Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 1852

1 Thursday, 5 February 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. If the witness could be brought in,

6 please.

7 [The witness entered court]

8 JUDGE PARKER: Please be seated. If I could remind you, Ms. Peko,

9 of the affirmation you took when you commenced your evidence yesterday,

10 which still applies.

11 Mr. Kaufman.

12 MR. KAUFMAN: I'm obliged, Your Honour.


14 [Witness answered through interpreter]

15 Examined by Mr. Kaufman: [Continued]

16 Q. Good morning, Ms. Peko. Thank you for returning.

17 A. Good morning.

18 Q. Now, Ms. Peko, yesterday we were talking about the events of the

19 6th of December, 1991. I'd like to take you now to the following day, the

20 7th of December. But before we discuss the events of that day, could you

21 tell us where you were working at that point in time.

22 A. Just a moment. Let me think. On the 7th of December, I was

23 working in my project bureau called Arhitekt in Dubrovnik.

24 Q. On the 7th of December, did you receive a request of any nature?

25 A. No. The 7th was a Saturday, and we don't work on Saturdays. But

Page 1853

1 on Monday was when I received it, and that was the 9th of December.

2 Q. In that case, please tell us the nature of the request that you

3 received on the 9th of December.

4 A. My company, the project bureau, received a request from the

5 Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments for assistance, to help

6 them in their work to list the damages that had resulted in Dubrovnik

7 after the 6th of December, and my director suggested that a colleague of

8 mine, Mrs. Zdenka Bacic, and I myself, as architects, take part in listing

9 the damages incurred. So we went to the institute that day to do that.

10 Q. Now, this process of listing the structures that had been damaged,

11 which institution promulgated this? The idea of which institution was

12 this?

13 A. The Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments did, with

14 the proviso that UNESCO or, rather, the director general of UNESCO, Mr.

15 Federico Mayor sent two experts to Dubrovnik to set up an office there,

16 provisional office, representative office of UNESCO in Dubrovnik to work

17 in cooperation with the experts at the Institute for the Protection of

18 Cultural Monuments in listing the damages to structures in Dubrovnik

19 during the months of October, November, and December -- or, rather,

20 October and November. However, they were there when the 6th of December

21 attack on Dubrovnik took place.

22 The UNESCO experts, as consultants who were called in, worked

23 together with the experts of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural

24 Monuments and compiled a report which was entitled "Preliminary report on

25 the damages incurred on structures during the war destructions

Page 1854

1 that took place in October, November, and December of 1991."

2 Q. Thank you, Ms. Peko. We will seek to introduce that preliminary

3 report in due course. The two binders -- and the two binders English

4 translation are presently by Your Honours' chairs, but as I say, in due

5 course. Before we get to that, I would like to ask you if you know the

6 names of the two UNESCO officials of whom you spoke.

7 A. They were Mr. Colin Kaiser and Mr. Bruno Karnes.

8 Q. Do you know when Mr. Colin Kaiser and Mr. Bruno Karnes arrived in

9 Dubrovnik?

10 A. They arrived in Dubrovnik towards the end of November. I don't

11 know the exact date.

12 Q. When did you meet them for the first time?

13 A. I first met them on the 9th of December, when I arrived at the

14 Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments to start working there

15 within the frameworks of the committee set up to list the damages.

16 Q. To the best of your recollection, could you perhaps give us the

17 name of some other people who took part in this exercise of listing the

18 damages to structures in Dubrovnik.

19 A. The whole undertaking was done under the auspices of the Institute

20 for the Protection of Cultural Monuments. They have their experts,

21 professional people to work on such matters, and the institute also had a

22 great deal of experience working on similar work after the 1979 Dubrovnik

23 earthquake, so that they used the -- they started compiling a list in

24 October and went on into November. Later, with consultations with the

25 UNESCO experts, they refined their methodology. I don't know what they

Page 1855

1 did exactly, how far this was done, but the names of the people exist at

2 the institute, and their team leader or director was Mrs. Doro Valjalo.

3 Other members of the team working on the project were the following

4 architects: Mr. Matko Vetma; Mr. Zvonimir Franic; Mrs. -- I think she's

5 an art historian, Bozena Popic was her name; and an outside collaborator

6 by the name of Slobodan Vukovic, who is also an architect by profession;

7 and the other employees of the institute of which I can name Mr. Zeljko

8 Franetovic, Mr. Dragan Elakovic; and those are the names I can remember

9 just now.

10 Q. Well, don't worry, Ms. Peko, because at this point in time I'd

11 like to formally ask to submit the preliminary report about which we are

12 speaking.

13 MR. KAUFMAN: I believe that my learned friend has an objection,

14 although prior to today, my learned friend had agreed to submit the whole

15 exhibit as an exhibit in this hearing. If I might take this opportunity,

16 Your Honours, to state that there will be one other witness who will

17 testify before the Tribunal on the damages caused to Dubrovnik and the

18 listing of those damages. His name is Dr. Colin Kaiser. He's due to

19 testify next week. He had overall responsibility for the whole of the

20 project, as you will hear, and as I told my learned friend, he will be the

21 person to direct cross-examination concerning the methodology and the

22 conduct of the listing process, as it were.

23 But I would formally seek to submit the preliminary report. I

24 will allow my learned friend to, of course, object if he wishes to object

25 and then I would request respectfully that Your Honours allow me to reply.

Page 1856

1 Thank you.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.

3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is what I want to

4 address: Mr. Kaufman and I myself talked some ten days ago and discussed

5 the report that you have before you today. We are inundated with many

6 problems that we have and have lots of work to do so that we were only

7 able to look through the report this weekend, and we found that there are

8 a lot of shortcomings to it which make it impossible for us to accept in

9 advance the tendering of that report unless we have a chance to analyse

10 the contents of the report with the people who compiled it.

11 Your Honours, you will see that the report you have before you in

12 two binders is in fact a collection of individual minutes and records on

13 the on-site examination of the structures and buildings. Each of those

14 individual minutes was compiled by certain individuals. For example,

15 Mrs. Peko compiled some 20 or perhaps more minutes, and every minute

16 compiled by Mrs. Peko she signed herself and thus stands by what it says

17 in that note, in those minutes, confirming the authenticity of the

18 contents thereby. So we can accept having those parts of the report

19 admitted into evidence which Mrs. Peko herself drew up and signed.

20 As to the other parts of the report compiled by other individuals

21 who are not in this courtroom here today, Your Honours, we would like to

22 object to the admittance of those portions of the report into evidence at

23 this point in time.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Mr. Kaufman.

25 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you. Well, I believe I might be able to

Page 1857












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 1858

1 suggest a compromise to the Court. I don't think it's appropriate to

2 submit an exhibit and identify half of it as an exhibit and the other half

3 as marked for identification, but for the ease of the Trial Chamber and

4 for the ease of my learned friend, I passed him a week ago a table that I

5 had drawn up of all the items within that exhibit, the site reports, which

6 this particular witness conducted. I for my part will not take her

7 through those individual sites one by one. I will just deal with one to

8 show the Trial Chamber the methodology that was employed, but I have

9 prepared a table of all the sites that this witness examined herself and I

10 told my learned friend that it would be appropriate perhaps for him, if he

11 wishes to cross-examine her, to cross-examine her only on those sites that

12 she examined. The witness Dr. Kaiser will be here next week and may be

13 cross-examined on anything else which is present in that report.

14 JUDGE PARKER: That being the case, it may be better to delay the

15 formal reception into evidence of the report until we have had the

16 evidence of Dr. Kaiser.

17 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honour, of course if that is the course of

18 action that the Trial Chamber is minded to take, then I cannot object, but

19 I would ask, for the sake of convenience, for it to be admitted as an

20 exhibit at this point in time. I'm quite happy to give Your Honours the

21 table. Once again --

22 JUDGE PARKER: But its admission, by the sound, will really depend

23 upon the evidence of a witness yet to come, for some part of it.

24 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honour, the relevance of this exhibit has been

25 established, but I take Your Honour's point. If I may just consult with

Page 1859

1 my learned leader.

2 [Prosecution counsel confer]

3 MR. KAUFMAN: Yes, Your Honours. I would just like for the record

4 to reflect, whilst appreciating everything, of course, that the Trial

5 Chamber has said, and agreeing to the course of action proposed by the

6 Trial Chamber, I would respectfully request the record reflect, however,

7 that this witness took part in the process of listing these buildings.

8 She's familiar with the methodology that was employed. She's familiar

9 with the contents of the report by virtue of being a member of the

10 institute itself, and therefore we believe that the exhibit could be

11 submitted through this witness, but if the Court is minded to take that

12 course of action, then for the sake of convenience we will of course agree

13 and oblige the Court.

14 JUDGE PARKER: What I suggest, Mr. Kaufman, is that the witness

15 identify by name or other means the buildings that are the subject of the

16 report for which she can personally vouch so that the record is clear as

17 to that. I would propose that the full report be at the moment marked for

18 identification in the anticipation that, on the basis that you have

19 indicated, Dr. Kaiser will be able to make good the balance of the report

20 and it will be received then in due course.

21 Should there be some unforeseen slip-up and we are left without

22 Dr. Kaiser or evidence to deal with the balance of the report, the record

23 would then provide a basis upon which the Chamber could accept into

24 evidence at least that part of the report which has been identified as the

25 work of Mrs. Peko.

Page 1860

1 For the moment, I think marked for identification is the safe way.

2 MR. KAUFMAN: I'm obliged to Your Honour.

3 JUDGE PARKER: And I think that deals with your concern,

4 Mr. Petrovic.

5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I deeply respect what

6 you have just said. You presented your viewpoint before I was about to

7 offer a compromise solution, perhaps, to this problem.

8 My learned colleague -- with the Court's indulgence, I would like

9 to present our proposal, if I might be allowed to do that. My learned

10 colleague drew up a list of those parts of the report which were compiled

11 by Mrs. Peko herself and which she signed herself. My proposal was that

12 those portions that he marked on this entire document, and they have ERN

13 numbers both in the B/C/S and the English version, that they be tendered

14 into evidence as exhibits while the rest of the documents, the rest of the

15 report will be decided on in due course. So that's what I wanted, just to

16 put that proposal forward as a compromise solution. Of course it is up to

17 you, Your Honours, to decide how we shall proceed, and we shall, of

18 course, abide by your decisions and fully respect them.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petkovic, for your spirit of

20 cooperation. What the Chamber has in mind is to avoid part of this report

21 being an exhibit and not the whole of it. What the Chamber proposes, I

22 think, would achieve what each of you have in mind but in a way that would

23 minimise the problem for the record of what is and what is not an exhibit

24 by simply marking, at the moment, for identification the whole report, but

25 the evidence of Ms. Peko would provide a basis later for the admission of

Page 1861

1 those parts which you have just mentioned should it be necessary for some

2 unforeseen reason to tender only part of the report as an exhibit. But at

3 the moment it would be neater and tidier if the whole report were admitted

4 as an exhibit, and that must await the evidence of Dr. Kaiser.

5 So we'll proceed on that basis, Mr. Kaufman.

6 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you, Your Honour. To that end, Your Honour, I

7 have the table of sites examined by Ms. Peko. I would respectfully ask

8 the usher, if possible, to circulate this table.

9 Could the exhibit -- sorry. Could the item marked Prosecution

10 Exhibit 35 for the purpose of the pre-trial brief, i.e., the two bundles

11 in B/C/S, be placed before the witness, if possible. The purpose, of

12 course, being the formal identification and no more than that.

13 Q. Ms. Peko, could you open the first of those bundles, please. Do

14 those two bundles comprise the preliminary report of which we were

15 speaking?

16 A. Yes, that's right. They're here. For example, this particular

17 structure, the Franciscan Monastery, the Church of St. Spaso, Our Saviour.

18 Perhaps I could tell you something about the methodology, because this is

19 just part of the whole of the entire undertaking.

20 Q. First of all, Ms. Peko, we have to deal with the legal

21 formalities, if that's okay by you. If you could open perhaps the second

22 bundle and just identify that that as well forms part of the preliminary

23 report.

24 A. Yes, that's right. That's it. Yes, that is part of the report.

25 MR. KAUFMAN: So, Your Honours, pursuant to Your Honours'

Page 1862

1 decision, I wonder if this exhibit could be marked for identification

2 formally.


4 THE REGISTRAR: Document will be marked P51 ID.

5 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you.

6 Q. Now, Ms. Peko, please look at the sheet of A4 that I have handed

7 out. The far right column is marked "Site," and there are a list of sites

8 going all the way down. Does that comprise the list of sites that you

9 examined?

10 A. In principle, yes. The numbers correspond to the areas where I

11 worked, so I assume that all the buildings mentioned on the right-hand

12 side -- I mean, I think all of this is correct, yes.

13 Q. Well, the documents are before the Court, Ms. Peko. I can assure

14 you that --

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. -- the matter will be examined in detail.

17 MR. KAUFMAN: Now, for Your Honours' convenience, perhaps I could

18 explain this table. The witness in a few moments will testify as to what

19 the various terms mean and how the items were split up, but for Your

20 Honours' convenience - and this is a matter of OTP significance so perhaps

21 I could explain it - the column marked "ERN" is the exhibit number. Your

22 Honours will see that there is a B/C/S number and a number given for the

23 English translation. Those may be used by Your Honours for convenience

24 purposes in order to find the relevant site. As you will notice in the

25 bundles before you, there are -- every page is numbered.

Page 1863












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 1864

1 Q. Now, Ms. Peko, looking at this sheet, there is a term entitled

2 "Insula". This is the second column along. What is an insula?

3 A. The area of the town of Dubrovnik within the old city walls is

4 divided into 17 insulas. This system was accepted as far back as the time

5 when the basic documents about Dubrovnik were compiled. Then this was

6 also used after the earthquake in 1979, and it was used again now. Since

7 this system makes it possible to find one's way easily, it is still the

8 principle governing the division of the city. So we dealt with 17 insulas

9 of the Old City. And then there was a separate insula, number 18 I think

10 it was, and that is Placa, and that is the main street in town. And then

11 a separate insula were the Old City walls of Dubrovnik. So there were a

12 total of 19 entities that were dealt with.

13 So the insulas are marked here, and the particular facilities

14 within them that are dealt with separately.

15 Q. So for clarification, the Old Town of Dubrovnik comprises 19

16 insula, or insulae, perhaps. Can you confirm that, please?

17 A. Yes. Yes. Absolutely. I'm just telling you that this was done

18 in terms of our line of work when dealing with the city.

19 Q. Now, you and your fellow team members were sent out to these

20 various insulae and asked to survey what you saw there and what damages

21 you saw incurred by the various sites. What were you told to look out for

22 in particular?

23 A. Our duty was, since I was a member of the institution that came

24 there to help, and I worked from the 9th until the 18th of December, at

25 the very outset I wanted to familiarise myself with the methodology and

Page 1865

1 with the deadlines involved for producing the documents that were to

2 pertain to the buildings that I was supposed to deal with. Of course,

3 this methodology consists of several elements.

4 Specifically, I received instructions as to how I was supposed to

5 work in the field. I had a particular form, and then there were certain

6 questions that I was supposed to answer. So I had to fill out the form,

7 basically. Basic information was to be provided about the building

8 itself, the time of inspection, the time when the damage was sustained,

9 the description of the damage, and this -- and then the category involved.

10 I would submit this document to the institute afterwards so that

11 the authors of the preliminary report would then bring all of these forms

12 together and show this on maps. One map had to do -- deal with

13 classification of damages, and the other one had to do with the type and

14 place of damages incurred.

15 My duty was to fill out the forms in the field, so to speak, and

16 to hand them over.

17 Q. Now, Ms. Peko, you talked about the category involved. What do

18 you mean by "category"?

19 A. While the methodology was being developed, the categories fell

20 into four different groups, namely, this had to do with four different

21 types of damage sustained. The first category were fully destroyed

22 buildings. How should I put this? That is the highest level of damage.

23 Then the second category were buildings where there were damaged walls and

24 roofs. The third category were buildings that had only their roof

25 destroyed or only their walls, but not both. And the fourth category were

Page 1866

1 buildings with minor damage sustained. That is to say these were

2 buildings that were often indirectly damaged. So that was what was shown.

3 As for the type of damage, there were other signs, and this was

4 shown on a separate map. It had to do with direct damage on roofs and

5 walls, direct damage on roofs, and then totally burned buildings, and then

6 indirect damage of walls, indirect damage sustained by roofs, and

7 buildings that were partially burned up. All the actual localities are

8 depicted on a map, and also the type of damage sustained.

9 Q. Dr. Kaiser will deal with that particular map, Ms. Peko, but since

10 earlier you asked us to allow you to explain something about your

11 particular methodology and one of the buildings that you inspected,

12 perhaps this is a convenient opportunity to deal with the Franciscan

13 Monastery.

14 MR. KAUFMAN: For this end, Your Honour, so Your Honours don't

15 have to fumble your way through the binders, I have prepared this

16 particular part of the binders in a separate handout. I would request

17 that they be circulated. This is purely for convenience sake. This item

18 need not be assigned an exhibit number at all.

19 Your Honour, I would request that the B/C/S version actually be in

20 front of the Bench because there are diagrams and maps contained in that.

21 Thank you.

22 Q. Now, Ms. Peko, working from the version in B/C/S, if you could

23 look at the front page. We see that this is in fact, I believe, the

24 second volume of the preliminary report. Is that correct? The cover

25 page, please, Ms. Peko. The front page.

Page 1867

1 A. Yes, the preliminary report. Yes, that's the cover page, yes.

2 Q. And there are the number 1/2?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Now, let's turn to the next page. There is a map there. What's

5 that map? What does that show?

6 A. This is a map of Dubrovnik depicting the insulae. Insula number 1

7 is where the Franciscan Monastery is.

8 Q. Now if you could turn, please, to the fourth page, the page marked

9 01069151.

10 MR. KAUFMAN: I wonder if this item could be placed on the ELMO.

11 Q. Now, we have lots of different geometrical shapes here, Ms. Peko.

12 Perhaps you could take us through what we see on this particular map.

13 First of all, what does it portray?

14 A. This is part of the map that pertains to insula 1. All the maps

15 of all the insulas actually make up the map that depicts all the damage

16 sustained. We see here the markings of various localities and the damage

17 sustained.

18 I have to mention that the signs, the markings used here, are

19 symbols, actually. They are not supposed to specifically or precisely

20 denote the area of the damage involved. This was used for the entire area

21 of the entire town. I can say that the small circles, the black dots,

22 denote damages sustained by the facades or horizontal surfaces. The

23 triangles, the black triangles denote direct hits on roofs. So those are

24 direct hits. The empty triangles, so to speak, denote indirect hits. And

25 then there is yet another symbol for indirect damage sustained by facades,

Page 1868

1 the very small dots. So that is basically the damage that was sustained

2 by this insula and then recorded.

3 Q. Now, this complex, is this the Franciscan Monastery?

4 A. Yes. This is the entire compound of the Franciscan Monastery, and

5 a fountain that I did not deal with myself.

6 Q. Okay.

7 MR. KAUFMAN: Now, for Your Honours' convenience --

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can show it, actually. This is

9 the entire compound of the Franciscan Monastery. This is it. This is the

10 Church of Our Saviour here, and this is the fountain, Onofrijeva Fountain,

11 but that was dealt with by some other colleague of mine. All of that is

12 insula number 1.

13 Q. And I believe if we look at the map on page 01069150, which is the

14 third page, we can see numbers which relate to the subdivision of the

15 Franciscan Monastery into smaller subsites; is that correct?

16 A. Yes, that's right. My intention was to show the damage in the

17 clearest possible way, So that is why I had it grouped this way. So

18 certain parts of certain buildings were given a number.

19 Often the division into insulae corresponds with the land survey

20 divisions that had existed beforehand. I wanted to show the damage

21 sustained on parts of individual buildings.

22 Q. Thank you. So looking at this map and from your previous answer,

23 the only subsite that you did not examine in this site, Franciscan

24 Monastery and its church, was basically number 14, the fountain.

25 A. Correct. Correct, correct.

Page 1869












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 1870

1 Q. Thank you. Now, if we may turn to -- just for the sake of

2 example, so you could tell us your methodology, in the B/C/S version to

3 page 01069153, and in the English version, which is probably the version

4 which will be the most easy for the Bench to refer to, it's draft

5 translation L0060284.

6 Now, the number, I believe, relates to the subsite, does it not?

7 It's called brodj, I think, in B/C/S. Broj, I apologise for my

8 pronunciation.

9 A. Yes, the number of the insula and the number of the particular

10 building within the insula. This is the cloister of the Franciscan

11 Monastery.

12 Q. The location, type of object, date and hour of inspection are

13 fairly self-explanatory. I'd like to ask you about the date of the

14 incident. How did you know the date of the incident for the purposes of

15 filling out the form?

16 A. It is recommended, or it was recommended then when we were working

17 on these buildings, that we should collect all available information,

18 everything that you can see by way of changes in the physical state of the

19 building, since we are professionals in this area, but we were also

20 supposed to ask the people using the actual building for all the

21 information they may have had. So I used information that I got from the

22 monks in the monastery. They were there during the attack when the

23 building was damaged, and of course they were trying to protect it from

24 the fire spreading from the neighbouring buildings, inter alia. They gave

25 me information about all of this.

Page 1871

1 The date is not really controversial because it is known that it

2 was precisely on the 6th of December that the largest number of

3 projectiles were fired at the Franciscan Monastery, and that is when it

4 sustained most of the damage.

5 Q. But from what I understand, you would, at least on some of the

6 occasions, receive the information from people who had been within the

7 building itself when it was hit, or thereby, near thereby.

8 A. Yes, that's right. That's right. Yes, of course. They recorded

9 all the damage sustained by their building. Perhaps not on the very same

10 day, but the situation position was such that they were in a position to

11 do so. I was also informed by them about the type of projectiles that had

12 hit the building involved. The most important task was to identify the

13 actual damage incurred and to categorise it.

14 I have to note one more thing, that this is a preliminary report,

15 so it is an introductory report, so to speak, and then it was followed by

16 more detailed processing. Of course, this more detailed processing

17 involved an estimate of the damage sustained and possible reconstruction,

18 and that was not an issue at that point in time. However, it was very

19 hard for me in the specific case of the Franciscan Monastery. I mean, I

20 had to record only the physical damage sustained rather than all the true

21 damage sustained by such an important historical monument. And that is a

22 different thing from a damage sustained by a plain old wall. It was very

23 hard for me, but I did my job.

24 Q. What do you mean, Ms. Peko, when you state that true damage was

25 sustained by an important historical monument as opposed to physical

Page 1872

1 damage?

2 A. The Franciscan Monastery was hit by 37 projectiles. Not to go

3 into the exact figures involved, some of them hit the cloister of the

4 Franciscan Monastery. That is the internal courtyard that is considered

5 to be one of the most valuable sites within our historical and cultural

6 heritage in Dubrovnik. It dates back to the 14th century. It is of

7 exceptional architectural and historical value. Parts of this cloister

8 consist of architectural and sculptural plastic which is impossible to

9 restore if it is damaged, because all the parts of the pillars there are

10 quite different. This building dates back to the 14th century. That is

11 to say, a period of time from which we have very few buildings left

12 because Dubrovnik experienced a major earthquake in the 17th century.

13 This was created by top masters, local people. And regardless of the

14 calibre of the projectile that had hit the building and parts of it, it

15 involved the kind of damage that was irreparable. And then, for example,

16 parts of the pavement were hit. It is possible to restore it but it will

17 never be the same thing. It will never be the authentic monument that it

18 once was. So we simply cannot talk about this kind of damage in terms of

19 parts of this monument.

20 I don't know whether I was clear enough really. Perhaps I wasn't.

21 Q. You were perfectly clear, Ms. Peko. Thank you. Now, the last

22 question I want to ask you -- sorry, just two more short questions on this

23 report.

24 The type of projectile you record here as being 82 millimetres and

25 120-millimetres mortar bombs. Now, you said that in some circumstances

Page 1873

1 you would be told what type of shell had fallen, or projectile. What

2 knowledge did you have of the types of projectiles that were found in

3 these sites? Of course I appreciate you're not an artillery expert, so

4 confine it to what you know and what you saw.

5 A. As for the projectiles, I indeed am no expert. I wouldn't want to

6 go into that. As a matter of fact, I find this repulsive. But it is a

7 fact that in this particular case I spent some ten days after the 6th of

8 December before coming to inspect these buildings and streets. By then,

9 all the damage had been sustained by the projectiles themselves and by

10 other buildings that had fallen.

11 All the people who lived in town or worked in town in various

12 buildings kept parts of the projectiles that fell. So it is certain that

13 these were the projectiles that were shown to me within the monastery

14 itself. Specifically, I know very little about this. However, concerning

15 the remains of mortar shells and the like, I know that 80-millimetre and

16 120-millimetre shells involve a change of calibre, and that can easily be

17 identified. I mean, that can be seen. I don't know if I should add

18 anything to that.

19 Q. Well, back in 1991, did you have an opportunity to compare

20 fragments of shells that you found, shrapnel?

21 A. Yes, yes. Well, sometimes we weren't able to find them all, but

22 generally they were saved in buildings. They were lodged in the

23 buildings, and we called them the tails of the projectiles, that is the

24 bottom end of the projectile. And they had sort of wing-like attachments.

25 So parts of shrapnel of this kind were lodged in the structures that they

Page 1874

1 damaged, so I was able to see them. I saw the remains of these. Of

2 course, I wasn't well-versed in the different types of projectiles, but as

3 I say, I had an opportunity to hold these in my hands and to see them

4 lodged in the structures themselves.

5 Q. From your answer, Ms. Peko, I understand it's difficult for you to

6 talk about this, so my last question is simply to summarise the state of

7 affairs. I believe that the type of projectile entry on the form was

8 compiled on the basis of what you were told and sometimes on the basis of

9 what you saw. Would that be a fair summary of what you've said?

10 A. It was basically and mostly on the basis of what I saw in the

11 largest number of cases. However, might I just be allowed to add

12 something here? The projectiles themselves, as far as I was concerned,

13 were of lesser importance. What was important to me was the actual damage

14 done, and you can be absolutely certain that I was able to differentiate

15 between direct hits and indirect hits and the damage the two incurred.

16 Perhaps I was wrong in thinking that way, but that was the first thing I

17 had in mind when I went to examine the site.

18 Q. Could you explain how you could distinguish, as you mentioned?

19 A. Well, you could see the point at which the projectile hit the

20 structure, and I'll show you that with the help of this form.

21 For example, on the terrace of the cloister. I'll take that

22 example to explain what I mean. It is 010695.

23 Q. 0106 --

24 A. 9165.

25 Q. 9165. Yes. Ms. Peko, looking at that photograph 01069165.

Page 1875












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 1876

1 MR. KAUFMAN: Perhaps it could be placed on the ELMO.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's a direct hit.


4 Q. Well, once again, Ms. Peko, I don't want to go into any -- too

5 much detail on that because as we've said, you are not an artillery

6 expert, but I thank you for that. And I take it although you're not an

7 expert, that was how you catalogued a direct hit?

8 A. I didn't quite understand your question.

9 Q. If that was what you call a direct hit today, that was presumably

10 how you would have recorded it.

11 A. Correct. Yes. An indirect hit had different graphics. It looked

12 differently.

13 Q. Once again, we won't trouble you with that at the moment because

14 there will be someone else who will come and give evidence about that.

15 And finally, you would, of course, on this form list the category

16 of damage. And in this particular instance that's to be found on the

17 draft English translation at L0060285. In this particular instance, the

18 subsite 1, the damage was category 2 damage.

19 Thank you. If you could put that exhibit aside now -- that item

20 aside.

21 A. Yes.

22 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, I'm conscious of the time. I'm

23 bringing the evidence in chief to a conclusion.

24 Q. Now, Ms. Peko, being an architect who worked in the Dubrovnik

25 municipality, I take it you were familiar with the whole of Dubrovnik.

Page 1877

1 A. Dubrovnik, the present-day town of Dubrovnik, has the narrow inner

2 circle from Kantafiga to St. Jakov. And within that framework or within

3 that circle you will find the Old Town nucleus of Dubrovnik and Gruz,

4 Lapad, and Sveti Jakov being the outlining areas. I know the area well.

5 Q. And being an architect familiar with buildings and the uses that

6 buildings are put to in the region of Dubrovnik, I would take it you would

7 know what buildings were devoted to military uses and what buildings were

8 devoted to civilian uses.

9 A. There are no buildings that are devoted to military uses in

10 Dubrovnik. What there is were the Austro-Hungarian barracks that were

11 left empty in 1960 something, and since then there were no military

12 buildings within the town.

13 Q. Well, the question might seem a bit facile after I received your

14 response, but could you tell us if you saw any military installations,

15 weapons of any sort in October, November, December 1991?

16 A. No. I saw nothing like that.

17 Q. Ms. Peko, there is just one final clarification question which

18 arose out of the transcript yesterday and then I will conclude. The

19 transcripts of yesterday's hearing - for the sake of the record, page 74,

20 line 22 - you talked about Dubrovnik being protected. Which part of

21 Dubrovnik did you mean when you said that Dubrovnik was protected?

22 A. I first of all meant the protection of Dubrovnik as a cultural

23 monument generally. Dubrovnik within its outer walls and including the

24 town walls and the Lovrijenac and Revelin fortresses outside the wall

25 perimeter are considered to be an entity and the highest, the top category

Page 1878

1 of cultural monument. Dubrovnik was protected from the very establishment

2 of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments in Dubrovnik.

3 It enjoyed protection. From 1979 onwards, it was listed as a World

4 Heritage Site attached to UNESCO.

5 Q. Ms. Peko, thank you very much. I most appreciate your assistance.

6 You will be asked some questions by the Defence now, but maybe, Your

7 Honours, this is an appropriate point for a break. I don't know. Unless

8 it's too early for that.

9 JUDGE PARKER: It is, I think, a little early. We will start

10 cross-examination now, Mr. Kaufman.

11 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.

13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

14 Cross-examined by Mr. Petrovic:

15 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mrs. Peko. I am attorney Vladimir

16 Petrovic, and I'm going to be asking you some questions in connection with

17 what you were discussing with my learned colleague. Tell me, please, the

18 time before October 1991, can you describe for me where the house you

19 lived in was actually located. What kind of building was it and where was

20 it situated?

21 A. It is a residential building comprising of several apartments in

22 the Zlatni Potok settlement in Dubrovnik, a housing estate in the area of

23 Sveti Jakov, to the east of the Old Town.

24 Q. For purposes of orientation, tell us, please, near the building

25 you lived in there were any facilities that stand out, like a hotel, for

Page 1879

1 example, or any landmarks of that kind.

2 A. Yes. On the one side to the east is the Belvedere Hotel, and to

3 the west, between my building and the Old Town itself, is the Argentina

4 and Excelsior hotels.

5 Q. Tell me, the building you lived in, is it along the coast, near

6 the coast, or as you said yesterday, on the slopes of Mount Srdj?

7 A. It's quite a way away from the coast. It is above the upper town

8 road, more inland.

9 Q. Tell me, please, you mentioned a moment ago in response to my

10 learned colleague's question something. Do you remember where the

11 barracks in Dubrovnik were up until the 1960s?

12 A. In Gruz. It's still a barracks, but it's not used as a barracks.

13 The barracks stands as a building.

14 Q. So from the 1960s up until the beginning of the events that took

15 place in the 1990s, is it true and correct that not a single unit was

16 stationed, of the JNA, in Dubrovnik at that time, the army of the day?

17 A. No, there was not a single unit stationed there.

18 Q. Is it also right that very rarely in Dubrovnik up until 1990, the

19 times that we're talking about, were you able to encounter in town or

20 anywhere else any JNA soldiers, because there weren't any there?

21 A. Yes, that's right. There weren't any.

22 Q. Is it -- or let me ask you this way: Did you take part in the

23 procedure of including Dubrovnik into the list of World Heritage Sites in

24 the 1970s? Did you take part in that?

25 A. As an employee of the Institute for Protection, probably you could

Page 1880

1 say I did, however, the main documents for it to be listed and to be --

2 for Dubrovnik to be put forward as a candidate to become a World Heritage

3 Site was done by the Institute for Art in Zagreb, headed by Professor

4 Milan Prelog [phoen]. So the associates of the institute and the

5 employees of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments worked

6 together and participated together in putting forward Dubrovnik as a

7 candidate for a World Heritage Site, and they compiled all the supporting

8 documents for that to be made possible.

9 Q. Now, do you remember whether one of the conditions for listing

10 Dubrovnik as a World Heritage Site was that it should be a demilitarised

11 town? That means a town in which there would be no military units

12 stationed. Was that one of the prerequisites?

13 A. I don't remember that. Dubrovnik had to satisfy very high

14 criteria and standards in the sense of being authentic and well-preserved

15 in the sense of its artistic values and structural values, and I know, for

16 example, that the fact that it was a living town, a live old town, was a

17 very noteworthy factor, a point in its favour, and that throughout its

18 existence it always catered to the needs of its inhabitants. And the

19 relationship of those inhabitants and its citizens towards the cultural

20 values was taken note of.

21 May I be allowed to finish, please? Now, since for urban entities

22 of that kind you have to have -- you have to comply with international

23 documents dealing with protection that were the result of UNESCO efforts

24 and United Nations efforts generally, I can just assume that there was

25 something along the lines of what you were saying, but I can't actually

Page 1881












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 1882

1 claim that myself.

2 Q. Tell me, please, yesterday in respond to a question from my

3 learned colleague, you talked about how the process of protection was

4 established, was set up. Tell me, please, in this procedure, in

5 determining the protection of structures and buildings, is there any

6 difference between the different edifices or, rather, are all edifices

7 equally -- enjoy equal protection or is there a grade and category as to

8 which enjoys greater protection and which does not?

9 A. Yes, that's absolutely right. I said yesterday that the

10 protection of edifices, of structures, was based on a document which was

11 drawn up on the basis of evaluation and assessment. And when I said that,

12 I had in mind a series of procedures that are put in place in order to

13 compile documents of that kind. Research is conducted in order to

14 establish the state of a building, the state of a structure, and its value

15 and worth, that is to say the -- not only the artistic value but all the

16 other points according to which it can enjoy protection as a protected

17 site. Of course, those pre-conditions have different categories as well,

18 and the entire Dubrovnik area or the Old Town nucleus of Dubrovnik is an

19 entity that enjoyed protection very early on because its value is

20 undoubtable. However, within that entity, of course, within that nucleus,

21 certain structures enjoy a higher category, others enjoy a lower category.

22 Q. Thank you for your answers, but may I ask you to be a bit briefer

23 in your answers because I know that our time is limited. So would you try

24 and be as concise as possible. Thank you for your understanding, because

25 we are faced with time constraints, of course.

Page 1883

1 Now, you mentioned yesterday the historical urban entity. So can

2 you just -- and you explained a moment ago when asked by my learned

3 colleague what this means, what you mean by the historical urban entity,

4 that is to say the old town, the walls. What else?

5 A. Yes, that would be it. It would be the Old Town nucleus within

6 the walls; the Lovrijenac fortress, which is outside the murals; the

7 Revelin fortress, which can be considered to be part of the fortification

8 wall; and the complex of the city lazareti, and they enjoy protection --

9 quarantine cells.

10 Q. You have lived in Dubrovnik your whole life, and you've just

11 mentioned the different localities now, and you talked about this broader

12 belt around the town. Could you please tell us the streets that delineate

13 this broader town belt. Or perhaps you'd find it easier with a map,

14 working with a map.

15 A. The Lazarina Street on the east, Volantina on the west, Jadranska

16 Ceska Street on the south side, that is to say the sea side.

17 MR. PETROVIC: May I ask the usher to show us Exhibit P11. P11,

18 please. Could you show that to the witness, please.

19 Q. Since it's large map and can't fit into the overhead projector,

20 for the record, please, would you repeat the streets you mentioned earlier

21 on, and then we'll find a way of showing them. So could you take a look

22 at the map, tell me the streets again for the record, and then we'll be

23 able to fold the map and find the streets and place them on the ELMO.

24 A. May I just seek clarification? I'm telling you about something

25 that we recognised at the time I worked in the institute.

Page 1884

1 Q. That's what I'm asking you about.

2 A. When we talk about this area, we don't imply strict protection for

3 the city of Dubrovnik. It is protection only in the case of any

4 construction work going on in the area, to stipulate the limitations and

5 to prevent any building that would damage the aspect of the town.

6 However, everything today is regulated by the town plans. So I think --

7 Q. Let's take this step-by-step.

8 A. So I'm talking about protection of the Old Town, the inner city.

9 Q. I was asking you about the time you worked at the institute, and

10 you told us that a moment ago. So just tell me -- repeat the names of the

11 streets for the record, for the transcript, if possible, and then we'll

12 try and find them on the map as well. If you can't see them, it doesn't

13 matter. We'll move on.

14 Could you read out the names, please.

15 A. Lazarina above the Excelsior Hotel. Lazarina above the Excelsior

16 hotel. And Volantina on the west. And on the other side is the Adriatic

17 Motorway, as it's called.

18 MR. PETROVIC: Thank you. We won't be needing the map any more.

19 Q. Tell me, please, you said a moment ago that the lazareti fortress

20 makes up part of the ancient history of Dubrovnik.

21 A. It's not a fortress, it's a quarantine.

22 Q. I do apologise. I meant Lovrijenac fortress.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And you said that that makes up the component part of the city

25 along the walls.

Page 1885

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now if my orientation serves me, how far is Lovrijenac from Bokar?

3 That is the furthest point.

4 A. Perhaps 50 metres. Perhaps. I'm not sure.

5 Q. Do you know what the status is today of the Old Town surroundings,

6 walls?

7 A. I don't really know.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Is that a convenient time, Mr. Petrovic?

9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.

10 JUDGE PARKER: We will have a 20-minute break now.

11 --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.

12 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.

14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

15 Q. Mrs. Peko, let us just summarise. Just before the break, if I

16 understood you correctly, we established that the area that is under

17 UNESCO protection is the one that includes the Old Town underneath the

18 walls, Lovrijenac, Revelin, and the lazareti quarantine. Am I right?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Tell me, what is the status of the Imperial fortress on Mount Srdj

21 in terms of monument protection?

22 A. Well, I wish to say that the basic tenets related to monument

23 protection are included in documents relevant to that. The Imperial

24 fortress dates back to the Austro-Hungarian rule, and I don't know whether

25 it was registered as a historical or cultural monument, and I don't know

Page 1886

1 what the category of this particular landmark is.

2 Q. Do you know whether it's a cultural monument at all or not?

3 A. I cannot answer that question. I don't know.

4 Q. Do you know where this piece of information can be obtained, that

5 is to say, what the status of the Imperial fortress is, where this is

6 registered, who decides about this, where the relevant documents are, et

7 cetera?

8 A. The Protection Institute, which is now called the Protection of

9 the Cultural Heritage, which is in Dubrovnik, decides on all such matters

10 and all of the documents are there.

11 Q. Can you remember in those days, in the autumn of 1991, how many

12 attacks were there against the Old Town of Dubrovnik? Can you remember

13 approximately or exactly?

14 A. The 23rd and the 24th of October, then between the 8th and 13th of

15 November, and on the 6th of December.

16 Q. Can you tell me exactly or approximately on the 23rd and the 24th

17 of October how many shells fell on the Old Town?

18 A. I cannot tell you.

19 Q. Can you give me an approximation, a tentative figure?

20 A. I cannot say exactly. I really didn't count them.

21 Q. Can you tell me about the period between the 8th and the 13th of

22 November? How many shells fell on the Old Town?

23 A. I think that the report refers to over 100. Look at that. Look

24 at the figures provided by the Institute for the Protection of Monuments.

25 Q. So to the best of your knowledge, about 100 in that period between

Page 1887












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 1888

1 the 8th and the 13th of November?

2 A. That's according to the report that they had from that period.

3 Q. And what was your impression? You were in town at the time, the

4 13th of November. What was your impression? What was your estimate?

5 A. My impression was that a great many of them fell, especially on

6 the 10th. I mean, we practically spent all of those five days lying on

7 the floor, and we would not have done that if shells were not falling very

8 often. We barely managed to get out of the house, during the night, for

9 the most part, to get something, but during the day we would not leave the

10 house where we had found shelter.

11 Q. What is your estimate? How many shells fell on the 6th of

12 December?

13 A. Again my estimate is based on an estimate or, rather, a survey of

14 the total damage included in the report, the preliminary report. The

15 figure of 1.000 or even more is referred to there. It was a cannonade, I

16 mean --

17 Q. We understood that. So I'm just asking you to answer my specific

18 questions.

19 Tell me, am I right if I say that every projectile that falls on

20 the Old Town involves damage? If it falls on the pavement, on a building,

21 on a wall, there is no place for it to fall without causing damage; is

22 that right?

23 A. That's right.

24 Q. Tell me, do you know how many buildings were hit in October 1991?

25 A. I don't know the exact number.

Page 1889

1 Q. Of course I understand that. Of course you don't know the exact

2 number, but could you give me an approximation? If you can. I mean, if

3 you cannot, let's move on.

4 A. I cannot. Not exactly. I know the first hit in Boskoviceva

5 Street, and we were astonished by that. This was the beginning, this was

6 the first attack on town. And then also the museum Rupe was damaged and

7 buildings around Boskoviceva Street, and the harbour. I cannot give you

8 the exact number, though.

9 Q. Tell me, how many buildings were hit in the period between the 8th

10 and the 13th of November? You said that about 100 shells fell. So that's

11 probably the number of damage cases as well; is that right?

12 A. Well, quite a few fell. Quite a bit in town, quite a bit in the

13 harbour, quite a bit in the city walls. Then individual buildings were

14 damaged within the town but I cannot give you an exact figure.

15 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to ask that we move on to the

16 preliminary report that my learned friend showed you awhile ago, and I

17 think it would be easier both for you and me if the lady would be given

18 the B/C/S versions of this exhibit.

19 I would like to ask you to take a look at the first binder in the

20 B/C/S. The big black binder next to you. Could you please look at this

21 page that is at the very outset. The last three figures are 058. The

22 last three figures are 058.

23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, 412 are the last three

24 figures in the English version, Your Honour.

25 Q. Tell me, is this the page where we can see who drafted the report

Page 1890

1 that we're discussing today?

2 A. Yes. I think so, yes.

3 Q. Tell me, in the upper part, is there mention of the institution

4 that compiled it?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. So let us say for the transcript the Republic of Croatia, the

7 Institute for the Protection of Cultural and Natural Landmarks in

8 Dubrovnik; is that right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Please take a look at this list now, the list of persons. So

11 Mr. Vetma Matko is one name, and it says that's the leader of the group.

12 Is that right?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Tell me, what was his role in this entire project?

15 A. He is an employee of the Institute for Protection of Cultural

16 Monuments, an architect who has worked on conservation for a long time.

17 For a while we worked together, he was a co-worker of mine.

18 Q. In view of his working experience, is that the reason why he was

19 appointed leader of this group?

20 A. No. I assumed it is because of his professional qualifications.

21 Q. Well, that's what I am asking. Is it because of his working

22 experience and his professional qualifications that he was appointed

23 leader?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Tell me, when you look at this list, would I be right to say that

Page 1891

1 all these persons are architects, historians of art? Are there any other

2 professions represented? We see photographers too.

3 A. Architectural technicians, photographers, and then our colleague

4 Mr. Elakovic, he is an ethnologist with a long, long career in the

5 protection of monuments. The rest are architects.

6 Q. Thank you. Please look at page 061. Those are the last three

7 figures.

8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] It's a bit further on, Your Honour.

9 It is L00611414 in the English version.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, what was the page?

11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. 061 in B/C/S. Those are the last three figures.

13 A. Yes, that's right. I've found it now. Please go ahead.

14 Q. Tell me, what is this text that we see here? Do you know?

15 A. This is an introductory text in the preliminary report. So it's

16 an introduction, a preface. Mrs. Doroteja Valjalo signed it, and at that

17 time she was director of that Institution for the Protection of Cultural

18 Monuments, so the basic figures are there and the methodology too.

19 Q. She signed it on behalf of the institution where she worked, I

20 assume.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Did Mrs. Valjalo participate in the elaboration of this report?

23 Do you know?

24 A. I don't think so. She was the director of the institute. She was

25 present. I cannot say that she coordinated it, but probably up to a point

Page 1892

1 in terms of deadlines and the general approach to this endeavour.

2 Q. So would you agree that this report was compiled by persons who

3 were professionals trained for this particular job?

4 A. Absolutely.

5 Q. You believe that this report is reliable and accurate in terms of

6 its content?

7 A. Yes. Bearing in mind the circumstances under which it was

8 compiled. It was compiled within a month's time. There was always an

9 imminent threat of war and further attacks against Dubrovnik. It was also

10 done on the basis of the experience we had in reporting after the

11 earthquake in Dubrovnik. And the heading itself says that this is a

12 preliminary report, and therefore it can be amended later and perhaps it

13 would involve more accurate indicators of the damage sustained and the

14 ways in which it can be redressed.

15 Q. Tell me, who divided these persons into groups, people who were

16 working on it? Who specifically assigned you to work on the insulae that

17 you talked abut here today?

18 A. Well, you see, immediately after the 6th of December, people at

19 the institute started working on this straight away. I was involved on

20 the 9th. I don't know exactly who gave me this assignment for my

21 particular line of work, but I think that some colleagues had already

22 started working and that these were the buildings that had not been dealt

23 with until then.

24 Q. Who did you hand your reports to?

25 A. At the institute. It wasn't important at a personal level who you

Page 1893












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

13 English transcripts.













Page 1894

1 were supposed to give them to. One of the leaders.

2 Q. So there was someone who collected these reports; right?

3 A. Of course.

4 Q. Who was it? Were these the people who were mentioned here as the

5 authors?

6 A. Yes, very probably. There is no reason for me to hand this in to

7 colleagues who were in the field.

8 Q. Of course. Of course.

9 A. I think it was only logical that I should give it to them.

10 Q. So you gave it to one of the authors. Let me just remind you, for

11 the transcript, Matko Vetma, Mr. Zvonimir Franic, Bozena Popic, and

12 Slobodan Vukovic; is that right?

13 A. Yes, someone who was at the institute at that point in time. They

14 worked at various buildings too.

15 Q. The authors are these four persons whose names I just read out

16 now. That's what it says on this page.

17 A. Involving consultations with colleagues from UNESCO too.

18 Q. Tell me, please, was a final report ever written?

19 A. According to my information, yes. There was a state commission

20 that later worked on it.

21 Q. Did you see this final report?

22 A. No, I did not. I can just say that a report had been made

23 concerning the damage sustained by all buildings irrespective of

24 protection. There was a programme of reconstruction and a priority plan

25 that had to deal with reconstruction.

Page 1895

1 Q. So you did not see the final report?

2 A. I did not.

3 Q. Do you know what the final report contains?

4 A. I cannot tell you anything about it because I don't work at that

5 institution.

6 Q. Did you perhaps hear of any differences between the preliminary

7 report and this final report?

8 A. No, I did not hear anything about that.

9 Q. Do you know whether there was any record of the damage sustained

10 by the Old City in May 1992?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Can you tell me who did this and how?

13 A. Again it was the Institute for Protection of Cultural Monuments.

14 Q. Is there a collective report for May 1992 there perhaps?

15 A. I don't know. I didn't -- it wasn't only in May. It was in June,

16 July.

17 Q. Yes, but in 1992 is there an overall collective, comprehensive

18 report?

19 A. Probably, but I haven't seen it.

20 Q. Tell me, please, when you were in situ, what did you do? You

21 arrive at the site, at the structure, then what do you do next? Could you

22 describe your job, what you do once you're in the field.

23 A. Well, you have to tour the whole structure, see the point of

24 damage, describe it, and determine the degree of damage incurred and the

25 category, give it a category.

Page 1896

1 Q. Did you take notes while you did this kind of work?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Did you make sketches of the damage itself?

4 A. When it comes to the work I did with damaged structures, after the

5 war I worked on ten to 12 projects in all, of that type. I did make

6 sketches in August 1992, and it was damage to the stone plastics or

7 carvings. That's where I did the sketches, but not for the preliminary

8 report.

9 Q. Thank you. And did you enter the structure?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Did you go into every structure that you were assigned to

12 investigate?

13 A. I don't think I could go into one of them, one of the buildings.

14 Q. Can you remember why?

15 A. Well, there were no inhabitants there any more, it was closed off,

16 so we were just able to record the external damages.

17 Q. Can you remember which building that was?

18 A. No, I can't.

19 Q. When were the photographs attached to the report taken?

20 A. The photographs were taken parallelly with the teams recording the

21 damages. At the same time. They were in situ at the same time.

22 Q. So does that mean that the photographer was part of your team as

23 well?

24 A. In principle, photographers were part of the team, but as there

25 were just two of them, they weren't able to go with each team. As I said,

Page 1897

1 they recorded the damages even before I turned up to do my particular

2 assignment in recording the damages.

3 Q. Well, who would tell the photographers what to photograph if they

4 weren't with you all the time? There were six or seven teams and there

5 were just two photographers, as you told us, so who tells them what to --

6 what photos to take?

7 A. Well, the photographers are professionals and well able to

8 recognise damages themselves.

9 Q. So the photographers made assessments and evaluations of their own

10 as to what they thought was important and should be documented?

11 A. Well, they recognised the damage, of course, and then photographed

12 it. They photographed the damages, and that's all, nothing more than

13 that.

14 Q. But how did they know what to take photographs of if they hadn't

15 received instructions from you?

16 A. Well, Mr. Milenko Mojas, for example, has many years of experience

17 working in the Institute for Cultural Monuments, and he's certainly able

18 to recognise damage when he sees it.

19 Q. Tell me, please, in all cases that were the subject of your

20 investigations was there a written report always attended by photographs,

21 with photographs as supporting material? Was that always the case?

22 A. You have a building or structure, you provide a complete

23 description of the damage incurred, you support it with photographs. They

24 don't always show everything, but photographs do show some of the damage.

25 Q. Yes. What I would like to know is how you make the selections.

Page 1898

1 Why do you photograph some of the damage and not other damage?

2 A. Well, it would entail far greater work and a much lengthier

3 report. The report would be a very thick one. So what we did was to

4 provide preliminary matter.

5 Q. So the final report, does that contain photographs of each and

6 every piece of damage?

7 A. Well, I can't actually say, but certainly. I'm quite sure it

8 does. It's how we do our work. You have a textual description, you have

9 the graphics of it, and you have photographs to bear out what you have

10 described so I'm quite sure, although I can't say for sure, I haven't seen

11 it.

12 Q. Well, wouldn't photographs be the best evidence of the damage you

13 noted in the preliminary report, in the work you did?

14 A. Well, I don't know what to say to that. I wrote the textual

15 description, and the description, for instance, of the cloister of the

16 Franciscan Monastery would merit at least 20 pages of reporting. Perhaps

17 20 would be too much, but at least ten pages of the report would have to

18 be devoted to the cloister of the Franciscan Monastery. But you have to

19 be concise in order to provide a picture and image of the damage incurred.

20 This wasn't done in that detail. We didn't have sufficient time

21 to go into all those details, but what I wrote corresponds to the truth in

22 absolute terms.

23 Q. A moment ago you said that in all the structures except one you

24 were able to go into them to take a look round, to look at the

25 construction. Describe what you look for and examine when you go into a

Page 1899

1 structure in order to be able to write your report.

2 A. You first of all look at the outside damage. That is a basic

3 indicator, which is always reflected in the internal part of the

4 structure. You don't go to the cellar or basement if the roof has been

5 damaged. Then you would go to the roof section, and you see that the

6 partitioning walls, for example, have been toppled. You look at the

7 portal, you look at the facades, you look at the cracks and superficial

8 craters and things of that type. So you look at the series of damages

9 that result from the impact that has occurred and --

10 Q. So you record the cracks on the walls, for example; is that right?

11 A. Yes. You mention cracks in your report if they're visible.

12 Q. Then you record any plaster that has fallen off the walls?

13 A. Well, plaster is minor damage. That's not so important. The

14 important thing for me is visible cracks on the facades, destruction to

15 the constructual and structural elements, the bearing walls, the roof

16 construction, et cetera, and then the more minor damages that attend these

17 major damages.

18 So if you have a strong impact, you will have all the attending

19 damages to the surface of the wall, to the partitioning walls, to the

20 facade, and so on.

21 Q. So you look at the construction first.

22 A. Yes, that's absolutely correct.

23 Q. And then you look at the roof construction.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And then you look at the attending damages.

Page 1900

1 A. Yes, all those that are visible.

2 Q. Tell me, when you went in the field, in situ, did you have any

3 documents with you telling you who the property belonged to, any land

4 registry information or anything of that kind, any documents when you went

5 on site?

6 A. No. No. All I had was the formulas, and I conducted my

7 investigation on the basis of the points stipulated in the forms. It

8 doesn't matter who the structure belongs to; what matters is the damage.

9 Q. Yes. Well, would you allow me to be the judge of that, the

10 important things for my case.

11 Tell me what you do next. You conduct this analysis or

12 investigation of the structure. Where do you fill the forms in?

13 A. I fill the form in in my on handwriting on the spot, straight

14 away.

15 Q. So it is on the spot that you complete your job. You then hand in

16 your formula -- your form, and that's where your job finishes, is that

17 right, once you have completed the form?

18 A. Just a minute, please. On the basis of the number of the

19 structure which I had given to me beforehand, once I am given the

20 assignment. Everything else is done on the spot, in situ. Perhaps I

21 would think about the category I would assign to the damage and structure,

22 but there wasn't much to think about.

23 Q. And what guides you in determining the category?

24 A. It depends on the area in which the damage takes place.

25 Q. At what point in time do you decide what category to give a

Page 1901

1 certain structure; on the spot, later on when you go back to your

2 institute, or when?

3 A. Well, mostly on the spot.

4 Q. And then that report is typed out by someone else; is that right?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. The report that you handed over in written -- in your handwriting

7 to the institute.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Did you have the chance of looking through the typed-out copy of

10 your report?

11 A. Well, I don't know when I had a chance of doing that exactly. I

12 suppose before it was bound, before binding was given it.

13 Q. Did you ever in fact have a chance to look through the typed-out

14 report?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. When was that?

17 A. Well, I can't give you an exact time. Probably before the binding

18 took place, when the final work in drawing up the forms was completed.

19 Q. And when was that?

20 A. Well, it was like this: I completed my work on the 18th of

21 December and continued working in the project bureau. On the 6th of

22 January, the report was completed, the text of it, the textual part at the

23 beginning. And all the maps with the various designations of category for

24 the damages and the location of the damages came at the end, so probably

25 sometime between the 18th of December and the 6th of January, that's when

Page 1902

1 I took a look at it.

2 Q. Do you remember having looked through all the minutes, all the

3 notes you took once they had been typed out?

4 A. Well, I would have had to have done that. I must have done that

5 because I signed it ultimately.

6 Q. So when they gave it back to you, you took the minutes or the

7 notes and signed it; is that right?

8 A. No. When I gave -- I signed it when I gave a statement to the

9 investigators, which was in the year 2000.

10 Q. Why didn't you sign the report when, as you say, you read through

11 the report to verify it when your name is at the bottom of every report,

12 of each of these minutes or notes?

13 A. Well, I don't know. That's not what we did. We didn't do it like

14 that at the time.

15 Q. And why did you do that in the year 2000?

16 A. Because I gave a statement to the investigators of this Tribunal,

17 and attached to that statement was this material that I worked on in 1991.

18 So as all this went together, I verified it, authorised it.

19 Q. Why didn't you do that in 1991?

20 A. Because that's not what we did. What you would have to do was to

21 call all these individuals. Some of them weren't employees of the

22 institute, and you would have to call them and sign them, and it was

23 assumed that the teams working on the assignment were doing their work

24 conscientiously and that was that.

25 Q. Well, I don't see anything to debate there. I assume they read

Page 1903

1 through what had been typed out.

2 A. Well, I don't see anything to debate there either.

3 Q. But why didn't they sign their part, their portion of the report?

4 A. Why we didn't sign in 1991? Is that what you're asking me?

5 Q. Yes.

6 A. Well, we just didn't sign it. That wasn't customary. I don't

7 know what else to say.

8 Q. Did some -- anyone sign, anybody?

9 A. I don't know.

10 Q. So you signed this in the year 2000; is that right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And why did you sign then?

13 A. You mean the forms attached here? I think the forms that are

14 attached here are the signed ones.

15 Q. Yes.

16 A. Well, it comprised work on 50 structures.

17 Q. Why did you sign then in 2000 and not in 1991?

18 A. Because that's what I was asked to do. If it is attached to my

19 statement, then I sign it because that was what I was required to do.

20 Q. So after a period of nine years, after nine years had gone by,

21 could you remember all of the damages in the insulae number nine, ten,

22 eleven, twelve?

23 A. I didn't write my report nine years later, I wrote my report

24 immediately after the damage was incurred, but I signed to say that they

25 were mine. Nine years later I can't remember all the damages, especially

Page 1904

1 after ten major projects that have been ongoing to reconstruct buildings.

2 Q. Well, how do you know nine years later that what has been typed

3 out and what the reports contain are the authentic facts that you set out

4 in your report?

5 A. Because they are the same reports. In the text itself, I can

6 recognise my own method of writing and compiling a report, and I know that

7 what I said there was what happened, was what I actually did.

8 Q. So when you looked at it in the year 2000, you recognised that

9 that was what you had done in 1991. And I assume that you remember what

10 the contents of the report were.

11 A. Well, look, I read it. Not in great detail, but I read it and I

12 established that that was it.

13 Q. How did you know that in 2000? For example, if I ask you today

14 what exactly were the damages on various buildings, can you remember all

15 of it without looking at the documents?

16 A. I can remember some things, not all of them.

17 Q. Just a moment, please. Give me any example except for the

18 Franciscan Monastery. Do you remember any other damage on any other

19 building that you wrote about here?

20 A. I remember very well. For example, the Church of the Holy

21 Saviour, right by the Franciscan Monastery. This is a Renaissance church,

22 one of the most valuable monuments in Dubrovnik.

23 Q. Just tell me what the damage is.

24 A. It is indirect, the damage is indirect, but this is a building on

25 which this damage is terrible. It can basically not be redressed. It's

Page 1905

1 on the surface of the wall, then also on the ornaments around the entrance

2 door and then also on the plasters, and some of them were even dislocated.

3 The building was not hit directly, but the facade and the external wall

4 was.

5 Q. What was the category?

6 A. The category of damage could be third category.

7 Q. Would you now like to look a page?

8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first of all in the

9 B/C/S version, the last three figures are 150, and then page 151.

10 Q. Please take a look at page 150 first. Does number 11 indicate the

11 church that you just talked about?

12 A. Yes, exactly.

13 Q. Now please look at page 151.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. You just said to us that you established that the roof was damaged

16 there. Is that what you said a few minutes ago in respect of the Church

17 of Our Saviour?

18 A. It was minor damage that was caused by the hit of a rather

19 powerful projectile that hit a building. It's number 9.

20 Q. Please answer my question. Did you say that you established that

21 the roof of the Church of Our Saviour was damaged? Is that what you said

22 two minutes ago?

23 A. Possibly.

24 Q. Yes or no. Did you say it or did you not say it?

25 A. Yes.

Page 1906

1 Q. Do you see any damage on the roof that is indicated here?

2 A. No, it's not indicated here. I probably considered this to be a

3 lesser damage.

4 Q. Why did you mention that today, 14 years later, and not in your

5 report, the one that you made ten days after it?

6 A. I probably considered it to be a lesser damage.

7 MR. KAUFMAN: If I may.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kaufman.

9 MR. KAUFMAN: I would ask my learned friend when he's putting the

10 questions to the witness and asserting that points were not made X number

11 of years ago, to be accurate in the way the question is phrased. I would

12 like to refer, perhaps for Your Honours' convenience, to the English

13 translation of this particular subsite, which can be found at L0060310.

14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] With all due respect, I was talking

15 about two drawings. I haven't come to that page yet, my learned friend.

16 I will get to that page too, but I haven't got to that page yet. And in

17 the English translations there are no sketches, only in the B/C/S version.

18 I'm still talking about sketches only, and I will get to the page you've

19 referred to just now. Then I'm going to indicate both the B/C/S and the

20 English versions of that particular page.

21 MR. KAUFMAN: My only point being, Your Honours, that X number of

22 years ago, when this report was prepared back in 1991, there was mention

23 of damage to the rooftops. It's not correct to put it to the witness that

24 she did not talk about damage to the roof.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Kaufman.

Page 1907

1 The point, Mr. Petrovic, appears to be that the detailed report

2 prepared by the witness does mention such damage. What you are

3 identifying is a summarising sketch that was put at the beginning of the

4 report, no doubt by others.

5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that's precisely what

6 I wished to show. I wished to indicate the difference between what the

7 sketch, the map shows, and what the distinguished witness said. That was

8 the aim of what I was trying to get at.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. Can I say something?

10 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous translation continues]...

11 MR. PETROVIC: [No translation]

12 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mrs. Peko, were you wanting to say something?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I would just like to point out

14 that a few minutes ago I said that I think that it was the third category

15 of damage. That means either one or the other. That is to say either the

16 facade, the front wall, or the roof. I estimated that the facade, the

17 front wall, sustained major damage and the roof sustained minor damage.

18 And now what I wrote --

19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Well, at any rate, the map on 151 is not accurate. Does it

21 reflect what you said?

22 A. On page 152, it does reflect that where category 3 damage is

23 concerned, that is to say either/or; either the wall or the roof. I may

24 have mentioned the roof, but obviously I considered the damage sustained

25 by the front wall to be major damage.

Page 1908

1 Q. So the damage that you're referring to, is that an indirect hit?

2 A. You mean the wall?

3 Q. Yes. Now, please look at 151 and tell me where is an indirect hit

4 shown here.

5 A. With the dotted line. And this dotted line is there, right by the

6 front wall on the south and partly the eastern wall.

7 Q. Not on the building itself?

8 A. Well, there's no other way of depicting it. That is how we did

9 it, with the dotted line.

10 Q. Let's move on. Thank you. Tell me, when did you -- when did you

11 establish how a particular building was damaged? You don't have to look

12 at these papers any more now. I'm giving you a general question.

13 When did you establish when the building was damaged?

14 A. When touring it, when coming to see it.

15 Q. Tell me, at any point in time did you have any knowledge about the

16 previous status of the building that you were reviewing?

17 A. What previous status do you mean?

18 Q. I'll try to explain. Did you know in what condition the building

19 was before you went out there? For example, let's put it this way:

20 Before October 1991, did you know in what condition these buildings were

21 or a particular building was?

22 A. Well, this church, for instance, the Church of Our Saviour, that's

23 a church that we pass by practically every day so we are constantly aware

24 of it. So the damage sustained by stone on our monuments is obvious

25 because new damage can easily be seen.

Page 1909

1 Q. Domino 6 in insula 12. Do you know in what condition it was

2 before you actually investigated?

3 A. Six? I'd have to have a look at it.

4 Q. Now, I'm asking you whether you knew when you entered that

5 building in what condition it had been before 1991. Did you know?

6 A. I cannot identify the building exactly. Do you really think that

7 I go into all of those 50 buildings, 50 houses every day? You see, damage

8 is quite obvious. I told you at the very outset that what is important

9 for me is to distinguish between a direct hit and an indirect hit. A

10 cultural monument is important for me as such. I don't know how to put

11 this. And at the moment when I arrive there, I see there is damage and I

12 can distinguish between old damage and new damage, recent damage.

13 Q. How do you distinguish between an old and a new crack in the wall?

14 A. Well, that can be seen. Very often these cracks in our walls are

15 covered with paint, and when due to vibrations and due to hits there are

16 further cracks, they appear in the same place. Cracks are activated.

17 That is the word we use. And that is where the plaster falls off, the

18 mortar falls off if cracks are reactivated.

19 Q. How do you know when there were cracks for years, for a long time,

20 and then it becomes bigger? Why did this not happen in September 1991?

21 How come you know it wasn't in September?

22 A. Well, in September there wasn't any new hit. Why would that

23 happen?

24 Q. Does that mean that all buildings were in perfect condition until

25 October 1991?

Page 1910

1 A. It does not mean that they were in perfect condition, but I can

2 recognise a crack being activated, yes.

3 Q. Does that mean that between the earthquake of 1979 and 1991 a

4 crack could not have happened?

5 A. Well, hardly, because if that were the case, then all buildings

6 would have fallen apart. If they were cracks coming up all the time, then

7 they'd fall apart. So it's vibrations, detonations, that kind of thing

8 causes cracks. Of any origin, of course.

9 Q. So what was it that you knew in terms of damage sustained by

10 various buildings apart from the Church of Our Saviour and the Franciscan

11 Monastery? What did you know about all the other buildings and the

12 condition they were in before October 1991?

13 A. The condition they were in? Well, that they were in proper

14 physical condition, that they were usable, that they were being used, and

15 that the people living and working there were taking care of them, as is

16 customary in our part of the world.

17 Q. How can it be assumed that, when you did not enter 95 per cent of

18 these buildings, because these are residential buildings or business

19 premises, how can you claim that they were being maintained properly when

20 you were never entered them?

21 A. Because those that are in poor condition become part of a

22 reconstruction programme or renewal programme. After the earthquake,

23 buildings were restored and renewed according to a certain programme. The

24 Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments could have data about

25 this. And also we have a reconstruction institute in Dubrovnik too that

Page 1911

1 was established precisely after the earthquake of 1979. It was engaged in

2 systematic reconstruction of buildings in town as an investor.

3 As I said, from 1988, I was employed in the bureau called

4 Arhitekt. I worked on four buildings, on four buildings that were damaged

5 during the war.

6 Q. Please answer my questions. That's what I'm asking you about. So

7 there is information, there is data about this at the institute, and so on

8 and so forth. So when you are at a building, you do not really know

9 anything about it, because all this information is registered somewhere at

10 the institute. But what do you know about it? Nothing.

11 A. Well, look, I'm some kind of an expert. I can absolutely

12 distinguish between old damage and recent damage. I cannot say our

13 buildings are in ideal condition, but I can distinguish between old damage

14 and recent damage.

15 Q. How do you distinguish, for example, recent, new damage on a new

16 building? I mean, I'm not asking you about roofs, I'm asking you about

17 walls?

18 A. Front walls you mean, facades?

19 Q. No, inside, within a building, a particular floor.

20 A. Well, it wasn't that frequent that there was damage there. In

21 nine buildings, there was total damage.

22 Q. Please answer my question. I'm not asking you about nine

23 buildings, I'm asking you how you can distinguish between new damage and

24 old damage sustained by the floor in a particular building. How can you

25 tell?

Page 1912

1 A. Well, in the floor there was damage very seldom except in the case

2 of these nine buildings that were totally destroyed.

3 Q. So there was no constructional damage in -- except for the roof

4 damage?

5 A. No. There was damage on the front walls, the facades, then the

6 roofs, so that is part of the construction, too, yes. Most of the

7 constructional damage could be noticed there.

8 Q. Tell me, please, in one of the same buildings, how do you

9 distinguish between damage sustained in October and November and December

10 respectively?

11 A. I was not asked to do that. I was asked to register all the

12 damage that was sustained on the 6th of December.

13 Q. So that includes all the damage from the months of October,

14 November, and December.

15 A. Yes. This preliminary report refers to those three months.

16 Q. At one point yesterday you mentioned Davorin Rudolf.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. That he spoke over the radio.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Do you remember what he said?

21 A. I just know that his voice had an incredibly pacifying effect, and

22 his wish was to make the inhabitants of Dubrovnik feel calmer and help

23 them live through this.

24 Q. Do you perhaps remember whether he referred to an individual

25 called Jokic, Admiral Jokic?

Page 1913

1 A. I don't think he referred to anyone in particular. I'm not sure.

2 I'm not sure. I think that he addressed us in a very humane way.

3 Q. Do you remember that he conveyed the apology that the JNA

4 addressed to him and the citizens of Dubrovnik because of what was going

5 on at that time in Dubrovnik?

6 A. An apology. I don't remember. That would have been a paradox.

7 Q. Do you remember perhaps that he said that this Admiral Jokic had

8 been called back to Belgrade to see the Federal Secretary for National

9 Defence?

10 A. I don't remember that.

11 Q. Would it surprise you if I told you that Mr. Rudolf himself says

12 that that is what he spoke about?

13 A. I listened to Mr. Rudolf with great delight, because he calmed us

14 down in a way, but do I not remember all of this, but after all, it is for

15 him to speak about this.

16 Q. Although I know that this is a traumatic and hard experience for

17 you, I will have to ask you something about the building that you were in.

18 Please don't hold it against me. This is simply in line with the role I

19 have before this Court.

20 Tell me, when was the building that you were staying at hit?

21 A. Between 11.00 and 12.00 on the 6th of December. I don't know when

22 exactly.

23 Q. Do you know how it was hit?

24 A. According to what my husband said, it was a guided rocket. I know

25 the exact point of impact, and I know that I saw white traces. I know

Page 1914

1 that early the following morning I went to collect stone that had fallen

2 off that building. This was important for me because the city cleaning

3 services were already cleaning the streets, and it was important for this

4 particular building, and that's when I saw it.

5 Q. So what was the damage involved?

6 A. The projectile hit the corner of the building or, rather, the

7 eastern wall, right below the stone drainpipe. The surface of the wall

8 was destroyed. Perhaps one square metre was destroyed, and about one

9 metre of the stone drainpipe along with the adjoining ones.

10 Q. And what is the total surface area, would you say, of the damage?

11 A. You mean to the facade?

12 Q. I mean the damage you saw to the building you lived in.

13 A. Well, on the facade, the surface area might have been between one

14 and two metres. It's at the corner of the building. But what was damaged

15 most was the roof, because the whole structure was displaced.

16 Q. Could you take a look at a photograph now for me, please, in the

17 first binder before you. 01069400 is the number. The photograph is from

18 the B/C/S bundle, it doesn't exist in the English bundle. 400 are the

19 last three digits. 4-0-0 are the last three digits.

20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher place it on the

21 overhead projector, please. That will help us all.

22 Q. Mrs. Peko, would you please take a look at the photograph on the

23 ELMO.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Tell me, is that your house? Is that it?

Page 1915

1 A. Yes.

2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] May I have the photograph back,

3 please.

4 Q. Tell me, please, after looking at the photograph, would you say

5 that that was a two-metre wide by one metre damage? Would that be the

6 surface area?

7 A. On the eastern side and on the northern side is where the damage

8 is.

9 Now, on the northern facade, the pieces of stone have been

10 dislodged. If you know -- if one knows that the stones are 25 to 30

11 centimetres high, each stone block, you have one, two, three, four, four

12 blocks, then I think that my assessment is roughly correct. And there's a

13 piece of stone missing at the level of the drainpipe. So I would say I

14 was correct.

15 Q. Would you take a look at the page ending in the 399, and in

16 English it is 0061069 is the ERN English number.

17 Madam, would you read what your colleague wrote about the damage.

18 Or, rather, tell me first, please, whether that is your building, the one

19 mentioned here. Is that the house you were in, in actual fact?

20 A. Block Boskoviceva 15. Yes, that's the house, that's the damage.

21 Q. Take a look at what it says in the report there for the structure,

22 and does that correspond to what you've just told us?

23 A. "Direct hit into the stone drainpipe. Direct hit in the roof

24 drainpipe on the eastern and northern facade which caused lesser damages

25 to the stone channel about 20 -- stone canal, about 20 centimetres, and a

Page 1916

1 stone console or support."

2 Q. And what does it say next?

3 A. "On the northern facade, a stone block has been blown away and ten

4 others damaged."

5 Q. Now, tell me, please, your assessments and your testimony and what

6 it says here, can you see that there is a significant difference between

7 your assessment and what it says there?

8 Do you agree that there is quite a lot of difference between your

9 description and the description made by Mr. Elakovic and Comor?

10 A. With respect to damages to other structures, this is indeed a

11 lesser damage, but I assume that the damage does correspond with the

12 surface area.

13 Q. Would you concentrate on my question, please. Do you agree that

14 there is a great difference between your description of the damages and

15 what Comor and Elakovic ascertained?

16 A. I see no great difference.

17 Q. Do you see a difference in the dimensions, in the size of the

18 damage? It says 20 centimetres here and you said one to two metres, I

19 believe, which means ten times more, madam.

20 A. I don't know how to explain this to you. This is a direct

21 description of what was damaged by the hit. The canal, or drainpipe, was

22 considerably damaged, but I don't think there's a great difference in

23 surface area, actually.

24 Q. What did you tell us as to the dimensions of the damage a moment

25 ago on the building you lived in? What did you tell us five minutes ago?

Page 1917

1 A. Five minutes ago I told you the exact spot at which the impact

2 hit. And to the best of my recollections, that is 12 or 13 years later.

3 This is something that my colleagues saw, and this is a photograph. So it

4 is facts from them, supplied by them.

5 Q. But it was the house you were in?

6 A. Yes, it was. That's right.

7 Q. Do you mean to say -- just a moment, please. Is it logical and

8 natural that in the house that you were living in that you remember

9 exactly, because you were very interested in what was going on because you

10 and your family were housed there, wasn't it logical that this was

11 something that stuck in your memory?

12 A. Yes, it did stick in my memory, you're right. It stuck there and

13 lodged very firmly. However, at the time I viewed it as damage to a

14 structure, and I knew exactly what I would have to do after the war, which

15 was to repair. So I accepted that as a fact. It never entered my head to

16 take up a measuring stick and measure the area. And I know that much more

17 extensive repairs would have to be done than what it says here, let alone

18 the roof construction.

19 Q. Did you approach in the same way the structures where you had the

20 duty and responsibility of assessing the material damage -- the damage?

21 A. That cannot be compared at all. I was an ordinary citizen,

22 inhabitant there who, through force of circumstance, managed to survive

23 the hit, because the building was far more sensitive in other places than

24 that particular place where the shell hit. So I cannot at all times look

25 at things professionally and act as a professional. Otherwise, I would

Page 1918

1 have come here with a measuring stick to measure the table in front of

2 you, for instance.

3 Q. What equipment did you have when you went to investigate on site,

4 except the form you told us about?

5 A. A pencil.

6 Q. So you didn't have a tape-measure? You didn't have a camera? You

7 didn't have a notebook to record the damage? You didn't have any of that?

8 A. I know very well what architectural investigation requires. It

9 requires a lot of time and effort, and there are certain areas where you

10 -- which are inaccessible, where you would need scaffolding to be able to

11 assess the damage. Of course I had a measuring -- a tape-measure. I

12 forgot to mention that. Because I looked at the depth of the impact, the

13 damage. But had we used a tape-measure to measure each and every piece of

14 damage, that would have been impossible. I know -- knew that

15 investigations would follow and that repair work would have to be done and

16 that would come afterwards, but detailed procedure in that way, where

17 would that have led us? We would have been spending years and years doing

18 that. It's just not reasonable to assume that.

19 Q. After my question you said you had a tape-measure. To begin with

20 you just told us you had a pencil, and that seemed to you to be illogical

21 so you added the tape measure, is that it?

22 A. Well, I apologise for my mistake, my omission.

23 Q. Did you use your tape-measure to measure, the one you said you

24 took with you?

25 A. I always take a tape-measure with me in order to measure things.

Page 1919

1 Q. What did you measure?

2 A. The diameter and radius of the damage, the depth of the damage.

3 Q. So what would you do on one particular structure? There were

4 measurements to be taken everywhere, I assume.

5 A. No. I'm an architect. I can assess a dimension in space, at

6 least roughly speaking.

7 Q. So many damages were assessed by you visually. By looking at the

8 structure, you would say that is one or two metres, roughly. Am I right

9 in assuming that?

10 A. Architectural measurement is a process that you're probably not

11 acquainted with but it is a lengthy process. Architectural assessment at

12 a ten metre height is impossible to do, and that's why we did not engage

13 in systematic monitoring and measurement. I went to four burnt down

14 buildings at a height of 14 metres and assessed the damage there. I can

15 tell you which those structures were and I can tell you how long that kind

16 of investigation lasted, but in this particular case we were not able to

17 apply these things for our preliminary report and our preliminary

18 assessments.

19 Q. I should now like to ask you to take a look at the second binder

20 that you have before you --

21 JUDGE PARKER: Perhaps, Mr. Petrovic, if you're moving to another,

22 it would be convenient to have a break before we do.

23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, quite, thank you.

24 I should have thought of that myself. Thank you.

25 JUDGE PARKER: It will be a 20-minute break.

Page 1920

1 --- Recess taken at 12.13 p.m.

2 --- On resuming at 12.43 p.m.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.

4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

5 Q. Mrs. Peko, before the break I asked you to take a look at a

6 document, the second binder, to look at insula 11.

7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the page number is, in

8 the B/C/S, 010169632, and for the English translation it is L0061497. So

9 from that page onwards I shall be asking some questions with respect to

10 Mrs. Peko's report in that portion.

11 Q. Mrs. Peko, insula 11 is what we're looking at, from page 632,

12 those being the last three digits. Have you found it? Have you found the

13 page?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Tell me, please, first of all you see this column headed "Type of

16 projectile," and there is a mortar shell, 120 millimetres, three of those.

17 How were you able to ascertain that?

18 A. I don't remember. I assume I saw them lined up in the building,

19 the remnants.

20 Q. Tell me, please, what does a 120-millimetre shell look like?

21 A. I don't know. I never saw the whole of it, just the fragments

22 that were left behind.

23 Q. Tell me, what do the fragments of a 120-millimetre shell look

24 like?

25 A. Well, it looks like a sort of full barrel with wing-like

Page 1921

1 structures at the end. That is the fragment, that's what remains of a

2 shell.

3 Q. And what about the shrapnel of a 120-millimetre shell?

4 A. Well, I don't distinguish between a 120-millimetre shrapnel and an

5 82-millimetre shrapnel, but of the shrapnels that I saw, I can describe

6 them in this way: They are pieces of steel with fragmented edges and a

7 flat surface, on a flat surface, the torn edges, and you can see this flat

8 plate-like surface.

9 Q. Can you distinguish between shrapnel of 82-millimetre shells and

10 120-millimetre shells? And did you see the remains of the wings of a

11 mortar shell in each of these structures?

12 A. Well, almost in all of them. People would save them and store

13 them away and then show -- show them to us.

14 Q. And where would you find the fragments of a mortar shell?

15 Somebody would give them to you or what?

16 A. No. They were sort of all lined up in part of the space,

17 apartment, or whatever.

18 Q. So you didn't find any of the shrapnel fragments at the spot they

19 fell.

20 A. No. People cleared up the streets the very next day and would

21 come across these fragments.

22 Q. So all these shell fragments were moved from the actual spot at

23 which they fell; is that right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And how can you distinguish between the remains of an 82-mortar

Page 1922

1 shell and a 120-millimetre shell when it comes to these wing-like

2 structures? Can you describe what one looks and the other looks like and

3 what the difference is?

4 A. The difference is in the radius, and I was able to see when it was

5 an 82-millimetre one and a 120-millimetre one. So that's mostly it. In

6 the structures that I investigated. And in our three-member team or

7 commission, when I was working with my colleagues who had undergone a

8 certain amount of training and were better versed in these matters than I

9 was, then they would make the assessment and record it, because I really

10 don't understand matters of that type.

11 Q. In all the reports that you signed, you made the assessments as to

12 what size shell had caused the damage; is that right?

13 A. It was my duty either to make the evaluation myself or to receive

14 information from the owner or user of the building, or even to bring in

15 the projectile itself. But very often they didn't let us take the

16 projectiles away, the ones that they had managed to collect.

17 Q. Have you ever seen a 60-millimetre projectile, for example? Or

18 have you ever seen a projectile from some other artillery weapon and not

19 from a mortar?

20 A. Well, I've already told you that I could recognise these remnants

21 from an 82-millimetre and 120-millimetre mortar. Then also I could see

22 when it was an incendiary shell that fell.

23 Q. We'll get to that.

24 A. And I also saw the traces of guided rockets. I cannot distinguish

25 between other things. I am not an expert, an arms expert. I actually

Page 1923

1 find this repulsive. I don't really want to know anything about such

2 things.

3 Q. What about a building that was indirectly hit? What did you find

4 there?

5 A. I would ascertain that there had been an indirect hit.

6 Q. What did you find? What kind of shell remains did you find in a

7 building that had been indirectly hit? What would you find there?

8 A. People mostly kept larger parts of projectiles, not smaller ones

9 usually. Since the damage sustained by buildings was mainly external, on

10 walls, roofs, et cetera, then this would fall into the street and it would

11 be cleaned the very next day, these tiny little fragments. Nobody

12 collected them.

13 Q. Did you find this part with the wing-like structures by the

14 buildings that were indirectly hit?

15 A. I would not find them at all by buildings that were hit. Outside,

16 I mean.

17 Q. So how did you then establish, in the case of a building that was

18 indirectly hit, the type and calibre of projectile that it had been hit

19 with?

20 A. This is information that we would get from people living or

21 working in the buildings. Usually when a building was hit directly, then

22 its next-door building would be indirectly hit, the building next door,

23 the roof on the building next door. The people who were directly hit,

24 whose building was directly hit, would know.

25 Q. How would people know the type and calibre of projectile?

Page 1924

1 A. I told you. At their homes they had their -- these remains. And

2 they know. If it hit the front wall of the neighbour's house and then if

3 their building was affected, it was probably from that building, too, but

4 possibly there was shrapnel flying all over the place. It's hard to tell.

5 Q. Was it possible to -- for damage to be incurred by other weapons,

6 not only mortars?

7 A. What do you mean?

8 Q. Well, for example, a cannon, a recoilless gun, if you know what

9 that is.

10 A. I don't know.

11 Q. What about a howitzer? Could a howitzer have caused damaged?

12 A. Well, possibly. I assumed that as far as these guns and cannons

13 are concerned, there was a larger distance involved, but I'm not familiar

14 with these weapons, and I don't know what their shells look like. I told

15 you at the very outset, I can distinguish between a direct hit and an

16 indirect hit, but for me that is a weapon, a weapon that caused damage.

17 So one shell was one too many in Dubrovnik, and a crime, as far as I'm

18 concerned.

19 Q. Madam, every report of yours contains precise details concerning

20 the type of projectile that caused the damage. I'm not asking you all of

21 this for any other reason but because of the fact that it is included in

22 your report. There was not a single report of yours without giving the

23 type and calibre of projectile. That's why I'm putting these questions to

24 you. There's no other reason.

25 A. This is information that I would get in different ways; by seeing

Page 1925

1 what the remains were at a particular building or by getting a description

2 from the tenants, or by having the projectile brought in as such. So it

3 was one of these types of information. I really didn't invent any of

4 this.

5 Q. Do you know whether these remains that were shown to you were

6 really from that building or were they perhaps from another building?

7 A. It was not carried around that way that they would collect ten

8 projectiles in one building and then that they would boast with it as if

9 it were a trophy. I don't think that was the case.

10 Q. How come you know, madam, that somebody was not carrying fragments

11 of projectiles from one building to another and yet another one? How can

12 you know that?

13 A. Well, I really don't know, but ...

14 Q. Do you know that many people collected these sad trophies in the

15 town of Dubrovnik for their own collections?

16 A. People kept this in their buildings, especially if their building

17 had been hit by one. How many people there were who were involved in this

18 kind of collecting is something I really don't know.

19 Q. Let's go back to a building that was indirectly hit. What do you

20 find by way of traces coming from a shell so that you could ascertain that

21 it was hit by an 82-millimetre or 120-millimetre shell?

22 A. I tell you that the damage has to do with a projectile, a shell

23 that hit another place near that building. For example, if you see on the

24 facade of the Church of Our Saviour evident signs of damage, that is to

25 say holes in the wall, they are quite pronounced even today. And you have

Page 1926

1 accurate reports in terms of the damage sustained by the main street,

2 Placa, and you see that three or four projectiles, whatever, fell on the

3 Onofrijeva Fountain. Then they ricocheted from there in all directions.

4 The roofs and the window frames and the walls were hit. That can be

5 seen.

6 Q. Will you agree with me that you actually could not ascertain with

7 any degree of certitude the type of projectile that had hit the buildings?

8 You did not have any direct knowledge, you did not have the necessary

9 knowledge to establish this anyway, and you did not have the mechanisms

10 involved.

11 A. I told you that I could tell them apart by way of their diameter

12 and also the fragments left of 82-millimetre and 120-millimetre shells. I

13 could distinguish between those, no doubt. And people would show them to

14 me. I would not find them on the spot right by the damage.

15 Q. In respect of a building that was hit by shrapnel, how could you

16 establish what the calibre of the original shell was?

17 A. Well, if in the immediate neighbourhood there was a 120-millimetre

18 shell that fell, then I know it came from there. So if it ricocheted off

19 that wall or this wall, then I know it came from there.

20 Q. Could it have been from a machine-gun?

21 A. A machine-gun?

22 Q. A bigger calibre machine-gun.

23 A. Well, that's what you said. I don't see how come there could be

24 machine-guns in Dubrovnik. Maybe you were doing it from up there. Maybe

25 there were machine-guns.

Page 1927

1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could you please have

2 this last sentence interpreted to you very precisely, because it contains

3 an insult, an insult addressed at General Strugar, and I would like the

4 Chamber to reprimand the witness for saying such offensive words like

5 maybe I was up there on Mount Srdj. "[In English] You were doing it from

6 up there." [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is offence, that's an

7 insult, and I would kindly ask you to intervene.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, I don't understand what was said in

9 the way that you do. Firstly, I see nothing addressed to your client.

10 Secondly, when you put to the witness, "Could it have been a machine-gun?"

11 she reacted by saying, "Well, you might know whether there was a

12 machine-gun or not," I think addressed to you, not your client, and saying

13 that if you're suggesting there was a machine-gun that must be your

14 suggestion, not hers. So I'm afraid I don't concur with your

15 interpretation of what was said. I think you may have misunderstood what

16 was intended.

17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I accept everything

18 you said. All right. Let's not dwell on it any longer, although,

19 regrettably, I think that it was otherwise.

20 Q. Tell me, do you know anything about the way in which an

21 82-millimetre or 120-millimetre shell is fragmentised?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Is anything written on the small wing-like structures that you

24 claim you found at various buildings?

25 A. I think it was possible to read the calibre and the year of

Page 1928

1 manufacture on some, but on others, no. I cannot say that with any

2 certitude. I've forgotten.

3 Q. Did you perhaps see the wing-like structures on a rifle grenade?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Do you know anything about descent angles of mortar shells?

6 A. No.

7 Q. On your teams, was there a crime investigation technician who

8 could ascertain this type of damage?

9 A. Look, on our team there were men who had undergone certain

10 training. Also, just before work started on this report, there was a

11 brief review of the types of projectiles that could be encountered. These

12 fragments of projectiles were on a table. However, I got involved in this

13 later, that is to say on the 9th of December. I saw the table, and -- but

14 I mean I really did not have any wish to look at it any further.

15 Now, what was it I've been trying to say? Yes. We were actually

16 warned that if we would find fragments of projectiles that there was this

17 so-called fuse that had not exploded and that we should be very careful.

18 Q. I just asked you whether you had a crime investigation technician

19 with you.

20 A. Not with me.

21 Q. Was there on your team with you a ballistics expert?

22 A. On my team at the buildings? No.

23 Q. Was there any such expert on the team -- on the entire team that

24 was working on the entirety of the preliminary report?

25 A. I don't see any such name, because I know most of these people.

Page 1929

1 Q. Was a crime investigation carried out? Did anybody collect these

2 remains of projectiles so that they could be processed afterwards in terms

3 of crime investigation?

4 A. I don't know any such thing.

5 Q. Please look at page 01069635.

6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in the English

7 translation that is page L0061498.

8 Q. These reports that are marked insula 11, report 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,

9 all the way up to -- all the way up to page 01069648, are all of those

10 reports yours?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. How much time is required for examining one building, for

13 instance?

14 A. It depends on the size of the building and the extent of damage

15 involved.

16 Q. Well, give me an approximation, please. What would be the least

17 amount of time required, and what would be the longest amount of time

18 required?

19 A. I cannot say that exactly now. I don't know. I don't remember.

20 Q. How much time is needed for carrying an on-site investigation of

21 an apartment building in the street of Miha Pracata, for instance? That

22 is insula 11, buildings 5 and 6. How much time is required?

23 A. Well, for example, Miha Pracata Street, yes, there it is. Number

24 1, and that is page 635, residential building, if I was there at 10.00,

25 and then I was at the neighbouring building at 11.30, well -- 11.15.

Page 1930

1 Fifteen minutes, up to one hour. I don't know how much. I'm just saying

2 all this off-the-cuff. I can't remember.

3 Q. Could you please explain to me how you managed within four hours

4 on the 15th of December to examine 11 buildings. Between 10.00 a.m. and

5 2.00 p.m., you examined 14 buildings. How did you manage to do that?

6 A. These are probably smaller buildings with less damage involved.

7 This is a part of town that was affected in a minor way, but I don't see

8 where this is leading to, but okay, never mind.

9 Q. Did you really have enough time within four hours to actually

10 examine buildings, 11 buildings?

11 A. Eleven?

12 Q. 11/2, 11/3, 11-4, 11-5, 11-6, 11-7, 11-8, 11-9, 11-12, 11-13. You

13 managed to do all of that within four hours' time. How come?

14 A. Quickly.

15 Q. I agree it was quick but did you do it properly? Did you do it

16 accurately?

17 A. I stand behind this. I stand by it and I think it's correct.

18 Q. During these four hours, did you establish that there were 11

19 direct hits by 120-millimetre mortars?

20 A. Eleven?

21 Q. Yes, 11. Believe me, I added them all up, and you can do the same

22 thing.

23 A. Well, it depends on the place the damage took place, the size of

24 the building, the number of damages, lots of things.

25 Q. So is it true that you, in the space of four hours, were able to

Page 1931

1 establish 11 mortar hits with a 120-millimetre shell? Yes or no.

2 A. I certainly established the number of hits. Now, whether that

3 took place within the space of four hours, I don't know. Perhaps I didn't

4 record the time precisely. It's not the hour of impact, it's not anything

5 like that. Perhaps I wasn't precise enough in determining the overall

6 time.

7 Q. Perhaps you were imprecise in the counting of the hits.

8 A. No, I don't believe that to be the case.

9 Q. Did you see a single spot where the -- and I'm talking about

10 insula 11, the spot -- did you see the spot where the projectile actually

11 hit the soil, the ground, or the structure?

12 A. There are indirect hits and direct hits, so quite obviously I did

13 see the direct hits.

14 Q. In the space of those four hours, did you manage to establish and

15 take a look at, in addition to the 11 hits, the five indirect hits as well

16 with the 120-millimetre mortar shell? All in the space of four hours did

17 you manage to do that too?

18 A. Yes, I could, I was able to. Let me give you an example. Within

19 the space of one minute, I was able to ascertain the damage on the

20 cloister of the Franciscan Monastery. Six direct hits. You could see

21 that. It just takes you a minute.

22 Now, as to these structures here, I don't know what to say. Yes,

23 of course, because the damage was the damage that was done, the hits were

24 the hits; and as to the time, well, I think it's quite enough time to do

25 that.

Page 1932

1 Q. So do you say that in one minute you can establish all the damage

2 done by six hits, that one minute is enough for you to see how the impact

3 took place, what the calibre of the weapon used, and can you stand by

4 that?

5 A. I wasn't speaking about calibres, that I could do that within a

6 minute, but when you're passing by a balcony, a terrace, for example, and

7 see four direct hits, in passing by, it's just six to eight metres, you

8 can tell that, you can establish that, yes.

9 Q. Let's take a look at insula 11 now. So there were 11 different

10 structures. Tell me, please, within those four hours, in addition to the

11 11 direct hits and five indirect hits with the 120-millimetre projectile,

12 when you conducted your investigation you established two direct hits with

13 incendiary bullets; is that right?

14 A. Yes, I'm sure about that.

15 Q. How can you distinguish between an incendiary bullet and a

16 non-incendiary bullet?

17 A. Well, at the point of impact, the incendiary bullet leaves a dark

18 orange, reddish-orange colour trace. I'm sure about that.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kaufman.

20 MR. KAUFMAN: Yes, Your Honour. This is a matter of translation.

21 I just want to make sure there's consistency in the terminology that was

22 used by the Translation Unit perhaps, and because I'm not sure that the

23 term -- the term "incendiary" has been used previously, and

24 "non-incendiary," but I'm not sure the word "bullet" has been used. Just

25 so that we are certain that there is consistency with the terminology.

Page 1933

1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's apologies: Projectile.

2 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you very much.

3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Could you now take a look, please, at number 7, insula 11. 69640

5 is the number, L006103 for the English version. And could you read the

6 report to us, please. You can read it to yourself. You have it in front

7 of you.

8 Tell me, please, who provided you with the information for this

9 particular structure? Who gave you the information about this?

10 A. I don't remember.

11 Q. Was anyone there to provide you with information?

12 A. Probably.

13 Q. Well, do you remember or do you not remember, or do you assume?

14 A. According to these forms, the number 9 structure was directly hit.

15 So probably on structure 7, on the roof construction of number 7, there

16 was some shrapnel from the projectile that fell there.

17 Q. Now, tell me how you saw that if you didn't enter the structure.

18 Is that your assumption?

19 A. If you have two neighbouring buildings, one hit by a

20 120-millimetre shell that fragmented and fell on the roof, then where

21 would this other damage -- how would this other damage have been made but

22 from that?

23 Q. Madam, you said it wasn't possible to investigate the structure.

24 So you didn't actually enter the structure. And now I'm asking you how

25 was it that you saw there was damage to the roof, or did you just assume

Page 1934

1 that because the shell had fallen close by so most probably the roof of

2 that particular house was damaged as well.

3 A. Dubrovnik has higher house and lower houses, and if I went into

4 the neighbouring structure, then I could look up and see, and there were

5 buildings underneath the music school which stands at a higher altitude

6 than all the other buildings. So that is something that I could have seen

7 from the neighbouring building.

8 Q. And did you do that in this particular case?

9 A. You're asking me about the details that I can't remember 12 and 13

10 years on. I can't remember specifically for this structure. I just

11 recorded that there was nobody inside, in the building. So I don't write

12 about the internal damages to the walls but the roof structure, which I

13 was able to see, and you can be quite convinced that I haven't imagined or

14 constructed or construed any data contained in my report. What I saw was

15 enough for me.

16 Q. So you're now making logical deductions and conclusions as to what

17 could have happened but you don't remember.

18 A. No, I'm not making logical conclusions. Quite simply, my

19 professional morals and ethics don't allow me to write down things that I

20 didn't see. And we're dealing with damages. I'm not interested in the

21 type and shape of the projectile at all, I'm interested in the damage.

22 Q. Take a look at 11/1, please, or -1. In the comment at the foot of

23 the page, "Remarks," it says the building was repaired after the

24 earthquake in 1979. Where do you get that piece of information, for

25 example?

Page 1935

1 A. Because I worked in the Institute for the Protection of Cultural

2 Monuments, and I know that the building was included into the repair work

3 that was done subsequent to the earthquake. And not only that, there was

4 an additional part to the building that was built when the reconstruction

5 was carried out.

6 Q. So do you know about all the buildings that were repaired and

7 reconstructed after the earthquake, the same thing that you said for the

8 11/1 building?

9 A. The institute has detailed information, but I do roughly know

10 about the buildings that were repaired and reconstructed, especially the

11 ones where I was the designer and architect working on the project. And

12 in this particular case, it is reinforced concrete, and our constructions

13 are generally -- the roof constructions are generally wooden

14 constructions.

15 Q. Take a look at the structure which has the number 10/10 now,

16 please, which is 69643 page or, rather, for the English translation,

17 L0061056.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. At the top, where it says "Type of projectile," you note that

20 there were two pieces of 120-millimetre shells and two of 82 millimetres.

21 In the comments or remarks at the bottom, it says: "The remains of one

22 120-millimetre shell were found."

23 How were you then able to establish that there were four, that two

24 were 120-millimetres and two were 82 millimetres, whereas at the bottom

25 you just say you just found one fragment?

Page 1936

1 A. Are we looking at the same structure, 10/10?

2 Q. Yes. Did I say 10/10? I apologise. I meant 11/10. I apologise

3 to the witness and to Their Honours. It is structure 11/10. And to my

4 colleagues as well. It is 01069643 in the B/C/S, and the English version

5 is L0061506. So we have two 120-millimetre projectiles, two 82-millimetre

6 projectiles, whereas at the end, in the remarks, it says the fragments of

7 one 120-millimetre shell were found. Now, my question to you is how were

8 you able to establish that there were six hits of which two by 120

9 millimetre and two by 82 millimetres whereas you found just one

10 120-millimetre shell or, rather, the fragments of one such shell? If you

11 don't know, then say you don't know and we can move on.

12 A. I really don't know, but I probably got the information from

13 somewhere.

14 Q. Doesn't that seem to you to be rather strange?

15 A. I can't reconstruct the whole thing now.

16 Q. Why in this case did you note down that fragments of a shell were

17 found, of one shell were found?

18 A. I really can't say. I don't know.

19 Q. Why in the majority of other cases there are no remarks of that

20 kind where you say the fragment of such-and-such shell found, just in this

21 one case?

22 A. I really can't answer that. I don't know. I can't go back 12

23 years to be able to explain that to you.

24 Q. Perhaps because that was the only place you found any fragments,

25 shell fragments.

Page 1937

1 A. Oh, no, no. You could come across them. People collected them

2 up.

3 Q. Why was this structure different from the others? Why did you

4 write down that you found a shell fragment here whereas you didn't write

5 that in any of the other cases? There must be some explanation for that.

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

7 Q. Perhaps the explanation is that you didn't find anything like that

8 in the other structures.

9 A. No. There were shells all over the place. As many as you like.

10 But as I have already told you, people would gather them up, collect them

11 together, and keep them in one place.

12 Q. Well, if the people stored them, why didn't you introduce that

13 into your records, into your notes and minutes?

14 A. Because I told you that I was interested in the damage done and

15 not in the shell that incurred the damage. And I don't like shells or

16 anything like that. I don't even like picking them up, having them in my

17 hand.

18 JUDGE PARKER: I trust you're keeping your eye on the time, are

19 you, Mr. Petrovic?

20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes. I do apologise,

21 but I'm sure you'll understand this is extensive matter and that it is no

22 easy task to find one's way in this bulk of material. I'm doing my best.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. There are no assessments of the damage in any of this material.

Page 1938

1 A. That wasn't the object of the report. We were told that the

2 damage would be evaluated in the final report and proposals for

3 reconstruction and repair work to be done, that would be in the final

4 report.

5 Q. So I assume you don't know who established -- who evaluated and

6 assessed the damage or how it was assessed. Do you have any personal

7 experience of this? Any of your friends know about this that you can tell

8 us, how the damage was assessed and evaluated?

9 A. Later on I came across categories of damage. As to an evaluation

10 of the damage, no, I didn't come across that anywhere.

11 Q. Who gave elements for damage estimates? Have you heard about such

12 things?

13 A. No, no. Well, maybe I did hear about it, but I don't remember at

14 any rate.

15 Q. When filling out these forms, did you fill them out in their

16 entirety, every single entry? Was there perhaps something that you did

17 not know or did you have to double-check something or did you always fill

18 them out in their entirety?

19 A. Yes. I would hand in the filled-out form. Possibly I did not

20 even fill out some forms at all. For example, when a few of us were on

21 this commission, only one of us would do the actual writing, not all three

22 of us. We would establish what the damage was and then we would agree on

23 what the text would be, and then one member of the commission would fill

24 out the form. And it is certain that I let others write about types of

25 projectiles, but at any rate, the form was always filled out. Sometimes I

Page 1939

1 would put some comments in as well, like in the case of the school, that

2 it had been reconstructed in 1979.

3 Q. On the reports that you compiled yourself, did you always fill out

4 the entire form, every single question?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Including those that had to do with the time when the building was

7 hit, the type of projectile?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Did you ever have any dilemma as to what should be written down?

10 Did you talk to someone? Did you seek advice?

11 A. We always communicated amongst ourselves. We always talked.

12 Before and after going on these tours, we talked about the buildings

13 and --

14 Q. Do you know how data were included in every one of the maps that

15 is attached to the report?

16 A. The data are based on the report that we provided, but in our

17 form, there would be exact reference to the category involved, and then

18 this would be depicted in the map. The locality of the damage was

19 depicted by a symbol. I explained this to you at the very beginning,

20 namely symbols showing the type of hit and the position of the building

21 that was hit.

22 Q. Did you follow the drawing of these maps or did this happen after

23 you submitted your report?

24 A. Well, it is only natural that the maps would be drawn after the

25 report was submitted.

Page 1940

1 Q. Please look at binder number 1 now, the Franciscan Monastery. I

2 have another question related to the city walls. There was a lot of

3 damage there that was established; right? Is the answer yes?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Tell me, how was information obtained there? Who provided the

6 information? What was hit and when?

7 A. I don't know who dealt with this particular area.

8 Q. I'm sorry, but if you don't know, let's just leave at it at that.

9 A. I really don't.

10 Q. Please look at 0106953. Please look at photograph number 11, if

11 I'm not mistaken. That is a photograph 01069615. You looked at it awhile

12 ago when my colleague showed it to you. My colleague showed you this

13 photograph. Please take a look at the photograph.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Tell me, can you conclude on the basis of this photograph anything

16 about the descent angle of the mortar shell?

17 A. Not the exact route it took but perhaps the direction, yes.

18 Q. Can you tell me on the basis of what you can establish the

19 direction which it fell?

20 A. Because this is the western wing of the cloister and behind it is

21 the facade of the western wing of the monastery. The four shells were

22 precisely in that area.

23 Q. I'm asking you about this specific photograph and this that you

24 can see here and now. Can you tell us the direction from which the shell

25 fell? Yes or no. If you can't, let's go on.

Page 1941

1 A. I can't. And this photograph is so unclear anyway.

2 Q. Please now take a look -- this is page 153. This is your report

3 related to the Franciscan Monastery.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. In the first sentence, you establish two direct hits on the facade

6 of the western wing; is that right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Do you know -- can you infer the direction from which the shell

9 came?

10 A. The eastern side, because, look, I can say this with certitude for

11 one that hit the wall. The other one that hit the surrounding area I

12 cannot say, but this one hit the corner between the southern and the

13 western sides of the cloister. So it could have only come from the east.

14 Q. Oh, so you say that only on the basis of the fact that on the

15 eastern side there were JNA units or why -- just let me finish my

16 question, please. Do you infer that or conclude that on the basis of the

17 fact that you believe the JNA units were there on the eastern side, or do

18 you base your conclusion on your belief that you can tell the direction

19 from which the shells were coming?

20 A. No. This has nothing to do with the side on which the JNA units

21 were. It has to do with the position of the building and the place where

22 the damage was sustained. If you have a wing which is on the west and if

23 the south is there, then of course it -- the shell had to come from the

24 east. There was no other way of having it happen.

25 Q. So are you capable of ascertaining the direction from which the

Page 1942

1 shell came on the basis of the actual damage?

2 A. In this case, yes. It could have come from the north-east or

3 east.

4 Q. Tell me, please, in the next sentence you say the wall damaged

5 where the southern and western wings come together.

6 A. Precisely.

7 Q. So where could it have come from?

8 A. Well, that's what I've been telling you all along.

9 Q. I've read out your quote once again.

10 A. Well, look, if this is the western wing and this is the southern

11 wing, this western wing has its eastern facade and western facade, and the

12 southern wing -- I mean, now we're talking about the building in general.

13 This building has on the southern part a wall on the south and on the

14 north.

15 Q. So where did the shell come from, the one that hit the western

16 facade of a particular building?

17 A. Well, let me look. The -- the two wings, the western and southern

18 wing, and when we say "wing," we refer to a building, actually, so it was

19 the eastern facade of the western wing. Look, can I draw this for you?

20 Q. Please let me put the question and then you can answer it if you

21 can.

22 MR. KAUFMAN: If I may just make an observation Your Honour. The

23 witness was answering the question until my learned friend interrupted

24 her.

25 JUDGE PARKER: I have understood the witness. I don't think that

Page 1943

1 Mr. Petrovic has. Perhaps a drawing might help you, Mr. Petrovic, I leave

2 it to you, but you are running out of time.

3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm going to put a

4 question that is very simple and then a simple answer will do.

5 Q. If on a building, so we're not talking about the building right in

6 front of us, if on a building the southern facade is damaged - not that

7 building, I'm talking about a building - can you conclude from which

8 direction the southern -- the shell came?

9 A. The southern facade? I can assume that it has to be 180 degrees

10 in relation to the surface. Anywhere within that range.

11 Q. So anywhere -- any direction but the north; right?

12 A. I think so, yes.

13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could you please

14 instruct me now? I have about half an hour of questioning left. Will you

15 allow me to complete that tomorrow morning or do I have to give up on my

16 questions, the ones that are left? I require another half hour. So

17 perhaps I will even be able to summarise it if I look at everything we

18 discussed today.

19 The report contains several hundred pages. You can see that for

20 yourselves, that's why this has been moving along somewhat slowly in view

21 of the volume of the material involved and the answers provided by

22 Mrs. Peko.

23 JUDGE PARKER: I agree very much, Mr. Petrovic, that things have

24 been moving somewhat slowly but the Chamber is well conscious that the

25 evidence-in-chief of this witness was very succinct because it consisted

Page 1944

1 substantially of tendering a large report without that being examined in

2 detail. For that reason we have been allowing you an unusual indulgence,

3 and we will continue that indulgence tomorrow morning, but do not exceed

4 the half hour estimate tomorrow morning. I think if you look over the

5 transcript, you will see that you have made most of your points and made

6 them more than once. Making them once, as I've mentioned before, is

7 enough for this Chamber.

8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, and I do

9 apologise.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Before we conclude today, could I go back to a

11 matter that -- Mr. Kaufman, in the course of your examination, I was not

12 alert enough at the time, and I apologise. The report was marked for

13 identification as P51. You then placed before the Chamber the sheet which

14 identified which components of that report were indeed the personal work

15 of the witness. Should not that be separately -- or specifically

16 identified for the record?

17 MR. KAUFMAN: I think it ought to be and I agree. In fact, since

18 the witness has confirmed the contents of that particular table, and I

19 don't think there would be any objection to this from my learned friend

20 it, could even be submitted as an exhibit, but that's to --

21 JUDGE PARKER: That was the view I had, and that document will be

22 marked as an exhibit, which will no doubt be P52 if I've got it right.

23 THE REGISTRAR: You're correct, Your Honour. Thank you.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Somers.

25 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, I don't know if it's necessary for the

Page 1945

1 witness to remain but there was matter that I wanted to tie up which was a

2 question by the Chamber yesterday for some clarification as concerning

3 yesterday's witness. If you can give me some guidance as to whether to

4 wait a moment until the witness leaves --

5 JUDGE PARKER: Will it be a short point?

6 MS. SOMERS: It will only be a moment.

7 JUDGE PARKER: I think the witness can stay. She has been very

8 patient, she'll be patient for another moment, I'm sure.

9 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour. Yesterday the Chamber

10 requested that the Prosecution attempt to get the best possible available

11 copy of Exhibit P47, which was a photograph tendered through yesterday's

12 witness, and also as good a copy as possible of the printed sheet

13 enumerating that witness's staff's rendition of structure. And that has

14 been done. We are hopeful that it clarifies it. It appears to the

15 Prosecution that it is substantially better, and we would ask -- if the

16 Chamber would want it substituted, then I would ask -- it is an original.

17 We can try to get the very best copy once the Chamber is satisfied that

18 this copy satisfies it.

19 JUDGE PARKER: If that original could be passed to the exhibits

20 officer and if counsel for the Defence and ourselves could have the copies

21 that you have there, they can be assessed overnight.

22 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, also I -- P49, Mr. Kaufman reminds me,

23 is the second one. It was P47, the photo, and P49 the second.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for what you've been able to do there.

25 That's very much better. Perhaps Mr. Rodic and Mr. Petrovic can examine

Page 1946

1 the photograph overnight.

2 MS. SOMERS: Overnight, literally. If so, we will just notify the

3 evidence unit as it is an original piece of evidence, and we'll indicate.

4 JUDGE PARKER: We're keeping the original in the custody of the

5 court officer here and we're looking at copies, and if counsel want to

6 look at the original, they could do so before they leave the court today.

7 Mrs. Peko, as you've heard, I must ask you to return again

8 tomorrow. By the look of things, I can indicate to you that you can

9 expect to get away tomorrow.

10 We will adjourn now until tomorrow morning at 9.00.

11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,

12 to be reconvened on Friday, the 6th day of February,

13 2004, at 9.00 a.m.