question is, who was the aggressor?

24     Who held those areas?  Who are you referring to?

25        A.   That area was under the control of the Army of Republika Srpska

Page 3121

 1     as they were called at the time.

 2        Q.   Thank you.

 3        A.   You're welcome.

 4        Q.   Finally, you've mentioned in your transcript and in these

 5     documents certain areas and locations.  So that the Trial Chamber when

 6     they later consider this material can visualize where you're talking

 7     about, I want to just refer you to a map and point out some of these

 8     locations, please.

 9             MR. THOMAS:  Your Honours, if we could please have Exhibit P439

10     on the screen, which is map 8 in the Court binder, Your Honours.

11        Q.   Mr. Turkovic, it's a little bit difficult to see, but you would

12     recognise that as a map of Sarajevo?

13        A.   Yes, yes.

14             MR. THOMAS:  If we could have the bottom left-hand quarter

15     enlarged, please, and if we could scroll down a little bit, please, Mr.

16     Usher.  Down, please.  Thank you.  That's fine.

17        Q.   First of all, we've spoken of Hrasnica.  Do you see Hrasnica on

18     that map?

19        A.   Yes, roughly in this area here.

20             MR. THOMAS:  I'm going to ask Mr. Usher to give you an electronic

21     pen so that you can mark the screen for us there.

22             THE WITNESS: [In English] Thank you.

23             MR. THOMAS:

24        Q.   And if you could mark that with the number 1, please.

25        A.   [Marks]

Page 3122

 1        Q.   You then spoke of Ilidza being your findings as to source of

 2     fire.  Could you please mark Ilidza on the map?

 3        A.   [Marks]

 4        Q.   And if you could mark that with the number 2, please.

 5        A.   [Marks]

 6             MR. THOMAS:  And, Your Honours, if that map could please be

 7     tendered as an exhibit.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Before it is, I would like to know what is the

 9     target, if he can show us the target that was hit.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Number 1.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Number 1 is the target?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  The map is admitted into

14     evidence.  May it please be given an exhibit number.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P 503.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry.  It is 439, isn't it -- oh, yes.  503,

17     sorry.

18             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

19     And finally, if we could have Exhibit P439 on the screen, please.

20        Q.   You mention other areas of responsibility in your transcript.  I

21     just want to record those for completion on the map, please.  The first

22     was Butmir.  Do we see Butmir on the map?

23        A.   Yes, approximately.

24        Q.   Could you mark that for us, please.

25        A.   [Marks]

Page 3123

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Again, if you could put the number 1 next to that

 2     indication.

 3        A.   [Marks]

 4        Q.   And the second area with which you were concerned in your area of

 5     responsibility was Sokolvici Kolonija.  Do we see that area on the map?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Could with you mark that area for us, please?

 8        A.   [Marks]

 9        Q.   Thank you, as number 2.  Thank you.  And finally, the Igman road,

10     can you draw a line on the Igman Road, where it was within your area of

11     responsibility?

12        A.   I apologise.  The Igman Road goes up Mount Igman, but the most

13     interesting portion of the road was the one close to Hrasnica, so I will

14     only mark that portion.

15        Q.   Thank you.

16        A.   [Marks]

17        Q.   If you could mark that number 3.

18        A.   [Marks]

19        Q.   Thank you.  And if could you just explain to Their Honours why

20     this was the most -- sorry, interesting or important was the word you

21     used.

22             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Interesting.

23             MR. THOMAS:  Interesting.  Thank you, Your Honour.

24        Q.   Why was this the most interesting part of the road?

25        A.   Because that's where most incidents occurred because it was under

Page 3124

 1     direct fire from the Army of Republika Srpska from two sides, so most

 2     incidents occurred there.  Humanitarian convoys were frequently hit and

 3     similar incidents.  The other hand, on the other side of this part there

 4     was no incident, there was no -- there was a fire, I believe, and that's

 5     why I said this portion at the foothills is more interesting.

 6             MR. THOMAS:  Thank you, sir.  Thank you, Your Honours.  If that

 7     could please be tendered as a Prosecution exhibit.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  It is admitted.  May it please be given an exhibit

 9     number.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, Exhibit P504.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

12             MR. THOMAS:  And Mr. Usher, thank you.  That completes the

13     assistance that we need from you at this point.

14        Q.   And finally, Mr. Turkovic, was this the first air-bomb incident

15     that you had been involved in?

16        A.   It was not the only one, but whether it was the first one, to be

17     frank, I can't recall the date.  I don't know if it was the first one,

18     but it wasn't the only one.

19        Q.   How many air-bomb incidents, air-bombs landing in ABiH-held

20     Sarajevo were you involved in or were aware of?

21        A.   Do you mean how many of them do I know of or how many of them was

22     I directly involved in?

23        Q.   Well, either through your direct involvement or otherwise, how

24     many do you personally know about?

25        A.   I think about 7 or 8 altogether, approximately.

Page 3125

 1        Q.   And which forces, to your knowledge, used air-bombs?

 2        A.   The Republika Srpska army.

 3             MR. THOMAS:  Mr. Turkovic, thank you.  Those are the questions I

 4     have for you at this stage.  My learned friends will have some questions

 5     for you, if you would kindly wait there.  Thank you, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Thomas.  Yes, Mr.

 7     Guy-Smith.

 8                           Cross-examination by Guy-Smith:

 9        Q.   When you received your training in the military police for

10     purposes of becoming a crime scene technician, you studied photography;

11     true?

12        A.   Yes, that was part of the course.

13        Q.   Crime scene examination?

14        A.   Yes.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry, we can't hear.

16             MR. GUY-SMITH:

17        Q.   Finger-print examination?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   You learned to draw scene plans and how to locate and save

20     evidence that was found at the scene; true?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   And you did do some studies of ballistics and fire-arms; correct?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   You also studied the handling of blood samples and blood traces;

25     correct?

Page 3126

 1        A.   Correct.

 2        Q.   With regard to the studies that you did concerning ballistics,

 3     how long did you study ballistics in the 6-month course that you took in

 4     which you learned all of the subjects that we just talked about?

 5        A.   We studied ballistics as one subject where what we studied was

 6     mechanical traces in general, and I don't know how long this took because

 7     we spent quite a lot of time on this.

 8        Q.   And how would you define the study of ballistics?  What would you

 9     be studying precisely?

10        A.   Well, I would like to clarify something, if I may.  The CSB at

11     the time --

12        Q.   Excuse me.  The question is a simple one.  How would you define

13     ballistics, the study of ballistics, since it's something that you've

14     told us you studied.  How would you define it?

15        A.   As I said, ballistics was studied as part of a course on

16     mechanical traces in general, and this was just gaining some basic

17     knowledge on ballistics, about ballistics, which was not really quite

18     extensive in view of the time that we had at our disposal.  So we didn't

19     really possess a lot of knowledge on ballistics, but what we did was

20     collect traces and analyse them.

21        Q.   And with regard to the issue of fire-arms, because you've told us

22     that you did do some studies --

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   -- of ballistics and fire-arms, with regard to your study of

25     fire-arms, what did you study?

Page 3127

 1        A.   Well, the first thing that comes to mind, for instance, was the

 2     penetration of a bullet through a material, for instance, through glass;

 3     we would learn how to determine the direction from which the bullet was

 4     fired.  But the final analysis was performed it at the MUP itself, not at

 5     the CSB.  We were the ones who actually just provided the first opinion,

 6     and the experts in MUP gave their own final analysis and opinions.

 7        Q.   I apologise.  We may have been speaking at cross purposes.  It

 8     was my understanding that the subjects that you studied you did when you

 9     were in the military police; correct?

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the counsel please speak into the

11     microphone.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but the training was held by

13     the MUP, the civilian police, for us members of the military police -

14     there were five of us - and then later on we were transferred to the

15     civilian police.

16             MR. GUY-SMITH:

17        Q.   I'm just referring for the moment about your military time.

18     We'll speak about your civilian time shortly.  But just with regard to

19     your military time, the training that we've been discussing is training

20     you received while you were in the military; true?

21        A.   Yes, but it was provided we were trained by the civilian police,

22     and as military policemen we were guests, as it were, there.

23        Q.   With regard to your duties after you were trained in the subjects

24     you've outlined here - photography, crime scene examination, finger-print

25     examination, the drawing of scene plans, how to locate and save evidence,

Page 3128

 1     and some studies of ballistics and fire-arms, as well as the handling of

 2     blood sampling and blood traces - you went back into the military police

 3     as an active military police officer; correct?

 4        A.   While I was in training, yes.

 5        Q.   And you --

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the counsel please speak into the

 7     microphone.

 8             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I apologise.

 9        Q.   And you became an investigator, and you were responsible for

10     investigating black-marketing, property crimes, and even drug dealing;

11     correct?  You have to speak into the microphone; otherwise you don't have

12     --

13        A.   [In English]  I'm waiting for interpreter.

14        Q.   Fine.

15        A.   [Interpretation] Yes, crime -- general crime.

16        Q.   I noticed that you just responded to me in English.  You

17     understand English very well, do you not?

18        A.   [In English] Yes, I do.

19        Q.   And as a matter of fact, you were not only an interpreter for an

20     American company, but you were an interpreter for the United Nations

21     during the war in Sarajevo; is that correct, or was it after the war in

22     Sarajevo?

23        A.   [Interpretation] After the war.

24        Q.   Were you engaged in simultaneous interpretation?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 3129

 1        Q.   Okay.  Now, with regard to the issue of black-marketing, you say

 2     you investigated black-marketing, could you tell you Chamber what kinds

 3     of material you investigated with regard to black-marketing in the

 4     military police?

 5        A.   It was -- they were so-called crimes.  Perhaps you find that

 6     funny, but that's how it was.  For instance, people were arrested because

 7     of trading with UNPROFOR even if only an egg was exchanged or some

 8     chocolates.  So those were the cases, minor or of a greater scope or

 9     scale.

10             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Well, after we return from the break, we can

11     discuss those crimes of a greater scale.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  We'll take a break and come back at 4.00.  Court

13     adjourned.

14                           --- Recess taken at 3.29 p.m.

15                           --- On resuming at 4.00 p.m.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.

17             Yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.

18             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you, Your Honour.

19        Q.   With regard to those crimes concerning black-marketing that were

20     of a greater scope or scale, did you have occasion to be involved in any

21     investigation of crimes - black-marketing, that is - with regard to the

22     movement of ammunition or guns?

23        A.   Not that I can remember, no.

24        Q.   Fuel?

25        A.   There were probably cases of trading fuel with UNPROFOR, but to

Page 3130

 1     be honest, I can't really recall.  There was a lot of that.

 2        Q.   There was a lot of what, trading fuel with UNPROFOR?

 3        A.   Yes, yes, fuel.  Not only with the UNPROFOR, but there were also

 4     a lot of thefts of fuel and generally in this whole area of trading fuel.

 5        Q.   When you are referring to thefts of fuel, those are thefts of

 6     fuel by military soldiers stealing fuel from the army, or are you talking

 7     about something else?  Because as I understood your jurisdiction, it was

 8     a jurisdiction dealing with the military.

 9        A.   Yes.  Yes, but frequently, perpetrators were soldiers so that

10     many of those cases were such that they were under our jurisdiction.

11        Q.   With regard to the issue of --

12             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the counsel please speak into the

13     microphone.

14             MR. GUY-SMITH:

15        Q.   With regard to the issue of black-marketing of ammunition, were

16     you involved in any investigations of black-marketing concerning

17     ammunition with the ABiH?

18        A.   I think that you've already asked this, and my answer is no, not

19     that I can recall.

20        Q.   Okay.  Would it refresh your recollection if I were to tell you

21     that you left the military police in December of 1993 to join the

22     civilian police force?  Does that sound right to you?

23        A.   Yes, but it doesn't help jog my memory as to ammunition commerce

24     or trading, if that's what you meant.

25        Q.   Understood.  I've moved on.

Page 3131

 1             When you left -- when you left the military police and you moved

 2     on to the civilian police force, you were, as I understand it, for

 3     approximately a year, what I call a street cop.  You worked on -- right?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   So that would take us to about December of 1994, which is when

 6     you joined the centre for public security, the CSB; right?

 7        A.   Yes, that's true.

 8        Q.   And that is the same CSB that you received training from when you

 9     were in the military; correct?

10        A.   The federal ministry organised the training, but it was in the

11     same institution.  In other words, the CSB today is cantonal, and the

12     federal ministry was providing training.

13        Q.   And your function when you joined the CSB was that of a crime

14     technician which is similar to the function that you were trained for in

15     that 6-month training period; correct?

16        A.   That's precisely what I was trained to do.

17        Q.   With regard to the issue of locating and saving evidence that was

18     found at the scene, what were you taught in that regard?

19        A.   The protection of traces, their transport, and, of course,

20     recovery and study on the spot itself.  Nothing specific.

21        Q.   Okay.

22             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Could we -- I'm going to move to another subject.

23     Could we please have P503 up on the screen.  We're all waiting now.

24        Q.   Looking at the area that you've circled and marked with a number

25     1, which I understand is the area of Hrasnica?

Page 3132

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Could you please tell us how -- what the distance is that area

 3     that you've marked covers?

 4        A.   Do you mean the circumference that I drew here or the distance of

 5     point 2 to something else?

 6        Q.   I mean the distance that is contained within the circle that

 7     you've marked as number 1, and it would be, I think, probably diametre,

 8     not the circumference.

 9        A.   All right.  I think it's about 1 kilometre, a bit less, maybe.

10     I'm not absolutely certain.

11        Q.   Okay.  We're going to have to take this off the screen because

12     each exhibit has its own specialness.

13             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Could we please have P439, the map, up.  And if

14     we could enlarge that area, I'd appreciate it.  Great, thank you.  And if

15     we could enlarge the general area around -- yes, the bottom left-hand

16     side where the gentleman has identified the area of Hrasnica.  If you

17     could make that a bit bigger, please, and maybe a titch bigger if you

18     could do it one more time.  I'd appreciate it.

19        Q.   Now, with regard to -- I'm going to need the help of the usher.

20             Do you have in your mind's eye the area that you circled.

21        A.   Mm-hmm.

22        Q.   Okay.

23        A.   Could you just scroll it down a bit, please.  Thank you.

24        Q.   Looking at that area, there seem to be a fair number of black

25     markings, and looking at the -- about in the middle of the screen,

Page 3133

 1     there's some markings that are relatively large that are in black.  Do

 2     you see those?  Are you with me?

 3        A.   I don't know what you are referring to.  I'm sorry.

 4        Q.   If you were to go to the very top of the map, and if you were to

 5     go over 1, 2, 3 squares where it says -- 1, 2, 3, 4 squares, the square

 6     past the one that says Butmir, and you come directly down 1, 2, 3, 4

 7     squares, there's an area where there are a number of black markings.  No,

 8     down further and to your right.  Yes.

 9             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'm going to ask the usher if he could erase

10     those other marks at the moment.  Thank you, much.

11        Q.   With regard to the area that you've just circled there, could you

12     identify what those buildings were, during the time that you were engaged

13     in your investigation in July of 1995?

14        A.   I wouldn't know.  I think these were some factories, some plants,

15     but I'm not sure.

16        Q.   When you say factories, plants, but you are not sure, do you

17     recall whether they were operating factories or not?

18        A.   I think they weren't, but I'm not sure.  I think that this is

19     approximately where the line of defence was, but I'm really not sure.

20        Q.   And when you say line of defence, would you be referring to the

21     line of defence between the two armies, that being the ABiH and the VRS?

22        A.   Yes, but I would like to stress that I'm really not certain, but

23     I think it was in that area somewhere.

24        Q.   Can you tell us as you are looking at this map and in this

25     general area approximately where the line of defence was?  I understand

Page 3134

 1     you're really not certain, but can you give us a rough idea of where it

 2     was?

 3        A.   All I can say is that it was approximately in the area of these

 4     factories, but I really can't be more specific.  I'm sorry.

 5        Q.   All right.  Could you then perhaps -- then what would be helpful

 6     is if you could -- if we could erase this or if you could just draw a

 7     circle about the general area of approximation of where the line of

 8     defence was, I'd appreciate it, since it will cover both the issue of the

 9     factories as well as the line of defence.

10        A.   I really cannot indicate the line of defence because I really

11     don't know.  I think the factory was mentioned when people talked about

12     this thing, where the line of defence was; people discussed this, but I

13     think I really couldn't give you any more specific description.

14        Q.   Very well, then.  Just put a circle around the factories.

15        A.   [Marks]

16        Q.   And mark that with an "F" for factories.

17        A.   [Marks]

18        Q.   Thank you.  Now, once again looking at this same map, do you know

19     whether or not in the area that you've marked as an "F" there were any

20     buildings that were inhabited by the ABiH?

21        A.   I don't know.  I really don't.

22        Q.   Moving over one square to your left, you'll notice that there is

23     in that particular square, among other things, an area that is marked

24     with an oval.  Do you know whether or not there were any buildings

25     located in that area that were inhabited or used by the ABiH?

Page 3135

 1        A.   I think that these are residential buildings here.

 2        Q.   So your answer would be that you don't know whether or not any

 3     buildings in that area were inhabited by the ABiH; correct?

 4        A.   I don't know.  I really don't.

 5        Q.   Once again, could you do me one more favour, which is, do you see

 6     that part of the Igman Road that you testified to earlier as being

 7     interesting on this particular map?  Could you mark that for us, please?

 8        A.   [Marks]

 9        Q.   And with regard to -- could you put an -- I'm sorry, could you

10     put an "IG" there for Igman Road?

11        A.   [Marks]

12        Q.   Thank you.  And with regard to the area that you've marked with

13     an "IG" for Igman Road, do you know whether or not there were any

14     positions, military positions of the Bosnian army along that area of the

15     Igman Road that you've marked as being interesting?

16        A.   I passed through that area a couple of times, and I don't think

17     that there were any significant positions or any buildings or anything of

18     the sort belonging to the army.

19        Q.   You've used the term "significant."  How do you define that term,

20     sir?

21        A.   I was just placing it in the context of your question.  I meant

22     to say relevant.  That was the context that I placed it in.  So one

23     couldn't see any soldiers; one couldn't see any buildings, facilities, or

24     anything of the sort.  I would more often come across UNPROFOR in that

25     area than across soldiers of the Bosnian army.

Page 3136

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you.  Could we have this admitted as the

 2     defendant's next in order, and could we have --

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  [Microphone not activated] May it please be given

 4     an exhibit number.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D37.

 6             MR. GUY-SMITH:  And could we have the same fresh map P439 back up

 7     on the screen again, and if we could at this point make it a bit smaller

 8     so that we can get more of Sarajevo into it.  Can we get it a little bit

 9     bigger.  Great.  Thank you so much.

10        Q.   Now, looking at this particular map, while you were in the

11     military police, could you put an "X" on the map as to where your

12     military police headquarters were?

13        A.   Could you please zoom into the area that I show so that I can

14     draw in the location with more precision.  It will be easier for me.

15        Q.   Absolutely.  Could we -- what's going to happen is your circle is

16     going to go away, and we're going to have to do it again because every

17     time we move the map, it goes away, but I'm happy to do that.  If we

18     could zoom in, then, I'd appreciate it.  Is that better, or do you need

19     it larger?  You want it a little larger?

20        A.   Depends on how accurate do you need the "X" to be.

21        Q.   I'd like it to be accurate.  I think the Chamber needs accuracy

22     here.

23        A.   Could you please zoom into this area, this here.

24        Q.   Absolutely.  Is that of help?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 3137

 1        Q.   Could you mark now just with an "X" where the military police

 2     headquarters were.

 3        A.   Could you please give me a bit more time.  Thank you.

 4        Q.   Absolutely.  Take all the time you need.

 5        A.   If I recognise the bridges accurately, then I think it was here.

 6        Q.   Could you put by that "X" the letters "MP" for military police?

 7        A.   [Marks]

 8        Q.   Okay.  With the map in this condition, looking at the balance of

 9     the area that's on that map, can you identify for us -- well, let me ask

10     you another question before that.

11             In terms of being in the military police, was your area of

12     responsibility the city of Sarajevo?

13        A.   Theoretically speaking, no.  Practically speaking, yes.

14        Q.   And with regard to your area of responsibility, practically

15     speaking being yes, considering that you were in the military police, did

16     you have among other facts available to you the location of units of your

17     army that were stationed in Sarajevo?

18        A.   No, not as a member of the military police.  Those things were

19     common knowledge.  People within the city knew them.  Practically

20     everybody knew everything.

21        Q.   Okay.  That probably made your job easier in a certain sense.

22             Looking at this part of the map that we have up there, can you

23     identify for us any areas on this part of the map that were areas where

24     your army had units stationed?

25        A.   I could draw in the lines approximately, but as for barracks or

Page 3138

 1     any other military facilities, not really.  Perhaps I could remember one

 2     or two of them, but not more, especially not in this part of the city.

 3     Perhaps more to the west I could remember about two barracks, but not

 4     more than that.

 5        Q.   With regard to this area, are there lines that you could draw in

 6     approximately, understanding that, of course, it is an approximation as

 7     to where units were?

 8        A.   Let's say that this would roughly be the southern line.

 9        Q.   And could you mark that with an "ABiH"?

10        A.   [Marks]

11        Q.   And going north -- north of where the military police

12     headquarters were -- are indicated, were there any units of the ABiH

13     stationed in that area?

14        A.   That's the part I'm least familiar with in the entire town.  I

15     know the least about that particular part of the town.

16        Q.   And so I take it, then, you would not be comfortable in drawing

17     any lines north of your military police headquarters?

18        A.   No, truly not.

19        Q.   That's absolutely fair.

20             With regard to the area north of your military police

21     headquarters, were you aware, without knowing precisely where they were,

22     that there were units of the ABiH in that area.

23        A.   You'd have to be more specific as to "that area."  What does that

24     mean?  To the north, yes, but how far?

25        Q.   I'm referring to the north and only to what is contained on the

Page 3139

 1     map that you see before you right now, nothing further than that.  I'm

 2     not asking you to go outside the four corners of this particular map

 3     because that wouldn't, among other things, be fair.

 4        A.   Well, if you're asking me about the military facilities, I really

 5     don't know anything about this.  I'm not familiar with that area.  There

 6     was no need for me to come there, to work there.  I know roughly where

 7     the line could have been, but I don't know anything about the facilities

 8     there.

 9        Q.   Okay.  And when you say you know "roughly where the line could

10     have been," does this -- could you draw roughly where the line could have

11     been on the map as it's presently constituted?

12        A.   From the north, that line was further from the centre of the

13     city, so I will draw it in somewhat further, but to say that I remember

14     this with any accuracy, no.  Roughly something like this.

15        Q.   Understood.  That's understood.  And just for purposes of the

16     record, you have continued the line that was previously put forth with

17     "ABiH" on it.

18             MR. GUY-SMITH:  And could we have this marked as Defendant's next

19     in order.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  The document is admitted.  May it please be given

21     an exhibit number.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D38.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

24             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Could we have P439 up on the screen again, and

25     I'm sorry for having taken that off.

Page 3140

 1        Q.   One final question with regard to the areas that you had drawn

 2     that were -- and I understood once again that it's not definite, but

 3     areas where approximations of the ABiH were.  Did that change after you

 4     left the military police in 1993?  Is that a fair representation of the

 5     area for 1994 and 1995 when you were involved in the civilian police?

 6        A.   Are you referring to the lines?

 7        Q.   Yes, I am.

 8        A.   Yes, roughly, that's what it was.

 9        Q.   We are back at the master map again, and we've dealt with one

10     area.  Looking at the master map now, are there other areas where you are

11     aware there were ABiH units stationed or location -- stationed or

12     located?  And I'm leaving the map small for the moment because I don't

13     know whether or not you're going to want to enlarge any particular areas

14     or not.

15        A.   So the troops were everywhere where the lines were.  You know

16     about all my reservations about how accurate I can be about -- how

17     accurate I can be about all of that, and there were some facilities

18     within the lines, not right next to the lines, but more towards the city,

19     but, yes, there were some that were close to the lines that occur to me

20     right now.

21        Q.   Okay.  Should we leave the map in this particular iteration, or

22     should we change the size of it, make it bigger or smaller?  Whatever

23     works for you for the purposes of including those areas.

24        A.   Yes.  Could we increase the useful area, so we don't need to see

25     the corners that are of not much use.

Page 3141

 1        Q.   Okay.  Would you like it bigger again?

 2        A.   No, this is perfect.

 3        Q.   Okay.  And if you could engage in the same exercise that you'd

 4     engaged in with the last exhibit in terms of the other areas where there

 5     were ABiH units - to your best approximation, understood - I would

 6     appreciate it.

 7        A.   I can't be specific about this part here.  I can't be specific

 8     about any part, but this would roughly be how it was.

 9        Q.   And could you mark the line that's on the top with "ABiH 2"?

10        A.   I apologise.  Let me just say something.  I see something that's

11     quite inaccurate; that's this line here.  It was more to the west.  In

12     case if it's important, I can redraw it.

13        Q.   You mean the line you just drew?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Oh, well, let's do that.  Please, let's do that.

16        A.   [In English] Just this part, please.  Thank you.

17     [Interpretation] This is a bit more accurate.

18        Q.   If we could have that marked with "ABiH," and just put the number

19     "2" after that, and for the bottom line, "ABiH 3."

20        A.   [Marks]

21             MR. GUY-SMITH:  And could we have this marked as Defendant's next

22     in order.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  May it please be marked, as it is admitted.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D39.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

Page 3142

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:

 2        Q.   The report -- I'm moving to another subject now.

 3             The report that was made in this particular case, did you sign

 4     that report?

 5        A.   Yes.  When it comes to the report of the crime technician, then,

 6     yes, I signed that one.  There were two normally -- two reports normally,

 7     and I signed the report of the crime technician examining the scene.

 8        Q.   And by that, I take it you are referring to -- that would be --

 9             MR. GUY-SMITH:  If we could have up on the screen P500.  You know

10     what, I lied.  I don't want that.  I want P501.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's the report.

12             MR. GUY-SMITH:

13        Q.   Now, with regard to this report, you indicated that the offence

14     was committed -- and I'm referring to paragraph 4 in the English, the

15     first paragraph, you state:

16             "The missile first hit the wall of a house owned by Alija Kustura

17     ..." and you give an address number.  "Then the ground and the yard of

18     this house ricochetted and exploded at Bunicki Potok Street hitting the

19     next house."  Right?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Now, with regard to the issue of the trajectory of this

22     particular missile, were you able to determine what was the angle of

23     deflection after it hit the first house?  Because you mentioned there was

24     a ricochet, so there's some angle.

25        A.   Now, you are really asking me a lot.  I wouldn't be able to say

Page 3143

 1     exactly what the angle was.  I couldn't even say what it was roughly.

 2        Q.   And since it ricochetted -- as I understand it, it ricochetted

 3     twice from what I understand, that would mean that after it ricochetted

 4     the first time and there was some angle of deflection, whatever it may

 5     be, when it hit the second time and ricochetted, then there would be a

 6     second angle of deflection, correct, of some nature?

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Sorry, where do we have it that it ricochetted

 8     twice?

 9             MR. GUY-SMITH:  In his testimony.  Page 46.  Thank you.  Line 22

10     -- I'm sorry, page 22, line 25.

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Page?

12             MR. GUY-SMITH:  22, line 25.  In response to a question asked by

13     Mr. Thomas at page 22, line 18:

14             "In your report, you were able to identify the source of fire.

15     From what are you able to identify as a source of fire?"

16             "A.  Based on two ricochets -- we assumed those were ricochets,

17     based on those two ricochets, we..." something, "... the trajectory of

18     the bomb, and it indicated the source at which it was launched and the

19     final location where it exploded."

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You said page 22, line?

21             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Question is at page 22, line 18 and 19, and the

22     answer begins on page 22, line 25.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

24             MR. GUY-SMITH:  And continues to page 23, lines 1 through 3.

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you, Mr. Guy-Smith.

Page 3144

 1             MR. GUY-SMITH:  You're welcome, Your Honour.

 2        Q.   Now, with regard to, once again, the issue of ricochet, what you

 3     were able to determine was that there was a ricochet, but the angle of

 4     deflection was something that you were not able to determine?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Okay.  When you were taking the courses that you were taking in

 7     your military police training as a crime technician, did you take any

 8     courses or receive any information with regard to the issue of deflection

 9     angles and ricochets with regard to the -- with regard to ballistics in

10     general and with regard to missiles in specific?

11        A.   I don't remember that they talked to us about that.  Maybe they

12     did, but I don't remember.

13        Q.   Did you receive any on-the-job training with regard to the

14     physics of ricochet, deflection, and trajectory?

15        A.   If I can say that this is a simple conclusion here, a simple

16     finding between the two points of ricochet, what we assumed was ricochet,

17     using basic human knowledge without any expertise, it is possible to

18     establish the direction from which the shell arrived.  So it's not an

19     expert type of a finding or anything of the sort.

20        Q.   And to the extent that your finding is based upon your knowledge

21     of where you believed there to be an aggressor position, as you've

22     defined it, that is one of the matters that weighed heavy in your

23     determination of this conclusion; is it not?

24        A.   Could you please repeat your question.

25        Q.   Sure.  And to the extent that your finding is based upon your

Page 3145

 1     knowledge of where you believed there to be an aggressor position, as

 2     you've defined it, that is one of the matters that weighed heavy in your

 3     determination of this conclusion; is it not?

 4        A.   The direction from which the bomb or the shell arrived, whatever

 5     you want to call it, roughly determined the direction was clear, and it

 6     had nothing to do, nothing to do with where the aggressor's positions

 7     were.  Such type of weapons simply had to be located in the aggressor's

 8     territory because people in Sarajevo generally knew what kind of weaponry

 9     was in the hands of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and this type of

10     machinery, if I can call it that, would have definitely been observed

11     within the territory.  When it comes to this particular shell, the

12     finding was rather clear.  One could rather clearly determine from which

13     direction the shell had arrived, not its exact trajectory, but the

14     direction, yes.

15        Q.   When you were taking the classes that you were taking on

16     ballistics, were you trained that what people generally knew or believed

17     to be was a basis upon which to make a determination with regard to a

18     crime scene?

19        A.   Either allow me to read the question one more time or repeat it,

20     whatever you prefer.

21        Q.   Whatever works for you, sir.

22        A.   Then please let me read it one more time.  No, of course not.

23        Q.   Okay.  One final matter.

24             When you -- well, let me preface that, and I ask you this

25     question:  You seem like a gentleman with a good memory.  Is that fair?

Page 3146

 1        A.   Well, I wouldn't really think so, especially where we are talking

 2     about things that happened 15 years ago.

 3        Q.   And would you take the position that your memory was better 15

 4     years ago, obviously, than it is today, then?

 5        A.   Do you mean about this particular incident?

 6        Q.   Absolutely.

 7        A.   But of course it would be fresher then.

 8        Q.   And with regard to the issue of the correction that you made in

 9     your testimony concerning what you'd said previously in your statement

10     concerning seeing an air-bomb, your statement was made in 1997; correct?

11        A.   That I had seen the bomb?  I think my statement was given much

12     later, when I came here in the year 2000.

13        Q.   Would it refresh your recollection if I told you that your first

14     statement was given on the 10th of March, 1997, and at that time you were

15     interviewed by Stephen R. Upton with the interpreter of Umihana Prguda?

16        A.   I don't remember the names, but I do remember giving a statement

17     in regard to this.

18        Q.   And then you gave a second statement, correct, and that was a

19     statement that you gave in 2006, I believe, the 25th of April, 2006?

20        A.   I thought it was 2007, but it's possible.

21        Q.   Okay.  What I'm trying to get at is this so I have an

22     understanding of something.  When you gave your statement in 1997, after

23     you gave your statement, did you have a chance to read that statement?

24        A.   Probably, but I don't really remember.

25        Q.   Okay, and did you have a chance when you gave that statement to

Page 3147

 1     see whether or not there were any corrections that needed to be made to

 2     the statement at that time?

 3        A.   Well, since that is standard procedure, I assume that that's how

 4     it transpired, but I can't remember really.

 5        Q.   And when you say it's "standard procedure," I take it you have

 6     some familiarity in the taking of witness statements by the Office of the

 7     Prosecutor?

 8        A.   Generally speaking of statements, yes.

 9        Q.   Just so we're clear, did you ever operate as an interpreter when

10     you were working with the United Nations as an interpreter for the Office

11     of the Prosecutor while they were taking statements of witnesses?

12        A.   No.  I mainly worked for the police, the international police.

13        Q.   And what organisation would that have been?

14        A.   The IP, IPTF as part of the UN.

15        Q.   And how long -- for how long a period did you do that?

16        A.   I think for three and a half years, but I'm not absolutely

17     certain.

18        Q.   That obviously shows why you are familiar with the methodologies

19     of taking statements.

20             With regard to your statement when you gave it in 1997, you think

21     you probably had a chance to review it but you have no specific memory of

22     that?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   And had you had a chance to review it and you'd seen something as

25     glaring as an error of seeing something as opposed to hearing something,

Page 3148

 1     that's something that you certainly would have corrected at that time; is

 2     it not?

 3        A.   Well, if you allow me to give an answer that would not be

 4     strictly yes or no, I would like that.

 5        Q.   Well, can you give me an answer yes or no and then explain

 6     yourself?

 7        A.   Yes.  Yes, certainly.  All I wanted to say is when I was here the

 8     last time when I gave the statement, I was not sure that I had seen the

 9     bomb.  In other words, 12 to 13 years had already passed and I really

10     can't remember, but I do remember the incident.  I remember the friend I

11     was with near the airport.  He was standing guard at the military police

12     somewhere, and I remember that we followed that bomb, but I really don't

13     remember whether I've seen it or not.  So that is why I changed my

14     statement, but I'm sure that we heard it.  But whether I saw it or not, I

15     really can't tell.  I'm not sure.

16        Q.   Okay.  And with regard to the issue of the last time that you

17     were here, are you referring to the last time you were here when you

18     testified?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Because in 2006, you once again confirmed that you had seen this

21     air-bomb being launched?  Do you recall that?  So you said it in 1997,

22     and then you said it again in 2006.

23        A.   I remember that I said that we followed the flight of this bomb,

24     but whether I ever stated that I saw it being launched, I really can't

25     remember that I ever said anything like that.  Maybe I did.  But I think

Page 3149

 1     if that is so important, maybe it would be a good idea to call the friend

 2     who was with me then.  Maybe his memory is better of this incident.

 3        Q.   Well, I'm just trying to understand that which you remember and

 4     that which you don't and that which you've told people on previous

 5     occasions because when you made this first statement in 1997, at that

 6     point you were attempting to be as truthful and accurate as you possibly

 7     could be; right?

 8        A.   But of course.

 9        Q.   Sure.  And when you made the statement again in 2006, once again,

10     you didn't all of a sudden deviate from that position and decide that you

11     weren't going to be truthful and accurate; correct?  Once again, you were

12     trying to be truthful and accurate; right?

13        A.   That I was speaking the truth both times, that is for sure, and I

14     never tried to lie in any of these cases.  If I could not remember

15     something in 2006, I could not really claim that I could remember because

16     I wasn't sure, and I assumed that my memory in 1997 of this event was

17     fresher than later on, and I really can't claim that I saw something if I

18     can't remember it, so that's honestly how it is.

19        Q.   I understand.  Just so you're clear in 2006, and I'll refresh

20     your recollection.  See whether this refreshes your recollection as to

21     what you said.

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Would the counsel please speak into the

23     microphone.

24             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Yes.

25        Q.   "I would like to state here that sometime at the latter part of

Page 3150

 1     June 1995 when I was travelling with a friend from Dobrinja to Hrasnica

 2     through the tunnel, we stopped at the entrance to the tunnel at Dobrinja.

 3     Suddenly, I saw something being launched into the air from the direction

 4     of Ilidza, and there was a terrible screaming sound as this object shot

 5     through the air."

 6             Now, that is the statement that you ultimately corrected in your

 7     testimony; right?

 8        A.   All right, yes.

 9        Q.   Okay.  Can you tell us as you sit here today with regard to

10     memory, to your memory, what happened?

11        A.   In respect of what you've just read, I can say several things,

12     one of those being that I was with a friend who was standing guard near

13     the tunnel.  We never went through the tunnel.  I remember that.  I also

14     remember that I jumped into a ditch that was near the house because we

15     heard the screaming sound of this bomb, and it was really scary, and

16     that's about everything that I can remember as I sit here.  I assume that

17     my memory was better in 1997 because only a couple of years had elapsed

18     and maybe it was more precise then, but I really cannot claim it today

19     because I can't remember it.

20        Q.   Well, the way that you corrected your testimony when you

21     testified was as follows.  What you said was:

22             "We followed the sound of the bomb, but we didn't actually see

23     it.  Similarly, you can follow an aeroplane judging by its sound,

24     although you can't see it."

25             MR. GUY-SMITH:  And for the Court and counsel, that's page 5177,

Page 3151

 1     lines 21 through 23.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I remember this very well.

 3             MR. GUY-SMITH:

 4        Q.   So clearly, you made a determination that the information that

 5     you had given on two occasions previously was inaccurate.  I'm not saying

 6     that you were trying to mislead anybody, but it was inaccurate; right?

 7        A.   I'm not saying that it was inaccurate.  I'm just saying that I

 8     cannot remember it now as I sit here, nor could I remember it when I gave

 9     the last statement in 2007 or 2006.  I thought that it would be sort of

10     bold to claim this at that time because at that moment I really could not

11     remember.  I could not bring it up in my memory, that image.  In that

12     sense, that's what I mean.  I could not claim something that I wasn't

13     absolutely sure was correct.  I don't know; maybe in 1997 when I gave my

14     statement I did remember it, but I cannot claim that today.  This is my

15     impression today, and this is why I made this statement and why I'm

16     changing it now because that is the thing that I'm pretty certain of.  As

17     for the rest, I really am not.

18        Q.   Do you have any idea as you sit here today what accounts for the

19     marked difference in your memory from seeing something to not seeing

20     something?

21             MR. THOMAS:  Well, with respect, Your Honours, that's a question

22     that's been asked in different ways on several occasions, and the answer

23     has been given as best as it can be given on several occasions, and with

24     respect --

25             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Point taken.  Point taken.  Point taken.  I

Page 3152

 1     always find memory to be fascinating, so perhaps I'm a bit off point.

 2             If I could have but a moment.

 3             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You have it.

 4                           [Defence counsel confer]

 5             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Thank you very much for your time.

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much, Mr. Guy-Smith.

 7             Mr. Thomas.

 8             MR. THOMAS:  No re-examination, Your Honours.  Thank you.

 9             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you very much.  Judge?

10                           Questioned by the Court:

11             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I have a few questions just to clear my own mind,

12     and I think Exhibit P500 might help.  I'm not quite sure.  I hope that's

13     the correct one.  Can we bring it up, please.  Can you scroll down a

14     little bit.  I want to see the second paragraph.

15             Mr. Turkovic, I just want to confirm with you that when you make

16     the statement you made at page 22 today, lines 9 and 10, I thought it was

17     with respect to this report.  I don't know how -- are we able to help the

18     witness to see page 22, line 10?  Can you see page 22, sir?

19        A.   I can't see the page number.  I see the beginning of the official

20     report, the first page.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  I think you should be able to see it now.

22     Can you see it?  At line 10 -- well, let's start at line 7.  You say:

23             "To tell you the truth, there was very little that was different

24     except that there was no crater."

25             And can you correct me?  If you look at the whole answer that you

Page 3153

 1     gave there, were you then speaking about the report that was just shown

 2     on the screen?

 3        A.   I apologise.  This was a report compiled by an investigator.  It

 4     wasn't my report.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  What do you see on your screen?  Do you see a

 6     report, or do you see the transcript of today's proceedings?

 7        A.    I see the report.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You see the report.  That's funny.  I'm on

 9     e-court, and I'm seeing the transcript.  Okay.  On the other screen, do

10     you see page 22?

11        A.   Yes.

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Do you see line 9, starting from line 9?

13        A.   Yes.

14             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Now, when you gave that answer, were you speaking

15     about this report that you are seeing on the other screen?

16        A.    It was about -- yes, I spoke about the same incident.

17             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Now, the thing is, in the transcript you say:

18     "... except that there was no crater."  Do you see that at line 10?

19        A.    Yes, I remember saying that.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But on the report, it looks like you are saying

21     that there was a crater.  Can you see the report?

22        A.   I can see the report.  This was the report submitted by an

23     investigator.  It wasn't my report.  That's one.  Secondly, I don't know

24     what I referred -- what was referred to as "crater" here.  Maybe it was

25     the crater where the second ricochet occurred.  So we could say that

Page 3154

 1     there was a crater there, and that's the spot where we dug later on, and

 2     the final place where the bomb landed was the house, which is where the

 3     bomb impacted and exploded, and I think there was no crater there at the

 4     final destination.

 5             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I thought the report that deals with two ricochets

 6     is P501, not P500.  Can I get help here?  This incident, does it also

 7     have two ricochets?  Because the two ricochets you referred to were

 8     clearly relating to what has been marked as P501, the report that was

 9     brought by that counsel when he was asking you questions.

10        A.    All right.  But there were two reports:  There was my report as

11     the crime technician onsite and the investigator's report.  That's the

12     report we see on the screens.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I see.

14        A.    This was the report prepared by the inspector who actually

15     conducted the investigation, the onsite investigation.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You didn't do any onsite investigation?

17        A.    Yes, but I did not take part in the writing of this particular

18     report.  My report was in the crime scene technician's report from the

19     site, and this is the inspector's report.

20             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I see.  So this report and the other report are

21     talking about the same incident?

22        A.    Yes.

23             JUDGE MOLOTO:  And your testimony is that there was no crater

24     like you told us today?

25        A.    As far as I can remember, as I sit here, I think there was no

Page 3155

 1     crater at the point of impact.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  Thank you so much.  Let me move to the next

 3     point.  The next point where you talked about the two ricochets.  I want

 4     to find out from you how -- I know you've told us about the methodology

 5     for finding out directions, the direction from where the shell may have

 6     come.  My question to you is:  Where there is a ricochet, and in

 7     particular when the ricochets are two, how do you determine the direction

 8     of the source of the shell?

 9        A.    In this case, based on the points that we assumed to have been

10     the ricochet points.  As I said in my earlier evidence when I was here in

11     another case -- testifying in another case, we assumed originally that

12     there were two bombs, and that's how we started our onsite investigation.

13     However, as we did not find two bombs, we came to the conclusion that

14     there were probably two ricochets, which seemed improbable even then to

15     us, but that was the only thing that it was pointing to.  So based on

16     these points, we estimated the direction from which the bomb had come

17     without any precise or any accuracy when this issue is concerned.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But my question is what methodology do you use

19     under those circumstances?  Surely you don't just come there like I would

20     come, a person without training and look and say, oh, it ricochetted, it

21     ricochetted, therefore it must have come from this direction.  You must

22     base it on some, I don't know, your training or experience that you

23     already have, and I just want to get an explanation if you do have a

24     methodology that you use under those circumstances.

25        A.   First of all, I need to say that this was a unique case of this

Page 3156

 1     type that we found an air-bomb that ricochetted.  This is a bomb that is

 2     at least 100 kilograms heavy, so that we did not have any earlier

 3     experience with ricochets in this particular type of situation.

 4     Secondly, there were four to five policeman who were present during the

 5     onsite investigation, one of them being the anti-sabotage chief and an

 6     investigator, and then as we examined the scene together, we came to this

 7     conclusion.  We concluded that it must have ricochetted because there

 8     were no traces of bursts of explosion at the first two points of impact.

 9     We only found some damage on a house, and on another spot we found these

10     rocket motors that were dug into the ground, and we did not find the bomb

11     itself there.  So only on the basis of this did we assume that it

12     ricochetted again.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Would it be fair to say the short answer to my

14     question is you personally -forget about the other people that were with

15     you - you personally had no methodology for determining the origin of the

16     bomb?  Is that your short answer?

17        A.    I apologise.  I have to answer no because of these two

18     ricochets, and that is why my answer was so lengthy, and that -- in

19     explaining how we came to the conclusion that there were two ricochets.

20     Based on these two spots, it could be determined where the bomb had come

21     from, so I can't say that it was based on nothing, our opinion as to

22     where the bomb had come, but as for my opinion being an expert opinion

23     based on some earlier experience, well, I can't really claim that.

24             JUDGE MOLOTO:  But I hear you, Mr. Turkovic, and you say your

25     opinion as to where the bomb had come was not based on nothing, and

Page 3157

 1     that's what I'm asking you.  What was it based on?  You.  Don't speak for

 2     the other people.  If you say they knew better and they made the

 3     determination, you don't know how, I'll accept that, but I want to know

 4     whether you had any methodology.

 5        A.   [No interpretation]

 6             JUDGE MOLOTO:  You didn't have?  Okay.

 7        A.   [Interpretation] I apologise, if I may just add something.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, please.

 9        A.    The assessment as to the direction of where the bomb came from

10     -- had come from was based on the two ricochet points because that points

11     to the trajectory from point A to point B, and this also is an indication

12     as to where it had come from.  That is my opinion, and this was the

13     generally accepted opinion.  We all agreed on that, the ones who were

14     there.

15             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay.  You then asked -- you gave an acronym IPTF.

16     What does it stand for?

17        A.   [In English] International Police Task Force.

18             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.  And today at page 54, lines 9 to 12,

19     you say:

20             "I don't know.  Maybe 1997 when I gave my statement I did

21     remember it, but I cannot claim that today.  This is my impression today,

22     and this is why I made this statement and why I am changing it now

23     because that is the thing that I am pretty certain of."

24             My simple question to you is, what actually is your impression

25     today?

Page 3158

 1        A.   Do you mean in respect of this bomb?

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mm-hmm.

 3        A.   As I said a few moments ago, I remember the sound produced by

 4     this bomb.  I remember that I first jumped seeking shelter.  My friend

 5     remained above because he allegedly -- I think he said that he had

 6     already heard the sound and he knew what it was.  I remember that after

 7     this, I got out of the ditch and that we sort of observed or followed the

 8     movement of this bomb.  I can't remember now.  I think that this bomb

 9     that we followed did not even explode.  I know that we found several

10     unexploded bombs.  I remember one particularly clearly.

11                           [Trial Chamber confers]

12             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

13             JUDGE DAVID:  I would like to ask you one question in relation to

14     your answer to the Defence.  It is at page 48, point 3 to 10, and in line

15     10, you said:

16             "When it comes to this particular shell, the finding was rather

17     clear.  One could rather clearly determine from which direction the shell

18     had arrived, not the exact trajectory, but the direction, yes."

19             And then in other parts of your testimony, you were saying that

20     your methodology doesn't come from refined knowledge of ballistics or

21     complicated trajectory points but, rather, from practical know-how, that

22     you make inferences, very simple inferences as to from the factual

23     situation to extract some empirical generalisations that are not of a

24     logical complex nature but are instrumentalist to orient your

25     conclusions.  Am I correctly assessing what you do?  Is that what -- did

Page 3159

 1     I interpret well what you wanted to say?

 2             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Excuse me, Your Honour.  I do hate to interrupt,

 3     but I'm not particularly clear about what you are saying right now except

 4     that from what I understand you're leading the witness to a particular

 5     answer, which is a bit problematic to me based upon the evidence that the

 6     witness has given thus far.  I do hate to interrupt, but I'm not

 7     particularly clear with regard to the question that you're asking.

 8             JUDGE DAVID:  Mr. Counsel, my question is very simple.  I am

 9     trying to distinguish between two levels of knowledge in order to

10     understand well the position of the witness.  One is a level of

11     theoretical generalisations of complex nature, and the other are the

12     practical conclusions of somebody who has been taught elementary systems

13     for knowing the direction of a trajectory, and I am not leading the

14     question, and as Judge I could ask all the questions I need to in order

15     to clarify the situation of the witness.  It's not for the counsel to

16     lead the Judge, but the Judge could ask all the questions without any

17     limitations in order to ascertain the truth in the knowledge of what is

18     saying.  So I do not accept, Mr. Counsel, what you said.

19             MR. GUY-SMITH:  With all due respect, Your Honour, I think that

20     you and I both wish to obtain the same result.  The fact that --

21             JUDGE DAVID:  Then you cannot say that I'm leading the witness.

22     I am just asking a simple question.  I want you to retract those words.

23             MR. GUY-SMITH:  The fact of the matter is that based upon the

24     evidence that this witness has given, Your Honour, this witness has not

25     indicated that he has been taught elementary systems for knowing a

Page 3160

 1     trajection -- for knowing a direction of a trajectory; and with regard to

 2     the fact that that is part and parcel of what you have included in the

 3     question that you have asked this witness, to the extent that -- and

 4     which is why I said in the first instance that I was a bit confused, to

 5     the extent that we are attempting to get a clear and concise

 6     understanding of what the witness has said, it is for that reason that I

 7     was concerned with regard to the question being asked because I found it

 8     personally -- and I mean no offence to you whatsoever, Your Honour, and I

 9     really don't.  I hope --

10             JUDGE DAVID:  We disagree completely.  My questions were oriented

11     to distinguish two levels of knowledge, because he has asserted during

12     his position continuously that he has no refined training, that he was

13     just instructed in how to ascertain the direction of a projectile based

14     on simple inference as to crater and other orientations, so this I wanted

15     for my own knowledge to ask.  I was not leading the question for your

16     benefit.  It was the benefit of me and of the Bench.  So I want you to

17     accept those points that you ask the Judge that why I was leading the

18     question.  And second, please learn that the Judge has no limitation in

19     asking these questions, and it's done only for the fairness of the trial,

20     beyond any interest on your position or the position of the Prosecutor,

21     and please learn not to interrupt me with nonsense questions.

22             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Excuse me, Your Honour.  Once again, with all due

23     respect, did I not mean any disrespect whatsoever, but for purposes of

24     representing my client and for purposes of making sure that we get to the

25     very issue that we all are concerned about here, which is, in fact, the

Page 3161

 1     truth, there are times when it is necessary for counsel to rise.  I come

 2     from a tradition where that is allowed --

 3             JUDGE DAVID:  I know about tradition.

 4             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I come from a tradition where that --

 5             JUDGE DAVID:  I've been a professor at a law school for many

 6     years in the United States.

 7             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I'm well aware of that, Your Honour.  I come from

 8     a tradition where that is allowed.  Once again, I say to you most

 9     sincerely, I meant no disrespect whatsoever, but I in seeing the question

10     that you asked was confused by it and was concerned.  I, too, although I

11     am an advocate for General Perisic, I, too, am interested in obtaining

12     the truth.  That is my function among others in these proceedings, and

13     let there be no misunderstanding about that.

14             JUDGE DAVID:  There is a misunderstanding on your part.  It has

15     been a misunderstanding on your part.  My question was not but to assert

16     the clearness and my own understanding of the situation, you know.

17             MR. GUY-SMITH:  Well, to the extent that I misapprehended your

18     question, I do apologise.

19             JUDGE DAVID:  I accept your apologies.

20             MR. GUY-SMITH:  To the extent that I was concerned about it, I

21     will, if I find it necessary to rise, I will rise, but at no point in

22     time that I ever rise do I mean any disrespect to any member of the

23     Bench.  I never have in the entire 30 years that I've been practicing

24     law, and I never will.  I hold you all in great respect, and it is not my

25     intention at all to insult you or to upset you.  However, where I find

Page 3162

 1     that there needs be rising for purposes of dealing with my client's

 2     interests, I will do so.

 3             JUDGE DAVID:  The Judge in this instance acted only in the

 4     benefit of a fair trial because the Bench had to understand completely

 5     and fully the situation of every moment of this process.

 6             MR. GUY-SMITH:  I appreciate, Your Honour, and so did I.  I was

 7     trying to do the same thing.  I was not -- certainly not trying to do

 8     anything but that, and to the extent you've taken umbrage, once again, I

 9     say I do apologise.

10             JUDGE DAVID:  I accept your apologies.

11             MR. GUY-SMITH:  No insult or disrespect was intended, but the

12     concern was there.

13             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Let's take a break and come back at quarter to.

14                           --- Recess taken at 5.24 p.m.

15                           --- On resuming at 5.48 p.m.

16             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Are there any questions arising from the questions

17     by the Bench, starting with the Prosecution.

18             MR. THOMAS:  No, sir, thank you.

19             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Defence?

20             MR. GUY-SMITH:  None, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you so much.

22             Mr. Turkovic, that brings us to the conclusion of your testimony.

23     Thank you very much for taking the time off to come and testify at the

24     Tribunal.  You are now excused, and you may stand down.  Please travel

25     well going back home.

Page 3163

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

 2             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Thank you.

 3                           [The witness withdrew]

 4             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Yes, Mr. Saxon, I see you standing up.

 5             MR. SAXON:  Thank you, Your Honour.  The Prosecution does not

 6     have another witness ready to commence today.  We are prepared to

 7     commence with Mr. Bell tomorrow.

 8             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Mr.?

 9             MR. SAXON:  Bell.

10             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Bell.  Thank you very much.  In that event, court

11     adjourned to tomorrow afternoon, courtroom III, quarter past 2.00.  Court

12     adjourned.

13                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.50 p.m.,

14                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 4th day of

15                           February, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.