Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 2069

1 Wednesday, 14 February 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

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

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: There are some decisions that I'd like to give.

6 First, in relation to the question of time for

7 examination-in-chief, cross-examination, the Prosecution will be given 30

8 minutes for examination-in-chief of 92 bis or 92 ter witnesses, unless the

9 testimony relates to a witness who is a combination of 92 bis/ter evidence

10 and viva voce evidence.

11 The time to be allocated to the Defence for cross-examination of

12 92 bis and 92 ter witnesses will be based on several factors, including an

13 evaluation of the significance of the witness's testimony, the original

14 estimate of the Prosecutor of the time required as provided in the 65 ter

15 list, the length of the witness's prior statement, and the number of

16 exhibits to be tendered through the witness.

17 In order to facilitate the parties in their preparation, the

18 Chamber will review the list of witnesses for the week follow and based on

19 the factors mentioned will set times for the examination and

20 cross-examination of each scheduled witness. The parties will be notified

21 of these times. The Prosecution is requested to be as precise as possible

22 in its estimates. In all cases, the parties may make an application for

23 variation of the time periods set.

24 Now, on Monday, the 12th of February, the Prosecution sought to

25 admit into evidence a document with a 65 ter number 02287. This is a

Page 2070

1 report by Kemal Buco, concerning a sniping incident on the 23rd November

2 1994, discussed with that witness on the 2nd of February, 2007. The

3 Prosecution had at that time inadvertently omitted to seek the admission

4 of this document into evidence. The Trial Chamber hereby admits this

5 report, 65 ter number 02287 into evidence.

6 On the 5th of February, the Prosecution filed a motion for

7 admission of the written statement of witness John Jordan, pursuant to

8 Rule 92 ter. The Defence responded yesterday that it had no objection to

9 the Prosecution's request. The Trial Chamber hereby grants the

10 Prosecution motion and admits the witness statement of John Jordan into

11 evidence upon fulfillment of the conditions set out in Rule 92 ter.

12 The Trial Chamber notes that the time originally estimated for

13 this witness's testimony was three hours and that the Prosecution

14 estimates that as a partial Rule 92 ter and partial viva voce witness, the

15 estimated time required will be two hours. The Trial Chamber also notes

16 the significance of the testimony of this witness and the number of

17 exhibits intended to be tendered. The Trial Chamber will allow one hour

18 for the examination-in-chief and one and a quarter hour for

19 cross-examination subject to an application for more time should either

20 party consider that necessary.

21 Now, I understand that a party had a matter to be raised. Is that

22 right?

23 MR. WHITING: It's not us.


25 Mr. Tapuskovic, yes. Yes.

Page 2071

1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this issue is of

2 great importance. Perhaps it is the most important issue out of all of

3 the problems that the Defence faces, and it relates precisely to the issue

4 of translation of our documents. Our Defence team has not yet gained

5 access to the CLSS to the translation service to this day, and although we

6 wanted to get some documents even before the beginning of trial, we still

7 have no access to the translation service. We have already omitted to

8 confront some witnesses with some documents.

9 Now, in the period that follows, I am facing a very difficult

10 problem. Mr. Whiting is showering me with e-mails from which it

11 transpires that presenting documents in B/C/S is absolutely unacceptable.

12 And many months may pass before I get my documents translated. I really

13 need you to appreciate this problem, and I will try to minimise the number

14 of documents that I present in B/C/S. I have very important documents for

15 foreign observers and foreign commanders that concern issues that I have

16 tried to reserve so far, because they haven't been translated yet.

17 If it is impossible to get these translations from the service

18 that is working for us and for you, then something has to be done. All

19 last afternoon I had to deal with e-mail messages from Mr. Whiting instead

20 of preparing for the hearing. Some documents are in B/C/S, they were not

21 presented in a timely manner, and they were accessible to the Prosecution

22 at the time that the witness concerned took a solemn oath. It was a

23 mountain of papers that I had to deal with, and I received them the day

24 before the witness appeared.

25 Your Honours, all I'm asking for is equal treatment and a correct

Page 2072

1 attitude. Maybe in our Defence case I will find myself in the shoes that

2 Mr. Whiting is in now. But when Mr. Whiting does not show a certain

3 witness a single document, I have to show him a number of documents.

4 That's -- we have to deal with this problem and that's the only thing that

5 I'm really interested in.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much. We'll consider that.

7 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if I may.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Whiting.

9 MR. WHITING: This actually touches on a problem which is very

10 serious for us. I was going to raise it after the direct examination, and

11 it has a problem that has several parts to it, only one of which has been

12 identified by Defence counsel. I think it is a bit of an exaggeration

13 that I showered Defence counsel with e-mails. It was just four e-mails

14 about the exhibits, and there are actually two issues.

15 The first is that we are receiving these long lists of exhibits to

16 be used in cross-examination that are not translated. The list I received

17 for this witness has 15 documents that are not translated, that are in

18 B/C/S. That, obviously, causes us serious difficulty in preparing for --

19 it's really no use in preparing for the cross-examination or any possible

20 re-examination if we're running around trying to figure out what the

21 documents say.

22 I don't know what the problem is behind that. I don't know when

23 it was requested that these documents be translated. I don't know what

24 the issues are, but it's also not apparent to me that many of these

25 documents are of particular relevance to this particular witness. Nearly

Page 2073

1 all of them are military documents, and this is a policeman but that is

2 for Defence counsel to resolve.

3 There is a second part to this, and that is that-- and this has

4 happened more than once and it happened on this occasion. We're getting a

5 list shortly after the witness begins testifying, and that's what happened

6 yesterday. I got a list. I stayed here last night, looking at the

7 documents, preparing. This morning I got a completely new list and from

8 the new list four documents have been dropped, and there were 13 new

9 documents on it.

10 And all of these, again, in B/C/S, so I have to prepare all over

11 again. And that has happened on more than one occasion. That happened

12 with witness Fraser. Midway through, we received another list doubling

13 the amount of documents. I had understood the Rule to be that we would

14 receive the list of documents at the -- when the witness began testifying,

15 with the understanding that if something arose during the direct

16 examination, another document might become relevant.

17 It seems surprising to go me that so many documents are relevant

18 during the examination and also, you know, this problem about untranslated

19 documents. We would object generally to witnesses being shown documents

20 in B/C/S that we do not have a translation for. There may be -- may be

21 exceptions to that where it is necessary. If it happens once, once in a

22 while, okay, I understand that. But to receive 13 -- 15 documents which

23 are in B/C/S, that, in our view, is not workable.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: If it's a very short document, the practice has

25 been to put it on the ELMO.

Page 2074

1 MR. WHITING: Well, the problem is that these are not necessarily

2 short documents; and then with the 15 of them, the accumulation is that

3 they are not short. And also we need to see -- Defence counsel in a

4 number of cases already in this trial has just read out one sentence of a

5 document, and the issue becomes clarified in another part of the document;

6 or when it is put into context, it takes on a different meaning. And so

7 we need to be able to understand what the entire document says.

8 The only way we can do that is if we have a translation of it. We

9 can handle it if it happens once in a while. We can sit down with an

10 interpreter. But if it is 15 documents for a small witness like this,

11 happening routinely, that becomes unimaginable. We do not have the

12 resources to translate all the Defence documents while the witness is

13 testifying and trying to prepare for that. That is impossible; we can't

14 do that. And it's not fair to the Prosecution that documents are being

15 shown to a witness that we cannot understand, that we don't understand

16 what they mean. That's not fair.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

18 [Trial Chamber confers].

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, there's the two problems that have been

20 identified by the parties. The first is the problem encountered by the

21 Defence in having its documents translated sufficiently speedily for the

22 purposes for which they require them. We've had this problem in other

23 cases. It's not a new problem. I will cause an investigation to be made

24 with the CLSS and have the CLSS present a status report on the documents

25 submitted by the Defence in this case for translation, so that status

Page 2075

1 report.

2 And I would like the court deputy to note this because it's the

3 court deputy who will transmit this instruction to the CLSS. The status

4 report from the CLSS will tell us how many documents have been presented;

5 the volume, the pages, and the precise stage that they are at in the

6 translation. Of course, the time when they were presented is important.

7 But here I'd like both parties to note that the documents to be

8 presented for translation should be as brief as possible and should really

9 be confined to those areas that are relevant to the purposes for which

10 they are sought. There's no point presenting for translation a 20- or

11 30-page document when you're only going to rely on one or two pages in it.

12 So I'd like the parties to note that.

13 The second problem raised is the time when the parties notify the

14 other party and the Chamber of the documents to be used in

15 examination-in-chief and cross-examination, and we had made a ruling on

16 this and we intend to apply the ruling strictly and both parties are to

17 note this. But the problem raised by Mr. Whiting is more applicable to

18 the -- to the Defence in this case; and the ruling that we made was that

19 at the beginning of examination-in-chief, the Defence is to notify the

20 Prosecution and the Chamber of the documents that it will use in

21 cross-examination.

22 And I have it precisely here. It orders the Defence to provide

23 the Prosecution, the Registry, and the Trial Chamber with a list of

24 exhibits it intends to use in court during cross-examination at the

25 commencement of the examination-in-chief of that witness and after he or

Page 2076

1 she has made the solemn declaration pursuant to Rule 90 (A) of the Rules.

2 So that once that time has passed, strictly speaking, no change or

3 addition should be made to that list of documents notified; at any rate,

4 not without the leave of the Trial Chamber.

5 Mr. Tapuskovic.

6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I was probably not

7 clear enough. To this day, the Defence team has no electronic access to

8 translation. We have met all the requirements. We have filled in all the

9 forms. We have done all that is necessary to again, but we have to

10 electronic access to the translation service. That is one thing.

11 Second, Your Honours, we have tendered all the evidence, and all

12 of it was accessible to the Prosecutor at the moment when the witness took

13 oath. That is the most important thing. In addition, if you allow me, I

14 can reduce my cross-examination to two briefest documents that the

15 Prosecutor has had for two years now. The Prosecutor mentions 13 or 14

16 documents, but most of them were only a half page long. I really took

17 care about this. So far, the Prosecutor has never once found himself in a

18 situation where he has to deal with evidence that we did not supply in

19 advance.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Explain to me what is meant by "not having any

21 electronic access to translation." What do you mean by that?

22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Somebody more expert could

23 explain that to you. It's just that the documents that we presented,

24 we're not able to be included in the electronic translation system. I

25 really can't explain this to you, because my only grasp of this -- these

Page 2077

1 things is not very good.

2 Anyway, I'm told that we have no access to the TTS system. We

3 have documents that we have prepared. We have filled in the proper forms,

4 and we cannot place this -- these documents into the TTS system, as far as

5 my colleagues have explained to me. And if they are not in this TTS

6 system, they can't be translated. It has to do with this new system that

7 is introduced. We had to invest an enormous effort for our documents to

8 enter this TTS system.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Does that mean that the CLSS would not have

10 received the documents that you wish to have translated?

11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am honestly

12 telling you, I don't understand these things. They did not give us access

13 to this system. I went to see the chief of that service directly. I have

14 all of the documents ready. I can give them to that service this very

15 moment, but it's a system that doesn't function if you don't log in. I'm

16 honestly telling you, I don't understand this at all.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me consult with my colleagues, because they

18 have a better understanding than I do.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: If I understand you correctly, then, the problem

21 is not with the CLSS. It is that you're saying you -- you have no access,

22 electronic access to the system. So the CLSS has not received the

23 documents, indeed, you haven't been able to send them.

24 Well, I think what we'll have to about done is that I will

25 instruct you to consult with the court deputy, who should have at his

Page 2078

1 disposal the services of the technical staff to resolve that problem.

2 Well, Mr. Tapuskovic, if you have had this problem all along, I'm

3 surprised that you're only raising it now, because we're about five, six

4 weeks into the trial now.

5 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I would note that it's only being

6 raised because I complained about it, because I complained in these

7 e-mails, and I told the counsel that I was going to raise this today. We

8 find it a little distressing to learn now that this has been an ongoing

9 problem, and it hasn't been addressed. It hasn't been raised, only when

10 we complain about it.

11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't want to

12 justify myself or to defend myself. I told you earlier that my greatest

13 problem was to receive the documents that I had selected in the archives

14 of Bosnia-Herzegovina sometime ago where I worked. For half a year, I was

15 almost living in those archives. And only 15 days after the beginning of

16 the trial on the 2nd of February, I received finally the documents. I

17 went to see the chief of the translation service directly, and I addressed

18 them very courteously to discuss the problem.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: My instruction remains the same. You are to be

20 in touch with the court deputy immediately after the session ends, and the

21 court deputy tomorrow will avail himself of the services of the technical

22 staff and have this problem resolved and report to me by the beginning of

23 the session tomorrow. And I am to say that the session tomorrow will take

24 place in Courtroom III, in Courtroom III.

25 Well, let us have the witness brought in.

Page 2079

1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, while the witness is being brought

2 in, I just wanted to say that exhibit 65 ter number 02287, which was

3 submitted pursuant to your oral decision, will become Exhibit P112.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, thank you.

5 [The witness entered court]

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please continue, Mr. Whiting.

7 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.


9 [Witness answered through interpreter]

10 Examination by Mr. Whiting: [Continued]

11 Q. Good afternoon, sir.

12 When we stopped yesterday, you told us about an occasion in the

13 Autumn of 1994 when you were investigating a shelling at the Holiday Inn.

14 You were on top of the National Restaurant and sniping came from the

15 direction of Grbavica. I just had one last question. What was the

16 weather like on that occasion, if you recall?

17 A. Well, it was cloudy, sort of. It was raining, as a matter of fact

18 not right at the time. But it was cloudy and foggy, the way it can be in

19 Sarajevo.

20 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, I'm going to ask you some questions about

21 an event that occurred at Cobanija Street number 7, on the 16th of June

22 1995.

23 MR. WHITING: For your benefit, Your Honours, this is scheduled

24 incident number 13, shelling incident.

25 Q. Sir, did you investigate an incident that occurred on that date at

Page 2080

1 that location?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. What happened there? What were you investigating?

4 A. There was a shelling, and the boiler room that heated those

5 buildings on that street was hit.

6 Q. Now, did -- to your knowledge, did Cobanija Street have another

7 name before it was called Cobanija Street?

8 A. Yes. It used to be called -- well, the name escapes me right now,

9 but --

10 Q. If I said a name, might it refresh your recollection?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Are you familiar with the street name Tome Masarika?

13 A. Yes, yes. Tome Masarika; that's what it was called.

14 Q. That was the name of Cobanija Street in the past, before the war?

15 A. That's right.

16 MR. WHITING: Could we see 65 ter exhibit 213, please.

17 Q. Do you recognise this document, sir?

18 A. Yes. It's the report that I compiled and completed, the on-site

19 investigation.

20 Q. Now, under point 4 of the report, it gives -- it states the

21 direction that the highly destructive projectile was fired from. Can you

22 tell what it says there, what direction?

23 A. It says that it flew in from a north-easterly direction.

24 MR. WHITING: Okay. I would note from the Trial Chamber and

25 Defence counsel, there is a mistake on the English translation of that.

Page 2081

1 Q. Sir, did you review other reports and documents concerning this

2 event which talked about the direction that the projectile came from?

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, Mr. Whiting, what is the mistake that -- is

4 it north-west?

5 MR. WHITING: Yes. What it actually says is north-east in the

6 B/C/S. There's a mistake in the translation. The witness just testified

7 what it was in B/C/S, and it was translated as north-east.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, I'm just a little concerned because the

9 directions are quite important in this case.

10 MR. WHITING: It's -- I'm happy to have it confirmed and reviewed,

11 but it's --

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'd like to have it confirmed, yes.

13 MR. WHITING: That's fine. We can submit it to CLSS to have it

14 reviewed.

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: They can just look at the B/C/S and tell us what

17 the what the --

18 MR. WHITING: That's fine. That's what I tried to do. The

19 witness read what it says in the report, and it was translated.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us have the interpreter give us the

21 translation.

22 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter can confirm what Mr. Whiting has

23 just said.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much.

25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] May I be of assistance. It does

Page 2082

1 say north-east. That is precisely what it says in the B/C/S.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

3 MR. WHITING: Thank you.

4 Q. Sir, did you review other reports regarding this incident where a

5 similar translation errors were made with respect to the direction?

6 A. Yes. I looked at my own photofiles, and there were some

7 mistranslations there. It was the photo files that I compiled. It was

8 supposed to say north-east, but I think the translation actually read

9 north-west which was erroneous.

10 Q. In all of the reports that you reviewed regarding this incident,

11 was the direction -- in the B/C/S language, was the direction always

12 identified as north-east, as it is here in this report?

13 A. Indeed.

14 Q. Now --

15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] We should go through all these

18 documents, each and every one of them. We can't speak in general terms

19 like this. We do realise that an error was made in this particular

20 incident, but I'm not sure which other documents Mr. Whiting has in mind.

21 I think he should just display the whole lot to us.

22 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I'm going to put all of the documents

23 into evidence, and we can review it later. I don't think it's worthwhile

24 to spend the time to go through --

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: No. I don't think it's necessary to review them

Page 2083

1 individually. Of course, the -- the Defence may make a reference in

2 cross-examination to any of them --

3 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- If it has a doubt about the accuracy of the

5 translation.


7 Q. Now, Mr. Vidovic, do you know how it was determined that the

8 projectile came from the north-east?

9 A. It was based on the point of impact where the projectile hit the

10 boiler room. That's what indicated the direction from which the missile

11 had arrived.

12 Q. Did the investigation determine what the projectile was that

13 struck the boiler room on that day?

14 A. Yes. Later investigations were carried out, which ascertained

15 that the projectile in question had been an air bomb.

16 Q. Do you know who in particular made that determination; that is,

17 which group, and how they made that determination. What was it based on?


19 A. Bits of the projectile were collected and submitted for analysis

20 to the KDZ department in what used to be the state ministry of the

21 interior, which is the federal ministry of interior now. Their own

22 experts conducted analysis. I'm not sure which specific methods they

23 used.

24 Q. Do you know if witnesses were able to provide any information

25 which contributed to the determination that this was an air bomb?

Page 2084

1 A. Yes. According to witness statements, it produced a very peculiar

2 sound during its flight. The way they described it, it sounded very much

3 like a lorry flying through the air.

4 Q. Have you, yourself, ever seen an air bomb, an unexploded air bomb?


6 A. Yes. I've seen one on one occasion. It had been brought over

7 from someplace or other. It was unexploded. It was taken apart and

8 simply left behind near the building in which I worked.

9 Q. Do you know where it came from? You said it was unexploded. Where

10 did it come from?

11 A. I don't know exactly where it came from, where it was found, or

12 where it landed.

13 Q. Let me put my question a little differently. Do you know if this

14 air bomb that you saw came from the -- the Serb army, or did it come from

15 the Bosnian army, or do you not know?

16 A. It wasn't from the Bosnian army. It was most probably fired by

17 the Serb side. One thing I do know is that it was entirely cracked up by

18 the time it reached us, because it had landed already and smashed against

19 the ground.

20 Q. So just I'm clear about your testimony, this was an air bomb that

21 was launched and landed and it was smashed. It was damaged, but it had

22 not exploded. Is that correct?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. Can you describe for the Trial Chamber what it looked like. What

25 does an air bomb look like; or at least the one that you saw, what did it

Page 2085

1 look like?

2 A. As far as I remember, it was made up of two component parts. One

3 of the components was made up of four rockets or what I assume to have

4 been rockets, and the other part was made up of the air bomb proper.

5 In my estimate, it could have weighed anywhere between 200 and 250

6 kilos. It's difficult to tell just by looking at it. It looked quite

7 big, and the two component parts were welded together.

8 Q. How big were the rockets?

9 A. In my estimate, two, maybe three metres.

10 Q. Now going back to the report that you wrote --

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Whiting, the witness should be asked why he

12 concluded that the air bomb came from the Serbian side and not from the

13 Bosnian side.

14 Why did you say that?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that was what I was told by my

16 colleagues. I had asked them how the bomb came to be there in the first

17 place. I simply wanted to the know who had done it, what exactly occurred

18 and how it got to be there in the first place.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

20 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.

21 Q. Now, going back to this report that you wrote, does the report

22 indicate wether anyone was injured in this air bomb attack on this date?

23 A. In this case, on Cobanija Street, three persons were injured.

24 Q. And the names are indicated there on the report.

25 A. Yes, the names are there.

Page 2086

1 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, could this document be admitted,

2 please.


4 THE REGISTRAR: As P113, Your Honours.

5 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 Could we please look at 65 ter 2872. It's the map of Sarajevo.

7 And if we could zoom into the right-hand part of the map where the

8 river is, just below the river on the right-hand side. If you can zoom in

9 -- do that again.

10 Q. Sir, you're going to know this map better than I do. Can you see

11 Cobanija Street on there, or do we need to zoom in some more?

12 MR. WHITING: If we can zoom in between Skenderija and Bistrik.

13 There we go, perfect.

14 Q. Do you see it?

15 A. Yes.

16 MR. WHITING: Could the witness be given the pen to mark where it

17 is, please.

18 Q. And if you could mark where -- where, to the best of your

19 recollection, this occurred, Cobanija Street 7, on the map?

20 A. [Marks].

21 MR. WHITING: Okay. The witness has drawn a dot and a circle

22 around it.

23 Q. Sir, were there any military facilities near this location, to

24 your knowledge?

25 A. No, no.

Page 2087

1 Q. Do you know how far the closest military facility was to this

2 location, in terms of metres or even kilometres or ...

3 A. No. I'm sorry, but I can't say. The only military facility that

4 I can remember right now was the headquarters at Bistrik, but that's where

5 UNPROFOR was stationed at the time.

6 Q. Can you put an X where that was.

7 A. [Marks] Around about here.

8 Q. Okay. And you said that it was a boiler room that was struck and

9 I think also some garages. Was that -- is that part of a residential

10 complex or building?

11 A. Yes. This entire section of Cobanija Street is residential.

12 Q. To your -- did you learn in your investigation if there were any

13 military -- any soldiers present at the location when it was hit by the

14 air bomb?

15 A. No, not that I heard of.

16 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, could this be made an exhibit, please.


18 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be admitted as Exhibit

19 P214, also a registry correction. The last two exhibits were admitted as

20 P112 and 113. They should have been 212 and 213.

21 MR. WHITING: Thank you. If we could look at 65 ter Exhibit 136,

22 please.

23 Q. Mr. Vidovic, do you recognise this document, or can you tell us

24 what this document is?

25 A. Yes, I do recognise it. As far as I can tell, this is the header.

Page 2088

1 This is the first part of the expert analysis of part of part of the

2 projectile that landed on Cobanija Street.

3 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review this document before coming

4 into court today?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. From its appearance, does it appear to you based on your

7 experience to be an authentic document?

8 A. It does.

9 MR. WHITING: Could this be admitted into evidence, please, Your

10 Honour.


12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P215, Your Honours.

13 MR. WHITING: Could we look at exhibit 65 ter 138, please.

14 I don't think we need the -- well, no, that's fine. Are you going

15 to put up the translation. Okay.

16 Q. Do you recognise this, Mr. Vidovic?

17 A. Yes. These are photographs that I took at the actual site,

18 Cobanija Street.

19 Q. And did you write the captions?

20 A. Yes, I did.

21 MR. WHITING: Could we look at the picture at the top, so it's the

22 first picture on this first page.

23 Q. Can you tell us what that is?

24 A. This is what I refer to as the boiler room, the one that was hit

25 by the projectile, and you can see the exact point of impact where it

Page 2089

1 smashed against the building.

2 MR. WHITING: Your Honours, these colour Xeroxes are actually

3 pretty good with the captions. I do -- if it's assistance to either the

4 Trial Chamber or the Defence counsel, I do have a set of -- a printed

5 version of these photographs, if it is of any assistance. But I would ask

6 that these photographs be admitted into evidence along with their

7 captions.


9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P216, Your Honours.

10 MR. WHITING: Could we look at exhibit 65 ter 122, please, and if

11 we could go to page 2 of the B/C/S and page 1 of the English.

12 Q. Mr. Vidovic, can you tell us what this report is?

13 A. This is the official report compiled by officials of the crime

14 squad, those who carried out the on-site investigation at Cobanija Street.

15 Another thing that I can see here is that all of the incidents

16 that occurred on that day are described in this report.

17 Q. Did you have an opportunity also to review this report before

18 coming into court today. And, same question, does it appear to you, based

19 on your experience, to be an authentic report?

20 A. Yes. I have seen this report before. I saw it before I came into

21 the courtroom, and I believe that this is an authentic document.

22 MR. WHITING: Could this be admitted into evidence, please, Your

23 Honour.


25 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P217, Your Honours.

Page 2090

1 MR. WHITING: Could we look, please, at exhibit 65 ter 137.

2 Q. Can you tell us what this is?

3 A. As far as I can tell, this is a hospital document. I believe that

4 this is a medical finding of some kind.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I gave up objecting

7 several times in a row, but this is something for an expert. This is for

8 a medical expert. It's a medical document. We can hardly expect a

9 witness who is not familiar with that field to establish the authenticity

10 of this document. Perhaps a doctor could. A while ago, we had another

11 document where expertise would have been required. He is a witness, but

12 he certainly is no expert, and I think you should take the matter in hand,

13 Your Honours.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let me hear from Mr. Whiting on this.

15 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I'm no going ask the witness to comment

16 on or interpret the document at all. He is not an expert. He is not a

17 doctor. I don't think he would be qualified to do that. I'm simply going

18 to ask him if it is familiar to him as a medical document from the time,

19 from the area, from -- and authenticate it that way and put it into

20 evidence. I think that -- in our view, that is sufficient authentication

21 for it to go into evidence.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] That is precisely the problem

24 that I think we're facing. I don't think the witness is able to do that.

25 I don't think he can confirm the time the document was produced. We all

Page 2091

1 see that; nobody is trying to challenge that. But the Prosecutor is

2 asking him to also confirm the substance of the document as well as the

3 signature that it bears and whatever else it's about. If it's just about

4 the date being confirmed, in that case, I have no reason to oppose this.

5 [Trial Chamber confers].

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Whiting, what is the value to you of this

7 document? The witness can't speak to its substance.

8 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if the document is in evidence, the

9 document largely speaks for itself about the injuries that were suffered

10 by the victims of the air bomb on that day. The victims are identified in

11 the report, and these are medical records of what occurred to the victims.

12 They largely speak for themselves, and I can't imagine there is

13 really any dispute about what the injuries are in this case. And if there

14 is, if there's a dispute about what the injuries are, we can take it up

15 with other witnesses. But that's -- I cannot imagine that is a point of

16 contention. This is not a sniping case where the injuries might indicate

17 something about the case itself.

18 [Trial Chamber confers].

19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll mark it for identification.

21 Mr. Tapuskovic.

22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I know a bit of

23 Latin, and I have forgotten a lot. All of these are Latin terms. How

24 have a witness, who is testifying only as a witness, say anything --

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have ruled. We'll mark it for identification.

Page 2092

1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be marked for

2 identification as P218.

3 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, this may require -- for one thing, the

4 exhibit should have six pages in it. While there are Latin terms, there

5 are other explanations that are not in Latin. If we're going to need

6 another witness to get this sort of evidence into evidence, these sorts of

7 documents, obviously, we're going to have to add witnesses, doctors, and

8 medical experts.

9 I wouldn't think that is necessary, but maybe this is something

10 that we can resolve with Defence counsel. As I said, I can't imagine that

11 these injuries are really a point of contention in the case, but I will

12 move on.

13 If we could lock at 65 ter Exhibit 733, please, and if we could go

14 to page 6 of the B/C/S and page 1 of the English.

15 Q. Do you recognise this document, sir?

16 A. Yes. It is, again, a report of mine concerning an on-site

17 investigation.

18 MR. WHITING: For the benefit of Your Honours, this is now about a

19 separate, different incident.

20 Q. What's the date that this occurred and what, briefly speaking,

21 what happened?

22 A. It happened on the 14th of February, 1995 in Zmaja od Bosne Street

23 when a tram going from Bascarsija towards the depot at Alipasin Pole was

24 shot at. One passenger was injured.

25 Q. Does the report indicate the direction from which the fire came?

Page 2093

1 A. Yes. It says the shot came from the south-east.

2 Q. And do you recall how that was determined?

3 A. I think it was the determined based on eye-witness reports on the

4 basis of the direction in which the tram was moving and the damage

5 inflicted on the tram.

6 Q. In addition to this document that you wrote, did you have an

7 opportunity to review several other documents pertaining to this incident

8 that were together with this document, and did those documents appear

9 authentic to you?

10 A. Yes. I have seen some other documents, and I believe that it is

11 authentic.

12 MR. WHITING: Could this exhibit be marked and put into evidence,

13 Your Honour.


15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be admitted as Exhibit

16 P219.

17 MR. WHITING: Could we look at 65 ter Exhibit 1170, please, and if

18 we could go to page 4 of the B/C/S and page 1 of the English.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: This is sniping incident number what?

20 MR. WHITING: No, I'm sorry. This is an unscheduled incident, the

21 last one and this one, and they are not dropped incidents. They were

22 always unscheduled.

23 JUDGE HARHOFF: But have we heard other witnesses on this incident

24 before?

25 MR. WHITING: Not my knowledge, but I could be mistaken about

Page 2094

1 that.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Will we be hearing other evidence on this

3 unscheduled incident.

4 MR. WHITING: I can't say for certain, but perhaps not. And it's

5 part -- part of the Prosecution to put in reports of unscheduled

6 incidents, which, taken together, support the counts in the indictment.

7 Not -- obviously, with respect to every unscheduled incident, we cannot

8 call the victims and all of the witnesses and so forth. But we will put

9 in investigative reports which contain that kind of information, as does

10 this one.

11 Q. Sir, do you recognise this report?

12 A. Yes. It's another of my reports from an on-site investigation, in

13 this case, of a shelling incident.

14 Q. And what is the date of this incident and where did it occur?

15 A. On the 11th of July, 1995, in Omla Dinska Street.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic is on his feet.

17 Mr. Tapuskovic, yes.

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] This incident that we are dealing

19 with now, is it also covered by the indictment as one of the scheduled

20 incidents?

21 MR. WHITING: This is not a scheduled incident.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's unscheduled, yes.


24 Q. Again, in connection with this incident, did you review other

25 reports before coming to court today, and were you able to determine

Page 2095

1 whether those reports appeared authentic to you?

2 A. Yes. I have seen some other documents and they appear authentic

3 to me.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic, yes.

5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I really cannot

6 understand this line of questioning. If the intention is to speak of some

7 documents that he has seen, the witness, then we should all look at them

8 together. He was just asked whether he has seen some other documents and

9 whether he can confirm their accuracy; that's something that I have never

10 encountered my practice before this Tribunal.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, I think that will be a matter for you to --

12 to raise in your cross-examination, if you -- if you think it will go to

13 the credibility of the witness, the witness's testimony.

14 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour. It's merely to establish

15 that there are other documents that pertain to these incidents which, of

16 course, have been disclosed to the Defence, and the Defence is well aware

17 of them.

18 Could this document be admitted into evidence, please.


20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P220, Your Honours.


22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vidovic.

23 MR. WHITING: I have no further questions.

24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I just ask the witness -- could we have

25 Exhibit P217 back on the screen, and I apologise in the being quick enough

Page 2096

1 to.

2 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, for some reason, although your

3 microphone was on, it was hard to hear you.

4 JUDGE HARHOFF: I will ask you again, if I could ask you to bring

5 become Exhibit P217, which was the crime squad report of 17 June, 1995.

6 And as I said, I apologise for not being quick enough to react while it

7 was on the screen in front of us. But it disappeared so quickly, so I

8 thought I should wait with my question.

9 And my question is: While we're waiting for the document to

10 reappear, that I thought I saw that in the report the direction was given

11 as coming from north-west and not from north-east as we had just

12 established. And I want to verify this and bring it up with the witness.

13 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, you will recall that with this exhibit

14 that the witness testified that it was about -- that this exhibit covered

15 a number of incidents on that date, and so that may be the source of the

16 confusion. The --

17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. You see in the last paragraph: "A survey of

18 the scene confirmed that a modified aircraft bomb was fired from the

19 aggressive position," so the north-west on the 16th of June. It may be

20 that this is not referring to the same incident as the one in which we

21 established that the bomb was fired from north-east, but I thought it was,

22 actually.

23 MR. WHITING: There's one at 1000 hours and that's not the same

24 one, and I don't know -- and that is north-west. But if we turn to the

25 second page in the English, and I don't know about the B/C/S, the first --

Page 2097

1 no. We have to go to the top of the document. The first paragraph refers

2 to our incident, and there it does say north-west. And there we could

3 ask, again, the witness, it's -- if we can find it in the B/C/S and give

4 the translation -- yes. It's midway in the page on the B/C/S, where it

5 says 16th at 1710 hours and then -- and the witness can read the

6 direction.

7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Could the witness please do so.

8 MR. WHITING: If he can read it, if he can see it.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Should I read it?

10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes, please. Because I would like to know where

11 did the bomb actually come from. Was it north-east or was it north-west?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see here it's written from

13 north-west, but in my report it says north-east.

14 JUDGE HARHOFF: That's what I want to bring up. Because now I

15 think -- you know, the Chamber needs to be reassured where did the bomb

16 come from and can we be shown on the map where that was, who held the

17 territory in the north-east or north-west. How are we to ascertain which

18 side fired this bomb? Can you please assist us, Mr. Prosecutor?

19 MR. WHITING: Well, we can go back to 65 ter 2872, the map. And

20 while that is coming up --

21 Q. I'll ask this: Mr. Vidovic, you reviewed your reports and other

22 reports related to this incident. Now that it's been drawn to your

23 attention that in this report it identifies the direction as north-west,

24 does that cause you to change in any way what you put -- what you

25 represented in your report that it came from the north-east?

Page 2098

1 A. I would not change anything, especially now that I'm thinking

2 about it. This axis, north-east, leads to a crack between buildings; and

3 to the north-west, the entire area is densely built up and the bullet

4 would sooner hit one of those buildings than go this way here.

5 Q. Let me see if I can -- if I'm clear about what you're saying. Are

6 you saying that given where the bomb hit, its point of impact, and the

7 layout of the buildings around it and the openings around it, that it --

8 it -- that causes you to determine that it came from the north-east as

9 opposed to the north-west. Because if it had come from the north-west, it

10 would have hit another building before hitting this point. Is that your

11 testimony? Did I clarify it?

12 A. Yes, that's correct. It was the bomb squad team that determined

13 the direction from which the projectile came, also on the basis of the

14 location of the impact. At the time there were also military observers

15 present on the on-site investigation, and they determined the direction

16 where it came from to be north-east as I wrote in my report. And this is

17 -- what I recently mentioned is also one of the ways in which you can

18 determine where it came from.

19 Q. And the report that His Honour Judge Harhoff showed you a moment

20 ago, which is Exhibit 217, P217, that is a report that summarized, as you

21 testified, all of the incidents that occurred that day. How is -- do you

22 know how such a report is prepared?

23 A. I suppose that the report was drafted at the end of the day. The

24 colleague who was writing it at the end of the day and after all the

25 on-site investigations were performed for the day simply wrote an

Page 2099

1 aggregate report.

2 Q. So it's an aggregate report which is written after the

3 investigative reports are written, is that a fair summary of your

4 testimony?

5 A. Yes, yes.

6 Q. Now, I'll ask then if we could look at the map.

7 MR. WHITING: If we could zoom in again on that location on the

8 right-hand side, and it's between Skenderija and Bistrik.

9 That might be good.

10 Q. Are you able to see, Mr. Vidovic, where -- okay. There you can

11 certainly see.

12 Can you take the pen, mark again where the point of impact was and

13 the direction that you believe it came from. Are you able to do that?

14 A. [Marks] .

15 Q. Now, just so the record is clear, the witness has drawn a dot with

16 a circle around it and an arrow pointing to the upper right of the map.

17 Now, sir, is it in your capacity to provide any information to the

18 Trial Chamber about where the air bomb was fired from, or are you only

19 able to tell the Trial Chamber the direction that it came from?

20 A. I could only say the direction. I don't know the exact location.

21 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I -- I think I have exhausted this

22 subject with the witness. But if there are further questions you'd like

23 me to address, I'm happy to do so.

24 JUDGE HARHOFF: No, not as far as the witness is concerned. He

25 can testify no longer than this, but you would still need to persuade the

Page 2100

1 Chamber that it was fired from either one or the other position-- side.

2 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, you will recall that it's the

3 Prosecution's position that only the, and there's been evidence on this,

4 that only the Bosnian Serb army had these weapons. And that the -- the

5 Bosnian army did not have these weapons.

6 But before we move on and before it gets lost, could just mark

7 this -- unless further markings are required on this map, I would ask that

8 it be made an exhibit.


10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P221, Your Honours.

11 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Could we keep this on the system;

12 it would help us a lot.

13 I would refer to the last exhibit, P220. We have spoken of the

14 shelling on the street of Cobanija, on Cobanija Street number 7, on the

15 11th of July, 1995, you said that the sound came from the north-west, the

16 bomb came from the north-west. Obviously, you understand that we wish to

17 understand who is responsible for this shelling in order to establish who

18 is responsible. And if there has been shelling, what sort of bomb was

19 used or shell was used. I would, therefore, like to know what sort of

20 shell was used in this incident concerning Exhibit 220. This is my first

21 question. Could you say what sort of a shell it was?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot say that exactly now,

23 because we collected pieces of the projectile and forwarded -- forwarded

24 them for expertise, and the expertise later established which projectile

25 it was.

Page 2101

1 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] And do you know now what sort of a

2 shell it may have been?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I remember, it was a

4 mortar shell.

5 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Very well. And how did you reach

6 the conclusion that the shell came from the north-west?

7 And another question: Your conclusion or your report, was it

8 corroborate the by other reports such as the reports of the UNMOs, for

9 instance?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was not the one who determined

11 on-site the direction where it came from. It was the whole team,

12 especially the bomb squad team; plus in addition to my report, there was

13 also a judge present, an investigating judge present from the Sarajevo

14 district court. I think there is a report from the investigating judge.

15 Otherwise, I don't think UN observers were present on this particular

16 site.

17 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] This is where you will be

18 particularly helpful for the Chamber, as an expert, specialist of these

19 matters. According to you, what -- which forces would be responsible for

20 this shelling? Do you have a way of knowing or not? What forces, what

21 army, what group would be responsible for this shelling?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can only say what we determined at

23 the on-site investigation; namely, which direction it was fired from.

24 Further expertise to determine the location and the position is something

25 that I cannot speak to.

Page 2102

1 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] All right. Thank you. I don't

2 need the map anymore. Thank you so much.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Vidovic, you told Mr. Whiting that a

4 colleague wrote an aggregate report based on all the on-site

5 investigations. Would you plain explain what is meant by an aggregate

6 report?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That would be his daily report, his

8 report for the day. In addition to that, he writes a report for each

9 particular incident, and this daily report is forwarded on for

10 information. So in addition, there should be an individual report for

11 each incident.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. There is an individual report and an

13 aggregate report. Now, in the aggregate report, it is stated the

14 direction from which the fire came, from which the weapon came. Now,

15 would that mean that the direction identified in the aggregate report

16 reflects the direction stated in all the individual reports or perhaps

17 only some of them?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Only some of them. If you mean what

19 is written in that part of the text, that particular bit relates only to

20 one incident.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: The conclusion in the aggregate report as to the

22 direction from which the weapon was fired, what I'm asking is whether that

23 direction is the direction that would be identified in all the individual

24 on-site reports. So that if it said north-west in the aggregate report,

25 did it say north-west in all the individual on-site investigations or

Page 2103

1 perhaps in -- in nine out of ten, it said north-west; and in another one,

2 it might have said north-east. That is what I'm trying to ascertain.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It should be, in relation it that

4 incident, one, and not all of them.

5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Vidovic, just following up on President

6 Robinson's question, as I understand was the case in this particular

7 report, if there is a difference between what is written in the actual

8 incident report, first, and then in the aggregate report at the end of the

9 day, if there's a difference between these two report, which I understand

10 there was- in the incident report, it said that it came from the

11 north-east and in the aggregate, certainly, it says that the bomb was

12 fired from the north-west, which of the two findings would then be passed

13 on to -- to the next step in the -- in the procedures, I mean, in the

14 reports that went on to the headquarters?

15 No, you don't understand my question.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't.

17 JUDGE HARHOFF: There is, obviously, a difference in the two

18 reports.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.

20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Which of the two findings would be -- which one

21 prevails?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's difficult to say. If you ask

23 me, both are equally important. I don't know where the error was made as

24 far as my colleague who wrote down north-west was concerned. What I

25 learned on the spot I wrote down immediately in my own report. That's as

Page 2104

1 much as I can say.

2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, it's -- I see. No, we are beyond

4 the time for the break. So we'll take the break now.

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

6 --- On resuming at 4.10 p.m.

7 MR. WHITING: Your Honour.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Whiting.

9 MR. WHITING: If I may, and Defence counsel has no objection; I

10 asked them. If I may just put a few more questions to the witness, it's

11 in aim of trying to further clarify this issue about north-west,

12 north-east.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you may.

14 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 Could we look at Exhibit P215, and if we could have the B/C/S.

16 Q. Now, Mr. Vidovic, you testified earlier about this exhibit, that

17 it was the ballistics or the bomb squad expert report; do you recall?

18 A. Yes, I do.

19 Q. And are you able to -- well, now we've --

20 MR. WHITING: Okay. We've lost the English. It's being flipped.

21 .

22 Q. I'm going to draw your attention to, I think it's the third

23 paragraph after -- it's -- and do you see on this document, what direction

24 does this document say the projectile was fired from?

25 A. North, north-east -- north-west.

Page 2105

1 Q. North, north-west. It's in the third paragraph. It's translated

2 -- in the translation, it's north-west. It doesn't have north, it just

3 says north-west.

4 So, now -- now, we have -- your report said north-east. This bomb

5 squad expert report says north, north-west. The aggregate report said

6 north-west. Which -- which would -- which report in your mind --

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see Mr. Tapuskovic on his feet.

8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] As far as I can tell, in the

9 B/C/S, it doesn't say north, north-west -- my mistake, I'm sorry.

10 MR. WHITING: Okay.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well.


13 Q. So if I could put my question again. Your report, your on-site

14 investigation report says north-east. This bomb squad expert analysis

15 report says north, north-west, and the aggregate report says north-west.

16 Which of those reports should prevail? Which is the better report or are

17 you unable to say.

18 A. The expert analysis --

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.

20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't think this

21 is a proper question. It's not proper to ask this witness to assess this.

22 He either knows something or he doesn't. I think it improper to expect

23 this witness to assess the accuracy of these documents. What he can give

24 us is his opinion, but he can't be expected to judge these documents as an

25 expert.

Page 2106

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Whiting.

2 MR. WHITING: I'm sorry. If you don't -- I mean -- I think this

3 is the same question that the Chamber put to him with respect to two

4 documents, and it's -- all I'm asking is who would know better? Him,

5 based on his on-site report, or the bomb squad expert report would be more

6 determinative.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. In light of the experience that he has had,

8 I think he's able to answer the question.


10 Q. You started to answer the question. But if you could answer the

11 question, which would prevail of those reports?

12 A. As far as I know, the aggregate report is an internal document for

13 police purposes, and the other two reports are actually submitted to a

14 Court; the expert analysis, the photo files, and the on-site investigation

15 report. I would be hard put to say which is the most important one.

16 Q. But would you be able to say which one is more reliable or more

17 determinative; your on-site report or the bomb squad expert report?

18 A. Well, in my opinion, it would be my report, the report that I

19 produced at the actual site.

20 Q. Okay.

21 MR. WHITING: Your Honours, I would just state that it is our

22 position that the issue of the direction or origin is less or perhaps not

23 even at all important with respect to air bombs because of our position

24 that -- that only the Bosnian Serb army had these weapons, so that must

25 have been fired from the Bosnian Serb army positions.

Page 2107

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's your submission. It would remain for the

2 Chamber to access that in light of the all of the evidence.

3 MR. WHITING: Of course, Your Honour. Thank you.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.

5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is something

6 from the indictment, what my learned friend has just said. The trial will

7 answer that question. I'm grateful for the opportunity to examine this

8 witness.

9 Cross-examination by Mr. Tapuskovic:

10 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, sir, I represent the accused in this

11 trial, and I would like to ask you something about the previous question

12 raised by Mr. Whiting. Normally, you would arrive at the scene the next

13 day after the incident, right?

14 A. Yes. In this case, it was the next day after the incident that I

15 arrived.

16 Q. Thank you. What could you possibly have established the next day?

17 Whoever had been injured had already been taken away, so what exactly did

18 do you?

19 A. I photographed the scene, and we gathered any evidence found at

20 the scene. The sites would normally be cordoned off by the police before

21 we got there.

22 Q. So the police would wait for you to arrive. They would guard the

23 site throughout the night. The next day you would be there to give your

24 opinion; is that right?

25 A. Yes.

Page 2108

1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I hope you heard

2 this. The witness has just confirmed that the police would guard the

3 scene throughout the night. The next day he would arrive and establish

4 the facts.

5 Q. What about those who were at the scene when the incident occurred

6 and who looked after whoever had been injured? Were there any injured

7 persons in this incident?

8 A. Yes, three.

9 Q. Just injured, not dead?

10 A. No, not dead.

11 Q. The injuries were not serious, were they?

12 A. I can't say.

13 Q. My learned friend, Mr. Whiting, dealt with this a while ago. Did

14 you ever see this sort of bomb actually fly?

15 A. Yes, I did.

16 Q. Does it have a slow flight? Does it make much noise?

17 A. Yes, a lot of noise.

18 Q. How long does it normally travel for?

19 A. I don't know. I would be speculating.

20 Q. At any rate, it's the noise that draws attention to the bomb. The

21 flight itself is slow, so whoever is looking can get away from there and

22 go somewhere safe, has plenty of time to do that, right?

23 A. Yes, I assume that that would be the case.

24 Q. I wasn't going to ask you any questions about your statements. I'm

25 not going to be using the first one, the one that you made in 1995.

Page 2109

1 There's the other statement, too, dated the 15th of November, 1995. The

2 document number is DD00-0673. This is your own statement dated the 15th

3 of November, 1995. I have some questions in relation to this, sir.

4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] If the document could please be

5 placed before you, I would like to start with page 2.

6 That's the one. I want page 2.

7 Q. Is that your statement, sir? There, Witness, sir, paragraph 2. It

8 reads: "I started on the six-month training course learning about forensic

9 techniques, ballistics, biology, chemistry, and criminal law."

10 You actually managed to master all these sciences over those six

11 months, didn't you?

12 A. No. I didn't master all these skills in sciences. Those were

13 just very basic lectures that we were supposed to use while carrying out

14 on-site investigations.

15 Q. You decided to take up this very serious work, responsible work,

16 should I say, which is to ascertain the circumstances under which a person

17 was killed. After that, you would normally provide your opinion. Did you

18 feel sufficiently qualified to do something like that, sir?

19 A. Yes, I did.

20 Q. As far as I can tell, you go on to state this: "I also attended

21 lectures in photograph, making sketches, and taking fingerprints,

22 investigation techniques raging from traffic accidents up to murder."

23 Did you do that?

24 A. Yes, I did all of that.

25 Q. Do you remember how many Serbs were murdered back in 1992, Serbs

Page 2110

1 but also Croats and Bosnian who were killed; not on account of the war,

2 but rather were slaughtered or shot?

3 A. I don't know the exact figure. Back in 1992, I wasn't working

4 with the police.

5 Q. But you did hear about that, right?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. If we read on you will see this: You talk about dealing with

8 snipers. That's several paragraphs down. If there is a fatal shooting,

9 can you see that section, sir?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. If someone was shot dead, you assumed that those persons were

12 killed by a sniper, right?

13 A. I don't understand exactly what you mean.

14 Q. This reads, "There is a fatal shooting if someone is shot dead."

15 Can you explain to the Chamber what exactly you meant by that when you

16 said this?

17 A. I meant, generally speaking, any on-site investigation where there

18 was gun-fire that resulted in fatalities.

19 Q. Even in cases of the an exchange of fire from both sides?

20 A. Yes, even in those cases.

21 Q. I won't be pursuing this any further. I would just be repeating

22 myself.

23 You did speak of another incident involving a tram. It's the

24 second-to-last paragraph, same statement. You say,.

25 "We also ascertained that the bullet had hit a -- the metal

Page 2111

1 coated- plated radiator to keep people from burning themselves. When the

2 bullet hit the other piece of metal, it must have shattered into pieces.

3 Bits of the bullet and the metal protective layer of the radiator then hit

4 passengers on that tram."

5 Did you take that also to be a result of an exchange of fire, sir?

6 ?

7 A. No.

8 Q. So you think it was a sniper, right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. If indeed this was a sniper, how come he hit the radiator with the

11 bullet fragmenting into three bits? He used just one bullet to virtually

12 wound three different persons, right?

13 A. Yes, that is exactly what happened.

14 Q. The next paragraph, or rather, two paragraphs down the page, about

15 the same incident. "The confrontation line at the site of this firing was

16 only about 200 metres away." This is page 3, paragraph 2 of the English

17 version.

18 A. It says, "about 200." That's what the B/C/S says.

19 Q. 200, about 200. Well, yes, excuse me. I know the language, too.

20 You go on to say: "Our investigation was based on eye-witness

21 information."

22 Right?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Including those who came to grief, right?

25 A. Yes.

Page 2112

1 Q. Did the victims tell you how they were injured and where from?

2 A. Yes. They made statements to my workmates, my colleagues.

3 Q. Even as soon as they were injured, they knew where they had been

4 hit from, right?

5 A. Yes, that's what I assumed.

6 Q. In the second-to-last paragraph, you say in most of your reports,

7 the bullets came from a southerly direction from the Metalka building; is

8 that right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. So that the witness invariably said to you, that the bullets had

11 come from the Metalka building, from that general direction?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. All right. The first thing I would like to do is to tender this.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Whiting.

15 MR. WHITING: Well, maybe it will be clarified if this is

16 tendered, but I think that it misstates what is said in the second-to-last

17 paragraph. It doesn't say that most of the bullets came from the Metalka

18 building. It says "that this bullet," and it's talking about a particular

19 incident.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. It says: "We were able to establish that

21 this bullet came from the south, from the Metalka building, which is on

22 the Serb side."

23 MR. WHITING: But I'm happy to have the -- if he's going to

24 exhibit the statement, that's fine. It will be clear then on the record.

25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No, please. That's what he said;

Page 2113

1 and then I asked him about all of the sniping incidents that he was aware

2 of. The bullet would invariably come from the Metalka building, and the

3 witness said, yes.

4 MR. WHITING: Your Honour --

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Were you then quoting from the statement, or were

6 you simply putting a question to him?

7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I asked this

8 question about -- we ascertained in relation to one bullet from the south

9 from the Metalka building, and he said, yes; and then I asked, What about

10 all the incidents that you were involved in? Did you always establish

11 that the bullet, came from the Metalka building? And the witness said,

12 yes.

13 THE WITNESS: From the direction of Grbavica, and I thought you

14 were talking about this incident in particular.

15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. A while ago, you said, yes,

16 but I'm still happy.

17 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, the -- counsel is misstating the

18 record, again. It is page 44, line 17. The question that he put to the

19 witness was: "In the second-to-last paragraph, you say in most of your

20 reports the bullets came from a southerly direction, from the Metalka

21 building; is that right? And that misstates what's in the report, and so,

22 of course, the witness thought he was talking about this incident, which

23 is what is being discussed in this report.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you for the clarification.

25 Proceed, Mr. Tapuskovic.

Page 2114

1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I won't be returning to that.

2 That was my question, and I'll leave it at that.

3 Just fort transcript following my learned friend's intervention,

4 we would like to have this admitted DD00-0696 -- I apologise, that's not

5 the right number. I was moving on to a difficult different one DD00-0673,

6 the 15th of November.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it's admitted.

8 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D60, Your Honours.

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] .

10 Q. Now, this other statement that you made on the 17th of May, 2006,

11 this is DD00-0696. Can we please have a look.

12 Is that your statement, sir?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Could you please now go to page 2?

15 Just to gain time, in item 3, you talk about the Holiday Inn. You

16 were answering a question by the Prosecutor. I won't be reading this back

17 to you, but you said here: "We didn't know where the sniper was shooting

18 from. It was foggy, and there were bullets whizzing past all around us."

19 Is that an accuracy quote? Is that what you said, sir?

20 A. Yes, that's what the statement says. One thing I forgot to

21 emphasise was the fact that the bullets were again arriving from the

22 direction of Grbavica.

23 Q. Very well. Okay. You were born in Sarajevo, right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. The very heart of Sarajevo lies in a valley. When the weather is

Page 2115

1 foggy, it's impossible to actually see the bottom of the town from the

2 hills around or the house tops?

3 A. It wasn't quite that foggy. It would have been sufficiently

4 visible from the tops of the surrounding buildings, maybe not from these

5 surrounding hills.

6 Q. So this was a foggy day; we agree on that. Even so, you knew

7 where the bullets were coming from. Who told you? Was that your own

8 conclusion?

9 A. It was our own conclusion where we were being fired at from. We

10 concluded where the firing was coming from. We could hear the bullets.

11 Q. Item number 7 -- it's not normal for me not to have any of my

12 parents left, and I would like to express my sympathy to you because your

13 father was killed. Here it reads: "My father was killed by a shell in

14 1992. He was off to fetch some water; and on his way back, he was killed

15 right in front of the building."

16 Did you give the investigator any sort of document for them to see

17 to be able to tell whether that was, in fact, accurate whether your father

18 was, indeed, killed by a shell, or perhaps there was a different reason

19 is. It could have been a natural death, for all I know. Life can end in

20 all sorts of ways. Was your father a soldier?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Do you have a document that shows cause of death?

23 A. Yes. I don't have it on me though.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: You're both proceeding too fast. And if you look

25 at the screen, you'll see that the interpreter is asking you to slow down.

Page 2116

1 Observe a pause between question and answer. And, Mr. Tapuskovic, do not

2 put three or four questions at the same time. One question at a time.

3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] .

4 Q. Can you submit that document to the court so that we might be able

5 to ascertain the cause of your father's death, sir?

6 A. I think that I could. Although, the doctor who wrote the finding,

7 Ilijas Dobreca, also died recently. If that means anything, I saw his

8 dead body. I saw the wounds caused by shrapnel.

9 Q. I'm sorry the doctor died. What I'm asking you is whether you

10 have this document and whether the document can be obtained from this

11 medical institution in which your father's death was established?

12 A. Yes. I think that would be possible.

13 Q. Thank you very much.

14 When such investigations are at hand, such that you conducted in

15 Sarajevo, was there a single case that you were involved in that included

16 the most confident report which is one of the investigating judge?

17 A. There should be. An on-site investigation involves usually an

18 investigating judge.

19 Q. Is it anywhere among the documents that we have discussed

20 recently?

21 A. I see that one report quotes that a investigation judge was

22 present.

23 Q. I put it to you that the investigating judge was not there in a

24 single incident?

25 A. That's not true.

Page 2117

1 Q. Can you show me a document that shows that an investigating judge

2 was on the spot?

3 A. Not here.

4 Q. Was there a single military expert who knows about weapons who

5 assisted you in your investigation at any point; not necessarily in

6 uniform, but maybe in civilian clothes?

7 A. There were some involved in the Cobanija incident, but they were

8 observers.

9 Q. Yesterday, you spoke about the events in Sarajevo and especially

10 about the period of the summer of 1995, which was the worst for Sarajevo.

11 Do you know that this coincided with a fierce offensive of the ABiH

12 against the positions of army of Republika Srpska?

13 A. I know there was a lot of shooting, but who exactly was attacking

14 --

15 Q. You were working in the police?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. How many policemen were there, 15.000, 20.000?

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

19 Q. Were they all under arms?

20 A. Of course, policemen carry weapons.

21 Q. And that includes you?

22 A. Yes, I had a pistol.

23 Q. How about that time and generally throughout those events in

24 Sarajevo and around Sarajevo throughout the war, were you sometimes under

25 the command of the army and were you involved there military operations?

Page 2118

1 A. At the beginning of the war, the police did take part in military

2 operations; in fact, it was the only armed force that existed at the very

3 beginning of the war in 1992 and 1993.

4 Q. And later you dealt only with --

5 A. No. I personally was never involved with military operations.

6 Q. Do you know that other people were involved in military operations

7 precisely in that year in the summer?

8 A. I couldn't tell you that.

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we show the document

10 DD00-0725, dated 6th July 1995. It's a very brief document.

11 Q. And you, Witness, will either confirm it or refute it when I show

12 it to you.

13 It would be even better if you could read it slowly.

14 A. You mean aloud?

15 Q. Yes, with the leave of the Court.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is he to read, a particular paragraph or the

17 entire document?

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I can read it to facilitate

19 things.

20 It says: "Command of the 12th Division. Sarajevo, 6th July,

21 1995."

22 Is that correct.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. On the right-hand side, we see, "Defence of the Republik, Military

25 Secret, Strictly Confidential." Correct?

Page 2119

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. "Engagement of MUP units in the defence of the city of Sarajevo.

3 Order." Is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. "In keeping with the current situation on the battlefield and the

6 engagement of the units of the 1st Corps, and in keeping with the

7 agreement of the commander of the Main Staff of the army and the Minister

8 of the Internal Affairs of the 2nd July, 1995, for the purposes of

9 efficiently defending the city of Sarajevo, and its airport as a vital

10 facilitate for the city, and pursuant to the order of General staff of the

11 army of Bosnia-Herzegovina," number so-and-so, "I hereby order, one,

12 continue to engage MUP units in the zone of responsibility of the 155th,

13 102nd, and 105th Mountain Brigades and the 111th Mountain Brigade and use

14 them to defend and secure the area of responsibility of brigades and the

15 airport as a vital facility for the city of Sarajevo."

16 Are you aware of that document?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Thank you. I am not going to deal with this document which is a

19 bit longer, but it makes the same point?

20 A. It's an order. If can you only look at one paragraph, and I would

21 like to tender the previous document as a Defence Exhibit DD00-0725, with

22 the leave of the Court.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.

24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D61, Your Honours.

25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would now like DD00-0727.

Page 2120

1 Here is another document, an order issued by Commander Prevljak.

2 Q. Can you please look at the last page to see that this was indeed

3 an order issued by is Commander Prevljak; it's on page 2?

4 A. Yes, I see.

5 Q. Was this signed by Prevljak?

6 A. Yes, it says, "Fikrat Prevljak."

7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we go back to page 1.

8 Q. Point 1.2. Is it correct that it reads: "Subheading, MUP units.

9 MUP units and Lasta units from the current area of deployment, Butmir.

10 Move to take up positions," et cetera, et cetera. Can you see that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And another paragraph below. "From the forces of MUP detachments

13 Bosna and Lasta, single out a reserve to the forces of Bosna detachment,

14 one company strong."

15 Do you see that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber what "Bosna" means?

18 A. It's a special unit of the police.

19 Q. Is it correct to that this special unit of the police was involved

20 in special assignment, special missions, such as sabotage?

21 A. I know nothing about that.

22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] So document DD00-0727 is a

23 document I would like to tender.

24 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I have to say I am a little bit baffled

25 now about what the Rules are for getting the documents into evidence,

Page 2121

1 because on direct examination this witness recognised medical documents

2 pertaining to victims of an incident that he investigated. And it's --

3 and I submitted that at that was enough for it come into evidence, and the

4 Defence objected and it was marked for identification.

5 Now, he's being shown military documents he says he knows nothing

6 about. He can't recognise and he can't comment on, and they're coming

7 into evidence. I am happy to have -- my preference would be that these

8 things come into evidence, and they are given whatever weight they should

9 be given later by the Trial Chamber. I think that is the easiest way to

10 do things. However, it seems to me that a consistent rule should apply

11 with respect to documents.

12 [Trial Chamber confers].

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. The general rule that we apply is that if

14 the witness does not acknowledge the proposition put forward by the party,

15 the document is not -- is not admitted. And the previous document will

16 therefore not be admitted. That's the D61.

17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I am tendering it to be marked

18 for identification. It's a very long document containing a lot of things.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we can mark it or identification.

20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer].

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: This document will be marked for identification.

22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, I have document DD00-0725, which was

23 admitted as Exhibit D61, will now not be admitted and will be marked for

24 identification as D61. Document DD00-0727 will be marked for

25 identification as Exhibit D62.

Page 2122

1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I omitted to mention it before,

2 but the statement of this witness, DD00-07 -- 0673, on 15th November is

3 another document I would like to tender.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Did you put that to the witness?

5 D60, the 15th of November, we have already admitted.

6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It's probably my own fault. What

7 I meant is the 17th May statement, 0696.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is that document?

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It's the witness's statement that

10 I questioned him on.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, the witness's statement will be admitted.

12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D63, Your Honours.

13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to ask

14 the witness, since he spoke a lot about sniping, whether the army of

15 Bosnia and Herzegovina and primarily the MUP of Sarajevo had their own

16 snipers and whether they fired on civilians within the city of Sarajevo or

17 not.

18 A. Would you just repeat the last part?

19 Q. Since you spoke a lot about snipers, were there any men among the

20 MUP personnel who fired from tall buildings and sniper emplacements within

21 the city of Sarajevo on targets within the city?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Were there men in the military, in the army of Bosnia and

24 Herzegovina who did that?

25 A. No, not that I know.

Page 2123

1 Q. Were there any sniping units?

2 A. You mean a special unit consisting of snipers? No.

3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have document DD00-0723,

4 dated 19th September, 1995. I would like to show this document to the

5 witness.

6 Q. Do you see this order? It's an order dated the 19th of September

7 signed, again, by Commander Fikret Prevljak?

8 A. Yes, I can see it.

9 Q. Now, I will read it to you very slowly. "Pursuant to the order by

10 the commander of the 1st Corps, strictly confidential," number

11 such-and-such, "and based on certain information gained by the UNPROFOR in

12 the territory of Sarajevo, sniping activities of our units is very strong.

13 And in this connection, the attention of the President of the Presidency

14 has been drawn and a protest addressed seeking immediate succession of

15 these activities."

16 Is that written there?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Was it during the NATO bombing, the date as you see it, the 19th

19 of September?

20 A. I cannot tell you exactly in which period the NATO bombing took

21 place, but it was around that time.

22 Q. And what is this order about? "One, immediately stop fire from

23 all sorts of weapons, especially snipers." Is that written there?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. There is no need for me to read the rest.

Page 2124

1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like this document

2 DD00-0723 to be marked for identification.


4 THE REGISTRAR: This will be marked for identification as D64.

5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I now have two

6 documents that I was reprimanded about by the Prosecutor, and I received

7 them from the Prosecutor himself two years ago, probably as a potential

8 Prosecution exhibit. In any case, I'm going to show this document, which

9 is 65 ter 01989. It is dated 27th August 1994.

10 Q. Can you see this document, Witness?

11 A. No. I see it now.

12 Q. This document is, again, signed by the then commander of the 1st

13 Corps, Mr. Karavelic; is that correct?

14 A. Yes, I can see it.

15 Q. It has its own reference number, and Karavelic is writing to the

16 minister, Dr. Hasan Muratovic; correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. It reads: "Mr. Minister, further to your letter number 01-021-525,

19 dated 25th August, 1994, I hereby wish to advise you as follows."

20 Next paragraph: "In the building of the executive council, there

21 are no units of the 1st Corps or snipers belonging to our force. The

22 building of the executive council is secured and guarded by the MUP with

23 their own personnel." Is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. "The said incident was notified by General Soubirou to Mr. Enes

Page 2125

1 Bezdrov, Chief of Security Services Centre, CSB, and we believe these

2 incidents will be avoided in the future. As for the freedom of movement

3 of the UNPROFOR in Radnica, Butmir, and Zokolovic colony, we took

4 appropriate action; in short, complete freedom of movement." Is that

5 correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Is it the case that there were MUP snipers on top of this very

8 tall building, the building of the executive council, and hereby Karavelic

9 is refuting his own responsibility and is assuring the minister that this

10 building is not used as an emplacement of MUP snipers?

11 A. I cannot tell you anything about this.

12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] 65 ter 01989, I would like to

13 tender this, please.

14 MR. WHITING: I think it's also marked for identification.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Marked for identification.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be marked for

17 identification as D65.

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Now, can the witness please be

19 shown a document that has been in the possession of the OTP for a long

20 time. It's DD00-0681. DD00-0681.

21 Q. Can you see the document, sir?

22 A. No, not yet -- right, it's there. All right. But needs to be

23 blown up slightly.

24 Q. Yes. Same thing I was about to ask.

25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Please.

Page 2126

1 There.

2 Q. You see just below the line, I won't be tiring the Chamber with

3 the header, that reads, "The Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, President of

4 the Presidency." You see that, don't you?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Just below that, it says, "Greetings, Izetbegovic," at the bottom

7 of the document, right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Now, here, I'll read it to you. Alija Izetbegovic is writing to

10 General Delic, the commander of the General of the army of

11 Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that right.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. "General, this morning the French ambassador, Henri Jacquolin,

14 visited my office and told my advisor, Mamija, this among other things.

15 France would like to make it official known that we have very angry

16 because of the murder of one of our soldiers at Dobrinja. Military

17 expertise had shown that the soldier had been hit from a positions held by

18 the Bosnian army, and yet we have not had an opportunity to check this,

19 which means that we can only have suspicions." Is that right, sir?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. "The Chetniks, in this case, have demonstrated endless cooperation

22 and willingness to cooperation by making it possible to UN investigators

23 to enter each and every flat and each and every position along the line

24 held by them." Is that what it says?

25 A. Yes.

Page 2127

1 Q. "Our men, on the other hand, have refused any form of cooperation

2 and have not allowed access to them to any of the numerous locations from

3 which the French soldier could have been hit." Is that right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. He stated, "When the BH army allows the UNPROFOR commission access

6 to the buildings from which the bullet could have been fired at the French

7 soldier, it is only then that we willing able to discuss the normalisation

8 of relations between Paris and Sarajevo." Is that right.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. "The French ambassador has caused us an unpleasant surprise by

11 saying that he had proof that the out of the 24 French soldiers killed,

12 who were members of the UN, not taking into account those who were killed

13 in the traffic accident at Igman, more than half of those had been killed

14 by the BH army." Is that right?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. He says that, "General Gobillard complained to him that for weeks

17 our commanders had been ruling out each and every contact with UNPROFOR.

18 "We don't understand your behaviour, and we don't see what you are

19 trying to achieve." Is that right?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. "Of course, some of these allegations must be taken with a pinch

22 of salt. But it's also necessary for you to know what their objections

23 are. Remove any obstacles to cooperation wherever no obstacles are

24 necessary from the military point of view. Sarajevo, the 21st of April,

25 1995, Salam Alija Izetbegovic." Is my reading accurate, sir?

Page 2128

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Can I have this document admitted as a Defence exhibit, please.

3 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, first of all, I think would be marked

4 for identification, but I would raise a larger issue about what the point

5 of this cross-examination is. This is a policeman, and he's repeatedly

6 been shown military documents and their being read out to him.

7 And now counsel is even abandoned even asking him if he knows

8 anything about it. He just reads it out and then tries to move it into

9 evidence. There is no indication that this witness knows anything about

10 military documents, and that he is going to be of any assistance of these

11 document. And I can tell you, judging from the list, there are a lot more

12 of these.

13 JUDGE HARHOFF: I'm asking you counsel also in the same vein, why

14 are you seeking to introduce these documents through this witness?

15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I was about to show

16 you why, and this is the very reason I decided to do it through this

17 witness. I would like you to at least mark this for identification. The

18 Prosecution have been in the possession of this document for years.

19 Perhaps not from the date the document was produced, but certainly from

20 sometime after. I'm about to tell you why I'm showing these document to

21 the witness.

22 He says there was no sniping by the MUP that transpires with great

23 clarity from everything that we have been reading, and I will be asking

24 some questions that will shed more light on the entire problem. Mr.

25 Whiting knows about these documents that I'm about to show; he's seen them

Page 2129

1 before. It's his right, I suppose. Perhaps he can stop me from showing

2 these documents. Perhaps it's a right that he has.

3 He was talking a while ago about the position that the Prosecution

4 being jeopardised. The only thing that I see is the possibility that the

5 position of this accused might be jeopardised when discussing this effort;

6 whereas, Mr. Whiting a while ago talked about the Prosecution being

7 jeopardised. I couldn't understand that. The question is through my

8 cross-examination --

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Just one moment, please.

10 [Trial Chamber confers].

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: So far, all the witness has done is to confirm

12 the -- that what you have read is actually in the report. He hasn't

13 spoken to the contents of the report, and the -- what the Chamber will do

14 is to mark it for identification.

15 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D66, Your Honour -- sorry, marked for

16 identification as D66, Your Honours.

17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I agree with your ruling. He

18 says that the MUP or anyone from MUP never fired at civilians in Sarajevo.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, please continue with your

20 cross-examination instead of rehearsing what we have done.

21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Fine.

22 Q. Witness, are you familiar with the incident on the 25th of

23 October, 1994 at about 1800 hours, the medical institute. Eight

24 passengers from that tram were admitted. The tram was fired from the PZT

25 Grbavica near the Brotherhood and Unity bridge. Eight people were hit?

Page 2130

1 A. I don't know about that incident.

2 Q. You don't, fair enough. What about this report? It's a report

3 compiled by one of your colleagues dated the 25th of October. I will read

4 it to you just to see whether -- or if you --

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Whiting.

6 MR. WHITING: My objection is that this report was on the list of

7 exhibits, documents that the -- that Defence was going to use. It was on

8 the list that they provided yesterday, and it was dropped from the list

9 that they provided to me today. So I don't understand how counsel is

10 about to use it, particularly in the manner that he is using it. The

11 witness has said he doesn't know anything about it, and now he is just

12 going to try to read from the document.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me ascertain from Mr. Tapuskovic, did you

14 drop it from your list, the list of the documents that you would be using

15 in your cross-examination?

16 Just now please answer the question.

17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would never have

18 dropped it. I submitted it in good time. It was disclosed to the OTP at

19 the right time, and there was no way I could have dropped it. The OTP got

20 it the moment the present witness took the oath. Now, as to why the

21 e-court system works the way it does sometimes, that is not my problem. I

22 don't know about technology, but the OTP got the document the moment this

23 witness took his oath.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Listen, I really don't want to spend a lot of

25 time on this, but I'm just going to ask Mr. Whiting if he can very quickly

Page 2131

1 verify what he has said.

2 MR. WHITING: According to my information, that is not correct.

3 It's document 435, I believe, and it's not on the spreadsheet that was

4 provided to me today, which I -- I don't know if that spreadsheet was

5 provided to the court, but today I received it -- I received a spreadsheet

6 today with the documents that were going to be used, and it's not on

7 there.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's on the --

9 MR. WHITING: It's on the list for yesterday.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's on the list for the 13th.

11 MR. WHITING: It was on the list that was provided yesterday.

12 [Trial Chamber confers].

13 MR. WHITING: I have the list from today; it's right here. I'm

14 happy to provide it to the Chamber. It has markings on it, but it was not

15 on the list provided to me today. And I think counsel probably knows

16 that.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, did you provide a list, today, of

18 the documents that you are going to use to the Prosecution?

19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would be crazy. I would be

20 crazy to do that and break the rules that we have agreed on. That's

21 impossible. Mr. Whiting has been smothering me in e-mail since yesterday.

22 I stopped answering. He has been drawing me to certain things trying to

23 hamstring me in my cross-examination. Why would I do it today? It's

24 machine of been in e-court for at least two or three days. What do I

25 know? I must have submitted that document at least two or three days ago.

Page 2132

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Whiting, please pass the document to the

2 Chamber.

3 MR. WHITING: The document I'm passing up, and if Defence counsel

4 wants to see it first, it's a printout of the e-mail that I received this

5 morning and the attached spreadsheet. There are markings that I made on

6 the spreadsheet.

7 [Trial Chamber confers].

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm just going to ask -- I think we're wasting

9 time, but I'm going to ask the usher to show this document to the Defence.

10 This is the document that Mr. Whiting has passed to us.

11 Mr. Whiting says that is a document which you transmitted today,

12 and it doesn't have this -- a reference to this particular document.

13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I sent the entire

14 batch I have been showing you about Izetbegovic and all that. It was all

15 at the same time. I can't be looking at these all the time. It's what I

16 have my associates for.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: The document that is in your hand that I just

18 sent to you, did you transmit it to the Prosecutor today?

19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, no way. You might

20 as well arrest me. I'll give up my job. Please arrest me in that case.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not going to spend any more time on this.

22 MR. WHITING: Well, the confusion may be that it came from the

23 case manager. It did not come obviously from Mr. Tapuskovic itself. It

24 came from the case manager, and I believe they can confirm that.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Did you or your case manager send it. Because if

Page 2133

1 your case manager sent it, she is sending it on your behalf.

2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I can't shift the blame to my

3 case manager. It's my responsibility. If anybody is to be called to

4 account, it is going to be me. But I submitted this along with the

5 Izetbegovic document. What is happening with e-court? Why is it so late

6 in opening documents sometimes. I'm going into that.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Find out from your case manager right now. Find

8 out from your case manager whether she sent that document to Mr. Whiting.

9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yesterday, but there must have

10 been a problem with the e-court system for that to be submitted. We

11 looked at that document yesterday.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: You haven't answered the question. Did she send

13 it to the Prosecutor.

14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, yes. I have been saying

15 that all along, haven't I?

16 [Trial Chamber confers].

17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Everything has been fair so far.

18 You submit the documents to us on the same day that were going to be used,

19 and we weren't angry with you or anything.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: We are not allowing you to use it in accordance

21 with the rules that we established.

22 Please proceed.

23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I mean, Your Honours, this will

24 crop up with the next witness anyway. This hurdle shall be easier for me

25 to overcome.

Page 2134

1 Q. Do you know this, Witness, what about the UNPROFOR report drafted

2 by the French generals? Did they not say that nearby buildings were fired

3 at by members of the BiH army? Do you know anything about that?

4 A. No, I don't.

5 Q. Thank you very much. I see this other document. I wonder if I

6 submitted this one in good time. This is 65 ter 1484. D19; one of ours.

7 It runs into quite a number of pages. I will be showing only two of

8 those. Page 203, official report, dated 19th of November, 1994.

9 A number of your colleagues produced this report. This is a set

10 of documents. 65 ter 1484 starts with 199, and what I'm talking about is

11 at 203. It's an official report. Three pages on from here--

12 MR. WHITING: For assistance, the English of that page is

13 RR25-1202 to RR25-1204.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The B/C/S is 251203.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, it appears that multiple translations

17 of this document were submitted. There are four in the system, and we're

18 having a hard time figuring out which one goes with the B/C/S/.

19 MR. WHITING: Yes, that is why I tried to help. It's the one that

20 is 1202 to 1204 that pertains to these pages.

21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] .

22 Q. Do you see this official report dated 19th November regarding an

23 incident where that boy was hurt. You heard about that? Do you know

24 about that boy who was killed and his mother was wounded. Do you remember

25 that?

Page 2135

1 A. No. I can't remember this particular incident.

2 Q. The whole world heard about it.

3 A. I can't remember. I just can't recall it now.

4 Q. This is a large paragraph, a large one, a small one, then a large

5 one and the end. "On the pavement of the -- on the Franje Rackog Street,

6 there were no UNPROFOR vehicles. Soon two APCs of the French battalion

7 UNPROFOR came and parked with license numbers, UN-PF 15225 and 15041." Can

8 you see that?

9 And then it goes on to say: "Other witnesses, other eye-witnesses,

10 were not found. On the spot where the woman and boy were injured, there

11 was a bloodstain that UNPROFOR members who later came to the site washed

12 out with water and covered with soil before the on-site investigation team

13 arrived."

14 Can you see that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Since the Frenchmen were most correct in conducting these

17 investigations, were they a particular favourite target of the members of

18 your units?

19 A. I cannot tell you anything about that.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, where is this line of

21 cross-examination taking us, and what is the -- what is its relevance?

22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The relevance lies in the fact

23 that this evidence indicates that UNPROFOR soldiers, at the time when this

24 commander was the commander, were being killed by members of the army of

25 Bosnia and Herzegovina and the MUP of Sarajevo, and the blame was always

Page 2136

1 laid in the eyes of the world on Serb units.

2 That is precisely why the document issued by the man who then led

3 the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr. Alija Izetbegovic, invokes the

4 fact that he was informed by the French ambassador that 12 French soldiers

5 were killed by the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, precisely because the

6 Frenchmen were the most diligent their on-site investigations.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I hear that. But can you relate that

8 specifically to the criminal responsibility of the accused? Are you

9 asking us to draw a particular inference from that as to his liability or

10 non-liability; and if so, what would that be?

11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The point I'm trying to make is

12 that not a single bullet was ever fired from the positions of the army of

13 Republika Srpska at the UNPROFOR or at a child with a conscious intention

14 to kill the child or a member of the UNPROFOR. Such things could have

15 happened only as part of a major offensive, the major offensive conducted

16 at the time by the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that is in line

17 with this witness said about the summer of 1995 being the worst.

18 It is my belief, and I don't know whether you will share this

19 belief, that this is very relevant because it allows us to determine that

20 the UNPROFOR was never allowed to investigate properly the murders of --

21 the killings of UNPROFOR soldiers because it would have been easy to see

22 through the deceit that it was the Serb units who did it.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: The next issue is whether this witness is in a

24 position to assist you, even assuming that you are correct in what you

25 just said. The witness so far has not been able to confirm anything in

Page 2137

1 any of these reports. He simply confirms what you have read.

2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I did not even

3 expect him to be able to confirm something like that. He contested that

4 anybody ever from the police force fired from those sky-scrapers.

5 And even when I showed him that letter from Muratovic, I knew that I would

6 get a negative answer. But a document speaks for itself and I will use

7 the documents for --

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: If you know from before that the witness can't

9 confirm anything in it, why are you putting it to him? Because the most

10 we can do is marked for identification. Wait there is a witness through

11 whom you can properly put it into evidence, or if you have a witness on

12 your list when the accused presents his case, then that would be an

13 appropriate time. But I have to consider with my colleagues whether to

14 allow this kind of questioning to continue.

15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Just one more word, Your Honour,

16 and then you will decide.

17 That document that contained the relevant information, I was

18 stopped from using that document base Mr. Whiting knew very well that the

19 witness was involved where those eight people were injured in that tram.

20 He was involved as an investigator and, of course, I was not allowed by

21 the Prosecution to pursue it. I will try to use the same document through

22 another witness. It is up to you to decide how to proceed now.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, I'm not going to allow further

25 questioning of this witness in relation to this document. He has no

Page 2138

1 relationship with it. It's not taking us any further. I would, however,

2 wish to see the document which we -- which we disallowed on the basis that

3 you had not notified the Prosecutor that you were going to us it, and that

4 is because you say that it has evidence that is related to this witness.

5 And we would consider allowing you to cross-examine on it, if that

6 is the case. So would you transmit that document to us that we can have a

7 look at it. That is the document which you say this witness knows about,

8 because he -- he knows about the -- he was investigating the tram incident

9 in which eight persons were injured.

10 But shouldn't that have been provided to the Chamber as well? Is

11 this the document on the -- on the ELMO?

12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for counsel.

13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Of course, I did not take with me

14 the entire document, but I will read it. It's part of a very large

15 document that relates to the wounding of those women.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us be clear what you're going to do. Is

17 there a translation of that document?

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No. Maybe the Prosecution has a

19 translation. I believe they do.


21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It's a 65 ter document, 648.

22 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, it is -- this page is part of a larger

23 document which is 65 ter number 648. We do not have a translation of this

24 page or any other page in that substantial document.

25 This particular page, as far as I can tell, as far as I was able

Page 2139

1 to determine before I abandoned any further inquiry on this because I

2 thought it was being dropped, this particular page does not relate to the

3 witness. There are other indications in this larger document that the

4 witness may have been involved in the investigation. But what is at issue

5 involved in this particular page, as far as I can tell, does in the relate

6 to the witness. And this is the one page that Defence counsel indicated

7 that he wanted to use.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us be clear, Mr. Tapuskovic, the Chamber will

9 allow to you cross-examine on this document to the extent that the witness

10 knows about the contents, and it's only on that basis.

11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you just heard from

12 the Prosecutor. He was part of the team who worked on the substantial

13 document. He was on that team. I cannot say what he will state. The

14 Prosecutor himself says --

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. Let us hear the cross-examination on

16 those parts of the document to which the witness can speak on the basis of

17 his experience.

18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] May I put it to the witness?


20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. It is not the very legible. It's an Official Note drafted on 26th

22 October 1994 on the premises of the Security Services Sarajevo, after

23 attending a site where a street car was fired on, on 25th October 1994

24 around 1700 hours at the intersection of Vojvode Putnika and Sibenska

25 streets.

Page 2140

1 I'm reading on: "On the 26th of October, 1994, around 1715 hours,

2 I attended a site on Vojvode Putnika Street, and my assignment was to

3 observe the work of the UNPROFOR commission who were tasked with

4 inspecting the scene and the tram and determine on that basis where the

5 fire had come from. When I came to the site, I found three members of the

6 UNPROFOR of the French battalion."

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is that the first paragraph?

8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It's all of the document. This

9 is the entire document.

10 Q. "The tram was facing Cengic Vila. The distance between the back of

11 the tram and the tram depot of Pofalici was around 15 metres. At that

12 moment, representatives of the UNPROFOR exited from the tram and passed on

13 its left side in the direction of movement. On that side of the tram,

14 there were clear signs of damage of the body of the tram inflicted by

15 infantry weapons. An UNPROFOR officer pushed a metal bar into one of the

16 holes and said something to those present in the French language.

17 "Other members of the team did not do or say anything. My

18 interpreter told me that the officer had said that the shots had come from

19 the Muslim side from a neighbouring white building in Sibenska Street.

20 The interpreter said that the officer was even able to establish the

21 window from which the shots came from. After noting this, the officer

22 took out the metal bars and together with his team left the site around

23 1745 hours. The driver of the tram took the tram to the depot."

24 Now my question is, since this Official Note was signed by

25 Sulejman Pilav, were you indeed the member of -- a member of that team?

Page 2141

1 A. Possibly.

2 Q. Thank you.

3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I had more questions, but I'm not

4 going to proceed with them.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Re-examination?

6 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I just have a few questions, but I

7 don't recall when the next break is.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Oh, it's now.

9 MR. WHITING: Oh, it's now.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll take the break now.

11 --- Recess taken at 5.42 p.m.

12 --- On resuming at 6.01 p.m.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Before you begin, Mr. Whiting, I need to clarify

14 something with Mr. Tapuskovic. It was document 435. It was document 435,

15 which was the subject of a dispute between yourself and the Prosecutor as

16 to whether you had given the proper notification that you were going to

17 use it, and that is the document which I said I would allow -- listen it

18 to me first. That is the document that I said I would allow you to

19 cross-examine on, notwithstanding the fact that the Chamber had earlier

20 disallowed it in accordance it the rules that we had established, because

21 you had not notified the Prosecutor of it in the -- in your communication

22 to him today, the communication that came from your court manager.

23 But it's not clear to me whether that was the document which you

24 most laterally put to the witness. That's the document you wanted to

25 cross-examine on, and I said yes, because you said there was a reference

Page 2142

1 to a tram incident in which eight persons were killed and this witness had

2 investigated it. Is that the document which you put to the witness?

3 Because it does not appear to me to have been that one.

4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Eight persons were wounded, and

5 that's this entire document that I did not bring with me. I have only a

6 part thereof. And what the UNPROFOR did on site had to do precisely with

7 that tram hit with eight rounds, and the UNPROFOR established it was from

8 the positions of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, just a minute. Didn't you say that this

10 witness could assist you on that, that you had questions to put to this

11 witness about that document? You were fighting to have that document,

12 struggling to have it used by you in court, and I allowed you to use it.

13 But it seems to me that have you not used it, and I want to know why.

14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, when he confirmed that what

15 is written in that report is possible, that it was fire coming from that

16 building where the ABiH positions were, that was sufficient to me. I

17 thought it was not necessary to burden you with it any longer. I just

18 want that document exhibited, and I forgot to tender it. I didn't see any

19 reason to question him any longer, if he confirmed that it was indeed a

20 possibility.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you for the clarification.

22 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, that is not my understanding of the

23 record. The question that was put to the witness was not "was what is

24 stated in the report possible." "It was were you a member of that team,"

25 and the answer was "possibly." That was the only question that was put to

Page 2143

1 him. I don't think that he confirmed in any way, even that it was

2 possible what was stated in that document.

3 Now, you know, as I said before, this document is a page from a

4 longer report that deals with this incident. It's 65 ter 648; and if

5 counsel wants to show that bigger document, even though it was not on

6 their list, in the spirit of cooperation, which may be needed today, I'm

7 happy to allow that. Of course, it's up to the Chamber to make that

8 decision. I wouldn't have any objection. It's a long document for which

9 there is no translation, and it's obviously a complicated issue. There

10 are ins and outs of this issue, as far as I can tell, based on the

11 document.

12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I just ask a question: What happened to

13 document 65 ter number 435?

14 MR. WHITING: That is not -- it's not 65 ter 435; that's the

15 Defence number 435, so it's not a 65 ter number from our list.

16 JUDGE HARHOFF: So we are speaking about one and the same document

17 then.

18 MR. WHITING: The document that Defence counsel wanted to use is

19 435. It is the one that he showed it to the witness. He read it to the

20 witness and asked that single question.

21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. Thank you.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.

23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, I have already said what I

24 meant. I thought he said it's possible, and he worked on the team. I can

25 continue, but you did not allow me to use document DD00-0432, from which

Page 2144

1 it transpires that it was something that happened a day earlier, on the

2 235th of October.

3 Q. And that document lists the persons who were injured, and you were

4 in the team that tried to elucidate that case, weren't you?

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Would you like to put additional questions to him

6 about 435?

7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. You said a moment ago that it is possible that what is written in

9 the document is true?

10 A. No, that is not what you asked me. You asked me whether Sulejman

11 Pilav, who signed the document, was in my team and I said it was possible.

12 Q. The team that elucidated that case?

13 A. But I didn't confirm the allegations from that document.

14 Q. I didn't ask you to confirm the allegations from that document. I

15 asked you to confirm that it was done by your team, because you never

16 worked alone?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. So whatever the team did together is the definitive position of

19 that team?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. That was my understanding. So you were familiar with the whole

22 documentation of that case?

23 A. Yes, with a proviso that this does not relate to the case itself.

24 It relates to what happened during the on-site investigation.

25 Q. But that document that I read out to you, it is directly related

Page 2145

1 to the event from the day before because this document was drafted after

2 the UNPROFOR attended the scene on the 26th?

3 A. This is one Official Note with just notes that the UNPROFOR

4 attended and made a statement.

5 Q. And it's in the framework of your team?

6 A. No. It is not one of the findings from the on-site investigation,

7 and it was not written by the crime technician who did the investigation.

8 Q. It is mentioned in several places in that document that your team

9 does not agree with what is stated?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Thank you.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Whiting --

13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I suggest that the

14 entire document be exhibited. The Prosecutor knows the number of the

15 entire document.

16 MR. WHITING: 65 ter 648. I have no objection to that, the whole

17 thing going in. It will have to be translated. It's a -- but that's

18 fine.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, it will very burdensome and, in

21 fact, would be a waste of resources to have the whole thing translated if,

22 in fact, you're only concerned with a particular portion of it. So if you

23 can identify the particular portion that is relevant, we'll admit it and

24 we'll have that portion translated. But to ask the translators to

25 translate, what is it, 600 pages --

Page 2146

1 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I'm sorry, if I was not clear. It's

2 not 600 pages. It looks like about 38 pages. I think probably it would

3 be prudent just to get it done because I think Defence counsel may be

4 interested in certain parts and, we may be interested in certain parts.

5 This may become an issue with other witnesses. Rather than do this

6 piecemeal, I think the whole thing is important for the Trial Chamber to

7 have.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. If it's 38 pages, we will admit it

9 and it will be translated.

10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D67, Your Honours.

11 MR. WHITING: May I proceed?


13 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: This is re-examination?

15 MR. WHITING: Yes. Could I have Exhibit D60 on the screen,

16 please, and if we could look at page 3 in both the B/C/S and the English.

17 Re-examination by Mr. Whiting:

18 Q. Sir, do you see the paragraph, the second paragraph in the B/C/S.

19 I'm just going to ask you to read that paragraph until the end of the

20 document; and when you're done, I'm going to ask you if you can confirm

21 what's stated there is accurate.

22 While you're reading, however, I do want to, in fairness, signal

23 to the Trial Chamber and to the Defence that this -- what's contained in

24 that part of the statement, which the Defence has put into evidence,

25 pertains to sniping incident number 9, which is an incident that we

Page 2147

1 dropped in December. So it is -- it falls into that category of dropped

2 incidents.

3 I did not lead evidence on it, following the Trial Chamber's

4 ruling on this issue. However, I think now the Defence has opened the

5 door to this, by putting in this statement; and in fairness, I think I

6 should be permitted simply to ask him if he can confirm the accuracy of

7 what is in this statement pertaining to this issue?

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Would you explain what you moan by "dropped."

9 MR. WHITING: What I mean is that we -- as you will recall, the

10 original indictment had a certain number of scheduled incidents; and

11 pursuant to the Trial Chamber's order at the beginning of December last

12 year, we were ordered to cut the case by a third and we dropped certain

13 scheduled incidents.

14 Later on the Trial Chamber held that we could not lead any

15 evidence; but pertaining to those dropped incidents, we have filed a

16 motion asking for a modification of the Trial Chamber's order in that

17 regard, allowing us to lead some evidence on that issue. The Defence has

18 not yet responded to that motion and, of course, the Trial Chamber has the

19 not ruled on it; and for that reason, I did not lead any evidence on this

20 issue.

21 But, as I said, now I think the door has been open to it. The

22 Defence put the statement into evidence, so I think I should permitted to

23 ask him if he can confirm, and that's all, I won't take it any further,

24 but if he can confirm what is written there in his statement.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you may do that.

Page 2148

1 MR. WHITING: Okay.

2 Q. Mr. Vidovic, have you had an opportunity to read from that second

3 paragraph till the end of the statement?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And is what's written in those paragraphs accurate, to the best of

6 your knowledge; true and accurate, to the best of your knowledge?

7 A. Yes, it is.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 MR. WHITING: Could I now look at Defence exhibit number 63, which

10 is the other statement of the witness, and if we could go to the second

11 page, please.

12 Q. If you could look at paragraph 3 and just read paragraph 3 for me,

13 and I'll just have one or two questions about it.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. In the sentence before the last sentence, where it says "the

16 bullets were zipping past us from across the Miljacka river," can you tell

17 us what -- from this position where you were at the National Restaurant,

18 what is located, what neighbourhood is located across the Miljacka river?

19 A. The Grbavica neighbourhood.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 MR. WHITING: I have no further questions. Thank you.

22 Thank you, Your Honours.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Vidovic, that concludes your evidence. We

24 thank you for giving it, and you may now leave.

25 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

Page 2149

1 [The witness withdrew]

2 MR. WHITING: Yes, Your Honour. The next witness will be handled

3 by Mr. Sachdeva.

4 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, Your Honour the next witness is Mr. Butt, and

5 might we have a bit of time to manoeuver.

6 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, may I be excused just for a moment.


8 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.

9 [The witness entered court]

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.

11 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

12 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may seat, and you may begin, Mr. Sachdeva.


15 Examination by Mr. Sachdeva:

16 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President.

17 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Butt.

18 A. Thank you, sir.

19 Q. I'm just going to ask some questions about your personal

20 background.

21 MR. WHITING: Mr. President, with your leave, may I lead the

22 witness through these issues.


24 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you.

25 Q. Mr. Butt, it's correct that you retired from the Pakistani army in

Page 2150

1 2005?

2 A. Yes. I retired from Pakistani army as a lieutenant-colonel in

3 October 2005.

4 Q. And you were a lieutenant-colonel, but you had that position with

5 the emoluments of a brigadier; is that right?

6 A. Yes, that is true.

7 Q. You joined the Pakistani army in 1976?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And your speciality was in communications; is that correct?

10 A. Yes. I am an a telecommunication engineer and that was my

11 speciality and I served in the code of signals of Pakistani army.

12 Q. Now, were you ever assigned to Liberia?

13 A. I was assigned today UN Military Observer mission in Liberia. On

14 31st August, I left the country, 1994. And I was there for about five to

15 six weeks. So I take it you joined towards the middle of July 1994; is

16 that right.

17 A. No. I left on 31st of August, the country for Liberia; and by 2nd

18 or 3rd September, 1994, I was in Mondrovia then the capital of Liberia.

19 Q. Very well. You left Pakistan on the 31st of August. Well,

20 firstly, why did you leave Liberia after six weeks?

21 A. It was because of the deteriorating situation. We could not be

22 declared there. It was decided a mission was curtailed, and then we were

23 redeployed in Bosnia.

24 Q. When did you go to Bosnia and with whom?

25 A. Yes. I along with other three to four UNMOs; a couple of them

Page 2151

1 from Czechoslovakia and two from Pakistan. We came from Liberia to Bosnia

2 via Amsterdam. I still remember that I left Monrovia on 10th of October,

3 and on 11th of October I was in Zagreb, then the UNMO headquarters,

4 Zagreb.

5 Q. So just to be clear, you went to Bosnia with the United Nations?

6 A. Yes. Again, there I was assigned the duty of UN Military

7 Observer.

8 Q. And when did you -- can you tell me -- tell the Court roughly when

9 you arrived in Zagreb with the United Nations?

10 A. It was 11th of October when I arrived in Zagreb.

11 Q. In Zagreb, did you undergo any training there?

12 A. Yes, for about ten to 12 days, and after that I was sent to

13 Sarajevo.

14 Q. What kind of training did you undertake?

15 A. It started from the introduction about our working deployment of

16 United Nations, it's scenario; how we had to conduct an armoured routine,

17 and some military training related to crater analysis. When I said the

18 military training, it was not the physical training only, but practical

19 training. What we were supposed to do during our tenure of duty with

20 United Nations.

21 Q. When you say crater analysis, can you very briefly elaborate on

22 that?

23 A. Yes, we were shown -- a small little pamphlet was issued to us,

24 and our instructor, a name I don't remember, trained us, instructed us how

25 to carry out the crater analysis, and how to find the bearing of the

Page 2152

1 weapon from where the fire came and where impact was created.

2 Q. And these craters, the craters that were going to analyse, what

3 were they caused from?

4 A. Mostly, these were from the mortars and, of course, other

5 projectiles we were also taught about.

6 Q. And did the training cover the determination of the direction of

7 fire?

8 A. Yes. In bearing, we were taught to how to carry out -- how to

9 find out direction of that mortar from where that fire came.

10 Q. And is that, indeed, what you did when you arrived in Sarajevo?

11 A. Yes, mostly. As most of the time, we were busy about the impacts,

12 so that knowledge and training was quite handy.

13 Q. When you were posted to Sarajevo, did you join a particular team?

14 A. Yes. It was the Mali Hum team, located just short of -- while

15 travelling from Sarajevo town toward Mali Hum, a small mountain towards

16 the north of the city, there was a communication tower, and just before

17 that was our team location, which also had incidently the observation post

18 in the same communication.

19 Q. For the benefit of the Court, I will show you a map and ask you to

20 mark that location in a moment. But just tell me how many, if you know,

21 how many UNMO teams were there in Sarajevo when you got there?

22 A. There were about fire to six UNMOs once I joined them, but the

23 strength varied from six to 12 UNMOs, sometimes there were five, six,

24 sometime eight. It kept on changing during my tenure of duty.

25 Q. Now, are you talking UNMOs per UNMO team or the total number of

Page 2153

1 UNMOs in Sarajevo?

2 A. No. This was the strength I had talked about for my team, which

3 was located at Mali Hum.

4 Q. How many UNMO teams were there in Sarajevo?

5 A. In Sarajevo, there was one team in Sedrenik; one was my own team;

6 and there was another team for Novo Sarajevo. It was located close to us.

7 Their accommodation was close us to, but their area of responsibility was

8 towards the west of my area of responsibility; also a team in Hrasnica.

9 Of course, there were -- my team was divided into two teams; one part was

10 ours; and the other part was towards the Serb side and it was located in

11 Grbavica.

12 Q. That leads on to my next question. I wanted to ask you at the

13 time that you arrived in Sarajevo, were there United Nations Military

14 Observer in both the Bosnian government territory and the Bosnian Serb

15 territory?

16 A. Yes. There were military observers on both the sides.

17 Q. Do you know how many teams there were in the Bosnian Serb

18 territory?

19 A. I know about other teams. I may not be remembering exactly. I

20 Gradci and Zepa. Our teams were there. Also there observers teams for

21 liaison purposes; we used to call it Lima. It was to carry out liaison

22 with the Lukavica Barracks.

23 Q. So apart from Grbavica, the UNMO had a liaison officer in Lukavica

24 Barracks; is that right?

25 A. Not exactly in Lukavica Barracks because I never visited there so

Page 2154

1 I cannot comment on that. But he was working as liaison officer from

2 military observer side, and mostly he was interacting with Lukavica

3 barracks.

4 Q. Do you know who that person mostly interacted with from the

5 Lukavica Barracks?

6 A. Yes. I know Mr. Indic, and probably it was Colonel Indic. But

7 anyway, he was Mr. Indic who was being referred by our observer who was

8 doing as -- as liaison officer from observer side towards the Serb side.

9 Q. And just to be clear, Colonel Indic, was he part of the

10 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?

11 A. I think he should be because it was a Romanija corps and the Serb

12 side, which was taking care of Sarajevo. So it has to be part of that

13 particular corps.

14 Q. You said that you were posted at Mali Hum. Did you on any

15 occasion work on the Bosnian Serb side within the Sarajevo environs.

16 A. No. But I still remember that on 27th February, I was, by my team

17 leader, asked to go to the Serb side, where my other half of the team was

18 located in Grbavica, as I had mentioned earlier, along with a Nigerian

19 military observer, Major Odidi. We went there on 27th of February,

20 reached team accommodation, and suddenly I received a message from our

21 liaison observer from the Serb, Lima, that Mohammed, as I was referred

22 to - my first name was Mohammed - must leave this Serb side. And these

23 orders or instructions were from Mr. Colonel Indic; otherwise, he would be

24 arrested.

25 Soon after these instructions or orders, a Serb soldier was posted

Page 2155

1 on the door of our accommodation and I was given two hours to leave.

2 Q. Let me just stop you there. Firstly, actually in my haste to try

3 and -- to increase the speed of the examination, I forgot to ask you to

4 state your full name and your place of birth, please.

5 A. Okay. I am Mohammed Asem Butt. I was born on 27th of September

6 1957 - and Butt is B-u-t-t - in a city in the Punjab state of Pakistan.

7 Q. Now, you said you were asked by your team leader to go to the Serb

8 side. Why were you asked to go to the Serb side?

9 A. It was because on the Serb side, in our team, there was shortage

10 of observers. So they said me and Odidi should go there and do duty for

11 about seven to ten days, and later on we were to come back.

12 Q. And when you got there, you have told the Court that you received

13 a message from your liaison officer that you must leave. Do you know why

14 you were told that?

15 A. Then didn't give any reason, but they said Mohammed to leave and I

16 was forced to leave. After about one hour, I went back to my team at Mali

17 Hum. It was basically for the reason during my tenure of duty, it was my

18 assessment, and that can be verified by the UN records of that time,

19 Muslims were not welcomed on the Serb side as observer.

20 Q. And again, just to be clear, so you in fact did leave after two or

21 three hours and went back to the Bosnian government side?

22 A. Not two to three hours. After getting the confirmation from my

23 UNMO headquarters, they also confirmed. And after that, I left the

24 accommodation of Grbavica and started coming back towards my team. And,

25 again, on my way to Mali Hum, at the Serb checkpoint, I was stopped and

Page 2156

1 under went every kind of search, and kept on waiting. Again, they got

2 some instructions from somebody, and only then I was allowed to go back or

3 to cross over to the Bosnian side. Again, it took about one hour there.

4 Q. So, in total, how long had you attempted to carry out your work as

5 an UNMO on the Bosnian Serb side.

6 A. This was the only time. As an UNMO, I went there to my team

7 side. But I still remember on a couple of times, I visited a couple of

8 buildings in connection with some investigations along with French people.

9 Q. Yes. I'm going to get to that in a moment, but I just want to

10 stick to this one occasion. You said in February that you had gone to the

11 Serb side. Just to be clear, did you, in fact, stay for the seven days in

12 Grbavica?

13 A. Not as per the instructions of Mr. Indic and the confirmation

14 from the UNMO headquarters. I think it took about 45 minutes or one hour,

15 and I left the accommodation and went through the Serb checkpoint, where I

16 was searched, and stayed until the time they got instructions, and then

17 they didn't allow me to cross over. But after about one hour, I was

18 allowed to go and I then went back to Mali Hum; same day, after about one

19 hour, 45 minutes stay in Grbavica.

20 Q. Now, generally in the work of --

21 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] I'd just like to check witness.

22 There were UNMOs on the Serbian side, not the whole team was sent back,

23 you personally were because you said you were Muslim. Did I understand

24 you rightly?

25 THE WITNESS: It was only me who was sent back, and Odidi who

Page 2157

1 accompanied me to Grbavica stayed there and was not objected. It is my

2 assessment that being a Muslim, I was not accepted there. The situation

3 which was there then was that hardly any UNMO, at least I don't remember,

4 was deployed on the Serb side because they were not accepted there.

5 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] It was a Nigerian major who wasn't

6 a Muslim, was he?

7 THE WITNESS: He was Christian from Nigeria and part of my team

8 which was located at Mali Hum, and he along with me was supposed to stay

9 for seven to ten days in Grbavica. However, once I was objected, I had to

10 leave but he stayed in Grbavica.

11 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.


13 Q. Mr. Butt, you said that this incident took place in February on

14 the 27th of February. Was that in 1995?

15 A. It was 1994 -- sorry, sorry. I correct myself. February was

16 1995, because I joined the mission in 1994. February, once I went to

17 Grbavica, the year was 1995. I stand corrected. I'm sorry, Your Honour,

18 sir.

19 Q. And you joined the mission in October 1994; is that right?

20 A. That's correct, sir.

21 Q. Generally, in the work of an UN Military Observer, were there any

22 principles or standards that you had to adhere to in discharging your

23 duties?

24 A. It was a total impartiality, irrespective of any religion, any

25 nationality, any faction, any group. It was to be above all and for --

Page 2158

1 Q. Excuse me, sorry. Carry on.

2 A. And for that, the standing operating procedure was -- the practice

3 in vogue was that in any UNMO team, there would be no repetition of

4 nationality. That means that if there is an UNMO in one of teams from one

5 country, it would not be represented by a second UNMO; only one UNMO from

6 one country. And whenever we used to go on parole or for some

7 investigation, it had to be not one UNMO, at least two UNMOs, to ensure

8 that it is carrying out investigations impartially.

9 Q. And the two UNMOs from that patrol team would be of different

10 nationalities; is that right?

11 A. That's true. Of course, it had to be from different nationalities

12 because in one team, there couldn't be two UNMOs from one country.

13 Q. When you got to Sarajevo and when you were deployed to the Mali

14 Hum team, what was your rank, if I may use that word.

15 A. Then I was a major. I joined the mission as a major. And after I

16 was dispatched from the mission in September of 1995, I was promoted as

17 lieutenant-colonel. In fact, the news I got during my tenure of UN was

18 that back home I had already been promoted?

19 Q. Sorry. It was my question perhaps. Within the UNMO team itself,

20 what role did you have when you joined?

21 A. When I joined, as per the UN SOP of the mission, I joined as a

22 member. And after three or four months, I became a member of the half of

23 the team which was located in the Mali Hum, and later on a member of the

24 entire team.

25 Q. So did you, in fact, become the team leader?

Page 2159

1 A. Yes. I became team leader of half of the team which was located

2 in Mali Hum. After about three or four months and after an additional

3 another one to two months, I became team leader of the entire team, which

4 was located as Mali Hum.

5 Q. I wanted to ask you about shelling and sniping within the period

6 that you were in Sarajevo.

7 Firstly, did you investigate sniping and shelling incidents

8 involving civilian casualties?

9 A. Yes. Quite a few shelling and sniping incidents I investigated,

10 along with other UNMOs. These are numerous in numbers, and varied from --

11 it had, in fact, various weapons used. We had shelling of mortars of

12 various calibre. We had shelling investigation of modified air bomb. I

13 still remember only once that I carried out an investigation of an impact

14 in one of the basements where people were collecting water, and it was a

15 different kind of weapon used there. It had a hook-shaped nail back

16 probably in the projectile, which it exploded, and it caused a lot of

17 injuries. Also there were various calibres of rifles and machine-guns and

18 anti-aircraft guns.

19 Q. Right. For the moment, I want to stick to the rifle and

20 machine-gun incidents that you investigated.

21 When you were working on such investigations, what did you do?

22 A. The United Nations had a very elaborate system already in place.

23 We had our headquarters in the PTT building, where a duty officer was

24 there and, of course, a SMO, senior military observer, from Norway. He

25 was a lieutenant-colonel, Mr. Pilan [phoen], if I am right in

Page 2160

1 pronunciation. I don't know. And then we had our teams, as I have

2 already mentioned, on Serb side and also on the BiH side, the government

3 side.

4 Along with that, at the headquarters, they had a liaison officer

5 from warring factions and also a liaison officer from the troops.

6 Q. Just one moment, Mr. Butt, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I wanted

7 to concentrate on your investigations involving, as you said, rifle and

8 machine-guns and, let's say, small arms fire. What was your role when you

9 undertook those investigations?

10 A. Right. Your Honours, I was supposed to -- on the instruction of

11 headquarters or any information - because I wanted to give the system on

12 how we were working anyway - received from the police or from troops

13 deployed on the ground with the conformation from the headquarters, we

14 would visit the site. And we used to investigate, if it was possible,

15 what are the casualties, death or injured, direction of fire, calibre of

16 fire, type of weapons used. And I make clear here, sir, that we used to

17 only confirm the casualties which we could see in the hospital, if they

18 were not there present on the ground, or in the accommodation. We only

19 confirmed the casualties which we had met or we had seen physically. If

20 we had not seen any casualty, physically, we would not confirm.

21 Q. And when you say, "direction of fire, calibre of fire, type of

22 weapon used," was that ultimately to -- ultimately to enable you to

23 determine where the shots had come from?

24 A. Yes. Mostly, it was possible, but sometime it was not possible

25 because of the lack of evidence.

Page 2161

1 Q. Now, sticking again with sniper fire or small-arms fire, do you

2 recall an incident on the 15th of April in 1995?

3 A. 15th of April, I believe this was a day when a French soldier was

4 killed in front of Holiday Inn, and I along with another UNMO and an

5 interpreter visited the site and investigated. And this was a day I

6 remember vividly that once we went there, we were told it was a civilian,

7 because I was not supposed to carry out investigation in case any UNPROFOR

8 troop casualty is involved.

9 When we reached there, though the body had already been removed as

10 we were told but the French, we come to know it was a French soldier, who

11 had already been killed, working in a fork-lift and fixing anti-sniping

12 screen. But once we reached there, certainly we came under fire and we

13 remained; myself, my colleague the other UNMO, and interpreter for about

14 one hour, one hour, 15 minutes under fire, and later on rescued from the

15 site through the arrangement of my headquarters.

16 Q. Now, if I were to show you a photograph of that area, would you be

17 able to point out or mark where you went to undertake that investigation?

18 A. Yes. I should be able to, if I'm shown that photograph or some

19 map or things like that.

20 Q. And before I do that, you said that the French soldier had been

21 working in a fork-lift fixing an anti-sniping screen. Why was he fixing

22 an anti-sniping screen?

23 A. First, let me be clear, there were a few hot spots and the famous

24 "Sniper Alley." This is the main road running west of the town to east;

25 that is, from the airport to the old part of the town, passing between

Page 2162

1 museum and Holiday Inn. And there were a few spots and there were

2 permanently anti-sniping team of the concerned UNPROFOR battalion were

3 deployed, fully armed in APC. And they were ready to fire back in case

4 they see anyone sniping. And later on, as the things were being analysed

5 and the arrangements were being improved, it was probably decided to erect

6 anti-sniping screens as it would save the commuters from sniping, as it

7 would obstruct the visibility of the potential sniper.

8 Q. You use the word "hot spot" to describe this area. During your

9 time there, did you know or did you see reports that, you said commuters,

10 but civilians being hit at that area.

11 A. Yes. It was quite common. And we had a lot of reports, and I had

12 also investigated quite a few.

13 Q. So who told you to go down to that area to do this investigation,

14 firstly?

15 A. It was from my headquarters. The duty officer that day asked me

16 to send the patrol, and I along with another UNMO and interpreter went

17 there, as it was in my area of responsibility. I visited the site and

18 carried out the investigation and came under fire.

19 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, may I show the witness photograph

20 06171146?


22 MR. SACHDEVA: And that's 65 ter 2825.

23 Q. Mr. Butt, we're just waiting for the photograph to come on the

24 screen?

25 A. Right, sir.

Page 2163

1 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, if you could keep it at that size for the

2 moment.

3 Q. Do you recognise that area, Mr. Butt?

4 A. Yes, quite a familiar area. It was the centre of responsibility

5 of my area and a very hot spot, so I do remember it.

6 Q. Do you see on that photograph where you were when you went to

7 investigate that incident on the 15th of April, 1995?

8 A. Yes. I don't know how I have to point. Is this red button the

9 cursor or ...

10 Q. No. I'm going to get the court usher to provide you with a

11 marker, and I'd like to you mark the place where you were and where you

12 came under sniper fire.

13 A. Thank you, sir.

14 This was the place where fork-lift was and anti-sniping

15 screens were being fixed here. And behind the anti-sniping screens I,

16 along with my other UNMO and interpreter, took the cover.

17 Q. And how long were you under sniper fire for?

18 A. I was under sniper's fire for about 1 hour, 15 minutes to 1 hour

19 30 minutes. And I was constantly in touch with my headquarter because my

20 soft-skin vehicle was parked somewhere here on the other side, somewhere

21 here, on the green patch. And firing -- it was so much firing that we

22 couldn't reach to our soft-skin vehicle as at this point there was already

23 one French anti-sniping team comprising two APCs. Once firing started,

24 they fled and then we had to take cover. And I still remember that during

25 my transmission with the headquarter duty officer at PTT building, they

Page 2164

1 point out that from where I was being fired upon the building I did make

2 mention.

3 Q. Right. I'm going to get to that in a moment. But just so this

4 photograph is clear and your evidence is recorded properly, the X that

5 you've marked, that's the area where your soft-skin vehicle was; is that

6 right?

7 A. In fact, on top of X there is a triangle kind of thing I was able

8 to draw and that is point where vehicle was parked. Its door was open,

9 driver door, and we were on this. Again, I am pointing out this was a

10 time -- the area we were pinned down and behind the sniping screen. And

11 also fork-lift was still standing here.

12 Q. Now, I just want you to -- where the X and the triangle is, can

13 you just put a small V on the top of that.

14 A. [Marks].

15 Q. And where you have indicated where you were under sniper fire,

16 please put the letter B.

17 A. B. And B is -- I -- is not at right place. It is little down,

18 because those are already painted in red, so it will not be possible to

19 draw B there. So it is a little on my side, towards the bottom.

20 Q. That's fine. Now, you told us a moment ago that you that you were

21 able to point out from where you were being fired upon. Where were you

22 being fired from -- fired upon from?

23 A. Should I point out the building or the direction?

24 Q. Well, first say where you think you were being fired from.

25 A. I was fired from this direction. This is an arrow, by the way.

Page 2165

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: What was the height of the screen?

2 THE WITNESS: Screen, about -- these were being fixed there.

3 These were slabs, kind of things, and about six feet high, if I remember

4 correctly, and these were two or three, because was being placed, if I can

5 draw, in steps, one overlapping with each other, and then the third one,

6 in steps.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, proceed.


9 Q. Mr. Butt, may I just ask you not to mark on the photograph unless

10 I instruct you, just so your evidence is properly recorded.

11 A. Right, sir. It was just to give you the direction.

12 Q. I understand. And that's helpful for the Court and I thank you.

13 Now, were you able to see who was sniping at you?

14 A. Yes, I could make out from where the fire was coming. And same

15 was reported to headquarter giving the details of the building which was

16 on the other side of the river. That means under Serb control.

17 Q. And what was that building?

18 A. Do you want me to point out on the screen?

19 Q. First answer the question: What was the name of the building.

20 A. Metalka building.

21 Q. Can you now mark where that building is in the photograph.

22 A. [Marks].

23 Q. Can you just put a M on the top of that building.

24 A. [Marks].

25 Q. How did you know that the sniper fire was coming from that

Page 2166

1 building?

2 A. Because I could see somebody moving in those windows of this

3 building and then firing. Because it was not single shot. It was much

4 more than that and spread over about one hour, 1 hour, 15 minutes.

5 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, perhaps this is the time to adjourn.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it is. Yes, it is.

7 We'll adjourn until tomorrow at 2.15 when we will be in

8 Courtroom III.

9 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I'm sorry, may I just have this

10 photograph admitted into evidence.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. It's admitted.

12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P222, Your Honours.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: We're adjourned.

14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.01 p.m.,

15 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 15th day

16 of February, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.