1 Wednesday, 18 April 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva, you are to continue with your
8 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning to you and
9 to Your Honours
10 WITNESS: WITNESS W-116 [Resumed]
11 Examination by Mr. Sachdeva: [Continued]
12 Q. Good morning, 116. I think I have about 40 minutes left, so we
13 are going to try to be as quick as possible this morning. We finished
14 yesterday with your sketch that you produced regarding the incident in
15 Hrasnica on the 7th of April, 1995, and now I want to show you another
17 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, just for your information, this
18 exhibit or this 65 ter document that I'm going to show the witness, I
19 indicated to the Defence just over 24 hours prior to the witness'
20 testimony, so, in other words, it wasn't within the 48 hours, but I have
21 discussed this with counsel and I understand that she was no objection to
22 me using this document. Just for your information.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very good.
24 MR. SACHDEVA: Could I have 65 ter 787E brought up on the screen,
25 please, and if it could not be broadcast.
1 Q. Witness, while that is being brought up, after your investigation
2 in Hrasnica, did you produce a forensic report on your on-site
4 A. Yes. I made a report on the criminal investigation of the scene.
5 Q. On the screen now, on the right-hand side, do you see the report
6 that you made on that day?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 MR. SACHDEVA: If we could just move to the next page, please.
9 Q. Do you see your signature there, at the bottom of the page?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. Do you see a name there, "Borislav Stankov"?
12 A. Yes, I do. Borislav Stankov was my supervisor. He was an
13 electrical engineer and an expert in ballistics.
14 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender this document into
15 evidence, under seal.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit it.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become P553, under seal.
18 MR. SACHDEVA:
19 Q. Witness, yesterday, when we described the role that you would play
20 in these investigations, you said that you took photographs. Did you, on
21 this occasion, take photographs of the incident site?
22 A. Yes. I took photographs of the scene.
23 MR. SACHDEVA: If I could ask that 65 ter 00193 be brought up on
24 the screen, please.
25 Q. Do you recognise, well, firstly, this photograph as the one that
1 you took on the scene?
2 A. Yes, I do. That's the photograph of the place of impact of this
3 explosive device.
4 MR. SACHDEVA: If we could go to the next page, please.
5 Q. Witness 116, what do we see here on this photograph?
6 A. In this photograph, we see the house where the explosive device
7 landed; and in the background, you can see the neighbouring houses in the
8 same street.
9 Q. And did the neighbouring houses sustain damage as well?
10 A. Yes, they did. The roofs of the neighbouring houses were damaged
11 and, of course, windows were broken, more precisely, the 11 neighbouring
12 houses were rendered roofless.
13 Q. Now, in my office before you testified, did you review these two
14 photographs in addition to the series of photographs that you produced on
15 this incident?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. And do you recall that in that series of photographs there were
18 two or three photographs of a deceased person?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Did you take those photographs?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. Where did you take those photographs? Where was the person when
23 you took the photographs?
24 A. The persons had already been removed from the site, and they were
25 in a makeshift mortuary set up within the compound of the mosque in
2 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, in the interest the time, I tender
3 this series of photographs, if it is amenable to Your Honours, without
4 going through each one individual.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: How many are there?
6 MR. SACHDEVA: There are about 31 of them.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, any comments on that?
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
10 According to my calculation, there should be 33 photographs. That
11 would be right. And we know who has taken the photographs so we do not
12 object to these photographs being tendered.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll admit them.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As P554, Your Honours.
15 MR. SACHDEVA: I'm grateful to counsel for the advice.
16 Q. Now, Witness, I'm going to play a video for you, and I want you to
17 first see it and then I'll ask you a question.
18 MR. SACHDEVA: If I could have V000-7160 played in the courtroom.
19 [Videotape played]
20 MR. SACHDEVA:
21 Q. Witness, do you recognise that location?
22 A. Well, based on this single shot, I can't say that I do. You just
23 started playing the video.
24 Q. Okay. Well, we'll keep playing it.
25 [Videotape played]
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This is the house that had
2 been hit by an explosive device.
3 MR. SACHDEVA:
4 Q. And this house was destroyed in the investigation that you
5 attended; is that right?
6 A. I don't understand your question.
7 Q. I just want you to confirm that the house we saw in this video was
8 the house that was -- that sustained damage in the incident that you
9 investigated on the 7th of April, 1995 in Hrasnica?
10 A. Yes. Yes, that's right.
11 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender that into evidence, this
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit it.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As P555, Your Honours.
15 MR. SACHDEVA:
16 Q. Now, Witness, I'm going to ask you about other investigations that
17 you conducted.
18 Firstly, do you recall investigating an incident on the 24th of
19 May, 1995 at Safeta Zajke Street, number 43.
20 A. Yes, I do.
21 Q. If I was to show you a map, would you be able to mark the location
22 where you attended the investigation?
23 A. Yes, yes.
24 MR. SACHDEVA: Could I ask that 65 ter 2872 be brought up on the
25 screen, please, and if the central part could be enlarged.
1 Q. Witness, on this map, can you see -- well, firstly, do you see the
2 location of Safeta Zajke Street on that map?
3 A. Yes, I do. It's situated in the left-hand corner.
4 MR. SACHDEVA: Perhaps the map could be -- we could scroll towards
5 the -- fantastic. Thank you.
6 Q. Witness, if could you see the street, I would like you with the
7 assistance of the court usher to mark the street where the incident
9 A. That's the street, Safeta Zajke Street.
10 Q. And do you know whereabouts on that street the number 43 or where
11 the incident occurred is?
12 A. Roughly speaking, in this area here.
13 Q. Can I ask you just to put the letters SZ above that spot, so to
15 A. [Marks]
16 Q. Now, in the investigation that you conducted, what -- what did you
17 do when you got to the scene?
18 A. When I arrived at the scene, the first thing I did was to make a
19 broad overview of the scene; then I photographed the general area of the
20 incident, and thereafter I photographed the place of impact of this
21 explosive device.
22 After that, I marked certain pieces of evidence with numbers; that
23 is to say, fragments of the projectile, and other physical evidence that
24 could be found around the place of impact; then I sketched the site, and I
25 photographed also the damage sustained by the surrounding houses as a
1 result of the impact.
2 Q. Do you recall if there were any casualties in this incident?
3 A. Yes, there were casualties.
4 Q. Were these casualties civilian or military personnel?
5 A. They were all civilians.
6 Q. I'm going to show you a document.
7 MR. SACHDEVA: Perhaps we can have this map tendered into
8 evidence, although I would ask -- I'm going to ask the witness to make
9 more markings on it, but it is probably better to have it tendered first.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We admit it.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As P556, Your Honours.
12 MR. SACHDEVA: If I could now ask for --
13 [Prosecution counsel confer]
14 MR. SACHDEVA: -- 65 ter 73, 00073, and I'm interested in pages 25
15 to 28; and, again, it should not be broadcast, please.
16 Q. Witness, on the right-hand side of the screen, do you see a
17 document, and do you see your name and signature there?
18 A. Yes, I do. That's the sketch of the site which I made on the 24th
19 of May, 1995.
20 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I understand that the translation is
21 not in e-court, but I do have hard copies for the benefit of the Bench.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please distribute them.
23 MR. SACHDEVA: If I could ask that we could move to the next page,
25 Q. Witness, is this the legend to the sketch that you compiled on
1 that day?
2 A. Yes, that's the legend.
3 MR. SACHDEVA: If we could move to the next two pages and if they
4 could be put side by side.
5 Q. Is that the sketch that you drew, Witness?
6 A. Yes, it is.
7 Q. Can you say from that sketch where the projectile landed?
8 A. The projectile landed on Safeta Zajke Street. It's marked with
9 number 1, and this is where the physical evidence were concentrated.
10 That's the place of impact.
11 MR. SACHDEVA: I tender these -- these pages into evidence,
12 Mr. President, four pages.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We admit them.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As P557, Your Honours.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These two pages of the sketch should
16 be put together. These are actually two halves of one and the same
18 MR. SACHDEVA: I don't know if that is possible in terms of.
19 THE WITNESS: Yeah, it's okay.
20 MR. SACHDEVA: Perhaps the Prosecution could provide a free
21 version to replace these two pages at a later date.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, let's proceed.
23 MR. SACHDEVA:
24 Q. Witness, thank you.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic.
1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
2 I have the same question as yesterday. Could we number the pages
3 of the 65 ter document, the pages that comprise document P554 [as
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: What are the pages, Mr. Sachdeva?
6 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I believe I read them out when I
7 asked for the pages to be brought up, but they are pages 25 to 28 of the
8 composite exhibit.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
10 MR. SACHDEVA:
11 Q. Witness, did you also produce an on-site forensic report for this
13 A. Yes, of course.
14 MR. SACHDEVA: Could I ask that pages 29 and 30 of exhibit -- 65
15 ter 73 be brought up, please.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The exhibit previously
17 referred to is P557 and not P554.
18 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, the translation should be in the
19 bundle that was handed out.
20 Q. Is this your report, your forensic report, Witness?
21 A. Yes, it is.
22 MR. SACHDEVA: May we just go back to the first page, please.
23 Q. Witness, I want you to look at this paragraph and in the
24 penultimate sentence, it says -- it reads, "The projectile was fired from
25 the south-east." Do you see that?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. On what basis did you include that in your report?
3 A. When I arrived at the scene, fragments of the projectile were on
4 the asphalt surface of the street where it landed, and this is the part of
5 the street where cars pass by. These fragments were embedded in the
6 asphalt under a certain angle, indicating the south-easterly direction.
7 It also made a funnel-shaped crater in the same direction.
8 Q. Was it you who determined this? In other words, was it you who
9 observed the funnel-shaped crater and determined the direction of fire, or
10 were there other people in the team that did that?
11 A. Yes, I established that. However, in most cases, we had
12 ballistics experts on the team with us who gave the ultimate conclusion
13 about the direction and origin of fire.
14 Q. And was that the case in this instance?
15 A. In this particular instances, no, it wasn't. I don't think it
17 MR. SACHDEVA: If we could go back to the map, please, the one
18 that has just been marked.
19 Q. Witness, from the place where you've marked -- where you've marked
20 that the incident took place, can you draw a line in the direction from
21 which the projectile came; in other words, from south-east?
22 A. [In English] Approximately, like this.
23 MR. SACHDEVA: I tender this map into evidence.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit it.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As P558, Your Honours.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Mr. Prosecutor, could the witness
3 be a little -- could the witness be a little bit more specific, please.
4 The arrow showing this direction, what direction is it? South-east?
5 South-west? North? We see an arrow, but did he not really explain
7 MR. SACHDEVA:
8 Q. Witness, in your report, it's indicated that the direction of fire
9 was south-east. Can you explain what this arrow represents ?
10 A. [Interpretation] That's something I assumed that it came
11 approximately from that direction. I'm not completely sure that it came
12 from that direction because I was a scene of the crime officer, not a
13 forensic ballistics expert that could determine the trajectory precisely.
14 My job was to make an on-site investigation of the scene, collect
15 all the clues and evidence, all the fragments of shells, and all the other
16 evidence related to the event. Determining the direction and the
17 trajectory of the shell was not strictly my job.
18 Q. Let me ask you, Witness, on this map, are you able to indicate
19 north and south and east and west?
20 A. Roughly, this is north, and this is south.
21 Q. So in relation to that, where would south-east be?
22 A. Well, it would be like this.
23 Q. So the first arrow you drew, to your knowledge, is that correct or
25 A. Not correct.
1 Q. Can you put a P at the bottom of the second arrow that you drew,
3 A. I can.
4 MR. SACHDEVA: Does that clarify for Your Honours?
5 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you, Mr. Prosecutor.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Your Honour. I would like to tender
7 this map into evidence, please.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's admitted.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this map with the new markings will
10 remain Exhibit P558.
11 MR. SACHDEVA: May I also tender pages 29 and 30 of 65 ter 73 into
12 evidence, under seal.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be P559, under seal.
15 MR. SACHDEVA: Could I ask that pages 31 and 32 from that same
16 exhibit -- same 65 ter number be shown on the screen; again, not to be
17 broadcast, please.
18 Q. Witness, do you see a document there on the screen?
19 A. Yes, I see it.
20 Q. And in the middle of document, do you see your name?
21 A. I do.
22 Q. What is this document?
23 A. It is an official report concerning the events of the 24th of May,
24 1995, when a modified air bomb landed, and it lists the persons present at
25 the on-site investigation.
1 Q. Does it relate to the incident at Safeta Zajke Street?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. SACHDEVA: I tender this document under seal, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's admitted.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As P560, under seal, Your Honours.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: And, lastly, can I ask for 65 ter 73 to be shown on
7 the screen; and for the benefit of counsel, that is pages 22 and 23 of
8 the -- of 65 ter 73.
9 There should be a translation for this, if you -- it's got a
10 separate 65 ter number, 73H, which has the translation along with it.
11 Thank you.
12 Q. Witness, do you see this document on the screen?
13 A. I do.
14 Q. And what is this document?
15 A. This document is a report of the section for countersabotage
16 protection, KDZ, and they accompany us scene of scene of crime officers on
17 on-site investigations, to see whether there are any remaining explosive
18 devices that could kill all the personnel that approaches the scene. They
19 dug up the remnants of that projectile and provided their expertise for
20 the fragments.
21 Q. And the countersabotage protection, the KDZ, did that unit include
22 ballistics experts to your knowledge?
23 A. Ballistic forensic experts within the bomb squad, this section for
24 countersabotage protection, know all about explosive devices; and based on
25 parts of projectiles, they are able to recognise the type of shell.
1 However, ballistic experts formed a separate section within the group of
2 forensic experts.
3 Q. This investigation report, does it relate to the incident at
4 Safeta Zajke Street, number 43.
5 A. Yes, yes. This report deals with that incident, yes.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: I tender this document into evidence,
7 Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As P561, Your Honours.
10 MR. SACHDEVA:
11 Q. Now, with respect to this incident, did you also take photographs?
12 A. Yes, I did for the photofile.
13 Q. And were you given an opportunity look through these photographs
14 before you testified?
15 A. I did.
16 MR. SACHDEVA: May I ask that 65 ter 00865 be brought up, please;
17 again, not to be broadcast.
18 Q. Is that your signature, if you can read it, at the bottom?
19 A. No, this is not my signature.
20 Q. Can you see your name there?
21 A. No, I don't see it. The printed part is not really legible.
22 Q. Can you see it now?
23 A. No, no.
24 MR. SACHDEVA: Perhaps we can move to the next page, please.
25 Q. Did you take these photographs?
1 A. Yes, I made them.
2 Q. If the signature -- if you don't recognise the signature on the
3 front page, whose signature was that? Do you know?
4 A. I don't recognise precisely whose signature it was, but I can
5 explain one thing. The thing is that the people killed in this incident
6 were transported to a mortuary on the other end of town, and that's why
7 photographs were made of the bodies. And another part of my team of scene
8 of the crime officers took the photographs of bodies. I probably provided
9 my part of the report and they provided theirs.
10 Q. So in this series of photographs, the ones of the scene were taken
11 by you; is that right?
12 A. Yes. I took photographs of the scene.
13 Q. And in this series of photographs, the photographs of the bodies,
14 who were they taken by?
15 A. I couldn't tell you that.
16 Q. Was it someone in your department?
17 A. Yes. Yes, certainly.
18 Q. Why didn't you take photographs of the bodies?
19 A. I did not photograph the bodies because the hospital, together
20 with the mortuary, were on the other end of town. On that day, the
21 shelling was intense; and, at that time, I was at the police station in
22 that part of up to be able to more efficiently cover that part of Novi
23 Grad municipality where the shell landed. Moving around was very
24 dangerous during intense shelling.
25 Q. So despite the fact that you don't have your signature on the
1 front page and you weren't able to discern your name, can you confirm to
2 the Court that the photographs of the scene were taken by you on that day?
3 A. Yes. I am certain that I made these photographs.
4 Q. And the photographs taken of the bodies in the mortuary by a
5 colleague from your department, can you confirm that they were also
6 official photographs?
7 A. Yes. Yes, they are official photographs.
8 MR. SACHDEVA: I tender these photographs into evidence,
9 Mr. President, under seal.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: They are admitted.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As P562, under seal, Your Honours.
12 MR. SACHDEVA:
13 Q. Witness, on that day, on the 24th of May, 1995, did you also --
14 did you investigate another incident?
15 A. Yes. On that day, as I said before, there was intense shelling on
16 Sarajevo, especially the Novi Grad municipality where I was at the police
17 station, and that's why I didn't go to other locations.
18 Q. And the incident that you investigated, where did that incident
20 A. That incident occurred at a location overlooking the transformer
21 station in Novi Grad municipality, also providing for Novo Sarajevo.
22 Q. Do you remember the location or the name of the street or the
23 location where the transformer station was?
24 A. I remember -- normally, I remember, but the name of the street
25 eludes me at the moment.
1 Q. Did you produce a sketch when you went to the investigation for
2 this incident?
3 A. Yes. I took photographs of the scene and a sketch as well.
4 MR. SACHDEVA: Could I ask that page -- page 9 of 65 ter 00076 be
5 brought up, please; again, not to be broadcast.
6 Mr. President, might I inquire how much time I have left?
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: I have to say none. You are now at the
8 discretion of the Chamber.
9 MR. SACHDEVA: May I therefore ask leave to continue for a further
10 five to eight minutes?
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
12 MR. SACHDEVA:
13 Q. Witness, is this a sketch -- is this the first page of the sketch
14 that you produced?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And do you see where it says, "Mjesto"?
17 A. Mjesto and Majdanska Street. The location is Majdanska Street, no
18 number, transformer station Novi Grad.
19 MR. SACHDEVA: Could we just go to the next three pages.
20 Q. Witness, just have a look and confirm that this is indeed your
21 sketch and your legend.
22 A. Yes. There is the key and the description of events.
23 MR. SACHDEVA: The next page, please.
24 Q. Is that the sketch?
25 A. Yes. This is a sketch, the sketch of the scene where the
1 projectile landed.
2 MR. SACHDEVA: I would ask that pages 9, 10, 11, and 12 be
3 admitted into evidence, under seal, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As P563, under seal, Your Honours.
6 MR. SACHDEVA:
7 Q. Did you also produce an on-site report, Witness?
8 A. I did. I did an on-site report.
9 MR. SACHDEVA: Could we move to page 5 of this 65 ter number,
11 Q. Is this your on-site investigation report, Witness?
12 A. Yes. This is my report.
13 Q. And do you see at the end of the paragraph, does it give a
14 direction from which the projectile came?
15 A. Yes. It says the projectile came from the area of Paljevac,
17 MR. SACHDEVA: Can we move back to the map, please, which is
18 Exhibit --
19 [Prosecution counsel confer]
20 MR. SACHDEVA: -- 558. Actually, there should be another.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Prosecutor, while we're waiting for the right
22 map to show up, could you please ask the witness if he is able to indicate
23 or to identify the kind of projectile that landed on the 24th of May?
24 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, Your Honour.
25 Q. Witness, with respect to the incident at the transformer station,
1 do you know what type of projectile exploded?
2 A. I don't know what type of projectile exploded, but I know for a
3 fact that it had huge destructive power, made an enormous hole in the
4 ground and vast damage to surrounding buildings. It was probably a
5 modified air bomb, because not a single projectile of smaller calibre
6 could have produced such huge devastation.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, if I may. Unfortunately, we don't
8 have the markings that were made the second time around on the map. We're
9 unable to locate them at this time. Perhaps the counsel would like to
10 have the witness to make the markings again, and we can resave the
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: That is unfortunate. Well, let that be down.
13 MR. SACHDEVA:
14 Q. Witness, unfortunately, due a technical hitch, the initial
15 markings that you made were not recorded. Can you again start by
16 indicating north, south, east, and west.
17 A. [Marks]
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 Q. And from the location where -- and this refers to the incident at
20 Safeta Zajka Street, can you draw an arrow or a line in the direction from
21 which the projectile came; that is, south-east, as contained in your
23 A. Very well. If you want me to, I can indicate the place where the
24 projectile landed.
25 Q. Well, first, I want you to indicate the direction from which the
1 projectile came with respect to the Safeta Zajke incident, the first
2 incident, because those markings have unfortunately been -- have not been
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the arrow which --
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just did.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, that is not what you indicated first.
7 Well, I would say not generally.
8 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, perhaps can I explain because the
9 witness did say, "Very well. If you want me to, I can indicate the place
10 where the projectile landed." In other words, I submit he is referring to
11 this present case, this present incident.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see.
13 MR. SACHDEVA:
14 Q. Witness, you see where you have written SZ there?
15 A. Yes. Yes, I can see it.
16 Q. And that stands for Safeta Zajke Street, right?
17 A. Yes, that's Safeta Zajke Street.
18 Q. And do you recall in your report that you produced the direction
19 of fire for that incident was recorded as south-east; do you remember
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. And a moment ago you indicated with an arrow that direction. Do
23 you remember doing that beforehand?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Unfortunately, that was not recorded. Can you do that again now,
2 A. Very well.
3 Q. And just to be clear for this exhibit, the arrow that you have --
4 the horizontal arrow above the one that you have just drawn, is that a
5 correct or incorrect depiction of the direction?
6 A. It doesn't exactly reflect the direction from which the projectile
8 Q. The arrow that you have just drawn, can you put a P underneath
9 that, please.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Why don't have you him delete the arrow which
11 doesn't depict the direction.
12 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I had thought about that, but my
13 understanding was that that -- that is evidence which Defence might want
14 to --
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. They might want to refer to that. Okay.
17 MR. SACHDEVA:
18 Q. Witness, now can you mark -- with respect to Majdanska, the
19 transformer station, can you mark the location where the projectile
21 A. It's been deleted. I marked it twice, but after a few seconds the
22 colour just vanishes.
23 It's been deleted, but now I have marked it with colour blue.
24 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm sorry, but have I
25 an objection regarding the colour, because I intend to ask the witness to
1 mark this map with blue. Maybe there's a third colour available for
2 Defence, but it would nice if Prosecution could stick to red.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, yes. Well, you have a patent on blue, so
4 select another colour.
5 MR. SACHDEVA: I didn't -- I actually didn't ask for it to be
6 blue, so I'd like to continue in red.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It has been deleted again.
8 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Well, maybe use another colour, but
9 not blue.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: I think now it seems to be working.
11 THE REGISTRAR: If I may, it probably problem appears to be that
12 when the witness is marking on the SMART Board, he is holding down the pen
13 and moving it. If he could be directed to mark it and then remove the pen
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
16 MR. SACHDEVA: Fabulous. Thank you.
17 Q. Witness, Can you just put the letter M by that spot and be sure
18 to remove the pen as soon as you have finished.
19 A. [Marks]
20 Q. And the arrow that you have drawn, the one without the P towards
21 the bottom of the page, is that the direction of fire for this incident in
23 A. Yes, yes. If you want me, I can put a letter M next to this
25 Q. Yes, that would be fine. Thank you.
1 A. [Marks]
2 MR. SACHDEVA: I ask that this be tendered into evidence,
3 Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As P564, Your Honours.
6 MR. SACHDEVA: Might I just inquire that it has been recorded?
7 Thank you.
8 If we can move to page 7 of 65 ter 76, I think it is.
9 Q. Witness, is this an expert report for that incident at Majdanska?
10 A. Yes, it is. The expert analysis was conducted by the KDZ
11 department relating to the incident of the 25th of May, 1995, which took
12 place on Majdanska Street, no number.
13 Q. Does it say 25th or 24th of May?
14 A. Yes, yes, 24th. But the report was compiled on the 25th.
15 Q. Right.
16 MR. SACHDEVA: I tender that into evidence, Mr. President. That's
17 pages 7 and 8.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
19 THE REGISTRAR: As P565, Your Honours.
20 MR. SACHDEVA: And, lastly, pages 1 -- sorry, pages 2, 3, and 4
21 I'm interested in of this same ter number.
22 Q. Witness, do you see this document and do you see your name in the
23 middle there?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. What is this document?
1 A. This is an official report of the Ministry of the Interior on the
2 incident that took place on the 24th of May, 1995 on Safeta Zajke Street
3 outside number 43 and on Majdanska Street, no number, on which occasion
4 four people were killed and 11 other people were injured.
5 Q. And do you recognise this document to be an official report from
6 the CSB? Can you confirm that it is.
7 A. Yes, that's the report.
8 MR. SACHDEVA: I tender this under seal, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic.
10 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Just to be useful, I believe that this document has already been
12 admitted as a P560, and it was also admitted at P313. So maybe it would
13 be better to check right now, to make sure that we don't have any mix-ups.
14 Thank you.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, thank you for that. There is a very
16 fortunate document to be admitted, what, twice and now its admission is
17 being sought a third time.
18 Mr. Court Deputy.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, it's not entirely clear what
20 portions of this document have been admitted, and the notes in e-court, on
21 March 2nd, portions of this document were admitted. It says that the
22 admission should top with ERN number 75126 and not include the rest of the
23 medical report. However, it's unclear exactly what that means.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll admit it and note the possible duplication.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes P566.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
3 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it was admitted
4 earlier as P560 just a few minutes ago. It was admitted as P560. I will
5 use it, which is why I'm taking role of this.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is that so, Mr. Court Deputy?
7 MR. SACHDEVA: As I understand it, I asked for particular pages of
8 the ter number to be admitted, and this particular document is pages 2 and
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. What was admitted then was a different
11 set of pages.
12 MR. SACHDEVA: That's correct, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Let us proceed.
14 MR. SACHDEVA:
15 Q. Witness, did you produce photographs on this incident? Witness,
16 did you hear my question? I asked you if you produced photographs with
17 respect to Majdanska Street.
18 A. Yes. I did make photographs, but I was hoping to see them on the
20 Q. I'm going to show you now.
21 MR. SACHDEVA: Could I have 65 ter 0076 brought up on the screen
22 now, please.
23 Can I withdraw that, please. Excuse me. I withdraw that question
24 and in fact the photographs for this incident have been tendered already.
25 I'm now going to move to the final incident.
1 Q. Witness, do you remember investigating an incident on the 16th of
2 June, 1995?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Was this incident at Trg Medjunarodnog Prijateljstva?
5 A. Yes, that is where it happened.
6 Q. And, similarly, did you produce an on-site report, a sketch, and
7 did you take photographs?
8 A. Yes. I produced an on-site report, took photographs, and drew a
9 sketch of the scene.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: Can I ask that 65 ter number 132 be brought up,
11 And I'm interested in the first seven pages. Move to the next page.
12 Q. Witness, do you see a document on the screen; and if you do, can
13 you tell us -- tell the Court what it is.
14 A. This is an Official Note produced by the Novi Grad public security
15 station of the Ministry of the Interior. It relates to an incident which
16 took place on the 16th of June, 1995 at 1520 hours on the street Trg
17 Medjunarodnog Prijateljstva, number 10, where a modified air bomb exploded
18 and slightly injured seven persons but inflicted substantial material
19 damage on the surrounding buildings.
20 Q. Thank you. And in the next paragraph, do you see your name?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender this document, under seal.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's admitted.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As P567, under seal, Your Honours.
25 MR. SACHDEVA: That will be page 2 of the 65 ter of 132.
1 Can we now move to the next page, please.
2 Q. Witness, is this your on-site investigation report?
3 A. Yes, that's my report.
4 MR. SACHDEVA: Can we move to the next page, please.
5 Q. Is that your name and signature there at the bottom?
6 A. Yes. This is my name and my signature.
7 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, I tender enter pages 3 and 4 of 132,
8 under seal.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We admit it.
10 THE REGISTRAR: As P568, under seal, Your Honours.
11 MR. SACHDEVA:
12 Q. And, Witness, I'm now going to show you a sketch, the sketch, and
13 this is pages 5, 6 and 7. And if you can just confirm that this is indeed
14 the sketch that you took, that you drew on that incident.
15 A. Yes. This is the sketch that I made in relation to this incident.
16 MR. SACHDEVA: Can we see pages 5 and 6, please.
17 Q. Is that the legend?
18 A. Yes. Yes, this is the legend.
19 MR. SACHDEVA: I tender pages 5, 6, and 7, under seal,
20 Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit them.
22 THE REGISTRAR: As P569, under seal, Your Honours.
23 MR. SACHDEVA:
24 Q. Lastly, Witness - and this is my final question - did you take
25 photographs of this incident?
1 A. Yes, I did. I made a few photographs.
2 MR. SACHDEVA: Could I ask that 65 ter 00076 be brought up.
3 [Prosecution counsel confer]
4 MR. SACHDEVA: My apologies. I think it's ter number 133.
5 Q. Are these the photographs that you took, Witness?
6 A. Yes. These are the photographs, and in them one can clearly see
7 the corner of a multi-story building. It has more than ten floors and the
8 projectile of such an a devastating and destructive power, if it had hit
9 the building, it would have demolished it completely.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: Thank you, Witness.
11 Mr. President, I tender these documents into evidence.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
13 THE REGISTRAR: As P570, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic.
15 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Cross-examination by Ms. Isailovic:
17 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness. I'm Branislava Isailovic,
18 a lawyer with the Paris Bar, and I defend General Dragomir Milosevic
19 accused in these proceedings, and I'm go to ask you a few questions.
20 I would like to start with the statements that you discussed
21 yesterday with the Prosecutor. Do you remember having done this?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You made four statements to the Office of the Prosecutor. First
24 one on November 14, 1995, a document that was admitted as P548. In this
25 statement, you mention about your work methods. Do you remember that?
1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] This is a protected witness with a
2 pseudonym, so I would like the document to be called up on screen but not
3 be broadcast. Can we move to page 2 of this document.
4 Q. Witness, you're talking about your training. I noted that you
5 were trained for your police work during a six-month session. Is that it?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You started your job in August 1993. Is that it?
8 A. Yes. But initially I attended the scene with a senior technician
9 in order to become more knowledgeable about the practicality aspects of
10 the job.
11 Q. So if I understand you correctly, at first you were a junior
12 technician and you were always working with a senior technician.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Could you tell us when you started doing your on-site
15 investigations alone.
16 A. Well, I started doing my own investigations in late 1993 and early
17 1994. I attended the scenes of minor offences, such as burglaries and
18 things like that; in other words, minor criminal offences.
19 Q. When you started -- when did you start going to on -- when did you
20 start working on on-site investigations alone on more serious offences?
21 A. Well, during 1993, or rather, during 1994, that is to say, late
22 1994 and 1995. But I have to say that whenever some serious incident took
23 place, I always went with a senior technician; and with us there was
24 always, even in minor incidents, we had criminal investigation inspectors
25 and also there was judge go a major incident was involved.
1 And if there were fatalities, there were Court-appointed experts.
2 There were also ballistics experts -- court appointed ballistics experts,
3 as well as members of the staff of the KDZ primarily to provide security
4 for us as a team and to check whether there were any unexploded devices.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. I think you have answered.
6 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Witness, all these people you mentioned, were their names included
8 in the reports?
9 A. Yes. Yes, as a rule.
10 Q. So whenever the investigating magistrate was there, his name would
11 be written among the people in charge of the investigation.
12 A. Yes. However, I didn't include the names. I was focussed only on
13 the technical aspects of the report.
14 Q. Did you know the investigating magistrate personally?
15 A. Not personally. I knew them by sight only. I wasn't close to
16 them or on friendly terms with them.
17 Q. How often do you remember having seen an investigating magistrate
18 that you would know at least by sight.
19 A. You mean outside my work?
20 Q. No, I'm sorry. I'm thinking about seeing this investigating
21 magistrate on-site, where you were actually carrying out an investigation.
22 A. Yes, yes. Whenever there was a serious incident, such as shelling
23 involving a large number of casualties or serious casualties, the whole
24 team would be there, including a judge and UN observers, frequently. UN
25 observers wanted to see with their own eyes what was going on.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have to take the break now.
2 We'll break for 20 minutes.
3 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Ms. Isailovic, please continue.
6 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. Witness, we will continue on the same topic.
8 So I would like to talk about your work methods as criminal
9 technician on site. Could you please take a look at the page that is on
10 the screen in front of you, and you can use it, of course, to refreshing
11 your memory, if need be.
12 So you were saying that you would always go on site together with
13 the team members, and you would take pictures on site. Is that it?
14 A. Yes, that's correct. The team could number a smaller or larger
15 number of people, but there was always a team.
16 Q. Among the team members, which one was telling you what pictures to
18 A. I alone chose which photographs to take, while members of my team
19 would point certain things out to me, things that I may have overlooked,
20 or things I needed to pay special attention to, so that we viewed the
21 crime scene all together. And we all together tried to find clues,
22 evidence, put them on the sketch, and photograph them.
23 Q. Today, we have been able to see a number of photographs that were
24 taken by you. So on the basis of these photographs which we saw and which
25 we might see again today, could you tell me what kind of selection
1 criteria you used when you took these pictures and when you photographed
2 everything that was there?
3 A. The classic procedure, the traditional procedure in conducting an
4 on-site investigation is to inspect the scene broadly and to talk with
5 uniformed policemen securing it, those who were on the scene first,
6 because they have the first basic information about the incident, such as
7 what happened, what the casualties are, et cetera.
8 So there is an interview with them, inspection of the broader area
9 of the scene, photographing of the broader area, photographing of the
10 scene itself without moving any objects, without tampering with the scene
11 in any way.
12 After that, numbers are given to various pieces of evidence. Each
13 piece of evidence is photographed separately, and a measuring tape is
14 placed against evidence to show the exact size and dimensions. After
15 that, when a sketch is made, my first task was to find a basic point of
16 reference, such as the corner of a building, a solid object that is not
17 likely to change in the years to come, and then the distance from that
18 point of reference to various pieces of evidence is taken. On the basis
19 of photographs and the sketch, then a report is made.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just one moment. The question was: "What kind
21 of selection criteria did you use?" You seem to be explaining how you
22 took the photographs. Could you concentrate on the question which was the
23 kind of selection. How did you select the photographs to be taken.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't understand the question.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let me ask, Ms. Isailovic. What did you
1 mean by "the selection criteria"?
2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what I meant by
3 "selection criteria" was the fact that one chooses one object rather than
4 another. So you photograph a house, for instance, and you don't
5 photograph the house that's next door. You don't photograph the damage
6 caused to a particular building and not to another, because we have seen
7 the pictures that were taken by the witness. So it's a matter of
8 understanding who determined which criteria to apply. So this was my
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. So was he answering your question?
11 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Not exactly.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, that's what I --
13 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] You quite rightly noticed it.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: When the witness is not answering your question,
15 you should stop him when he is not answering the question.
16 So do you understand what she is asking? Why would you decide to
17 photograph a particular house as against the house that is next door, that
18 is it next to it?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I photographed the place where the
20 shell landed and the houses around it that were damaged by the explosion.
21 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] .
22 Q. Witness, how did you know what kind of damage was caused by the
23 explosion which you were investigating?
24 A. I did not know what kind of damage was involved, but it was
25 obvious that a house was destroyed, half of the roof was missing, all the
1 windows shattered, lots of shrapnel in the walls. When you are in a
2 situation like that, it is evident that you are in a place where something
3 evil was done.
4 Q. I would like to illustrate this with an example.
5 A while ago, we've seen the pictures that were taken of Hrasnica
6 on the 7th of April, 1995. Do you remember this?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. At the time you reached the site, were you aware of other
9 explosions that had taken place in Hrasnica before the 7th of April, 1995?
10 A. Well, I was aware, because all of Sarajevo had been shelled for
11 four years by that time.
12 Q. Precisely, Witness. How did you establish a distinction between
13 the damage caused, let's call it the explosion we are talking -- we are
14 currently talking about, the one which you came to investigate, and the
15 damage caused by the previous explosions?
16 A. The spot where this projectile landed was one where two houses
17 were completely destroyed, and it blew up the roofs of 11 other houses.
18 It was an inhabited area.
19 Q. I shall follow the instructions of the President of the Chamber.
20 This was not my question. How could you establish a distinction
21 in Hrasnica between the damage caused by the explosion we are talking
22 about, the one that took place on the 7th of April, 1995, and the other
23 explosions that occurred before that time?
24 A. Well, at the end of the day, I could not distinguish, but it was
25 my duty as a scene-of-crime officer to photograph the location, to enable
1 later reconstruction, because whatever crime is committed photographs of
2 all the surrounding buildings have to be made in order to enable a
4 Q. Witness, you have conducted other investigations on-site,
5 according to your statements and according to what have you told us today.
6 So you were able to determine where the shot came from or where it was
7 fired from. So how did you establish a distinction between the damage
8 caused and the explosions that occurred? So what did you do to determine
9 the origin of fire?
10 A. That's a difficult question. However, this projectile had
11 enormous destructive power, and it created a scale of devastation that I
12 had not seen before that.
13 Q. I noticed that on the photographs you took, which have now been
14 tendered into evidence, you drew some arrows; is that right?
15 A. Yes, correct.
16 Q. Witness, what do these arrows stand for?
17 A. These arrows show the most probable direction from which the
18 projectile came.
19 Q. And who drew these arrows?
20 A. I did.
21 Q. You draw these areas --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could you kindly repeat
23 your question, please.
24 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I have been asked to repeat my
1 Q. This refers to the time the arrows were drawn. Was it at the time
2 you were developing your photographs? Because I assume you were taking
3 the pictures with a camera, and I assume you weren't able to draw the
4 arrows on the same day. Is that right?
5 A. I used a still camera, and what is made on the spot is a rough
6 sketch. That's when I placed the arrows, because I heard from the
7 uniformed policemen on the spot that there were witnesses, eye-witnesses,
8 who had seen from which direction the projectile had come. That's
9 something that I wasn't able to determine.
10 Q. Thank you for your answer. I would also like to know at what
11 point in time you drew these arrows.
12 A. At the moment when I arrived at the scene to perform the on-site
13 investigation. After the on-site investigation, I must have gotten back
14 to my office, sat down, made that sketch, and made the lines with a ruler
15 to make it look better; whereas, the rough sketch was made on the spot.
16 Q. Witness, I shall repeat my question.
17 So, you took your pictures with a camera on site; is that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And when you look at these two photographs, you can see that there
20 are some arrows on them; is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And in order to draw these arrows, you need to have a support
23 medium, i.e., a photograph, don't you?
24 A. Yes, yes.
25 Q. And what I'm interested in is the following: Between the time you
1 take the picture and the time you develop your photograph, how long does
2 it take?
3 A. One day.
4 Q. And now what I'm interested in is the following: The next day --
5 on the next day, you looked at other reports before drawing your arrows on
6 the photographs, didn't you?
7 A. No, no. I did not look at other reports. I was doing my job.
8 Q. I would now like to get back to what you said a while ago. You
9 said you cross-questioned the policemen who had questioned the
10 eye-witnesses in order to determine the direction of fire?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And what I'm interested in is this: Was this procedure written
13 down anywhere or mentioned in any of your reports?
14 A. No.
15 Q. I am now going to ask you a few questions about some of the
16 victims you were able to see on the site.
17 First of all, were you able to see them there or not?
18 A. No, I was not. The victims had already been removed from the site
19 and placed in a mortuary. The mortuary was close by.
20 Q. I'm talking as a matter of principle. I'm not talking about any
21 particular incident. So as a rule, were the victims on the site?
22 A. At the moment when I arrived with my team, there were no longer
23 any victims on the site.
24 Q. In your statement, you mention the fact that these victims have a
25 particular status. You have talked about them being civilians, haven't
2 A. Da. [No interpretation]
3 Q. And on these occasions, how could you establish the status of
4 these people, either as civilians or members of the army? What did you do
5 to establish their status?
6 A. When you see a 50-year-old woman dressed in civilian clothing, I
7 think it would be obvious to anyone that she was not a soldier.
8 Q. And when you see a man wearing ordinary clothes, what do you think
9 of that?
10 A. The same thing.
11 Q. So what criterion or criteria did you establish a distinction
12 between the two?
13 A. It was not my job to determine who was a civilian and who was
14 military. My job was to determine on site all the facts on the spot.
15 Q. Precisely. So that wasn't part of your job, but, nonetheless, you
16 talk about it.
17 A. Well, in the report, you write the names of the casualties or
19 Q. So can one say that you didn't look into this question; in other
20 words, you didn't ask yourself when you saw a victim whether this person
21 was a civilian or a member of the army when you prepared your reports?
22 A. Yes, precisely.
23 Q. Therefore, in your various statements, when you mentioned
24 civilians or army members, you didn't apply any particular criteria to
25 establish this distinction. This was just something that you were
2 A. Yes. My part of the job was technical.
3 Q. Now, Witness, I'd like to turn to page 3 of the statement. This
4 is your statement, and you mention this particular incident in Hrasnica
5 that took place on the 7th of April, 1995.
6 First of all, I'd like to know how you got to Hrasnica and on what
8 A. Could I just see that page on the screen, please.
9 Q. It's going to come up any minute now. This document is already on
10 the screen. This is page 3 of document 3108, a 65 ter document.
11 A. On that day I was on duty, and the police administration in Ilidza
12 that was based there Hrasnica called up the Security Services Centre --
13 Q. Sorry. For the sake of efficiency, was it on the same day as the
14 explosion, as far as you recall?
15 A. Yes, yes. On that same day, we arrived.
16 Q. Do you remember at what time this was?
17 A. We arrived around 3.00.
18 Q. Do you remember having seen the UNMO representatives on the spot?
19 A. Yes. They were there with two APCs.
20 Q. Were these UNPROFOR APCs?
21 A. Yes, yes.
22 Q. Do you make a difference between UNPROFOR soldiers and UNMOs?
23 A. Let me tell you one thing: At the moment, I was not able to
24 distinguish between them.
25 Q. Did you actually see soldiers whom you believed were UNMOs
1 carrying out the same investigation as you on the scene?
2 A. Yes, I saw them.
3 Q. According to what you remember, did you get to the scene on the
4 next day; namely, the 8th of April, 1995? That's the day when you reach
5 Hrasnica. Is that right?
6 A. Yes. We came to inspect the scene once again and to try to find
7 some more evidence, if possible. We were just double-checking.
8 Q. But did you see UNMOs at that time?
9 A. I can't remember that.
10 Q. In your statement, the one you have before you, you state that on
11 the next day you found other pieces of evidence on the site. This is on
12 paragraph 2, and you say on the next day -- it's not very clear. On the
13 next day, you came along with two UNMOs. Is this right?
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
15 Let me here from Mr. Sachdeva first.
16 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, perhaps it is confusing. However in
17 the English translation, which is the version that the witness signed, it
18 says that on the day of the event we arrived together with two United
19 Nations Military Observers. My submission is that the event refers to the
20 incident and not the next day.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
22 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. I've checked this, Your
23 Honour, and I tend to look at the B/C/S version. That's correct.
24 Q. So you said on the first day the UNMOs were on the site.
25 A. The same reads in the B/C/S version.
1 Q. In your statement in B/C/S, and this is what is confusing, you
2 mention the next day, which is the day you found pieces of evidence. Are
3 you with me? Do you see this?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. To that -- this could be confusing, because you say that the day
6 you saw the UNMOs conducting the investigation was on the 7th of April.
7 Isn't that right?
8 A. No. It's clearly written here on the day of the incident we
9 arrived together with two UNMOs. However, UNMOs were present there on a
10 daily basis, and they had full insight into the situation.
11 Q. Of course, Witness, you did not find the victims on the site on
12 the 7th of April, 1995, did you?
13 A. Yes, that's correct.
14 Q. In your statement, thereafter, you mention eye-witnesses to this
15 incident. It wasn't part of your job to take witness statements, was it?
16 A. No. My job was strictly technical. Criminal investigation police
17 inspectors were duty-bound to take witness statements.
18 Q. In the paragraph that starts with, "Bomba je dosla," is this
19 something that you were able to establish yourself or is this something
20 that you established on the basis of witness statements?
21 A. I couldn't have determined that on my own. It could only have
22 been done based on the statements given by the uniformed policemen
23 securing the scene.
24 Q. I would like you to read everything that comes after the sentence
25 starts with, "Bomba je dosla," until the portion which mentions the
1 incident of the 7th of April, 1995.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva is on his feet.
3 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, just so I am clear, counsel has said
4 the paragraph starting, and she has used B/C/S. I'm not entirely sure if
5 that could be translated into English, so I know exactly which paragraph
6 she is referring to. I presume it is when it starts about the direction
7 of north-west, but I just want to be clear.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Would you just clarify that.
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. This is the paragraph which
10 starts in the middle of the page, "The bomb came," in English, and "Bomba
11 je dosla," in B/C/S, which is also in the middle of the page. So this
12 ends with: "I also drew," and in B/C/S, "Takodjersam na karti." So I
13 have asked the witness to look at this portion of his statement, and I
14 shall put questions to him.
15 Q. This part of your statement describes the launch of the bomb and
16 the direction it took. Can we saw today that this is solely based on
17 hearsay and is not based on your findings an investigation on the site?
18 A. Yes. Yes, based on hearsay and not on my own investigation.
19 Q. You will the opportunity to see a video that was filmed by a BBC
20 reporter, and you admitted that this had to do with the incident you
21 investigated in -- the incident that occurred in Hrasnica on the 7th of
22 April, 1995, the incident you investigated together with an entire team.
23 Do you remember that?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. I would like to know what details made it possible for you to be
1 so sure that this is actually dealing with this incident that occurred on
2 that day.
3 A. Because it shows total destruction of the house where the
4 projectile landed.
5 Q. Was it the only house entirely destroyed that you saw during your
7 A. I hadn't seen a case like this before. This must have been a very
8 heavy bomb.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: You should attend more carefully to the question,
10 which was: "Was it the only house entirely destroyed that you saw during
11 your work?"
12 What's the answer to that?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I saw many houses on fire, many
14 houses damaged by tank shells, but this kind of destruction I had never
15 seen before.
16 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Now, normally, when you arrive on site when an incident has
18 occurred, I would like to know whether you ever possibly envisaged that
19 the bomb might have been planted there and would have exploded right
21 A. No, no.
22 Q. This hypothesis was never envisaged by the investigators.
23 A. No. Because the aggressor tried to promote this hypothesis in
24 Sarajevo very often, but it is very naive to believe that people would be
25 shelling themselves for four years. I think that would be an
2 Q. The word used by the witness was not "exaggeration" but "naive."
3 It would be "naive."
4 A. Both "exaggerate" and "naive."
5 Q. So it was -- it would have been naive. So this hypothesis was
6 ruled out from the very start. When you started working in 1994 and
7 further, you always ruled that hypothesis out?
8 A. Yes, over two million shells landed in Sarajevo.
9 Q. Witness, you have another statement dated February 26th, 1996, 65
10 ter document number 3109. We'll go through this quickly. It's a question
11 that the Prosecutor did not address with you, but the statement has been
12 admitted into evidence.
13 First, do you recognise your statement dated February 26th, 1996?
14 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] And if we could please move to
15 page 2 of this document.
16 Q. I'm interested in paragraph 2. You are mentioning an incident
17 that occurred on November 8, 1994, a sniping incident. Is that it?
18 A. Yes, that's correct.
19 Q. In the English version of the statement, there is a third page.
20 Unfortunately, it has not been translated, but this is a report.
21 Personally, I would not have called this a forensic report, as is said in
22 the translation. I believe that this is a report on the search that
23 occurred on site.
24 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] If we could move to the next page,
1 Q. First, do you see your signature on this document?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please go back to the
4 previous page, because here I have a slight problem with the birth date of
5 this victim.
6 Q. Could you please look at this, and could you please read out that
8 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] For English speakers, I'm
9 mentioning the first paragraph and I'm asking the witness to read out
10 the first paragraph starting with: "Dana."
11 A. "At around 1530, on 8th November 1994, in the flat owned by
12 Sabahita Omerovic on 9/5, Djura Danatica [phoen] Street, the fifth floor,
13 Nermina Omerovic was killed. She was born on the 31st of October, 1994."
14 Now, this is me speaking. I made a mistake here. She was born on
15 the 31st of October, 1984. So we're talking about a girl, who was at the
16 time 10 years old.
17 Q. When did you note that you had made a mistake -- there was a
19 A. I noted it just now. If you look at the photograph of the body,
20 you can determine the age of the girl.
21 Q. Witness, you can confirm that your reports were used to establish
22 the criminal liability of the alleged offenders.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And when reading this report, which you would like to correct
25 today in this court, don't you find that there is an inconsistency in this
1 report, because here it would be a baby rather than a 10-year-old that is
3 A. Yes. It is possible, and it was my mistake.
4 Q. Do you remember where this happened?
5 A. Yes. I remember where this happened. This building is very close
6 to River Miljacka, which was a separation line between the Bosnian side
7 and the aggressor. The windows were covered with thin plywood. The girl
8 opened the door for a minute and shut it when the bullet passed through
9 the window and killed her.
10 Q. And how do you know that?
11 A. I know that on the basis of a conversation with her family when I
12 came there for the reconstruction of the incident.
13 Q. Did you take pictures of the victim of this incident?
14 A. Yes, I think I did.
15 Q. Witness, could we please look at your statement on the second
17 First, could we say that you were just starting your job as a
18 technician working on your own, in November 1994?
19 A. Yes. Yes.
20 Q. Here you are telling how you proceed to establish the direction
21 the shot came from, right?
22 A. May I answer your question?
23 Q. Of course.
24 A. I came to attend the reconstruction of the incident. It was not
25 me who determined the direction from which the shot had come. It was,
1 rather, done by the ballistic experts, Mr. Mirza Sabljica, a mechanical
2 engineer, and Borislav Stankov, an electrical engineer and court-pointed
3 expert witness, who was my supervisor. Both of them were ballistics
4 experts, and it was them who determined that.
5 Q. Witness, but you were an eye-witness to these investigations
6 carried out by your more senior colleagues, and you were talking about two
7 panels, two plywood panels, that were placed on the windows?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. What was the distance between these two panels?
10 A. A few centimetres.
11 Q. You're saying a few centimetres, because of what? How was this
12 construction applied to the windows?
13 A. It's a rather old building from the era of Austria-Hungary. The
14 buildings were old and had two wings. During the war, the windows were
15 broken. The residents remitted the plywood panels in order to enable them
16 to live in these rooms.
17 Q. I have a very technical question, so please think about it in
18 technical terms and as a technician. You're saying that out of the two
19 holes in the two panels, your colleagues were able to establish the
20 direction the bullet came from. That's it, right?
21 A. No. There was also a bullet trace on the floor. They stretched a
22 string between the place where the bullet landed on the floor and the hole
23 in the plywood panel. So they established the direction from which the
24 bullet had come.
25 After that, and I was looking what they were -- watching what they
1 were doing although this was not part of my job, they viewed through a
2 tube and one can precisely determine the point of origin of the gunshot.
3 My task under those circumstances was to open the window, risk my
4 life in so doing, and photograph the building where the gunshot came from,
5 and this is what I did.
6 Q. Does this document exist somewhere?
7 A. Yes. I photographed the adjacent building.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, you must conclude by the end of
9 this session.
10 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just like my
11 colleague, I will ask by your leave ask to you give me some extra time. I
12 mean, the Prosecution required twice the time that was allocated. So if
13 I'm allowed the same thing, I would need three hours. I don't need three
14 hours, of course, but I do have a great number of questions to ask because
15 that this is a very important witness.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Prosecution used an hour and 44 minutes, and
17 you would have used the same time by the end of the session. If you wish,
18 you can have another -- how many minutes more would you wish?
19 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I can do what my colleague did and
20 ask for five and go on for 40. I can give you an estimate, of course. I
21 don't exactly when the session is supposed to end, in 25 minute, I think.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, please continue, and we can deal with it
23 when we come to the break.
24 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Witness, let's take a look at the Sarajevo map, document 65 ter
2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, 2872.
3 Q. Now the map is on display.
4 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the court officer please
5 zoom into the Marindvor area, where the Holiday Inn is located on the
6 right, where Grbavica is located, and really zoom into that area.
7 Q. Witness, could you please look at the map and tell us where the
8 building where this victim was hit is located?
9 A. In this area here.
10 Q. Can you see the area where the -- where you photographed the
11 building which was allegedly the source -- the origin of fire?
12 A. That building is not drawn on this map, but it's directly
14 Q. You determined this building to be Metalka, right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. According to you, the building located in front is Metalka.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Could you please mark an I, November 8, 1994. So next to the mark
19 that you have just placed, Witness, could you please use the electronic
20 pen and mark a letter I, as "incident," next to the mark that you have
21 already put on the map.
22 A. [Marks]
23 Q. And below that I, could you please write 8/11/94, for the date of
24 the incident.
25 A. [Marks]
1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to tender this as a
2 Defence exhibit, please.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it's admitted.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As D166, Your Honours.
5 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation].
6 Q. Witness, could you give us a rough estimate of the distance
7 between this building and Metalka?
8 A. Three hundred metres at the outside.
9 Q. At the time, did you know that units of the ABiH army were located
10 in this area next to this building?
11 A. No.
12 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Now I'd like to have the same map
13 as annotated by the witness. It's P564. Could we have this on the
14 screen, please.
15 Q. I'd like to talk about other incidents, the two incidents that
16 occurred on the same day on May 24, 1995, in two different places. The SZ
17 that you marked corresponds to the place where, allegedly, you say that
18 the air bomb exploded on Safeta Zajke Street?
19 A. Yes, approximately, that's the place.
20 Q. On this map, you noted the -- you noted where the south, north,
21 east, and west is. And did you use these type of coordinates when you
22 were trying to establish where the fire came from?
23 A. Let me tell you: We were told where the fire came from, and I did
24 use the coordinates, but that's roughly it.
25 Q. You say, "We were told where the shot came from." Who is that
1 "we," please.
2 A. For instance, forensic experts, ballistic experts, and people from
3 the bomb squad. They would be the ones who determined more precisely
4 where the projectile had come from.
5 Q. Witness, I thought I understood that in your reports, in the
6 report that you drafted yourself, you always noted the direction of the
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. So is it fair to say that you used information you got from the
10 other members of the team?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So these were not your own findings using the traces found on
14 A. Yes. But I have to say when a projectile fired from a mortar or a
15 cannon or some type of artillery piece falls, it leaves a pretty clear
16 trace, showing from which direction it had been fired. However, with
17 modified air bombs, that is much more difficult, and we determined the
18 direction based on the funnel-shaped crater.
19 But the most important factor were eye-witnesses who had seen it
20 flying, because the modified air bomb was very slow flying through the air
21 and it could be seen with a naked eye. Once, when such a bomb fell
22 outside the building of the municipality of Novi Grad, I saw it myself.
23 Q. What exactly did you see that day?
24 A. You mean in Safeta Zajke Street?
25 Q. No. I'm talking about the time where you personally saw the
1 flight of this projectile that you're calling an air bomb.
2 A. It looks like a small aircraft, moving very slowly and producing
3 very strange, wheezing sound, and can you see it with the naked eye.
4 Q. Is there a smoke trail, possibly?
5 A. I saw that projectile when it was already going down, and there
6 was no trace of smoke.
7 Q. So -- but there was no smoke trail that would still be lingering
8 on in the sky, as can you see, for example, when there is a plane that is
9 in the sky.
10 A. In the case I have seen, there was no trace of smoke. It was
11 already going down, and I was perhaps 200 metres from the place where it
13 Q. What was the flight path when this projectile was falling? Was it
14 falling straight? How did it fall?
15 A. It was falling in a slant. In physics, it's called a slanted hit.
16 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could you please
17 allow the witness to sketch this on a piece of paper, and I would like to
18 tender the sketch, if you allow for it, please.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, he may do that. Just a minute, please.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please go ahead.
22 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Witness, please, could you draw what you were showing us with your
24 hands earlier, you know, what you saw when this projectile fell. The
25 actual path of this projectile when it fell.
1 A. [Indicates]
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, counsel.
3 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Now, to be specific, you were able to see this part of the
5 trajectory or the path of this projectile.
6 A. Yes. I saw only the end of the path.
7 Q. And therefore behind the projectile, there was no smoke, or smoke
9 A. Right. I didn't see any trace of smoke.
10 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Now could I please have an exhibit
11 number for this sketch, and if you could just write in B/C/S, "avio
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I could just add.
14 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Please do.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. It may be numbered.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, this is will be D167.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could add one thing, if I may?
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, what's that?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This modified air bomb produced a
20 terrible noise during its flight. It sounded like some sort of
21 destruction, a very strange high-pitched sound, and everybody to hear it.
22 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Ms. Isailovic, I would just have a
23 question for clarification sake.
24 Witness, this particular sketch relates to what incident in
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This relates to the incident, an
2 on-site investigation, when an air bomb fell outside the building of the
3 municipality of Novi Grad, between the municipal building and the radio
4 television Bosnia-Herzegovina building.
5 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour and Judges of the
6 Bench, this was one of the incidents that was listed on the incident list;
7 but pursuant to your order, this incident has been taken off the list.
8 This is the one dated 29th of June.
9 Now, I am about to move on to --
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
11 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, if indeed it is that incident, does
12 that entitle the Prosecution to -- does it open up for the Prosecution to
13 ask questions on that, since the Defence has led evidence on this
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I respond to the
17 Prosecution's request?
18 I did not ask this particular question in relation to any
19 particular incident but in relation to this witness's testimony, because
20 he told us that he was an eye-witness to the fall of an air bomb.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Since the evidence relates to a dropped incident,
22 it will be ignored. No account will be taken of it.
23 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Witness, let's have a look now at your third statement, the one
25 what is dated the 11th --
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
2 MR. SACHDEVA: I'm sorry, Mr. President. Does that mean that
3 pursuant to your order that the sketch is not going to be admitted into
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, that should also be deleted.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, D167 will be removed.
8 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Witness, I would now like to turn to your statement dated 11th of
10 March, 1997.
11 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] This is a 65 ter document number
12 3110. Let's go straight to page 3, please.
13 Q. You mentioned two incidents. First of all, one incident that took
14 place on the 16th of June, 1995, but you conducted the investigation on
15 this particular site ten days later; is that right?
16 A. Yes, that's correct.
17 Q. An official report was issued after these investigations. You
18 addressed this with the Prosecutor a while ago. We are now talking about
19 document 132, a 65 ter document, page 2.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. First of all, do you remember why nobody went on the site on the
23 day and that the people only went there ten days later?
24 A. Yes, I remember, because the shelling was intense those days, and
25 it was very dangerous to go out into clear space and we went out there
1 only when the situation calmed down a bit.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, we have come to the time for the
3 break. In ten minutes the court deputy informs me you will have used
4 exactly the same time as the Prosecutor. And how much more time would you
5 need, beyond that ten minutes and do not tell me that you can, like the
6 Prosecutor, ask for five and be given on half an hour, because I will
7 consider that out of order.
8 How much more time will you need?
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, given the importance
10 of this witness for us and for the Prosecution that has been granted extra
11 time by the Bench, I feel it would be fair that I have enough time to.
12 Begin with, we talked about an hour, hour and a half. I have now had the
13 same time as the Prosecution, and I believe that half an hour is, at best,
14 what I would need.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, all right. We'll give you half an hour.
16 We'll take the break now.
17 --- Recess taken at 12.22 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 12.48 p.m.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please continue.
20 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. Witness, please, we were working on a document that was admitted
22 as P567.
23 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] If we could have something else,
24 because right now we have got the English version on both sides.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
1 MR. SACHDEVA: Just to ensure that it's not going broadcast.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please ensure it's not being broadcast, yes.
3 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Witness, this is an Official Note after an event which occurred on
5 June 16, 1995. Is that it?
6 A. Yes, correct.
7 Q. Could you confirm that in the second paragraph of this document
8 the following is said: "The investigation was made on June 26th, 1995."
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Could you also confirm that this memo is dated ten days -- is
11 dated on the 16th of June, ten days offer the event?
12 A. Yes, but in the second paragraph below it says: "Due to intense
13 shelling of the entire neighbourhood, it was not possible to conduct an
14 on-site investigation. So on the 26th of June, 1995, at 9.00 a.m., the
15 complete team came out on site," et cetera.
16 Q. Witness, earlier, you confirmed that this memo came -- was an
17 official document from the Bosnian police, which is why I'm asking this
18 question. Why is it that we have a document drafted on June 16, 1995,
19 where there is mention of events that will occur ten days later?
20 A. The crime investigations inspector, Mujo Music, who made the
21 minutes, made an error; but from the text below, one can see how this
22 investigation on site progressed and what the situation was like.
23 Q. Witness, the dates were an important information for the Bosnian
24 police, weren't they?
25 A. Yes, extremely important.
1 Q. And yet earlier we noted that there had been a mistake regarding
2 the date of birth of one of the victims.
3 A. Yes. But that mistake becomes obvious when you read through the
5 Q. So, according to you, it would be not fabricating documents and
6 then placing the dates for another reason than for investigation reasons.
7 Would that be something that could be envisaged?
8 A. No --
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Sachdeva.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, actually, I withdraw that and
11 perhaps I would like to hear the answer of the witness. Excuse me.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
13 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I think that we heard the answer.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is not conceivable.
15 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Could you go on, please.
17 A. I was saying it's not conceivable the documents were forged or
18 tampered with because a large number of people were involved in those
19 teams for on-site investigation.
20 Q. So, according to you, this memo was drafted after June 26, 1995?
21 A. Yes, yes.
22 The inspector who made this note made a perfectly appropriate
23 note, apart from the fact that in the heading, he mistyped the date. But
24 from the text of this note, since it follows a chronological order, it is
25 clear how the events developed and what the sequence of events was.
1 Q. According to you, Witness, does this memo take into account the
2 results of the investigations that were carried out after the incident?
3 And I'm especially thinking about the direction of fire.
4 A. No. This Official Note shows only the state of affairs, the
5 factual aspect, when the shell landed, how many people were hurt, who the
6 members of the on-site investigation team were, and at 9.00 on the 26th of
7 June when that investigation took place. It also mentioned the size of
8 the resulting crater and the people injured during the explosion. So this
9 is purely a detailed description of the event.
10 Q. Witness, in paragraph 3, can you find the place where it is stated
11 that the shot probably came from Lukavica?
12 A. I didn't really understand the question.
13 Q. Can you read paragraph 3, please.
14 A. Yes, I've read it.
15 Q. In this memo, it is said that the -- that the possible origin of
16 fire was from the aggressor's position in Lukavica. Is that what's
18 A. Yes, it's written there.
19 Q. Do you remember whether these were also your findings?
20 A. When the projectile landed, it made a huge funnel-shaped crater
21 and it came from the direction of Lukavica. I mean, the crater was
22 pointed to the direction of Lukavica. There were also ballistics experts
23 with me on the team and other experts as well who arrived at this
25 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] If we could please have page 3 of
1 this document, document 65 ter 132, which was given the exhibit number
2 P568. It's difficult to read, I agree.
3 Q. But if could you please try and read when it starts with,
4 "najvjero vatnije."
5 A. "The missile in question was most probably a modified aircraft bomb
6 with four in-built rocket engines and great destructive force. It came
7 from the direction of," I cannot see this clearly here, "from the
8 aggressor's positions."
9 Q. Witness --
10 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, first, could the court
11 officer please zoom into this part, because I can guess what is written
12 and the interpreter who translated the document --
13 A. I can't see the right hand part.
14 Q. In the English translation of this document, the direction is as
15 follows: "Aggressor's position from the west."
16 Maybe the interpreter had a more legible copy. I'm not sure. But
17 can you confirm that it is written exactly what I said?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So these were your findings after the investigations which
20 Detective Music took into account?
21 A. Yes, yes. However, I say that this was most probably a modified
22 air bomb, so I didn't put it directly and specifically what kind of an
23 explosive device was involved.
24 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Could my case manager please
25 display 65 ter document 2872, the Sarajevo map, and we must find ...
1 Q. So we will find this area called "Medjunarodnog Prijateljstva."
2 And if we could please zoom into the area in the bottom of the map, we see
3 Novi Grad and Lukavica.
4 Could you please show us where this incident occurred at Trg
5 Medjunarodnog. Could you take the pen, Witness, please, and I would
6 kindly ask the usher to assist you.
7 A. Could you please zoom in a little bit? The central part of the
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Just a little, because we would
10 like to locate Lukavica after that.
11 Q. Can you see it now?
12 A. Where Lukavica is?
13 Q. First of all, draw a circle around Lukavica and then Trg
14 Medjunarodnog Prijateljstva.
15 A. [Marks]
16 Q. In any case, we can say that Medjunarodnog Prijateljstva is at
17 Alipasino Polje; is that right?
18 A. Yes. It's part of Alipasino Polje.
19 Q. Now, in relation to this circle, first of all, could you place the
20 letter I, for "incident" next to it. TMP, please, on the small circle;
21 and I, for "incident."
22 Yes, that's fine. That's fine. That tells us where the street
24 Now, the second circle, could you plays the letter L next to the
25 second circle.
1 A. [Marks]
2 Q. And could you draw a line from the small circle to the west.
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. Could you place the letter W here; W stands for "west."
5 A. [Marks]
6 Q. Please, on this line --
7 A. I made a mistake. [In English] Yes. [Interpretation] This is
9 Q. In that case, you can delete the W line and draw a line in --
10 towards the west and place the letter W there, please. Please correct
11 your mistake.
12 A. [Marks]
13 Q. W, please.
14 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to
15 tender this map into evidence, please.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We admit it.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As D167, Your Honours.
18 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Witness, do you remember that you discussed another incident with
20 the Prosecution which took place in the Safeta Zajke Street.
21 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. I didn't wait for the
22 exhibit number.
23 THE REGISTRAR: It will be D167, Your Honours.
24 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 Q. Witness, you discussed the incident that took place on 24th of
1 May, 1995, Safeta Zajke with the Prosecution.
2 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to now see the 65 ter
3 document 865. This is a series of photographs, and I would request the
4 help of my learned colleague. I would like to be able to see photograph
5 12. Which page do I need to display in order to see this photograph?
6 My case manager has found it, so let's see.
7 Could we possibly enlarge photograph 12, please. I'm turning to
8 the court officer now: Can we enlarge this, please?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is photograph 11.
10 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] This is number 11, but I would
11 need the number 12.
12 Q. Witness, could you describe to me what one can see on this
13 photograph, please, and from which side in relation to the crater formed
14 by the explosion?
15 A. We are looking from the direction of the crater, i.e., from the
16 point where the explosive device landed. There's a concrete wall in the
17 background of the photograph, and there are visible -- there's visible
18 damage caused by shrapnel; and in the -- on the house behind, one can see
19 that the whole roof had been blown away.
20 Q. Can you see the tires that are on the forefront here?
21 A. Yes. You can see tires scattered around. In the right-hand
22 corner, one can see trees that were cut off by shrapnel and damaged to the
23 tree branches. Also, the earth had been turned over and blown towards the
25 Q. Could these tires mean that were there some military facilities
1 close by?
2 A. No. That used to be a workshop, a car repair workshop and tire
3 repair workshop. More precisely, Safeta Zajke is a street, a residential
4 area, where there are only family houses. They're lined next to each
5 other and all these houses were demolished.
6 Q. Can we agree then that opposite this location, where the tires
7 are, we found ourselves at the foot of Mount Zuc?
8 A. Yes. Yes, behind the houses.
9 Q. At the time, did you know that the ABiH units were positioned on
10 this mount?
11 A. Yes. Yes, I knew that.
12 Q. And on the 24th of June, 1995, did you and your team look into the
13 question of any military activity or fire that could have come from Mount
14 Zuc and that could have been the cause of this damage?
15 A. No. The reason being that the damage is so extensive. It's much
16 more extensive than the one caused by a mortar shell or a tank shell or a
17 shell fired from a gun.
18 Q. But, Witness, if someone was firing from a tank or firing several
19 shells, would the damage have been huge or not?
20 A. Not even closely to the one caused by a modified air bomb. It
21 caused devastation at the place where these bombs hit, but also within the
22 radius around it.
23 Q. And what do you base this on?
24 A. I base it on the fact that I have seen hundreds of mortar shells
25 landing; and when a mortar shell lands on a concrete surface, you can see
1 exactly the so-called rose. This is what we call it in criminal
2 investigation parlance, the place where a mortar shell lands. And one can
3 see also see the angle of firing. You can see the tail of the mortar
4 shell as well, and the largest shells were those of 120-millimetre.
5 Q. Can we agree that on this photograph we mainly see the soil. We
6 don't see tarmac. We see soil that has been overturned.
7 A. In my previous answer, I said that both of soil was overturned,
8 and one can also see fresh holes in the concrete wall. You can see these
9 tires scattered around, you can see the damage on the trees to the right
10 of the photograph, and you can see that there's a roof missing.
11 Q. Witness, I would like to continue talking about this incident. We
12 mentioned the report which is exhibit number 560. This is a 65 ter
13 document number 17 -- 56, page 2 to 4.
14 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] First of all, Your Honour, I would
15 have liked to make a comment as regards the translation of this document,
16 because the first -- I would like to talk about the fourth paragraph of
17 this first page, which does not reflect what has been said in B/C/S, and I
18 would like to spell this out.
19 This is the last paragraph on this page. In the text in English,
20 which you have, and which is the only one you can use, it says: "[In
21 English] stretches towards the south-east."
22 [Interpretation] Whereas, I will ask the witness to read this part
23 so that the interpreters can translate it.
24 Q. Could you start reading from --
25 A. The last paragraph?
1 Q. This is the last paragraph, the second sentence in the last
3 A. Very well. "The projectile landed on the asphalt carriage way of
4 Safeta Zajke Street in front of the house number 43. The crater made by
5 the projectile is turned length-wise towards south, more precisely to the
6 area of Lukavica, where the aggressor's firing positions are."
7 Q. Yes. Thank you, Witness.
8 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would have liked to
9 draw your attention to the fact that you are solely working with the
10 English text. I believe this is very important. In the original text, it
11 says "south."
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Well, we have heard that, and we see that
13 the mistake has been corrected.
14 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I should like to continue with
15 this report.
16 Q. This report deals with two events, doesn't it -- incidents,
18 A. I only see the first one.
19 Q. Let's turn to the second page, please. I would like you to look
20 at the text where it says, this is the last paragraph, "lice mjesta." Do
21 you have it in front of you now? Does this have to do with a second
22 incident in Majdanska?
23 A. Yes, Majdanska Street. Yes. This last paragraph says that the
24 point of the impact of the second projectile is on Majdanska Street, no
25 number, next to the Novi Grad transformer station.
1 Q. Now, as far as the crater is concerned, it faces south, doesn't
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And the report says that the crater mentioned in the first
5 incident is also addressed in this report. This is the incident that took
6 place in Safeta Zajke Street.
7 A. Yes. But if I may add one thing, the previous incident on Safeta
8 Zajke Street, there are photographs --
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute, please.
10 Mr. Sachdeva is on his feet.
11 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, it's just for your benefit, but the
12 translation corresponding to the paragraph counsel is talking about is the
13 next page in the English version.
14 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. This is
15 in -- this is in paragraph 3.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I finish?
17 MR. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] This is on page 3 for the Bench.
18 This is the same as the original. The original text and the translation
20 Q. Witness, I think you wanted to add something, didn't you?
21 A. Very well. What I wanted to add was that at the place of impact
22 of the projectile on Safeta Zajke Street, there's a photograph that I made
23 which shows fragments of the modified air bomb rocket engines embedded in
24 the asphalt and also the angle at which they are embedded. It shows that
25 the direction is from the south; in other words, there's a photograph
1 showing this.
2 Q. So you are saying that one can see on the photograph that it's
3 towards the south, as is mentioned in this report.
4 A. Yes. South or south-east.
5 Q. Witness, you say it faces south, south-west [as interpreted].
6 There is quite a big difference between the two, particularly in the light
7 of distances?
8 A. Yes, yes. Right.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: At least on the transcript, Mr. President the
11 witness answered: "Yes. South or south-east," and counsel is -- if she
12 is referring to the previous answer, she said "south, south-west," just
13 for that to be clarified.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Did you mean to say south or south-east?
15 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] No. I said south-east. No
16 matter. This was a mere rhetorical question; south-east, south-west,
17 whatever the direction might be.
18 Q. This can, of course, have great bearing on the findings you make,
19 can't it?
20 A. Well, I have to tell you one thing. My personal opinion, and I'm
21 not a ballistics expert, since the aggressor forces were deployed all
22 around Sarajevo. Sarajevo is in a depression. It's surrounded by hills.
23 They were able to fire where they wanted, when they wanted. They had
24 ample opportunity.
25 Q. Fine. Now let's stick to this report. According to you, was this
1 report drafted on the basis of reports that had been filed by each member
2 of the investigation team?
3 A. Yes.
4 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like my case manager to
5 bring up document 76, which is a 65 ter document.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva, are you going to re-examine this
8 MR. SACHDEVA: Yes, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: For how long? And bear in mind the reputation
10 that you have unfortunately developed for underestimating, which has been
11 referred to your learned colleague for the Defence.
12 MR. SACHDEVA: Mr. President, five to eight manipulates.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes?
14 MR. SACHDEVA: Five to eight minutes. I have three to four
15 questions, at the moment.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic, you have used the half an hour.
17 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I can see that, Your Honour.
18 I think it's important for the Bench.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Another five minutes.
20 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] It's very difficult with all these
21 technicalities. We have document 76, 65 ter document, up on the screen I
22 believe that my learned colleague did not ask for this document to be
24 Q. Witness, can I ask you to turn to the last sentence of this
25 report, please.
1 A. Will I read it?
2 Q. Please.
3 A. "Projectile came from the area of Pavlovac, south-east".
4 Q. Can you confirm that these were the findings that you made on that
6 A. Yes. It was in the report. Since there is a hill behind the
7 site, we got information from reconnaissance teams that the projectiles
8 came from that place.
9 Q. But you don't mention this in your report, Witness, neither you
10 nor Mr. Kucanin Mirsad, who was the person who drafted the previous
12 A. Yes. But there's another fact that is relevant to this incident;
13 namely, the place where the projectile landed is cylindrical in shape and
14 very long, and you don't need expert knowledge to establish from which
15 direction the projectile came.
16 Q. Therefore, if it was that easy in two reports which have been
17 included in the investigation, you mentioned two opposite directions of
18 fire, didn't you?
19 A. South, south-east.
20 Q. Can we agree that a while ago the report signed by Kucanin Mirsad,
21 which we discussed together, we made changes to the translation and we
22 established that the origin of fire was the south. Is that right?
23 A. Yes. Yes, that's what he wrote.
24 Q. And, in this instance, we can see that is says south-east; isn't
25 that right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Can you confirm that each member of your investigation team drew
3 up these conclusions with a view to drafting a final report which would
4 recap everything concerning this incident. Is that why there were so many
5 forensic technicians on the site?
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
7 Yes, just a minute, please.
8 MR. SACHDEVA: Well, Mr. President, to be precise, in the
9 witness's report, in the English translation, and I understand also in the
10 B/C/S version, it actually is written the projectile was fired from the
11 Pavlovac area in the south-east; in other words, south-east refers to the
12 location ever Pavlovac.
13 Perhaps counsel can ask the witness where Pavlovac is on the map.
14 I think that should be noted, in my submission.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
16 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I had something else
17 in mind, and I'm not interested to know where Pavlovac is located. What I
18 would like to establish with my cross-examination is this: There are
19 blatant discrepancy between two reports prepared by the same investigation
20 team, so this is the purpose of my questions. We know where Pavlovac is.
21 We can all use a map. That is not so difficult. So I have concluded my
23 Q. Thank you, Witness.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Sachdeva.
25 Re-examination by Mr. Sachdeva:
1 Q. Witness, can you just tell the Court that in your official job
2 description were you responsible for determining the direction of fire?
3 A. No. I was not responsible for determining the direction of fire,
4 and I said as much at the beginning of my testimony.
5 Q. And with respect to the incident on the 16th of June, 1995, were
6 there persons from the bomb squad present when you did your investigation
7 on the 26th of June?
8 A. Yes. Their presence was almost compulsory. It was indispensable
9 in order to find any remaining mines or explosives that might be there.
10 MR. SACHDEVA: If we can just go to Exhibit P568, this is the
11 document prepared by Mujo Music. This should be the first page.
12 My apologies, excuse me. It's 567. I'm very sorry.
13 Q. Witness, in the second paragraph that you see that, it says that
14 members of the bomb squad were present, in that report?
15 A. Yes, yes.
16 Q. And in the next paragraph where it talks about the -- where it
17 talks about the origin of fire, do you see that there, where it talks
18 about the origin of fire from Lukavica?
19 A. Yes, it's written there.
20 Q. Does it say at all that it came from the west? Do you see that
21 there at all?
22 A. No.
23 MR. SACHDEVA: And if we could go back to Exhibit 568.
24 Q. Witness, this is your report. On the top right --
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. -- on the top left-hand corner, do you see a date; and if you do,
2 please tell the Court what date that is.
3 A. 26th of June, 1995.
4 Q. And was that the date that you conducted the investigation or that
5 the investigation was conduct the for this incident?
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. SACHDEVA: That's the re-examination, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Witness, that concludes your evidence. We thank
9 you for giving it and you may leave.
10 We are going to adjourn now and we will resume tomorrow at 9.00.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,
13 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 19th day of
14 April, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.