1 Tuesday, 24 March 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning to everybody in and around the
6 courtroom. Madam Registrar, will you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
8 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-81-T,
9 the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Perisic.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. Could we have appearances for
11 today, starting with the Prosecution.
12 MR. SAXON: Good morning, Your Honours. Dan Saxon, Lorna Bolton,
13 and Carmela Javier for the Prosecution.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much, Mr. Saxon. And for the
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. And good
17 morning to all the participants in the proceedings. On behalf of
18 Mr. Perisic today are Milos Androvic, Tina Drolec, Mr. Gregor Guy-Smith,
19 and Novak Lukic.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. Just -- yes. No, you go
21 ahead, Mr. Saxon.
22 MR. SAXON: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I may have interrupted you.
23 I was simply going to say that Ms. Bolton will call the next witness.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. Just before we do so,
25 Ms. Bolton, one or two housekeeping matters. Today we are going to sit
1 for two sessions only. I guess everybody is aware that that is almost a
2 compulsion for all Judges to attend the plenary this afternoon. And on
3 the 31st of March, again we are not sitting at all because of higher
4 profile visitors to The Hague. Okay. Madam Bolton.
5 MS. BOLTON: Good morning, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning.
7 MS. BOLTON: The next witness will be Ekrem Suljevic.
8 [The witness entered court]
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Will you please make the declaration.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
13 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You may be seated.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Bolton.
17 WITNESS: EKREM SULJEVIC
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 Examination by Ms. Bolton:
20 Q. Morning, sir.
21 A. Good morning.
22 Q. Just remind you before we get into the substance of your
23 evidence, sir, that everything we say in court today is being translated
24 and that it's necessary therefore to wait for simultaneous translation to
25 be completed before you start answering the question. Okay?
1 A. All right.
2 Q. And I'd also remind you, sir, that because we are keeping a
3 record of these proceedings, that it's always important to give a verbal
4 response to the questions and not simply nod your head or shake your
5 head. Okay?
6 A. All right.
7 Q. Sir, how old are you?
8 A. I was born on September 1st, 1959. I'm nearing the 50th.
9 Q. And I understand, sir, that in terms of your educational
10 background, that you completed high school and a post-secondary degree;
11 is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What was your post-secondary degree in?
14 A. After completing mechanical technical school in Sarajevo, I also
15 graduated from mechanical engineering, so I'm a mechanical engineer.
16 Q. And following graduation, where did you work?
17 A. Following graduation, I worked for ten years at a company called
18 Zrak that is a special purpose company in Sarajevo. And following this,
19 in 1993, I was transferred to the Republic Secretariat for the Interior
20 of [indiscernible].
21 Q. Sorry, I didn't hear the translation of the last word, the
22 interior and I don't think the translator got it either. You were
23 transferred to the Republic Secretariat for the Interior of?
24 A. In Sarajevo.
25 Q. Okay. Sorry, this is -- when you are talking about the Republic
1 Secretariat, what department are we talking about? What kind of work?
2 Bless you.
3 A. [In English] Thank you. [Interpretation] We are talking about
4 the Republic Secretariat of the Interior following which it was -- it
5 turned into a Federal Ministry of the Interior, so up until the war it
6 was a the Ministry of Interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and then after
7 the war, up until the moment it was transferred into -- or became the
8 Federal Secretariat of the Interior, it functioned in that capacity. And
9 I don't know exactly what year this transfer occurred in.
10 Q. Okay. And the Ministry of Interior, sir, am I correct that that
11 was the ministry that had responsibility for policing services?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you indicated you were transferred there in 1993. To what
14 department were you transferred?
15 A. I was transferred to the department for anti-terrorist
16 protection. Or anti-sabotage protection, that's what it's called.
17 Q. Does it have an acronym of KDZ?
18 A. Yes, the acronym is KDZ.
19 Q. And what was your position when you first joined that unit back
20 in 1993?
21 A. I came to the department for mines and explosives, following
22 which I was the chief of the department for explosives.
23 Q. When did you become the chief?
24 A. I can't recall the exact date, but it was after the war, as far
25 as I can recall. Just after the war ended, but I'm not absolutely
2 Q. That's fine, sir. In your work then with the KDZ during the war,
3 did you have occasion to be involved in conducting on-site investigations
4 involving projectiles?
5 A. I took part in the investigations. I did not conduct them
6 because they are conducted by an investigating judge, but I participated
7 in the team that conducted the investigation.
8 Q. Okay. And in terms of the on-site investigations, did you
9 investigate any incidents involving mortar shells?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Artillery shells?
12 A. Yes, artillery shells as well, and basically we conducted all
13 types of investigations, on-site investigations.
14 Q. And how about modified air-bombs?
15 A. Yes, I also participated in on-site investigations with incidents
16 involving modified air-bombs.
17 Q. Just with respect to modified air-bombs, I don't wish to go into
18 any specific details of any of the incidents, but could you tell us the
19 approximate number of modified air-bomb incidents you were involved in
21 A. Well, officially I participated in two on-site investigations
22 involving modified air-bombs. On one occasion I also went to the site
23 where a modified air-bomb had struck but it did not explode. And then we
24 also -- I also attended a site where a modified air-bomb fell into the
25 river, so we could not complete that part of the job.
1 Q. Okay. So that would appear to be approximately four in total
3 A. Yes, but we cannot really talk about an on-site investigation in
4 this event where I went after the event with a colleague because we just
5 went to check out a report that a modified air-bomb had fallen into the
6 river. And I'm not sure if there was a report prepared on that occasion.
7 Q. Okay. So that would be sort of an unofficial visit, not an
8 official on-site investigation?
9 A. Yes, you could put it that way.
10 Q. And in addition to participating in on-site investigations, were
11 you also involved in performing laboratory analyses of trace evidence
12 recovered from some of these scenes of explosions?
13 A. Yes, we did an analysis of trace evidence, but they weren't lab
14 analyses in the true sense of the word. We didn't investigate the types
15 of materiels, but we analysed the trace evidence to determine the type of
16 projectiles that had left these trace evidence. So this was not -- this
17 was done within our department. It wasn't a laboratory in the true sense
18 of the word.
19 Q. Okay. I'll come back to that in a little bit more detail later,
20 sir, I just want to talk about your role in on-site investigations first.
21 All right. What were the duties of the KDZ officers when they
22 participated in an on-site investigation?
23 A. As a general rule, the main task was to recover trace evidence on
24 the site itself. And this event where we are talking about projectiles,
25 we would have to collect all evidence remaining after this projectile had
1 hit the site where we came to do the on-site investigation.
2 At the same time, we had to determine the direction from which
3 the projectile had come.
4 Q. And how would you go about determining the direction from which
5 the projectile had originated?
6 A. Each projectile when it strikes leaves a trace on the barrier or
7 the surface that it hits, and the trace that is left behind is
8 symmetrical. And by determining the axis to determine the symmetry of
9 the trace, we determine the direction of the projectile flight. And
10 based on the evidence around the crater, we determine the direction from
11 which the projectile originated.
12 Q. Okay. So we are talking here about crater analysis; is that
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Now, you told us that you would look for -- you told us first
16 that when projectiles fall they leave an impression that is roughly
17 symmetrical or symmetrical, and then you talked about locating an axis.
18 What is the axis that you are locating?
19 A. Well, it's the symmetric axis of the trace left by the
20 projectile. In other words, the axis dividing the impression that was
21 left by the projectile. I don't know if I was clear enough.
22 Q. Okay. And if you are able to locate this, I'm going to call it
23 the axis of symmetry, what does that then tell you about the direction
24 from which the projectile originated?
25 A. This axis that we establish actually corresponds to the path of
1 the flight of the projectile.
2 Q. Is there any other evidence that you consider in determining the
3 origin or the direction from which the projectile was fired?
4 A. In order to determine the direction, as far as I know, this is
5 the only matter and way to determine the direction. In other words, this
6 axis of symmetry. And as for determining the type of projectile, then
7 you have to analyse the traces that you find on the spot.
8 Q. Okay. Let's talk about first of all when you arrive at a scene,
9 is there any difference in the appearance of an impression or a crater
10 that would be left by a mortar shell as compared to an artillery shell or
11 a modified air-bomb?
12 A. There are differences. In the case of air-bombs, which are meant
13 for destroying buildings, they produce huge craters on the impact site
14 and they destroy the buildings on which they had fallen. There is also a
15 difference between mortar and artillery shells. The impression itself
16 looks different.
17 Q. Can you -- are you able to articulate how they look different,
18 mortar versus artillery?
19 A. The impressions of mortar shells are characteristic, we used to
20 call them rosettas. And in the case of mortar shells, the specific thing
21 is that they are fired from weapons, and they fly without rotating, as
22 opposed to artillery shells which rotate during the flight, they rotate
23 around their own axis.
24 Q. And why would you call the impressions left by mortar shells
1 A. Well, I wouldn't know, I couldn't really answer that question. I
2 know it's a very inappropriate name for such a thing.
3 Q. What is a rosetta?
4 A. I'm not quite clear about your question. Do you mean the
5 impression, or?
6 Q. No, in common -- common parlance what is a rosetta?
7 A. A rosetta or rose in B/C/S is something that actually looks like
8 a rose, like a flower.
9 Q. Okay. In terms of -- you indicated to us, then, that the size of
10 the crater obviously is something that is of interest to you, and you
11 talked a little about the shape of the crater, and the differences. Can
12 you tell me then what would be of interest to you in terms of the trace
14 A. In terms of the trace evidence we collected, as far as that was
15 possible in those wartime conditions, we collected and recovered all
16 trace evidence that could be linked to the projectile that had landed
18 Q. And what was then done with this evidence once collected?
19 A. The evidence was then submitted or sent to our department for
20 analysis. I think there were cases where we would just take over
21 these -- or collect these traces on the spot and prepare a report right
22 there, but usually officers from the security centre would collect the
23 evidence and then they would submit an official request to determine the
24 type of projectile and forward it to us, to the Ministry of Interior to
25 our department, where we would carry out an official analysis, or rather,
1 determine the projectile that these traces come from.
2 Q. Okay. So let's just talk about once you physically have the
3 materiel in your department, do you use any equipment to examine the
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I just -- okay.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In our department we had, and it
7 was already there when I arrived in the department, we had samples of
8 fuses from various projectiles, not all of course, and we also had and
9 collected whenever we had occasion, samples of the projectiles themselves
10 that had landed on the city but not exploded. And of course we would
11 remove the explosive charge from the projectile and keep the bodies of
12 the projectiles in order to be able to conduct a parallel analysis, a
13 comparative analysis, and determine as accurately as we could the trace
14 evidence that we found and the projectile they were coming from.
15 MS. BOLTON:
16 Q. And the purpose then of -- if I understand your evidence, the
17 purpose, then, of taking the pieces that you recovered and comparing them
18 to unexploded projectiles is to determine the type of projectile; is that
19 a fair summary of what you've told us?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Just going back to the crater analysis portion, are you familiar
22 with the term "angle of impact"?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And what does the term "angle of impact" refer to?
25 A. During the on-site investigations I did not really work on
1 determining the angle of impact, but each projectile is fired under
2 certain degree and it also lands at a certain degree. It lands and hits
3 the surface at a certain degree.
4 Q. So you weren't involved, I take it, in the actual calculation of
5 the angle of impact in those investigations where it was possible to make
6 that calculation; is that correct?
7 A. Now, I was not involved on determining the angle of impact, no.
8 Q. I don't know if you can answer this question, but do you know if
9 it was always possible to determine an angle of impact or not?
10 A. Well, my opinion is that if all the parameters that are used in
11 calculating the angle of impact, then I think in most cases it is
12 possible to determine this. So you need to have -- to establish certain
13 parameters and then they would be mathematically calculated to determine
14 the angle of impact. The angle at which the projectile hit the surface.
15 Q. When you are talking about parameters, what are you talking
16 about? What would be the parameters you would need to know?
17 A. Well, these are calculations, as far as I know. You have to
18 calculate the dimensions of the crater, or rather, the traces left by
19 shrapnel, but you also have to determine the centre of the explosive
20 charge and the projectile. And I think these are the parameters you need
21 in order to calculate the angle of impact. It's possible there are some
22 other parameters, but I really was not involved in this and I could not
23 give you any more details.
24 Q. Okay. I'd like to move on to discuss a specific incident with
25 you, sir, and that was an incident relating to explosions at the flea
1 market on the 22nd of December, 1994.
2 MS. BOLTON: And in that regard could we please have Prosecution
3 Exhibit 415 displayed, please. In the B/C/S version, could we -- we have
4 the cover page displayed, could we now move forward to page 5 in e-court.
5 And I believe that corresponds with page 2 in the English version.
6 Q. Sir, do you recognise the document that's displayed before you?
7 A. Yes, as a matter -- as a general rule. This is one of the
8 official reports compiled by one of the colleagues from the CSB after an
9 on-site investigation.
10 Q. And this is an official report in relation to an explosion on the
11 22nd December, 1994; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt you, sir. And when we met last
14 week, you had the opportunity to review the entire report; is that fair?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And do the contents of that report accord with your recollection
17 of the investigation that was conducted.
18 A. Yes. This report also mentions the individuals who were on site
19 in the on-site -- on the on-site team and then there is also a brief
20 report on the on-site investigation completed.
21 Q. Okay. And do the contents of the report in terms of the findings
22 that were made, having had the opportunity to review the report, do you
23 still agree with the conclusions that were reached?
24 A. Both the report and the analysis of the fragments following this,
25 the analysis that followed, completely accord with what is stated here
1 and as written down.
2 MS. BOLTON: Okay. If we could move forward in e-court in the
3 B/C/S version only to page 8.
4 Q. And, sir, do you recognise what this document is?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What is it?
7 A. It's a report that we compiled in the department itself on the
8 investigation of the trace evidence following an explosion on the
9 22nd of December, 1994.
10 Q. Okay. And, sir, you would agree that this is not the best copy
11 of the report, it's difficult to read? Sorry, sir, we need a verbal
13 A. Yes, it's not the best of copies.
14 MS. BOLTON: And I would like to bring up 65 ter 1439.01, please.
15 And if you could bring up the English translation of that as well,
17 Q. And the document that you see in front of you now, sir, 1439.01,
18 how does it compare with the document we were just looking at which is
19 part of Exhibit P415?
20 A. This is a report about an on-site investigation. It's just that
21 this is a better copy, but it is actually one and the same report.
22 MS. BOLTON: If we could move forward to page 2 of this report in
23 both versions.
24 Q. We see on the B/C/S version, sir, the initials ES. Can you tell
25 me whose initials those are?
1 A. These are my initials.
2 Q. Does that mean that you prepared this report, sir?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. I'm going to ask you some questions about this investigation,
5 sir, and if at any point you need to refresh your memory, would you
6 please let -- from the documents, would you please let us know.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you recall how many projectiles exploded at the flea market on
9 the 22nd of December, 1994?
10 A. Two projectiles exploded in this incident.
11 Q. And what is the name of the flea market that we are talking
12 about, sir?
13 A. I can't remember.
14 MS. BOLTON: If we could perhaps go back one page in each report,
15 that may assist the witness in refreshing his memory.
16 Q. Does that assist you at all, sir, or do we need to go back to the
17 main report?
18 A. This doesn't help because this flea market was operational during
19 the war. It didn't exist before the war. There was no market in the
20 area, as far as I can remember. And here we can simply see what were the
21 names of the streets at the time where these projectiles impacted.
22 Telali is one of the street, the former street of Petra Kocica. Whether
23 the flea market was named after the street, I can't really remember. I
24 really don't remember whether there was an official name of the flea
1 Q. That's fine, sir.
2 MS. BOLTON: Can we bring Prosecution 415 back up on the screen,
3 please. And if we could display page 18 in the B/C/S version.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Bolton, before we do that what do you intend
5 doing with this one?
6 MS. BOLTON: I have some further questions about this report.
7 I'll come back to it. I will eventually be seeking to have it tendered.
8 I've only asked for the B/C/S version with respect to this page,
9 Your Honours, because there is no equivalent page in the English version,
10 it being a map.
11 Q. Sir, do you recognise the area that is circled on page 18 of the
12 B/C/S version of your report?
13 A. Yes. This is a map of a part of Sarajevo and in this circle we
14 can see the site of this flea market where these two projectiles fell.
15 Q. And can you tell us how densely or sparsely populated that area
16 was during the war?
17 A. This is the old part of town. Before the war and after the war,
18 it was always very densely populated. This is close to Bascarsija, the
19 very centre of the old Sarajevo. So this is just off the very centre of
21 Q. All right. When you arrived on scene on the 22nd December, 1994,
22 do you recall what the scene looked like?
23 A. It is difficult to remember all the details after so many years.
24 This was not the only on-site investigation I participated in, but
25 anyway, whenever we came to the site where projectiles impacted, usually
1 there were very few people around because during the shelling usually
2 shells kept on falling after the first ones, so people tried to hide away
3 from possible continued shelling.
4 Q. Okay. Did you review the photographic portion of this brief
5 before your testimony today?
6 A. I reviewed the photographs taken during the on-site investigation
7 following the impact of these two projectiles.
8 Q. And did the photographs capture the scene as you recall it, or
9 are you able to comment 15 years later?
10 A. On the photographs, you can see parts of the projectiles that
11 were collected on the two places of impact, so these parts were collected
12 and a photograph was taken. The remaining of the photographic
13 documentation also includes pictures of dead persons, of persons killed.
14 Also from their autopsies and so on, but this was not my purview. What
15 we reviewed were the craters, the impact signs and the parts of the
16 shells that were photographed on the site.
17 Q. Do you recall with respect to this incident whether you found any
18 evidence to suggest that this marketplace had been -- was in use by the
19 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina for military purposes?
20 A. We couldn't find evidence of that kind, but as far as I know,
21 nowhere in the vicinity was there a military facility or military
22 installation. The closest facility was the command post, the HQ of the
23 former Yugoslav People's Army but this was, again, on the other side of
24 the river, so it was rather far away. As far as my knowledge goes.
25 Q. Okay. And you mentioned there were some people killed, to the
1 best of your recollection were any of those people wearing ABiH uniforms?
2 A. I can't remember without seeing the pictures. I can't really say
3 whether they were or not. But in the markets regularly you would also
4 find people wearing uniforms, people who came back from the front-lines,
5 they would also go to the market. So you could find people in uniforms
6 also in the markets, but these were not military units, these were
8 Q. Okay, sir.
9 MS. BOLTON: If we could have displayed, please, pages 17 of the
10 report. Again just in the B/C/S version as it is a drawing.
11 Q. Do you recognise this drawing, sir?
12 A. This is the drawing of the site on which you can see two places
13 marked where these projectiles impacted. In the bottom right angle of
14 the corner, this was the market itself. Across the street you can see a
15 tram stop, and next to the tram stop there were some small private shops.
16 A line of small private shops.
17 Q. Okay. Could you indicate, please, what numbers on this -- what
18 the numbers 1 and 2 on this drawing -- what they are showing or marking?
19 A. Numbers 1 and 2 are places of impact of the projectiles. One is
20 marked with number 1 and the other one is marked with number 2.
21 Q. And did you perform or participate in performing the crater
22 analysis in this case?
23 A. Yes, I participated in the crater analysis. The -- nobody did
24 the crater analysis on his own. It was always done in segments. And as
25 far as I know, it was me and a colleague of mine from my department, we
1 determined the trajectory of the projectile.
2 MS. BOLTON: If we could bring up 1439.01 again, please. If we
3 could go to page 2 of both versions, please. Thank you.
4 Q. Sir, there's an indication in this report that the determination
5 was made as to the direction or origin of fire. Could you tell us what
6 the report indicates?
7 A. In this report it is stated that the projectile was fired from
8 the direction determined by the azimuth angle 159.
9 Q. When you are talking about an azimuth angle, and with the number
10 159, what is the -- it's 159 of what unit? What is the unit of measure?
11 A. [No interpretation]
12 MS. BOLTON: I didn't get any translation of that, am I the only
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the angle measured
15 clock-wise from the line of true north to the line of view.
16 MS. BOLTON:
17 Q. And how does that line and that azimuth, how would that compare
18 with the axis of symmetry that you talked about earlier?
19 A. In this specific case, this is an angle between the north and the
20 axis of symmetry measured from the axis of north in a clock-wise
22 Q. Okay. And where, then, having plotted the axis of symmetry using
23 the azimuth, where did you determine the likely origin or direction of
24 fire was from?
25 A. When you determine the axis of symmetry on the spot, it is
1 visible, but then you use this azimuth to transfer this to the map in
2 order to be able to show on the map the precise trajectory of the
3 projectile, and that map was an element of this report.
4 Q. Okay. When you plotted it on the map in this case, from what
5 area did the -- what area on the map, then, did you indicate the
6 direction of fire was from?
7 A. The projectile was fired from the area of Trebevic, and the
8 azimuth angle can determine it much more precisely because Trebevic is a
9 large mountain but on the basis of the azimuth, you can determine very
10 clearly where from.
11 Q. And which army's positions in the area of Trebevic?
12 A. In the area of Trebevic, there were the separation lines.
13 However, the largest portion of the mountain was controlled by the
14 Army of Republika Srpska.
15 Q. Your report indicates that the projectile was fired or
16 corresponds to the direction of the enemies' position in the area of
17 Trebevic, I'm wondering if you then would have considered the location of
18 the two armies in coming to that conclusion at the time?
19 A. I do not understand very clearly your question.
20 Q. Okay. Perhaps if we go to the map.
21 MS. BOLTON: First of all, could I have this exhibit tendered,
22 please, as a -- or this document tendered as the next exhibit, please,
23 Your Honour.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: That document, 1439.01, is admitted into evidence.
25 May it please be given an exhibit number.
1 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P2217, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
3 MS. BOLTON: If we could return to Exhibit P415, and if we could
4 bring up page 13 in the B/C/S version.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you okay, sir? Would you like some water or
6 can we help you with anything? You have been coughing quite a bit, I'm
7 concerned about your health.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours, I'm fine.
9 I had a slight cold recently and I took some medicines to cure that but
10 now I'm fine. Thank you.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
12 MS. BOLTON:
13 Q. Sir, looking at the map that's displayed before you, there is an
14 area which I think is marked, looks like with a number 3. Do you see the
15 area between two lines?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What would that area be?
18 A. The marked area is the area between the place where the
19 projectile fell and Trebevic, so this is an area wherefrom the projectile
20 was fired.
21 Q. And why isn't it just -- why are there two lines? We talked
22 about plotting the azimuth on the map. Why is there more than one line?
23 A. When you determine the trajectory axis, it is impossible to be
24 entirely precise. This is why you always have a tolerance in order to
25 eliminate any mistakes, so we used to do it with plus/minus 5 degrees in
1 comparison to the azimuth as measured on the site. So this is the
2 tolerance for possible error in measurement.
3 Q. Okay. Now that you see the plotting on the map, sir, does that
4 assist you in recalling which army's positions -- from which army's
5 positions the projectile originated?
6 A. We couldn't determine precisely the spot where the projectile was
7 fired from because we were not aware of the conditions under which the
8 projectiles were fired, but I believe that this came from the region that
9 was controlled by the Army of Republika Srpska.
10 MS. BOLTON: Okay. Could we please go back to Exhibit P2217.
11 And could we go to page 2 of the B/C/S version. And you can leave the --
12 sorry, we were on page 2 of the English version, that was fine.
13 Q. I want to ask you, sir, what conclusion was reached as to the
14 type and calibre of shell that caused the two explosions?
15 A. In this case, these were two artillery shells, 76 millimetres
16 with UTI
17 Q. And you told us -- well, we've talked about the fact that mortar
18 shells and artillery shells aren't the same. In terms of their
19 appearance, how do they differ in appearance, a mortar shell versus an
20 artillery shell?
21 A. They are not the same. Mortar shell, as I said, fly without any
22 rotation. They are simply fired from the barrel and they also have a
23 stabiliser. We used to call it a tail-fin. So this tail-fin stabilises
24 the flight of the projectile through the air. Whereas artillery shells
25 that are fired from Howitzers or artillery guns, their flight direction
1 is kept by the rotation.
2 Q. Do artillery shells have fins or stabilisers?
3 A. Artillery shells do not have fins. They have rings, guidance
4 rings used during the firing to get the proper rotation of the shell.
5 Q. And when you investigated explosions caused by mortar shells, how
6 often would you find pieces of the fins or stabilisers?
7 A. In most cases the tail part should always be found. However,
8 given the conditions in which we carried out on-site investigation,
9 sometimes if the projectile went into the ground, sometimes we simply did
10 not have enough time and it was too dangerous to carry out a proper
11 investigation as it would have been done in peacetime. So we didn't dig
12 for it if we found sufficient amount of other evidence which would
13 indicate to the type of the projectile. But in most cases, the
14 stabilisers, the tail-fins were found when we had mortars impacting.
15 Q. And if you found those pieces, is that something that would be
16 recorded in your reports?
17 A. Well, I cannot say for certain whether my colleagues who
18 conducted the on-site investigation entered in the reports because that
19 was not part of my job. But we would receive reports with the trace
20 evidence and then usually there would be mention of that portion in the
22 Q. I should have been more specific, sir. If you in examining the
23 fragments, the traces, after the fact found pieces of a fin, is that
24 something that you would personally put in your reports?
25 A. We did not prepare individual reports, on-site investigation
1 reports, because it was unnecessary for everyone to do their own report.
2 There was one general report, on-site investigation report. I don't know
3 about the investigating judge, but as far as our work on site there was
4 one report. We prepared a report following an analysis of the trace
5 evidence per an official request from the CSB, and in that report of
6 ours, usually we would also mention what types of trace evidence we
7 received to investigate or analyse.
8 Q. In this report there's an indication that you found or that you
9 were able to identify a UTI
10 best of your knowledge, in 82-calibre mortar shells?
11 A. I never found in any bibliography that these fuses are used, so
12 when we analysed the trace evidence, in addition to using the traces
13 found there, we also used to compare this or to read up on this from
14 various materiels. And as far as I can recall, I never came across any
15 article where these fuses were mentioned as being used.
16 Q. Did UNPROFOR also attend the scene of this investigation?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And to the best of your knowledge, did the UNPROFOR officers
19 seize any of the trace evidence?
20 A. No, they never seized any trace evidence. They only photographed
21 the site itself, and I know that they also conducted their own
22 measurements and tried to determine the direction where the projectile
24 Q. In terms of your reaching of the conclusions as stated in this
25 report as to the fact that this was an M-70 76 millimetre calibre
1 artillery shell, how important was your analysis of the trace evidence in
2 arriving at that conclusion?
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Bolton, where do we get it that it's
5 MS. BOLTON: That's something he has already stated earlier in
6 his verbal evidence, Your Honour.
7 Q. Sorry, was my last question translated to you, sir?
8 A. Yes, it was translated. On principle or generally speaking, all
9 of this is artillery, but in this particular case, these were not mortar
10 shells but artillery gun shells or Howitzer shells. But in this
11 particular case, this was an air-gun shell.
12 Q. Sorry. My question, sir, was: In coming to that conclusion as
13 to what type of projectile that was, how important or unimportant was the
14 actual analysis of the trace evidence in coming to that conclusion?
15 A. Well, the analysis of the trace evidence was significant and
16 important when you were to draw conclusions as to what shells these
17 fragments were from, but if we found the stabiliser, and as I've already
18 mentioned we did in most cases, this made the job easier. We analysed
19 other trace evidence as well, but the stabiliser itself was significant
20 because it would actually indicate what calibre shell this was.
21 Q. Okay. I don't want to confuse things. Was a stabiliser found in
22 this case?
23 A. In this case there were two shells, but no stabiliser was found
24 in either case. And I just need to add that had it been a mortar shell
25 or had these been mortar shells, in my view, a stabiliser would have had
1 to be found because the ground where the shell struck was asphalt or
2 concrete. So the stabiliser would not be embedded in the soil or ground,
3 and we didn't need to dig in order to find it. So in my view in this
4 particular instance, we would have had to find the stabilisers but we
6 Q. Okay. I was going to move on to another area very quickly, sir,
7 which just has to do with what you told us earlier about the modified
8 air-bomb incidents you were aware of. And one of the things you
9 indicated is that in an unofficial capacity you went to a modified
10 air-bomb incident where a bomb fell in a river?
11 A. Yes, in the river-bed of the Miljacka river above the old part of
12 town. Stream.
13 Q. Were there any military installations in the river?
14 A. No, as far as I know there were no installations of any sort. It
15 is possible that -- it's probable that the lines of separation were
16 somewhere in that area, but I know that when I went there, I did not
17 observe any installation, either military or civilian. This was in the
18 vicinity, it's very close to the old town. I think this locality is
19 called Dariva. I think it was in that part.
20 Q. I'm going to interrupt you, sir. In this case --
21 A. Dariva.
22 Q. In this case, do you believe that the modified air-bomb hit its
23 intended target?
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Lukic.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can only --
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Well, I really believe that this type
2 of question cannot be put to the witness. This is calling for guess-work
3 on the part of the witness.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Bolton.
5 MS. BOLTON: I'll rephrase the question, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
7 MS. BOLTON:
8 Q. Other than -- you've indicated there didn't appear to be any
9 military installations in the river, was there any other apparent
10 military purpose that would have been served by landing a modified
11 air-bomb in the river in that location, based on your observations?
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Lukic.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Well, this is a reworded question but
14 its essence is the same. On page 25, line 14, the witness said that he
15 was not aware that there were any military or civilian installations
16 there, and I think this is really calling -- or leading the witness.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Bolton.
18 MS. BOLTON: Well, I don't think it's a leading question because
19 there's no facts or suggested answer being put to the witness. What was
20 objectionable, I think, about the last question was that perhaps I was
21 asking him to speculate as to what was -- what the intentions were of the
22 persons sending the projectile, and here, I think, in the question as
23 currently worded, I've corrected that deficiency in the original
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I stand by my objection.
2 I think this is calling for this witness to speculate.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Objection overruled.
4 MS. BOLTON:
5 Q. Can you recall my question now, sir, or do I need to repeat it?
6 A. I can recall your question. I think I said earlier that this
7 type of projectile were meant for destruction of installations, and I
8 think there was no point in firing it on this particular location.
9 That's my opinion. Even if some lines were there, that type of
10 projectile would have had no effect.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: The question to you, sir, had been, was there any
12 military purpose that could have been served by firing the projectile to
13 where it was fired. I would imagine that your answer would be yes, there
14 was some kind of military purpose, or no, or I don't know. One of those
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think there was no military
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Yes, Madam Bolton.
19 MS. BOLTON: Thank you. I have just a couple more questions in
20 this area. I'm conscious of the time, Your Honour. Just wonder, if
21 Mr. Usher, you could assist the witness in being able to draw a sketch in
22 our computer programme. I'm going to be asking him to draw a sketch of
23 what a -- the pieces of a modified air-bomb look like. So I guess I need
24 a blank piece of paper in essence and a pen.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you going to be able to do that in a minute?
1 MS. BOLTON: After the break, you mean?
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, no, before the break.
3 MS. BOLTON: I would hope so.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: You've got only one minute to go.
5 MS. BOLTON: Only one minute, yes. We'll draw quickly.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Try to be accurate.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot draw parts of a
8 projectile. I can draw a representation of this bomb, of what it looks
9 like. Usually this air-bomb also has stabilisers, but in this case, as
10 far as we could determine during these on-site investigations, the bombs
11 would be modified because certain adapted elements would be affixed to
12 it, in other words, rocket engines. And in all the cases where I was,
13 there were four rocket engines that were attached to the bomb, and they
14 actually carried the projectile to the point of impact. If that is what
15 you were looking for.
16 MS. BOLTON:
17 Q. It is. And I just want to quickly label what you've drawn here.
18 On the far right of the diagram you've got a series of, looks like, four
19 cylinders. What do those represent?
20 A. Well, what I tried to draw here were three cylinders. These
21 represent rocket engines for multiple rocket-launchers.
22 Q. Okay. And in the middle of the diagram there is a small -- a
23 small area that seems to connect the rockets to something else. What is
24 that area?
25 A. We would find a plate on the site, the plate connecting the
1 air-bomb to the rocket engines, so the only purpose was to attach these
2 and make them one compact whole.
3 Q. And the front part of your diagram then, I take it, is the actual
4 bomb part; is that right?
5 A. Yes, on the left-hand side, that's the bomb itself. The body of
7 Q. And very quickly can you put a 1 on the bomb.
8 A. [Marks]
9 Q. A 2 next to the connecting plate.
10 A. [Marks]
11 Q. And a 3 next to the rockets, please.
12 A. [Marks]
13 MS. BOLTON: And if that could be marked as the next exhibit,
14 Your Honour.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: That sketch is admitted into evidence. May it
16 please be given an exhibit number.
17 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P2218, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. And we don't have a corresponding
19 65 ter number for this. You will be able to know, Madam.
20 MS. BOLTON: It would be a convenient time for the break,
21 Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. We'll take a break and come
23 back at quarter to 11.00. Court adjourned.
24 --- Recess taken at 10.17 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 10.48 a.m.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Bolton.
2 MS. BOLTON: Thank you.
3 Q. Just before we leave the area of modified air-bombs, sir, before
4 the break we were talking about the existence of a metal plate that
5 connects the rocket portion and the bomb portion in a modified air-bomb.
6 Were there any other projectiles in use during the conflict that had that
7 metal plate?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Sir, I want to move on to the final area of your evidence which
10 has to do with the examination of traces to determine the place and date
11 of manufacture.
12 MS. BOLTON: Could I have P656, please. Madam Registrar, I'm
13 going to need the second page of each of these -- each version of this
14 report, please. And for the record, this is investigation into an
15 incident on the 22nd of May, 1995.
16 Q. And again, we see the initials ES on the B/C/S version of this
17 report, sir. Whose initials would those be?
18 A. Yes, I can see them. They are mine.
19 Q. Was there anyone else in the KDZ department who would have been
20 signing reports with the initials ES?
21 A. No.
22 Q. With respect to -- sorry, again, sir, given that your initials
23 are on the report, does that mean that you performed the analysis of the
24 trace evidence in relation to this projectile?
25 A. Yes, I conducted this analysis, although we had frequently
1 consultations, I with my colleagues, but in this particular instance it
2 was my job to complete this investigation.
3 Q. Right. I'm interested, sir, in the portion of your report where
4 you discuss some markings that were found on the stabiliser of a mortar
5 projectile. Your report indicates there was impressed marking KB 9502.
6 First, can you tell us would the letters have been in Latin script or
7 Cyrillic script or some other script?
8 A. These markings, in this particular instance, were in Cyrillic.
9 In other words, what it says here is KV 9502. That is why it is in
10 parenthesis because we've just copied what we found on the part that was
11 under analysis.
12 Q. Just so I'm clear, a B in Cyrillic script correlates to what
13 letter in Latin script?
14 A. The B in the Latin script corresponds to a V sound or letter in
15 the Cyrillic script.
16 Q. Okay. And what do the initials KB tell you about the place of
17 manufacture of this shell?
18 A. I would just like to add something before I answer your question.
19 The projectiles were marked by manufacturer, and all those
20 special-purpose factories or, rather, military contractors had their own
21 markings. In this particular case, this means the Krusik factory in
22 Valjevo, in the town of Valjevo which is in Serbia. The numeric portion
23 of this marking in the case of these projectiles, the first two digits
24 indicate the year of manufacture, and the latter two digits indicate the
25 series, the serial number or the batch of the projectile when it was
2 Q. Okay.
3 MS. BOLTON: If we could bring up, please, Exhibit P676.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we do that, did you get an answer to your
5 question at line 10, ma'am?
6 MS. BOLTON: Sorry, my question at line 10, Your Honour? Is that
7 what you said?
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, he said, "I would just like to add something
9 before I answer your question." At line 14 that's what he says. And you
10 had just asked a question prior to that.
11 MS. BOLTON: Yes, I think I did.
12 Q. But just for clarification, the K, the initial K would correspond
13 to what, and the initial B would correspond to what?
14 A. K corresponds to the factory name. That's Krusik. And V or B is
15 Valjevo. That is the place where the factory was. So in this particular
16 case, this was a projectile from that factory. In other cases they would
17 have had different markings.
18 Q. Okay.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. You were calling for something else.
20 MS. BOLTON: Yes, it was P676, please. With the Court's
22 [Prosecution counsel confer]
23 MS. BOLTON: Yes, I'm sorry. This is Exhibit P676, is it? Thank
24 you. If I could have the second page again of each.
25 Q. And again on the B/C/S version, sir, you just confirm whether
1 those are your initials, ES?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And in this report there was an indication that with respect to a
4 120-millimetre mortar shell there were found embossed in Cyrillic script
5 the letters "MK, M74 KB9503." You've told us what the KB and the 95 and
6 the 03 would relate to. Do the initials MK or M74 add anything or
7 correspond to anything that you are aware of?
8 A. This is the shell itself, and M74 is a model, as it were. The
9 model from 1974.
10 Q. Okay. I don't intend to take you, sir, through all the reports
11 you authored in this regard. I do wish to take you to some where there
12 are differences or unique characteristics.
13 MS. BOLTON: So could I have Exhibit P677, please. Could we have
14 the second page of both the English and the B/C/S versions, please. And
15 I may have -- actually if you go back to the first page, please, in the
16 B/C/S version.
17 Q. In the English translation, sir, and I think this is displayed at
18 the bottom of the page in B/C/S, there is an indication that the trace
19 evidence in this case was scrutinized by use of a magnifying-glass and
20 all necessary measurements were performed. What would you have been
22 A. If a fragment is delivered that still has some portion of the
23 fuse or stabiliser, we would compare the thread --
24 THE INTERPRETER: The tread, interpreter's correction.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Although it was something that
1 could be determined by just looking at it. You could determine by just
2 looking at the portion of the shell what type of shell it belonged to,
3 but we also tried to determine the diametre of the stabiliser.
4 MS. BOLTON:
5 Q. Okay. And that kind of information, that kind of detail, what
6 would that assist you in determining?
7 A. Usually the parts where the fuses are attached to can differ on
8 various shells, so because we had unspent shells, we tried to compare
9 whether the particular portion corresponded to some unspent shell in
10 order to determine as precisely as we could what the projectile was. In
11 this particular case where we only had the metal portion with the
12 tail-fins, we measured the diameter of the stabiliser and the depth, or
13 rather, or how thick the tin was and then based on that we could
14 determine what shell it came from.
15 Q. Okay. In the next paragraph --
16 MS. BOLTON: And I think we'll need to flip to page 2 in the
17 B/C/S version, please.
18 Q. It's an indication of a marking "MK, M74 KB9309." What does the
19 93 tell us?
20 A. The 93 indicates the year of manufacture of the shell. In other
21 words, this was manufactured in 1993.
22 Q. Okay. And the next paragraph refers to a book, Ammunition or
23 Imunicija. What was the use that was made of that book by your
25 A. I've already said that in addition to the samples of shells and
1 fuses that we used, we also used books, and in this particular book, it
2 gives a description of all types of projectiles. In part one mortar
3 shells are described, whereas part two describes artillery shells other
4 than mortar shells. In other words, there is a detailed description of
5 the shells and what type of fuses can be used for which type of shell.
6 In other words, this is a military book. It was published by the
7 Federal Secretariat for National Defence of the former Yugoslavia.
8 That's what the acronym SSNO stands for.
9 MS. BOLTON: All right. If we could move on to Exhibit P659,
10 please. And if you could scroll down on the page for us, please, to the
11 B/C/S version. Okay.
12 Q. Can you indicate, sir, whether this was an incident in relation
13 to which you participated in the on-site investigation as well as the
14 analysis of the shell fragments?
15 A. I was present on the scene; you can see that from this report.
16 I'm not sure in which particular activities I participated. I can't
17 remember that now, but I certainly was present on the scene.
18 MS. BOLTON: If we could move forward in both versions to page 2,
20 Q. There is an indication in the English version that in this case a
21 determination was made as to the origin or the likely direction from
22 which the shell or shells were fired. And can you tell me, would the
23 method that was used to make that determination differ -- in this case
24 have differed in any way from the method that you've described earlier in
25 your evidence with respect to crater analysis?
1 A. The method is always the same, and this is the only method that
2 can be used. You have to find the axis of symmetry in the impact left by
3 the projectile. And this report was not compiled by me, it was compiled
4 by somebody who was tasked to do that from the investigating team. And
5 here very briefly you can see the composition of the team present on the
6 site and in the continuation of the text you can see the list of people
7 who were killed, injured, and so on. So it was not compiled by me
9 Q. One thing I do note is that we have an indication that this was a
10 120-millimetre artillery projectile, and I am looking at the paragraph
11 that starts with the words "On 21.06.1995." And then later in that same
12 paragraph we have the description of the crater as being a rose. And I
13 thought I understood you say earlier that mortar shells left roses. Can
14 you -- did I misunderstand you earlier?
15 A. Well, here we also have a mortar shell, but, as I said, it all
16 belongs to the artillery. Both artillery guns and mortar guns, it all
17 together belongs to artillery. So here we had a mortar shell, a
18 120 millimetre that was fired from a mortar gun.
19 Q. So a mortar is a -- although the shells vary, it can still be
20 described as a type of artillery; is that correct?
21 A. I believe that in military terminology and literature, it belongs
22 under the title of artillery. I'm not an artillery expert but I believe
23 it belongs to artillery.
24 Q. And when we see in reports the use of the phrase "the aggressor's
25 positions," what army are we referring to?
1 A. Here it refers to the Army of Republika Srpska.
2 MS. BOLTON: With indulgence. If we could bring up Exhibit 669,
3 please. If we could turn to the last page of this report.
4 Q. The question probably seems obvious, sir, but when we see in the
5 final or near to the end of this report an indication that the direction
6 of fire corresponds to the direction of enemy positions in the greater
7 area of Miljevici, when we are talking about enemy positions, what army
8 would we be referring to?
9 A. We are referring to the Army of Republika Srpska.
10 MS. BOLTON: And finally, if we could bring up Exhibit P660. If
11 we could turn to, please, page 4 of the English version. Page 3 of the
12 B/C/S version.
13 Q. On the B/C/S version, sir, there's a signature at the bottom left
14 of the page. Whose signature is that?
15 A. This is my signature.
16 MS. BOLTON: And with respect to this report, if we could move
17 forward, please, two pages in the B/C/S version only. Can you zoom in
18 sort of on the bottom half of the map, please, Madam Registrar. Thank
20 Q. There is a marking on this map, sir, that says "AZ" or "2 equals
21 298." Could you tell me what that is short for or what that indicates?
22 A. This is the trajectory and the azimuth angle that was measured on
23 the spot, and the azimuth was 298 degrees.
24 Q. And in this case given that you had signed the report, does that
25 mean that you would have prepared the map?
1 A. Yes.
2 MS. BOLTON: And going back to the page 3 of the B/C/S version of
3 the report and page 4 of the English version.
4 Q. There are conclusions reached in this report with respect to the
5 indication that the direction corresponds to the direction of the enemy
6 positions in the general area of Doglode. Would that have been a
7 conclusion that you reached, sir, or somebody else?
8 A. In this particular case, I came to this conclusion having drawn
9 the trajectory on the map, the trajectory as determined by the azimuth
10 angle measured on the scene.
11 Q. In this type of report that I've been showing you, for example,
12 the report we are talking about now, if you had -- if there had been any
13 evidence that the shell had landed on a military installation, is that
14 something that we would expect to find in this report?
15 A. I never participated in an on-scene investigation when a shell
16 landed on a military installation. So in the report you would mark all
17 the important activities, but I never participated in an on-scene
18 investigation concerning projectiles that fell on military installation.
19 I don't know whether this was done by the army, but those of us from the
20 police, we only carried out investigations when projectiles hit the town.
21 Q. And in any given week -- work week for you during the
22 hostilities, how many shell investigations or shelling investigations
23 might you be involved in typically?
24 A. I couldn't really determine the number. I can't really be very
25 precise here.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Average, sir.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Approximately over 50 or 60.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: In a week?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Total. During the time I worked in
5 this particular department and during the hostilities. So this was the
6 number of on-site investigations. It shouldn't necessarily correspond to
7 the number of reports I compiled because if I was participating in an
8 on-site investigation, I wasn't necessarily writing a corresponding
9 report myself.
10 MS. BOLTON: I have no further questions. Thank you,
11 Your Honour.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Bolton.
13 Madam Bolton, just before you sit down, did the status of this
14 witness change from a 92 ter?
15 MS. BOLTON: Sorry, I didn't hear the end part of your question,
16 sir. Did the status of this witness?
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Change from a 92 ter.
18 MS. BOLTON: Oh, it did, yes. He did.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: It did. Yes, Mr. Lukic.
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:
21 Q. Good morning, Mr. Suljevic. My name is Novak Lukic, and on
22 behalf of the Defence team of Mr. Perisic, I will now ask several
24 A. Good morning.
25 Q. Please make sure to allow some time after my question in order
1 for the interpreters to be able to interpret my question and I will do
2 the same before asking the following question.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Before you started working in the police, you said you worked in
5 a factory in Sarajevo; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What was the location of this factory in Sarajevo?
8 A. The factory Zrak is located in Buca Potok, this is one part of
9 the town of Sarajevo in the municipality Novi Grad.
10 Q. How far is it from the municipal building of the municipality of
11 Novi Grad?
12 A. These are on -- located on two different edges of the
13 municipality of Novi Grad. Without having a proper map, I couldn't tell
14 the distance.
15 Q. This was a special purpose factory which means that it produced
16 for the needs of the former JNA; is that correct?
17 A. Yes, for the former JNA and for the export, but it was military
19 Q. So the facility itself, the premises of the factory were
20 controlled by the Army of the BiH before the war; is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. During the war the factory worked with reduced capacity, but it
23 continued to produce; is that right?
24 A. The production was much reduced. Now, what could be produced
25 under given conditions without proper resources or raw materials, that's
1 another issue.
2 Q. What you did until the year 1993 when you worked for the factory
3 had nothing to do with your later job in the Ministry of the Interior, so
4 while you were in the factory, you were not involved with artillery,
5 ammunition or other things that you talked about here today; is that
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And while you worked for the factory you were not involved in any
9 training or professional development concerning the ballistic
10 investigation that you later participated in; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Have you heard -- do you know that during the war from the
13 premises of the factory Zrak, the BiH Army fired shells against the
14 positions of Republika Srpska Army, so do you know that they used these
16 A. I don't know that.
17 Q. Have you heard of the factory called Zica?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Could you tell us where it was located in comparison to the
20 assembly building of the municipality of Novi Grad? Was it closer than
21 the factory Zrak?
22 A. Yes, it was closer, but it was on the same side of the river as
23 factory Zrak, but it was considerably closer to the assembly building.
24 Q. It was also located in the territory controlled by the BiH Army;
25 is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Sir, we have over half an hour, but if you do not feel well, you
3 can ask for a recess. If not, we can continue for half an hour, I'll try
4 to finish this today.
5 A. Thank you very much for your concern. I think I can manage that.
6 Q. Mr. Suljevic, you did not participate in any training concerning
7 ballistic theory or what you engaged in when you started to work for the
8 Ministry of the Interior?
9 A. Officially no training was organised, but before I started to
10 participate in investigations on my own, I participated in investigations
11 carried out by my colleagues who worked in the same department before I
12 started to work there. So in a way I learned through work, through
14 Q. So you learned by doing?
15 A. Yes, and I also learned a theory from my colleagues in the
16 department, but there was no officially organised training.
17 Q. Have you -- have you been tested? Did you take any examination?
18 A. I'm not aware of any such examination. I don't know that it
19 exists. I don't know that there is any official training in this
20 particular field.
21 Q. As far as I understand from your testimony, the core issue, the
22 most important issue to determine the trajectory of a projectile is a
23 crater analysis, so analysis of the crater left by the projectile?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. When analysing a crater, is it necessary to determine the centre
1 of the crater in order to be able to determine the axis of symmetry, the
2 azimuth, and all that?
3 A. Yes, the trajectory has to go through the very centre of the
5 Q. During the investigation, was it necessary to mark the centre of
6 the crater by some form of marking?
7 A. The very centre of the crater we did not mark, but visually you
8 could determine it on the spot and you could determine it precisely
10 Q. When you take a photograph of the crater on the spot, I assume
11 that this is done by crime scene investigators?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In order to be able to verify the trajectory of the projectile
14 later on, is it necessary to take a photograph of the crater with some
15 kind of marking in the vicinity so that later on you can compare this
16 photograph to the real situation?
17 A. I can't really answer that question. I believe that the wider
18 scene was also photographed, but as you photograph the crater itself, if
19 there is a point for orientation that it will be encompassed by the
20 photograph. If there is nothing else there, then --
21 Q. What I'm interested in is that in order for somebody to be able
22 later on to determine the trajectory in comparison to the points of the
23 compass, wouldn't it be necessary to have something else on the
24 photograph beside the crater itself because on the basis of the crater
25 itself, you cannot compare this to anything and you cannot verify your
1 finding from the scene?
2 A. On the scene it was sufficient to measure the azimuth of the
3 determined trajectory, and then you know how any map is oriented. It's
4 oriented on the basis of the north, so later on you can provide the map
5 along with your report and you draw the trajectory on the map.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we kindly look at a photograph
7 so maybe my question will become clearer. So Exhibit P415, page 28,
8 please, if we could have it on the screen.
9 Q. This is part of crime file regarding the incident that you were
10 involved in. When we look at this photograph, there are no markings of
11 any kind made by the on-site investigators as to the direction from which
12 the projectile had arrived; correct?
13 A. Right.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see the next photograph
15 on the next page, please. Page 29.
16 Q. In this photograph we do see an indication, there's a number 1
17 there marked, there is a marker of sorts.
18 A. This is an arrow as far as I can tell.
19 Q. Yes, you are right. That's an arrow. What is this arrow
20 supposed to indicate?
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please just scroll this
22 photograph up a bit because there is a caption under the photograph.
23 Q. And it says there: "The photograph of the centre of explosion,
24 photographed from the direction of the impact of the projectile marked
25 with an arrow." Correct?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Now, to go back to my earlier question, based on this photograph,
3 if I were to compare your findings in view of the fact that there is no
4 other landmark or point of reference on the basis of which I can
5 determine this direction, there is no way that I can compare this to your
6 findings. I cannot compare this photograph or superimpose it on the map
7 to determine the direction; correct?
8 A. No, not based on this photograph. But the direction that was
9 determined on the spot was later analysed and we determined the area from
10 which the projectile was fired.
11 Q. But you agree with me that this marking indicating the
12 direction -- marking the direction as determined from where the
13 projectile had come, would have been easier if there was another
14 reference point in the photograph, for instance, the wall of a building
15 or something of that sort that is of a permanent nature?
16 A. Well, a wall of a building would not really be much of a
17 reference point because right now there are all sorts of different
18 buildings there, so it wouldn't be possible to determine it. But you
19 cannot see any of the shops that were lined up there, but you can see the
20 traces left, the impressions left by the fragments, they were marked in
21 chalk, and you can see that based on that, we were able to determine the
22 axis of symmetry which is an indication of the path of the projectile
24 And as for this photograph itself, it is true that you cannot
25 determine anything else based on the photograph only.
1 Q. Well, that was the gist of my question. I was asking you whether
2 based on this photograph you could determine the direction of the
3 projectile, where the projectile came from, in order to check what was
4 indicated there with this arrow. That's all I'm asking.
5 A. Well, no, not based on this photograph because this is just a
6 photograph of a crater with the compass and the arrow pointing to the
7 direction. In other words, part and parcel of this photograph is also a
8 map and the sketch of the site itself, based on the photograph alone, you
9 cannot determine that but that is why this whole job was done by a larger
10 group of people because there were members of the on-site investigation
11 team who collected the trace evidence, others drew sketches of the scene
12 and so on.
13 Q. I agree with you, Mr. Suljevic, completely. You've already
14 explained this, but my question was this: If I suspected that you did
15 not correctly determine the azimuth, for instance, I could not check that
16 and determine the actual azimuth based on this photograph alone; correct?
17 A. Correct. You couldn't because the photographs were not made with
18 that purpose in mind. But I would like to add here that irrespective of
19 us and independently of us there were also members of the UNPROFOR who
20 came to the scene and they also calculated the direction on their own.
21 And then when we compared the findings, they actually corresponded.
22 Q. All right. We'll get back to that, but I just had some general
23 questions and I wanted to use these documents to explore those areas.
24 Tell us, please, in your work, you had to perform two types of
25 analysis, generally speaking. One of those was to analyse the materiel
1 traces found on the scene and based on those traces, you were supposed to
2 give your opinion on the type of projectile, what calibre, and the likely
3 manufacturer of that particular shell. That was one aspect of your work;
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. The other aspect of your work was if you were requested to come
7 to the scene, you were supposed to try to determine the direction from
8 which the shell was fired; correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Were there instances where you were requested to determine the
11 direction from which the projectile was fired without going on the site
12 itself? In other words, to determine it based on some other documents
13 that were forwarded to you, for instance, photographs?
14 A. No. We never received any photographs attached to these requests
15 to perform an analysis.
16 Q. You only received fragments; correct?
17 A. Yes, fragments alone. And in some instances we did not even
18 determine the direction, because that was not part of the request that
19 was submitted to us. In some of the requests for forensic -- for a
20 forensic analysis that we received from the CSB, we were only asked to
21 determine based on the traces and fragments of the projectile to find
22 what projectile that belonged to, and that's what we did. We acted upon
23 those requests.
24 Q. Well, that was my understanding, too, of your report. Now, once
25 you sent your report to the CSB
1 as to what happened with your reports from that moment on? For instance,
2 you would submit a report on the type of ammunition, they didn't ask for
3 your determination on the direction of this projectile, but would you
4 receive any feedback on that report later on?
5 A. No, we did not.
6 Q. Are you aware or do you know whether -- I see based on your
7 answers that this was not within the purview of your work, but are you
8 aware that at the CSB
9 determined based on witness statements, eye-witness statements? Do you
10 know anything about this?
11 A. No, I don't know anything about that.
12 Q. All right. Let's change the topic. Within your job description
13 or the work that you performed at the Sarajevo MUP, you had to check or
14 search the terrain to ensure that it's secure when an important
15 personality or high official was to visit Sarajevo, and I am talking
16 about the wartime period?
17 A. Well, those were the basic tasks of our department, the
18 anti-sabotage department. This was what we did in wartime, but also in
19 peacetime. This is part of our job description. Our job description did
20 not envisage us conducting on-site investigations because nobody really
21 could foresee what the needs would be in the future. So our basic job
22 description was to provide security for high officials, to prevent
23 possible attacks on a very important individual.
24 Q. During the war there were such important officials who visited
25 the city of Sarajevo; correct?
1 A. Yes, but we also provided security for domestic officials who
2 were entitled to special security. The president, various assembly
3 meetings and so on. So whatever there were high officials, we had to
4 provide for their security.
5 Q. In the course of your work, did you have any closer contacts with
6 members of the BH Army especially with respect to providing security on
7 the ground?
8 MS. BOLTON: Sorry, I was just going to ask about the relevancy
9 but my friend now seems to be going into a different area with the
10 questioning so I'll wait. Thank you.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's just exactly right, but
12 the witness mentioned this in his earlier testimony and in that respect I
13 found this interesting.
14 Q. So let me repeat my question. In the course of your work, did
15 you have occasion to cooperate with members of the BH Army with respect
16 to security -- providing security in various areas of Sarajevo?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Do you know where the lines of separation were during the war
19 between the two sides, the BH Army and the VRS?
20 A. In some areas of the city, I knew exactly where the separation
21 lines were, and I also had a general idea around town where the lines of
22 separation were.
23 Q. In effect, are you claiming that Sarajevo was surrounded on the
24 perimeter, on the outer borders that it was surrounded by units of the
25 VRS, whereas the inner portions of the town were under the control of the
1 BH Army? Generally speaking.
2 A. Generally speaking, yes. However, some parts of the town were
3 under the control of the VRS throughout the war. For instance, the
4 Grbavica neighbourhood. That was a part of the town abutting on the
5 river, and the river, the Miljacka river was actually the line of
6 separation in the city itself.
7 Q. We understand that, but based on your opinion, when speaking of
8 the expertise, the expert reports, does it mean when you say -- when you
9 indicate that the direction was Trebevic, does this mean that --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is this witness an expert, Mr. Lukic?
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] No, no, no. I treat this witness as
12 a fact witness. However, he did provide his expert opinion. When I say
13 expert opinion, perhaps it's better to say his professional opinion that
14 they submitted to the police.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm only asking because there was mention of
16 expert reports. Thank you.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, well, let me call it a
18 professional report. That is the term used in the files as well.
19 Q. So, Witness, in your official note when mention is made that, for
20 instance, from the positions of the aggressor on Trebevic, do you agree
21 with me that from that direction there were always also units of the
22 BH Army but they were at a different distance; is that correct?
23 A. Yes, there was always -- there were always lines of separation
24 from the point of impact of the shell and the direction of where the
25 shell had been fired from, or rather, between them.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please see the same map
2 that we've seen earlier, that's P415. Exhibit P415, page 13, please.
3 Q. You've already explained what these lines mean and what this
4 direction is. This is the incident of the 22nd of December, 1994.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we just zoom in on this map a
6 bit. And could we scroll it down, please. No, now we've gone too far.
7 Just a bit higher. Thank you, this is good.
8 Q. Can you see on this map a location called Colina Kapa?
9 A. Yes, I can.
10 Q. Could you please mark it with --
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Usher, would you please assist
12 the witness.
13 Q. Witness, could you please put a 1 to indicate this location?
14 MS. BOLTON: There's already a 1 being used on this map. I
15 wonder if we could maybe use an A or something?
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Bolton.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Certainly.
18 Q. All right. Could we just put a CK there for Colina Kapa. Could
19 you put a CK, Witness.
20 A. [Marks]
21 Q. You will agree with me that this is -- that this territory was at
22 that time under the control of the BH Army?
23 A. As far as I can recall, the lines were in this area
24 approximately. I never went there myself, to be honest, but I believe
25 that the lines were in that general area because Colina Kapa was
1 frequently mentioned in some reports.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could we please -- I
3 move to enter this into evidence.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
5 please be given an exhibit number.
6 THE REGISTRAR: That would be Exhibit D73, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Do you know that --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, is that D72?
11 THE REGISTRAR: D73, Your Honours.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Do you know that in the immediate vicinity right next to the flea
14 market, there was the factory which produced uniforms for the army and
15 the military?
16 THE INTERPRETER: For the military and the police, interpreter
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Now, let's discuss the incident itself that you testified to, the
21 incident on the 22nd of December, 1994. You personally attended the
22 on-site investigation following which you analysed the fragments, whereas
23 on the site itself you analysed the crater together with the other
24 members of the team who conducted the on-site investigations; right?
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. And your conclusion was in terms of the type of projectile and
2 its kind, that it was what was stated in the report, that this was an
3 artillery shell, a 76-millimetre artillery shell; correct? Let's discuss
4 this first.
5 A. That's correct. But just to make a distinction so this is not
6 confusing, let's not use artillery. This was actually a projectile, a
7 cannon projectile or a gun projectile.
8 Q. Yes. This is a specific type of projectile. You did not attend
9 many on-site investigations where you could determine that such a
10 projectile was used or such a projectile produced a crater?
11 A. No, not many. But perhaps I could add that the 76-millimetre
12 gun - I know this although I did not attend the on-site investigation -
13 that the medical centre was shelled with this and these were anti-armour
14 projectiles. A number of those actually impacted on the centre while I
15 was there in the town.
16 Q. All right. But do you know, first of all, that this round, the
17 76-millimetre round, is fired from a cannon or anti-aircraft gun, do you
18 know what type of gun this is? Maybe there's some mention of it made in
19 the report?
20 A. I'm not a military or ballistics expert, but based on the type of
21 projectile, we can determine what weapons they are fired from. As far as
22 I can recall this was a mountain cannon or a mountain gun.
23 Q. Do you know what the maximum angle of the barrel of that gun can
24 be during firing such a round?
25 A. I could not tell you without the tables, the firing tables, but
1 as a matter of course, there is a range of the angles from which a
2 projectile can be fired from such a cannon. There could be a lower
3 and -- a minimum and a maximum angle. This would depend on the ground
4 and the terrain, so there would be a minimum and maximum angle.
5 Q. But you agree with me that this is a rather important parameter
6 to determine the angle of impact and once that angle is determined and if
7 you can determine the angle of firing, then it is also possible to
8 determine the distance from which it was fired?
9 A. Well, if you know exactly the angle of impact without any
10 additional information it is not possible to determine exactly where the
11 round was fired from because we never had that information from which
12 position a certain projectile was fired.
13 Q. Well, that's what I wanted to know. So the charge of the
14 projectile is an important parameter in order to determine the distance?
15 A. Without that parameter, it is impossible to determine the
16 distance from which a shell was fired. That's a fact.
17 Q. Regardless of the fact that you can determine based on the
18 fragments on the type of projectile, but in addition to that, as a person
19 who needs to determine all the other parameters to determine the
20 distance, you need to know whether the charge is a fuller or a heavier or
21 a lighter charge?
22 A. That's correct. To determine precisely the position from which a
23 round was fired, you have to have information on the type of charge that
24 was used when it was fired.
25 Q. All right. Could we now take a look at your report.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] This is now Exhibit 52217. P52217.
2 Q. While we are waiting for this document to be shown on the
3 screen -- P2217. If a fragment that you were analysing was specific in
4 some way that would -- something important that would determine its
5 description, you would need to put that in your report. For instance,
6 the fragments that you found, the stabilisers, so on, you would describe
7 that in the report; correct?
8 A. Not always. Not necessarily. Not necessarily because for a
9 while I prepared these reports myself, I worked on them, completed them,
10 and there was such an abundance of information that it was physically
11 impossible to produce a detailed account so at first we did not provide
12 detailed descriptions of all these factors, later on we did. You could
13 even find some reports from the earlier period that did not even bear the
14 initials of the person who prepared them. But as time went on they
15 became more detailed.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please scroll up the
18 first page of the report.
19 Q. We will also move on to the next page but let's just agree on
20 this, there is no detailed description of the trace evidence that you
21 were to analyse; correct? There are no materiel traces; correct.
22 A. That's correct.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see page 2, please.
24 Q. I will now read the second paragraph word for word, and this has
25 to do with the question that was put by Ms. Bolton:
1 "Based on the shell fragments that were gathered at the scene, it
2 was concluded that they belonged to two contact fuse high explosive
3 shells, 76-millimetre calibre, M-70 type shells with UTI M68 fuses."
4 That's what it says there; correct?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. It cannot be determined based on this sentence because you did
7 not mention that, that parts of the fuses were found and that they were
8 examined or that whether you found it and examined it. You only state
9 here that this is the type of shell that is used -- the type of fuse that
10 is used with this type of shell?
11 A. That's correct. When we did not -- if we did not have portions
12 of the fuse, it would not be entered in the report. I don't know what
13 photographs show, the photographs from the scene, and I'm sure that in
14 those photographs you could see recognisable portions of the fuse.
15 Q. Well, that's exactly what I wanted to check here with you. There
16 are two photographs that show fragments found on the spot. We'll take a
17 look at both of them and see what we can deduce from them.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see page 33 in B/C/S
19 of this document. I apologise, this is P415, page 33. The photograph on
20 that page. That's the B/C/S version. The B/C/S page. Page 33. This is
21 it. Could we please zoom in.
22 Q. Can you recognise on this photograph anything that would indicate
23 that this is a 76-millimetre shell?
24 A. It is very difficult. I don't think anyone would be able to do
25 that from the photograph alone. But when we analyse these, we would have
1 the traces, the trace evidence. We had parts of -- fragments of the
2 fuses and we would look for characteristic elements or fragments that
3 could indicate what shell was in question. In other words, there would
4 be the guidance rings, those portions of the guidance rings, or the
5 tail-fin. The tread on the guidance rings would be different depending
6 on the size of the projectile because each projectile has a
7 characteristic tread. Based on this photograph, however, especially as
8 it's in black and white, you cannot really determine anything.
9 Q. Well, these photographs are colour photographs but obviously
10 during scanning the colour was lost. So in any case, on the basis of
11 this photograph alone, you could not point to a fragment that would
12 indicate that this is this type of shell?
13 A. Based on this photograph, no.
14 Q. And let's just take a look at the second photograph. That's
15 page 44, and I will be wrapping up. The same question for you.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Don't feel under pressure, Mr. Lukic.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Well, I understand the
18 Plenary Session is important and I have to finish on time.
19 Q. Now, witness, can you see anything on this photograph that would
20 indicate -- that would be any indication?
21 A. Well, we can see a damaged part of a fuse, and I can also see
22 something that looks like it's in blue, it is possible that these blue
23 fragments, that they might be the fragments of the guidance rings because
24 they are usually copper made on these types of projectiles.
25 Q. Could you please just indicate the portion of the fuse that you
1 recognise in this photograph.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps, Mr. Usher, you could assist
3 the witness.
4 Q. Please be patient, the usher will help you.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we just zoom in a bit and then
6 Mr. Usher, could you please assist the witness.
7 Q. Witness, could you please put a circle around the fuse?
8 A. [Marks]
9 Q. So in this photograph you can recognise that this is the fuse
10 that is used exclusively for 76-millimetre shells?
11 A. I didn't say that I recognise it based on this photograph. Based
12 on it this photograph, you can see that this is the body of the fuse.
13 Q. But you don't know what type of fuse it is?
14 A. Well, without the markings on it, no. Each fuse would have the
15 marking on it and you not see that in this photograph. Maybe it's on the
16 other side.
17 Q. Yes. But the marking -- and there was nothing except the
18 description of the fuse itself, there was nothing else in the report that
19 you put -- that you submitted; correct?
20 A. Yes. We just said that it is a fuse and that's uncontested.
21 Q. But what I showed you earlier and something that was stated in
22 your opinion was that this type of fuse was part of the 76-millimetre
23 shell, but not that this was find on the scene itself; correct? That's
24 what it said in the report?
25 A. No, what it said in the report is that this was -- that the
1 fragments were fragments of this projectile, I don't know exactly how
2 it's worded in the report, but that was the sense, the meaning of it,
3 that all the fragments are consistent with that projectile and this fuse
4 was a fuse that was found on the scene.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we can continue
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Sir --
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour, could we
9 just enter this into evidence. I was just reminded by my colleague.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: This is page 44. This photograph is admitted into
11 evidence. May it please be given an exhibit number.
12 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D74, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
14 Sir, we are not done with your testimony just yet, unfortunately.
15 And unfortunately we are not going to be able to sit for the third
16 session this afternoon. So the matter is going to stand adjourned to
17 tomorrow at 9.00 in the morning in courtroom II. If you could be in
18 courtroom II tomorrow morning at 9.00, please.
19 May I just warn you that while you are still testifying and you
20 are going for a break, you may not discuss this case with anybody. Not
21 even with your counsel. Okay. Until you finish testifying. Thank you
22 very much. Then the matter stands adjourned to tomorrow at 9.00,
23 courtroom II. Court adjourned.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.06 p.m.,
25 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 25th day of
1 March, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.