1 Thursday, 4 July 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Case Number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus
8 Stanislav Galic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 I was informed that the witness was not yet available near to the
11 courtroom. I take it that he will arrive soon. Meanwhile, I did
12 understand, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that you wanted to address the Chamber.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. With your
14 permission, of course. Thank you very much.
15 It will take me only a few minutes. I wish to indicate more or
16 less the same thing as I brought up last time but concerning a different
17 matter. We have received your written decision concerning the
18 admissibility of the depositions of what we should call expert witnesses,
19 Madam Tabeau and Mr. Philips. We wish to indicate that we intend to write
20 very soon a document pursuant to 73(B), that is, lodge leave to appeal
21 your decision. However, there is the time consideration. I don't know
22 whether that will be taken care of before the depositions -- before the
23 testimony of Madam Tabeau and Mr. Philips. If we have to examine these
24 two witnesses before a decision -- final decision is reached, we will have
25 to do that only under certain reservations. So we will have to leave --
1 to wait for the leave to lodge an appeal pursuant to Rule 73(B). That was
2 the only thing that I wanted to indicate.
3 And one more thing, I will be obliged to leave the session
4 tomorrow somewhat earlier for reasons of my travel arrangements. Thank
5 you very much.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I think that the Chamber will give due consideration
7 to the fact that if there is still an opportunity to ask for certificate
8 for appeal, whether examining the witness would interfere with this right,
9 we will consider that and I will discuss the matter within the Chamber.
10 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. IERACE: If there is still a few minutes, perhaps I could use
13 the time by raising two matters, if that is convenient to the Trial
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course, it depends on how much -- I mean, if
16 these are matters that will take more time, then we should do it later,
17 but if these are just small matters, then we could do it now. Because I
18 know that the witness is in the building.
19 MR. IERACE: Yes. I will stop as soon as he is available,
20 Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And how do we know that he is available? Will
22 the usher -- ? Yes, the usher will tell us. Please proceed.
23 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the first matter is simply to note
24 that it seems at this stage we are unlikely to finish the proposed
25 timetable for the week. We still have Messrs. Fraser, Bergeron, and one
1 day of Richard Philips' testimony to go.
2 Perhaps the witness is available.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please bring in the witness.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 WITNESS: RICHARD MOLE [Resumed]
6 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel be asked to speak into the
7 microphone or come closer to the microphone. We had problems hearing him.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Which one?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mole, good morning. May I remind you that you
11 are still bound by the solemn declaration you gave at the beginning of
12 your testimony. And the cross-examination will be resumed now.
13 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I was informed that there was some difficulties
14 in hearing you, so if you would please speak into the microphone as good
15 as you can.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I think that my microphone was
18 not on. Thank you very much.
19 Cross-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin: [Continued]
20 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness.
21 A. Good morning, sir.
22 Q. Are you aware of two incidents which took place on the 7th of
23 November, 1992, and the 13th of December, 1992, respectively? I am
24 referring to the incidents of sniping. Witness?
25 A. I don't recall specifically incidents of sniping on that occasion
1 that separate those incidents from any other activities.
2 Q. Thank you very much. Witness, yesterday you spoke about a
3 distance of 500 to 600 yards when you talked about the depth of the front.
4 Do you remember that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you. You told us that behind this first, so to speak,
7 technical zone, there was a logistical zone and then a command zone after
8 that one. Do you remember that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you tell us what the depth was of these two rear zones, that
11 is, the logistical one and the command zone?
12 A. No. That is applying an exact science to something that isn't
13 that exact.
14 Q. I fully agree with you. But can you just give us an idea?
15 A. The resupply of the front line within the city would, of course,
16 use many routes to fulfill their task. You would be unable to be specific
17 in terms of a zone or an area for resupply.
18 Q. Very well. Let me ask you the following question: To the extent
19 that these rear zones were used for logistical or command purposes, was
20 it -- could these zones be identified as zones of a military character?
21 Could that constitute a military target?
22 A. They would not be zones of a military character. They would be
23 supplies, items required on the front line, passing through them.
24 Q. Very well. Thank you.
25 I should now like to go back to your statement, the one you gave
1 to the Office of the Prosecutor. Is it true that you stated that the
2 mobile mortars which you were aware of enabled the Sarajevo army to find
3 inside the town sheltered places, sheltered points, from which they could
4 open fire and that the idea was to let the Serbs believe that they
5 actually had more mortars, more pieces of mortar than they did?
6 A. That is a fair assessment, plus the tactical advantage of moving
8 Q. Thank you very much.
9 Let me now quote from your statement to the OTP, and I should like
10 to have your confirmation of what you said. [In English] From the Bosnian
11 Serbs in regard to the use of precision weapons against civilians."
12 [Interpretation] Do you remember that portion of your statement,
13 page 00520509?
14 A. I am sorry, when that was read out, I had rather significant
15 interference, so I was unable to understand the question.
16 Q. I am very sorry. Let me repeat. [In English] Receive protests
17 from the Bosnian Serbs in regards to the use of Presidency weapons against
19 A. I missed --
20 Q. In other words --
21 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.
23 MR. IERACE: The problem is that there needs to be a pause when my
24 learned colleague switches from French to English.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Very well. I'm truly sorry. Let me try once again.
2 [In English] "I did, however, receive protests from the Bosnian
3 Serbs in regards to the use of Presidency weapons against civilians."
4 [Interpretation] The word that does not appear, and I don't know
5 why, is "Bosnian."
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and apart from that, I take it that you were
7 talking about Presidency weapons.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: Presidency, of course.
9 JUDGE ORIE: So it was about protests from the Bosnian Serbs about
10 the use of Presidency weapons. And the rest you heard, I take it.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, thank you. Yes, I recall that statement.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Thank you. Let me continue quoting from your statement. My next
14 quotation concerns the weapons that the Presidency had at -- on Mount
15 Igman, if you remember. I am indicating these weapons to you in order to
16 save time. [In English] "One 130 millimetres, one Howitzer, four
17 105-millimetre field guns, two 122-millimetre field guns, and six
18 120-millimetre mortars."
19 [Interpretation] Do you remember these figures? Are they
21 A. Yes, I recall those figures.
22 Q. Thank you very much. Let me now move to another issue. In your
23 statement, did you not state that the Presidency intended to use, in
24 political terms, its status of a victim, allegedly?
25 MR. IERACE: Page?
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: 510.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Thank you. Did you also state that, in your mind, the Bosnian
5 forces were responsible for bringing fire by their conduct, for bringing
6 fire down on to themselves?
7 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. IERACE: I think it appropriate that my friend read the words
10 to the witness, since the witness does not have a copy of his statement in
11 front of him and it is many years since he wrote it. I don't require, in
12 the interest of saving time, that the witness be given a copy of the
14 JUDGE ORIE: If the witness -- well, first of all, first question
15 is: If there is -- I do understand that there is no objection against the
16 way the statement is summarised.
17 MR. IERACE: Well, Mr. President, I also need to check the
18 statement, preferably before the witness responds, and when my friend is
19 simply summarising what is in the statement, I would be grateful for not
20 only a page reference but also --
21 JUDGE ORIE: So you are still uncertain about that, yes.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I will be happy to do so, Mr.
23 President, however, I am afraid that it will take a bit more time.
24 Q. I will quote in English your statement, witness. "In my mind, the
25 Bosnians --
1 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, perhaps my friend could indicate the
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have already indicated the
4 page: 510. I repeat, 510, the same page.
5 Q. I quote, in English, with a pause: [In English] "In my mind, the
6 Bosnians were in such occasions responsible for bringing fire down upon
7 the hospital. I also know that the Presidency forces would sometimes
8 drive one of their tanks around in the same vicinity. This, I felt, was a
9 direct provocation to the Serbs to shoot at it."
10 [Interpretation] Did you state this?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. Thank you very much.
13 Witness, now I have a few very specific questions concerning other
14 facts during your tenure in Sarajevo. Were you aware of an attack which
15 took place against Serb civilians? Were you aware of the attacks which
16 took place against Serb civilians on the 27th and the 28th of November,
17 1992, which resulted in the death of seven civilians?
18 A. Could you indicate where that attack took place?
19 Q. This attack took place in the area of Jahorina. Also, an attack
20 on a bus carrying a number of civilians, which resulted in the death of
21 three of those civilians, in the area of Rajlovac.
22 A. Yes, I recall that.
23 Q. Thank you. Witness, did you lodge a protest with the Sarajevo
25 A. I personally didn't, but I believe that is the reason I heard of
1 the incident, because it was reported in UNPROFOR headquarters Sarajevo.
2 Q. Thank you. Are you aware of an attack which took place -- are you
3 aware of the attacks coming from Mount Igman on the 4th and 8th of
4 December, 1992?
5 A. I would not be specific about the 4th and 8th of December, 1992,
6 because it was a frequent occurrence that the weapons on Mount Igman were
7 used in the conflict, and I recall specifically that they were used and
8 fired upon the area of Ilidza.
9 Q. Thank you for your answer, Witness.
10 When you say, "Ilidza," are you referring to a civilian area?
11 A. Of course. The whole battle area was occupied by civilians,
12 hence, it is a city called Sarajevo.
13 Q. Thank you very much. So are you telling us that Muslim forces had
14 opened fire on an area in Sarajevo?
15 A. On Ilidza, yes.
16 Q. That is a part of Sarajevo, on an area in Sarajevo?
17 A. It is a suburb of Sarajevo.
18 Q. Thank you for your answer. Speaking of the 24th of October, 1992,
19 could you perhaps be more specific, do you know that an attack on
20 civilians on that date resulted in the death of eight small children? The
21 area in question was Hadzici.
22 A. I don't specifically recall that incident, but if it has been
23 reported to UNPROFOR and UN military observers, it will be included in the
25 Q. Thank you. Witness, did you personally see in Sarajevo, in the
1 town of Sarajevo, columns of men who -- going to the front line for the
2 purposes of rotation?
3 A. No. That would be oversimplistic. Resupply in columns would be a
4 very natural military target and so, clearly, resupply occurred at
5 night-time, undercover, and not in large parties.
6 Q. Are you telling us that the rotation was done in night-time, in
7 small groups?
8 A. I am saying that the Bosnian forces would have used concealment to
9 protect their soldiers and their supplies and would, therefore, not have
10 been obvious about their procedures.
11 Q. Very well. Thank you.
12 May I conclude on the basis of your answer that this could take
13 place at night-time?
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Five more minutes, Mr.
15 President, please.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I am strictly keeping you to five minutes.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Can I therefore conclude, Witness, yes or no, that this also took
19 place at night-time?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Can I also conclude, Witness, that if this was concealed -- if
22 this has been concealed, the UN forces would have also been able to
23 observe this? I am sorry, the opposite, that the UN forces would not have
24 been able to observe this?
25 A. We knew it was happening. It is a natural and normal military
1 procedure, and individual observers had seen these events.
2 Q. Thank you. Witness, I quote what you stated in -- from your
3 statement, page 110112, page 12. You declared the following concerning
4 the shelling. I will quote in English: [In English] "All fire that was
5 incoming to the city of Sarajevo was analysed along what the objectives of
6 that fire would be. If it wasn't seen to be in response to any military
7 events, one can only assume that the indiscriminate fire was being used to
8 fashion terror because there was no military objective."
9 Can you recall this?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, if you declared this, if this is what
12 you stated indeed, how, since you didn't know where all of the fixed
13 military -- fixed or mobile military objectives were in Sarajevo, how was
14 it possible for you to declare that the shelling in question was
15 indiscriminate, that is -- I rephrase the question. I will ask it in
16 different terms, in order to save time.
17 Can you categorically exclude before this Chamber the possibility
18 that there was a military or mobile -- there was a fixed or mobile
19 military target in one of these shellings inside the town, in allegedly
20 civilian areas?
21 A. As I personally moved around the city, I met many individuals who
22 lived in Sarajevo in blocks of flats and other buildings. I was clearly
23 capable from my own observations of estimating whether these buildings
24 were being used for military purpose. Because I didn't and had no
25 requirement to understand where all the military buildings were, I had
1 the ability to determine where they were not. These buildings which were
2 not used were also extensively damaged by this fire which I have
3 described in my statement.
4 Q. Yes. Witness, but you did not answer my question. I was speaking
5 about -- also about mobile targets. Could you absolutely exclude speaking
6 before this Chamber that regardless of which target that you are talking
7 about, that there were not some mobile targets such as mortars as
8 you have described, or unit taking on shift or leaving shift, et cetera?
9 A. Now your question is slightly different. You are talking about
10 mobile targets, i.e. weapons. I was talking of headquarters and other
11 command and control buildings. The mobile targets were not that numerous
12 and we were able to observe them and, yes, they would be fair targets for
13 the Serb side to try to counter.
14 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, this was your last question. It
16 is now six minutes instead of five.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: It hasn't been answered. The question was:
18 "Could you definitely exclude that?" And it was not answered.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could you definitely exclude it, Mr. Mole?
20 THE WITNESS: Exclude what, sir?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Exclude that firing which you would consider
22 indiscriminate would target any of such mobile or, for you, hidden
23 military objects?
24 THE WITNESS: May I answer your question quite specifically then
25 relating to an incident which we did investigate. And that was that the
1 hospital at Kosovo --
2 JUDGE ORIE: I would ask you whether you could categorically
3 exclude that.
4 THE WITNESS: There were incidents where it was possible it could
6 JUDGE ORIE: So you say sometimes it could, but perhaps not
8 THE WITNESS: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.
10 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, in relation to the last quote that
11 Mr. Piletta-Zanin gave, he said it was on page 12. I can't find that
12 quote on page 12. Perhaps he could check the reference and tell me what
13 page it was on.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. It is on page 11012,
16 line 21. But these are old markings, Mr. Ierace. One has to go back to
17 the original text. But I believe that -- but I believe that the quote was
18 correct. It was correct.
19 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, does that mean that the quote was from
20 the transcript of the witness's earlier evidence and not the statement?
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Well, that is exactly what I
22 said, Mr. Ierace. Exactly what I said. Any problems with this quote?
23 MR. IERACE: The English transcript indicates the word
24 "statement," Mr. President, but --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's not discuss it. When the word "statement"
1 is used, we usually refer to the statement. When we use the word
2 "testimony," we usually refer to what was earlier --
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I wasn't following the
4 transcript, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, please proceed.
6 Re-examined by Mr. Ierace:
7 Q. Mr. Mole, you were asked questions yesterday and today about fire
8 being directed from Kosevo, the vicinity of Kosevo hospital, by mobile
9 mortars. Is it your understanding from what you were told that it was a
10 case of, to use the vernacular, "shoot and scoot," in other words, a round
11 or two would be fired from the back of a mobile mortar and, within
12 seconds, it would depart?
13 A. Exactly.
14 Q. Was it your understanding that there would be at some point
15 thereafter return fire from Serb-held territory?
16 A. Exactly.
17 Q. Was it your understanding that the return fire would target the
19 A. It would attempt to target the mobile unit that it was aiming to
21 Q. If that was the case, would it not follow that the return fire,
22 firstly, would have to be within seconds; and secondly, would not impact
23 on the buildings?
24 A. One would hope that the return fire was quick in response to the
25 outgoing fire. Of course, it often wasn't, and we well know the accuracy
1 of artillery weapons.
2 Q. Was there involved in the retaliatory fire, from your perception,
3 any element of punishment, in other words, sending a message that if fire
4 was permitted from the hospital grounds, then the hospital would be
5 deliberately hit?
6 A. There was always a degree of overkill in response --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I must object
9 to this question because this idea of "punishment" implies subjective
10 will, and the witness cannot know anything about that. It is not a fact.
11 It is the intent.
12 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is sustained. If you would ask, please
13 do it in a more factual way.
14 MR. IERACE:
15 Q. Having regard to the lapse of time between the outgoing and
16 incoming fire and having regard also to the site at which the incoming
17 fire would land, did you form any opinion as to whether there was an
18 element of retribution behind the return fire?
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, but this is one
20 and the same thing.
21 JUDGE ORIE: It is not the same thing, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, and as
22 you may have noticed, sometimes the forming of an opinion on what might
23 have moved someone else has been the subject of questioning by both
24 parties. So, therefore, it is not the same and, of course, the Chamber
25 will assess and will have to be very careful in evaluating answers to
1 questions like this one.
2 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace. Perhaps you better repeat the
3 question or --
4 THE WITNESS: I understand the question.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please answer it then.
6 THE WITNESS: The imbalance between the number of rounds which
7 were outgoing from the Presidency side and the number that were returned
8 in apparent response was such that it was heavily in favour of the Serb
9 side. One can draw what conclusions one wishes from that. Those were the
11 MR. IERACE:
12 Q. Is it the case that the hospital itself was frequently hit in the
13 context of the return fire?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. All right.
16 Now, yesterday, you were asked questions about whether in the
17 basement of the building occupied by United Nations forces there was in
18 fact an arms factory operated by, presumably, forces of the Bosnian
19 government. And you said this: "It was unfounded information in that
20 being the senior military officer, I had to be sure in my mind that the
21 PTT building was not being used for such inappropriate activity. I
22 confirmed that that had not been the case. There was an engineering
23 workshop but it was not producing any munitions, not during my tour."
24 First of all, the building being used --
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President,
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I simply wish to say the same
3 as before. The Defence spoke about basements or about cellars, because we
4 want to say that this shop is right next to the PTT building and we wish
5 to check this merely.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Am I right that you were literally quoting the
7 witness's testimony of yesterday?
8 MR. IERACE: I am quoting a note I made of that. I handwrote it
9 yesterday during the cross-examination. I am happy to find the passage on
10 the transcript.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then for the transcript, it should be -- it is
12 stated as a quote in the transcript. We should be careful with that.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. It is on page 44 -- 44,
14 line 13, 11044, line 13.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I see it on 17 but that might be --
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, it is an error.
17 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the question, in English, quite
18 clearly put the proposition, and I now quote: "That there was an
19 ammunition factory in the basement of the PTT building."
20 Q. Sir, was the UN headquarters in the PTT building?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you tell us what was the PTT building, at least before the
23 war, if not during it? Did it have some relationship to communications?
24 A. Yes. It was the headquarters of the telephone service in
1 Q. Did it, or at least part of the building, function as such during
2 your time there?
3 A. Yes. Communications were maintained throughout that period.
4 Q. The engineering workshop that you said was in the basement, I
5 take it, given your previous answers, that its apparent purpose was to
6 provide engineering services for telephone services. Is that correct?
7 A. That was my understanding.
8 Q. Did UN staff ever take refuge in that basement from time to time?
9 A. Often.
10 Q. Was that in circumstances where shells were exploding nearby or on
11 the building?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In other words, from time to time, unexpectedly, were UN staff
14 required to, without any warning, invade the basement?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. You said that it was unfounded information. Where did it come
18 A. It was a rumour that we heard persistently from a number of
19 sources from the Serb side.
20 Q. Did you ever hear the claim being made by anyone in the United
21 Nations staff, in the building itself?
22 A. You mean the suggestion that the basement was being used? No.
23 Q. You said also in that answer that you confirmed that the
24 allegation was unfounded. How did you do that?
25 A. I physically checked the building. I was overly familiar with
1 that building, having spent so much of my time there.
2 Q. Now, you said yesterday that in relation to Nedzarici that
3 General Galic raised it with you; I think you implied more than once.
4 What were his concerns about Nedzarici?
5 A. The fact that it was an enclave in the city and an extremely
6 tenuous hold within it.
7 Q. Was he seeking any specific measures from the UN in relation to
9 A. I think that was the rationale for the request to have a UN OP in
10 that area.
11 Q. Given its position in relation to the front line, that is, from a
12 Serb army perspective, it is a forward position, was it both vulnerable,
13 since it was surrounded on three sides by Bosnian government forces, but
14 at the same time, did it afford a position of greater access to Bosnian
15 Serb territory for the same reason?
16 A. Yes, in that it's an enclave into the city, it would be exactly
18 Q. Yesterday, you said that it was very difficult to confirm that a
19 shooting incident was, in fact, a matter of a civilian having been
20 deliberately or indiscriminately shot. You didn't use those words but I
21 think that fairly puts what you were driving at. Is that correct?
22 A. Yes. The definition between sniping, if I recall correctly, and
23 general fire, was the point I was making.
24 Q. Given that observation by you, does that apply throughout the
25 city and in particular to intersections where containers had been set up
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 or other anti-sniping barriers? In other words, does it have uniform
2 application or were there some areas where you would take a different
4 A. Absolutely. The context was the front line in answer to my
5 question yesterday, which related to that confusion. Elsewhere in the
6 city, that confusion was less confusing.
7 Q. Yesterday, you also were asked questions about the desire by the
8 Serb forces for Sarajevo to be demilitarised. What was the proposal, as
9 you understood it, that the Serb forces were putting in terms of a
10 demilitarisation of the war?
11 A. Most of these discussions were perpetrated through the mixed
12 military working group and the proposals which were presented to all
13 sides were often UN driven, as opposed to driven by one side or the
14 other. So in answer to your question, I don't recall anything but Serb
15 response and Presidency response to the UN proposals.
16 Q. Was it in the context of those UN-driven discussions that the
17 ceasefire came into being, that is, that a ceasefire was negotiated to
18 take effect on around the 11th of November?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. IERACE: Might the witness be shown Exhibit 358.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I was asked to -- I was asked
24 to finish quickly and Mr. Ierace was to have ten minutes, and these ten
25 minutes have been long past. So I would like to hear your reaction
1 JUDGE ORIE: I will tell you my reaction. I am telling you my
2 reaction. Yesterday, I said you had a quarter of an hour left. You used
3 today more than 25 minutes. And I did write down from the last five
4 minutes - and let me just check - from the first four of the five minutes,
5 the witness spoke for a bit over one minute. All the rest of the time was
6 used by putting questions to the witness.
7 So, therefore, having warned you in advance, given that you knew
8 since yesterday that you had not more than a quarter of an hour, if you
9 then use most of the time for putting questions and repeating questions,
10 then I said after six minutes that it was finished. I will keep a close
11 eye, and the Chamber keeps a close eye not only on how much time the
12 parties use but also on how they use it.
13 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
14 MR. IERACE:
15 Q. In a general sense, in the early entries for that month, do you
16 occasionally refer to UN meetings, in particular, the military mixed
17 working group?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. Would you please go to the entry for the 7th of November, 1992, in
20 particular, the last six or seven lines of the first paragraph. If you
21 count up eight lines, halfway through that line, do these words
22 appear: "Again, it must be concluded that although the Serb delegation
23 are willing to go through the motions of attendance at the MMWG and its
24 subcommittees, they appear to have little attention of abandoning their
25 previously stated positions. In particular, there seems little reason to
1 believe that the Serbs have any -- "
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Sorry I was listening to the
3 French interpretation and the French booth wasn't listening. I am taking
4 30 seconds. I have to listen to what the French booth is saying. Thank
6 MR. IERACE:
7 Q. "In particular, there seems little reason to believe that the
8 Serb -- "
9 JUDGE ORIE: I do not understand exactly. The translation was
10 that you were listening to the French interpretation and the French booth
11 wasn't listening.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. We have
13 major problems with interpretation and just a moment ago I was
14 misinterpreted with what I just said. What the French booth said is that
15 they could not hear certain things, so could Mr. Ierace start his question
16 once again so that the transcript could be -- could catch up.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: It might also be a matter of speed, Mr. Ierace.
19 Could you please repeat it.
20 MR. IERACE: Repeat the quote, Mr. President?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 THE INTERPRETER: The entire quote, please.
23 MR. IERACE:
24 Q. "Again it must be concluded that although the Serb delegation are
25 willing to go through the motions of attendance at the MMWG and its
1 subcommittees, they appear to have little intention of abandoning their
2 previously stated positions. In particular, there seems little reason to
3 believe that the Serbs have any intention of abandoning their off-stated
4 principle that they are in favour of either complete ceasefire and
5 demilitarisation simultaneously across BH or none at all."
6 A. I see that.
7 Q. Is that -- were those words written by you?
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I am sorry.
10 But one should quote it to the end because the end is just as important,
11 and I believe that Mr. Ierace could also make this effort and read to the
12 end of the passage.
13 MR. IERACE: I am happy to do that, Mr. President. I accept that
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. IERACE:
17 Q. "As piecemeal demilitarisation would allow the Presidency to
18 concentrate their forces in other areas, the viewpoint of the Serbs is
20 Those words were also written by you?
21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. And do the words reflect your view both now and at the time?
23 A. They do exactly. The solution for Sarajevo was integral to the
24 solution for BH.
25 Q. And as part of that, when you agree that the Serb forces wanted
1 peace in Sarajevo, was that a non-negotiable and integral part of a
2 proposal that there be a ceasefire across Bosnia-Herzegovina and all the
3 territory which they held, they kept?
4 A. That was their preference, so, yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, may I ask you, you indicated ten minutes
6 yesterday. How much time would you still think you need?
7 MR. IERACE: Just a few minutes, Mr. President, I think.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I will keep you to that.
9 MR. IERACE:
10 Q. Now, this morning, the passage was quoted to you from your
11 statement. This line was quoted to you: "I did, however, receive
12 protests from the Bosnian Serbs in regard to the use of Presidency weapons
13 against civilians."
14 I read on for the principle: "These mainly related to the
15 shelling of Ilidza by Presidency forces on Igman to which the Bosnian
16 Serb forces under Galic would threaten to shell Sarajevo."
17 Is that the case?
18 A. Yes, sir.
19 Q. All right. When General Galic threatened to retaliate by shelling
20 Sarajevo, did you have any understanding as to whether that threat was to
21 use indiscriminate fire or to fire against legitimate military targets?
22 A. We knew that the number of incoming rounds on the city would
23 increase, but you will appreciate the difficulty of tracking the specific
24 intention of every round.
25 Q. Did you have any particular -- I withdraw that.
1 Did you have any particular view as to whether the threat by him
2 in those circumstances, that is, the fire against civilians on the Serb
3 side did not stop, whether he was sending a message that the same sort of
4 fire would be given in return, that is, against civilians?
5 A. My experience in the military indicates that the incoming fire was
6 of too general a nature to be specifically targeted.
7 Q. Now, finally, you were asked about some incidents involving
8 casualties of Serbian civilians and you were also asked about some fire
9 from Igman on the 4th and 8th of December, 1992. And you said essentially
10 that you recollected that there was fire into the Ilidza area from Mount
11 Igman at that time. Is that correct?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. Is Ilidza immediately adjacent to Otes?
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 Q. And on those -- were those two dates within the Otes operation?
16 A. Yes, they were.
17 Q. Are you aware as to whether the fire from Mount Igman on those
18 dates from Bosnian government positions was targeted towards legitimate
19 military targets or civilian targets?
20 A. There were legitimate military targets within Ilidza, for I
21 visited them.
22 MR. IERACE: Nothing further, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ierace.
24 Judge Nieto-Navia has one or more questions to you, Mr. Mole.
25 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 Questioned by the Court:
2 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: The first question is related to your -- the
3 previous question by Mr. Ierace. How far is Ilidza from Otes?
4 A. 3, 4 kilometres.
5 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you.
6 On the 7th of June, you mentioned an incident in which some UNMOs
7 were held illegally on the Serb side and they were released after the
8 intervention or the embodiment of the military police, and that was at the
9 end of 1992.
10 A. Yes, I recall that, sir.
11 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I have a couple of questions on that.
12 The first one is: Who held those UNMOs?
13 A. The building they were resident within was occupied by the owners,
14 and the owners had lost a son in the conflict and were unable to retrieve
15 the body. And, obviously, a combination of distress caused them to take
16 the action they did, to hold the UNMOs, to use them as a hostage to
17 achieve their objective of the return of the body of their relative.
18 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Were they civilians?
19 A. They were sir, yes.
20 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: And the military police was the Serb Military
22 A. Correct.
23 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you. I don't have any further
25 JUDGE ORIE: Judge El Mahdi has a question for you.
1 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 [Interpretation] Witness, I should like to ask you a question as
3 follows: How did you become aware of the shelling around the hospital --
4 the Kosevo hospital? Did you personally see the incident or was the
5 incident reported to you?
6 A. My subsector commander, Flight Lieutenant Carl Harding, commanded
7 his UNMOs in the city. He did a series of investigations on both
8 hospitals, to clarify the degree of likelihood that the hospitals were
9 being targeted deliberately as opposed to in response to these mobile
10 units. It was as a result of his investigation, plus the observation of
11 his UNMOs, that we were able to give you the details.
12 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] If I understand your testimony
13 correctly, the rounds originated from the mortars located around a
14 hospital, that is, the Kosevo hospital. You spoke about two hospitals,
15 however, that were targeted, if I understand you correctly. The other
16 hospital was not a place where a military target such as a mobile mortar
17 was located. It was only from the Kosevo hospital that the mortars opened
18 fire. Is that correct? Do I interpret correctly your testimony?
19 A. You understand it as relates to that single incident, but there
20 were incidents where the same tactic was used, not only in that one
21 hospital but others and the PTT building and other buildings occupied by
22 the UN.
23 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness. Thank you,
24 Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I have one last question to you directly related to
1 the question of Judge El Mahdi.
2 When you say, "the same tactic was used at other occasions, other
3 buildings," would that include the other hospital? Because the question
4 was about two hospitals, and the answer was about Kosevo hospital and
5 other buildings. Would that include, well, let's say the State or French
6 hospital, or were you talking about other buildings?
7 A. No, it would include the other hospitals.
8 JUDGE ORIE: It would include the other hospitals?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 JUDGE ORIE: May I then ask you: Was there enough space to
11 station a mobile mortar around or on the premises of the French or State
13 A. Anywhere one could drive a vehicle, yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Did that happen at many occasions at the other
16 A. Numerically, it's very difficult to answer that question, but I
17 would put it down as frequent occurrence, but there wasn't a rash of that
18 activity. It would be inclusive within the tactics that were employed.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much.
20 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I see both parties are on their feet. May I take it
22 they both want to ask additional questions in relation to what the Judges
24 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I should add that I would seek to say
25 something in the absence of the witness before I do.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Mr. Mole, I have to ask you to --
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in order to
3 avoid bringing back the witness, who has spent a lot of time waiting,
4 would you please allow me to ask one question --
5 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... what the
6 Prosecution would like to submit to the Court. I mean, if that --
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it is not even
8 a question. It is just a statement which is very clear on the part of the
10 JUDGE ORIE: I do not know what Mr. Ierace wants to submit to the
11 Court. Would an additional question or what is not actually a question,
12 as I do understand Mr. Piletta-Zanin, would that interfere with what
13 you --
14 MR. IERACE: No, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then please put the question.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It is just a very simple
17 matter, Mr. President. Following the questions that were -- that have
18 just been asked and also following what the Prosecution has declared, it
19 is clear that General Galic disputes ever saying, and consequently to this
20 witness as well, that he would shell the city in response to any action or
21 in form of retaliation.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, what has the Prosecution
23 declared --
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I apologise. It was
25 following a quotation given by the Prosecution involving witness's words.
1 And since the quotation, literally speaking, I am trying to quote now, [In
2 English] "forces under Galic" --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Is that what the text says?
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: Exactly sir.
5 JUDGE ORIE: So it was quoting a text.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE ORIE: In due course, of course, you can make whatever
8 observations you like, but this is not the time for argument at this
9 moment. So, therefore, I will not allow you to continue.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.
11 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I will try to avoid the submission in
12 the absence of the witness. If I can be allowed to ask one or two
13 questions, that might render it unnecessary.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Questions, yes.
15 Further re-examination by Mr. Ierace:
16 Q. Sir, in relation to what you have just said about the State
17 Hospital - not Kosevo, but the State Hospital - you referred to an
18 investigation carried out by Carl Harding.
19 Was that your only source of information about what happened at
20 the State Hospital, as you understood it?
21 A. Yes. Plus other information that we received from other UNPROFOR
22 units deployed within Sarajevo.
23 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President, I do need to make a submission.
24 JUDGE ORIE: You do need or you do not need?
25 MR. IERACE: I do.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Mole, I will ask the usher to escort you
2 out of the courtroom for a while.
3 [The witness stands down]
4 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Mr. President, in the course of responding to questions asked
6 from the Bench, this witness has said, in effect, that mortars were fired
7 from the State Hospital. That is contrary to all of the evidence on that
8 topic in the Prosecution case so far. And that evidence includes the
9 evidence of Carl Harding, the administrator, the surgeon, the journalist
10 who lived in the hospital, and so on. It has never before been said or
12 The fact that it is now said requires me to ask further questions
13 of the witness which may go beyond one or two questions, which is what I
14 now seek the opportunity to do that. Thank you.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
18 Mr. President. The Defence opposes this request. This situation can be
19 perfectly compared to a number of other situations, a number of other
20 cases, when your Chamber told us, in particular the Defence, that we had
21 -- we would have enough opportunity to ask these questions during the
22 cross-examination that is, that we had had enough opportunity to do that
23 during the cross-examination and that we could no longer do it. So I
24 don't see any reason why the Prosecution should now be allowed to proceed
25 with these additional questions. They had ample opportunity to bring it
1 up during their examination. The fact that the witness has said something
2 which might be contrary to other testimonies has nothing to do with the
4 It will be up to you as professional judges to compare these
5 testimonies and place them in a context. The Prosecution had a team of
6 three expert lawyers who had ample opportunity to ask these questions
7 during their time.
8 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... clarify an
9 answer the witness gave in response to questions of the Judges. As you
10 may have noticed, we always allowed the parties to put additional
11 questions if the issue was raised specifically during the questioning by
12 the Judges. So that is the difference. So it could not have been dealt
13 with at an earlier stage.
14 Apart from that, I think -- the Chamber thinks it is an important
15 issue. It does not mean that the Prosecution could just continue to ask
16 questions, but a few questions we will allow, and the Defence will have an
17 opportunity to ask additional questions in that respect as well.
18 I think, Mr. Ierace, you said two would not be enough? The
19 Chamber has in mind that would listen to your first five questions and
20 then see how far we are.
21 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. I should add, of course,
22 that there was no mention of this in either of the two statements of the
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. We do not know that, but please
25 proceed, after the witness has been brought in again.
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mole, there will be another few questions for
4 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, please proceed.
6 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Further re-examination by Mr. Ierace:
8 Q. Sir, you mentioned a few minutes ago that -- I withdraw that.
9 You have given evidence that your statement, that is, your first
10 statement, was made in September of 1997. Is that correct?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. And in that statement you mentioned, I think, Kosevo hospital. Is
13 that correct?
14 A. I think, I did, sir, yes.
15 Q. Specifically, the firing of mortars from Kosevo hospital. Do you
16 remember that?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. Did you make any mention of the State Hospital in the same
19 context in your statement?
20 A. That I don't recall, but the reason for my mentioning the State
21 Hospital was because of the question posed to me about other buildings.
22 Q. And in relation to other buildings, you mentioned as well the
23 PTT building?
24 A. I did.
25 Q. I think you used the phrase "other hospitals," plural.
1 A. Other buildings, yes.
2 Q. Do you recollect at this stage what the other sources of
3 information were in respect of the State Hospital, that is, other than the
4 investigation of Carl Harding?
5 A. Only if I can recall that mention was made during the morning
6 meetings in the UNPROFOR headquarters.
7 Q. All right.
8 Do you have any actual recollection of what was said at those
9 meetings in respect of the State Hospital or are you saying that that is
10 the only other possible source?
11 A. That is the only other source that I can recall, sir.
12 Q. Again, just so I can understand what you are telling us, are you
13 saying that you distinctly recollect something was said at those meetings
14 on the State Hospital?
15 A. That is true.
16 Q. Do you recollect on how many occasions?
17 A. Not more than once or twice that I can recall, sir. That is not
18 very exact, I am sorry.
19 Q. Do you recollect who it was that said something about the State
20 Hospital at those meetings?
21 A. That would have come from the operations room briefing as part of
22 that meeting.
23 Q. Did Carl Harding attend those meetings?
24 A. No, he didn't.
25 Q. Who else attended those meetings?
1 A. Representatives of all departments of UNPROFOR, plus the -- myself
2 as the Senior Military Observer, UNHCR, Red Cross, if they were
3 represented, and other agencies.
4 Q. If there had been mortars fired from the vicinity of the State
5 Hospital, who would you expect amongst those participants, if any, to
6 have observed that or received that information?
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I think that the question is
10 not relevant. Its purpose is to complete the submission of the
11 Prosecution and not to establish the truth.
12 MR. IERACE: I strongly disagree with that, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please respond to that, why --
14 THE WITNESS: I would expect the source of that information to
15 come from the UNPROFOR Battalions within Sarajevo.
16 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, I invited Mr. Ierace to respond
17 to the objection.
18 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
19 MR. IERACE: Well, Mr. President, the complaint by my friend is
20 that it is not relevant. So let me explain briefly the relevance. It is
21 simply to establish, firstly, the sources of information; and secondly,
22 the degree of recollection.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the question has been answered now so it is of
24 no use any more to --
25 MR. IERACE: That is my last question.
1 JUDGE ORIE: That is your last question. When I said "five
2 questions," I had in mind approximately five minutes, taking that a
3 question and an answer usually take approximately one minute. So,
4 therefore, there were more questions but it was put in approximately this
5 time frame.
6 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, any additional questions?
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. But
8 before, we should like to have a moment to confer. The moment to take the
9 break is coming near, so we will take the opportunity to confer with
10 General Galic in order to clarify certain questions.
11 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... now, we might
12 conclude before having the break. So I give you one or two minutes to
13 confer with General Galic and then we will see whether we can conclude at
14 the break.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 [Defence counsel confer]
17 [Defence counsel and accused confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I
20 will try to restrict myself in view of the 14 questions that have been
21 asked by the Prosecution.
22 Further cross-examination by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, you stated it was possible to open fire
24 from mortars from all of the locations that were accessible by a vehicle.
25 Is that correct?
1 A. Yes, as long as it is relevant for where the weapon is firing to
2 and it is within range.
3 Q. Thank you very much. Which means, finally, that every building
4 normally accessible by road could be used as a shelter -- as a cover for
5 the fire from a mortar, technically speaking?
6 A. Technically, yes.
7 Q. Consequently, other buildings such as schools or places of worship
8 would also be used for this purpose?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you know, Witness, whether that was the case?
11 A. I have indicated it was most probable and the frequency, however,
12 was not great.
13 Q. Thank you. Again, technically speaking --
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President -- just a
16 moment, Witness. Mr. President, the interpreters are asking me to slow
18 Q. Witness, consequently, and again technically speaking, one can
19 imagine that the famous library which burnt down in Sarajevo could also be
20 used for that purpose?
21 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. IERACE: Not one of these questions arises from questions
24 answered in response to -- I am sorry. Not one of these questions relates
25 to topics raised by Your Honours' questions.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ORIE: The question was about buildings as well, buildings,
3 the hospital being one of them.
4 MR. IERACE: And the last question was about a building which was
5 burnt down before General Galic took over the command of the SRK. The --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that is a different issue. And you say we are
7 out of the time frame.
8 Mr. Piletta-Zanin --
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. I agree.
10 Q. Witness, you refer to your sources in terms of operation rooms
11 briefings. Did they include specialists, that is, the individuals who
12 were knowledgeable when it comes to their mission?
13 A. Of course.
14 Q. Thank you. You, personally, do you know -- are you aware of an
15 incident which would have involved places of worship in this period -- in
16 the relevant period of time?
17 MR. IERACE: I object, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, your objection is --
19 MR. IERACE: The same reason. This goes well beyond what
20 questions were asked by Your Honours and this is indeed an issue -- it
21 certainly was not a fresh issue, and that is the important point, not just
22 that it is a matter raised by Your Honours, but that it is a matter which
23 had not risen previously.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, we are not talking about incidents
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 in general, even not in places of worship or hospitals. What we are
2 talking about was firing of mortars nearby buildings such as the State
3 Hospital. So we will allow you to ask questions about that. But before
4 doing so, may I ask you one clarification.
5 You responded to one of the questions -- I will ask for two
6 clarifications. You said that whatever buildings were accessible by a
7 vehicle that could be used as shelter to technically, you said, "yes."
8 And the next question was: "Consequently, other buildings such as schools
9 or places of worship would also be used for this purpose?" You
10 said, "Yes." And the next question was: "Do you know, Witness, whether
11 that was the case?" And then you said: "I have indicated it was most
12 probable and the frequency, however, was not great."
13 I have some difficulties in combining the probability and a
14 frequency. If I say it is possible that --
15 THE WITNESS: May I explain?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 THE WITNESS: Because answering questions "yes or no," when they
18 are complex, leads one to confusion. One has to relate my "yes" or "no"
19 to the military capability of the BH side. They didn't have that many
20 mortars of the sufficient range to permit more than one or two units that
21 we are talking about to perform these tasks.
22 JUDGE ORIE: But now my first question is: You answered in the
23 affirmative that schools and places of worship were not only places where
24 you could do such a thing like firing mobile mortars, but that they were
25 used to do that.
1 THE WITNESS: I said that it was technically possible.
2 JUDGE ORIE: There we have the confusion. That is why I asked for
3 the clarification. If you are talking about a probability, what you say
4 is after you first answered the question is that was the case. I mean,
5 what was the case? Was the case that it was possible or was the case that
6 it was done?
7 THE WITNESS: It was the case that it was possible. Because one
8 responds again with the resources that we have, which wasn't sufficient
9 to cover all the city all the time.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any personal knowledge or were there any
11 reports to you that mortars were fired from places of worship or schools?
12 THE WITNESS: No, sir.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed. But, of course, we are five minutes
14 over the -- I don't know whether you have many more questions. I tried to
15 conclude before the break. How many questions would you still have?
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have only
17 two more questions, but three minutes were taken by the Chamber.
18 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... of course, if
19 the interpreters - we will have then a break until 10 minutes past 11.00 -
20 would be capable of helping us out for another three minutes. I see some
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
23 Q. Witness, you said that the fact that Bosniak forces opened fire
24 from all the hospitals made part of a certain tactic. Is that correct?
25 MR. IERACE: I object. That was not the evidence.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you quote the witness, would you please be
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes.
4 MR. IERACE: Page 28 --
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The technique was used --
6 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Ierace,
8 be --
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, I will read it out,
10 28.25. Page 28, line 25.
11 Q. Did you use these words, "the tactic?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that makes no sense, whether the word "tactic"
13 was used if there is no context, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. So if you would
14 please read that part.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, I am looking it up. But
16 I am afraid my numbering is not identical.
17 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I rose to my feet to help. Page
18 28, line 12, is the question. The answer follows.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. My question was: "When you say the same
20 tactic was used at other occasions, other buildings," reference was made
21 to, I think, the answer you gave to a question of Judge El Mahdi. Yes.
22 Your answer was -- it is page 28, line 4: "You understand it as relates
23 to that single incident, but there were incidents where the same tactic
24 was used not only in that one hospital but others and the PTT building and
25 other buildings occupied by the UN."
1 So it is a bit unclear. At least it didn't say "all hospitals,"
2 but that is the source, I take it.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. So I
4 will ask my question in a different way.
5 Q. This tactic that you refer to, did it also apply to other
6 buildings but also, as I believe having heard, to all the hospitals as
8 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.
10 MR. IERACE: The witness has not said, "all the hospitals." He
11 has said --
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, but that is my question.
13 JUDGE ORIE: The question whether this tactic -- if you look at
14 the answer of the witness, it is not in all respects clear.
15 Mr. Piletta-Zanin is now asking for a clarification.
16 MR. IERACE: And I have no problem with that Mr. President. My
17 concern is that now twice he has put to the witness that he has said
18 "all". The key words in this question were "as I believe having heard."
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: "As I believe having heard."
20 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... yes, so the
21 question is --
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Well, I will retract that.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- would it apply to all hospitals.
24 THE WITNESS: No.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Therefore, Witness, you meant two hospitals that we spoke about
4 A. I know Kosevo because we were in situ. I heard from the
5 operations room of the other hospital which we have discussed, the State
6 Hospital, and that is as far as my statement goes, of my knowledge.
7 Q. Yes. Thank you very much. And when you speak about the tactic,
8 do you mean military strategy? Were you speaking about military strategy
9 intended to provoke the fire of -- the adversary's fire?
10 A. That could well be an element of the tactic, yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No further questions. Thank
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This then, Mr. Mole concludes your testimony in
15 this court. I thank you very much, not only for coming, but even for
16 coming back.
17 THE WITNESS: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: It is very unfortunate the way it went, but, well, we
19 had no other choice. I am sorry for that. Thank you very much for
20 coming. And I will ask the usher to escort you out of the courtroom.
21 We will adjourn until a quarter past 11.00.
22 [The witness withdrew]
23 --- Recess taken at 10.43 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 11.21 a.m.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Since we still have to deal with a few procedural
1 issues, I would rather do that now. Perhaps first the easy ones.
2 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, might I suggest the very easy one of,
3 first of all, tendering the exhibits in relation to Mr. Mole.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course. That is also a procedural issue.
5 MR. IERACE: In that regard, Mr. President, as I said yesterday,
6 the only documents that I seek to tender are the three monthly reports. I
7 think there is amongst them a confidential exhibit and the map.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the map is the pre-marked map?
9 MR. IERACE: Yes.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P3689, under seal, end of month report
11 October; Exhibit P358, end of month report November; Exhibit P618, end of
12 month report December; Exhibit P3704, map premarked by witness.
13 JUDGE ORIE: No objections, therefore, they are admitted into
15 Then the second easy one. Mr. Stamp, I think it was you who --
16 or is there any other issues?
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I merely wish to check. I had
18 no time to check that, Mr. President. But is one of the exhibits
19 indicated here, and these are the October and November, they were not --
20 they were not even shown to the witness. Or was it some other document?
21 MR. IERACE: All three were shown to the witness, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: But, was there another document you said you would
23 not tender, but these were not -- I would have to find them first. Yes.
24 This is P354, which is not tendered, I take it. That is the daily
25 sit-rep. And P511 --
1 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President. I don't propose to tender those
2 two documents.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I think these were the two documents that would not
4 be tendered. Yes. Then about the report of Dr. Zecevic, Professor
5 Zecevic. I indicated already yesterday what the problem was. Mr. Stamp,
6 I do understand that you deal with that. It is about the two annexes
7 which are more or less reports of interviews, I think conducted by Mr.
8 Tait-Harris, which is just text, no signatures, nothing else but text
9 MR. STAMP: Yes, they are in the nature of his responses to
10 interrogatories in which he clarifies some of the matters that he raises
11 in his report.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. On the other hand, I mean, if you have a
13 typewriter, you could produce it. I mean, it is not in any way -- it is
14 made after the report was made.
15 MR. STAMP: Indeed.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Usually, if we have written statements and that it
17 is, as a matter of fact -- I do not have in my recollection that
18 specifically there was any specific reference to those statements, apart
19 from the report. I think he was asked whether the report was his.
20 MR. STAMP: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I did understand that that was the report that he
22 made a couple of years ago. And then almost all the issues that appear in
23 those statements, were dealt with during the examination. So I wonder
24 what we should do with them.
25 MR. STAMP: Yes. The witness endorsed and adopted all five items.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I have to check that then first, perhaps.
2 MR STAMP: In chief.
3 JUDGE ORIE: In chief.
4 MR. STAMP: And if the issue is whether or not the Prosecution
5 necessarily relies on those two latter reports of his responses which he
6 has adopted, the simple practical and easy answer is no. There is a more
7 complicated way of looking at it and that is a matter of principle.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. STAMP: The issue being raised now is whether or not it is
10 signed, and it is an issue which is raised in an untimely way, and if we
11 concede that, then does it apply also to the curriculum vitae, which is
12 not signed?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. STAMP: If I may just briefly take us through the steps to how
15 we got to this stage. The report was filed with five annexes -- I beg
16 your pardon, the fourth statement, according to the Rules, was filed with
17 five annexes, one being the report. An objection was formally made to it
18 in the form of a motion made by the Defence. That was litigated. The
19 Court made a decision on the 31st in which it clearly, I humbly submit,
20 set out quite clearly and quite succinctly what the law was and what the
21 position was: These annexes inclusive of the statement having been
22 adopted by the witness was his full statement in accordance with the
24 The witness came and he testified, and he adopted them. The
25 Defence had an opportunity to cross-examine him. The issue was never
1 raised in cross-examination. The question of their admission into
2 evidence arose and the Defence raised the issue of certain references to
3 air bombs.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. STAMP: Thereafter, it was determined that we would retract or
6 redact that part. And at a late time when the witness has already
7 departed these shores, the issue as to whether or not he has signed a
8 couple of pages is raised. It is an important issue as to the timeliness
9 of an objection, and secondly, as to whether or not there is any
10 requirement in the Rule that every single page of the full statement ought
11 to be signed. It is the Prosecution submission, that, no, there is no
12 such requirement. The question is whether or not they are entitled to
13 cross-examine the expert, which they did.
14 So, practically and simply, no, the answer is no, we do not
15 necessarily need to rely on it but they are greatly matters of principle.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand your position.
17 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, would you briefly respond.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.
19 Mr. President, indeed this is not a question that would
20 necessitate any further waste of time. We wish to know what these annexes
21 covers but whether that Mr. Zecevic can be accepted as an expert witness
22 since he was sent by the -- by Sarajevo, not by the Tribunal. Secondly,
23 we raise this -- that is true somewhat late but after the fact because the
24 Defence, if we have to present a document, an expert document, this
25 document of the expert should have proper signatures. And according to
1 what the Defence knows, as far as the Defence is aware, additional
2 information on sheets of paper which is not signed has never been admitted
3 in the international practice, or even outside it, as a kind of expert
5 Therefore, since the Defence received all of these documents, we
6 think that it should be rejected in its integral form, and not only the
7 factor the text needs -- that certain parts need to be redacted from this
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Redacted. [No interpretation]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand what you mean.
12 Then another issue still pending was the 92 bis. May I first ask
13 the Defence. I invited the Defence to clarify to the Chamber whether
14 there were any new aspects, since the 92 bis statements have been filed
15 for the second time, whether the -- I did understand from your last
16 response, Ms. Pilipovic, that the response given at an earlier date that
17 Defence would still consider this as the response to the 92 bis statements
18 since they are the same, not all, but essentially they are the same as
19 filed at that time.
20 Are there any additional issues?
21 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. In point
22 of fact you have interpreted but I would like to repeat, the Defence acted
23 in line with 92 bis (E) because -- to the submission of the Prosecutor
24 when he suggested on the 29th of January, 2002, and he suggested that some
25 evidence, some proof of facts be made in accordance with Rule 92 bis and
1 that we should supply our answer on the 5th of February of 2002. We
2 believe that the motion by the Prosecution of the 6th of June, 2002, when
3 the Defence was given the same material as was enclosed to the statements
4 as regarded documentation and the statements, except that our learned
5 friends in the Prosecution informed the Defence that they were withdrawing
6 the two statements they intended to tender earlier in accordance with Rule
7 92 bis.
8 We merely wish to point out that the documentation which was
9 supplied annexed to these statements of the witness which the Prosecution
10 wishes to tender in line with Rule 92 bis, is of the same quality as
11 before, which means that the documentation is illegible and that therefore
12 it cannot be put to proper use.
13 The Defence has informed the Prosecution that the documentation is
14 not legible but, however, we have not received an answer so far. So the
15 Defence stands by its motions of the -- its motion of the 5th of February,
16 2002, and wishes to point out that when it come to so-called authenticity
17 witnesses, as the Prosecution qualified some witnesses on the 20th of
18 April in its submission of the 20th of June -- 24th of June 2002, the
19 Defence, in line with 92 bis, says that the purpose of 92 bis is that the
20 Prosecution wants to use Rule 92 bis in order to tender certain
21 documentation which is not envisaged by 92 bis.
22 Therefore, the Defence objects to the tendering of witness
23 statements, and these are witnesses who are indicated in item 28 of the
24 Prosecution submission on the 24th of June. The Defence can quote them,
25 but because of the problems with their surnames, I therefore refer you to
1 item 28. In other words, these are witnesses through which not only
2 different documents are being tendered such as medical documentation,
3 death certificates, maps, and a list of documents of the BH army which the
4 Defence cannot accept because, in this manner, documents would be tendered
5 which -- the source of which the Defence does not know and, therefore,
6 doesn't know whether they are authentic or not.
7 We also object to the tendering of death certificates through Rule
8 92 bis because such certificate are not a document proving that a person
9 has died, and even less so, what were the causes of death, that is, the
10 cause of death.
11 As regards the statement of Adem Omerkic, a major in the BH army,
12 the Defence points out that it has had no opportunity to see the original
13 documents of the BH army which are in the list alongside the -- alongside
14 Mr. Omerkic's statement. So that our final view as regards the
15 authenticity of a certain number of documents which are on the list
16 accompanying Mr. Omerkic's statement, we cannot present at this moment.
17 The allegations of the Prosecution in their submission on the
18 24th of June, under 28, that these witnesses are not giving the statement
19 or the authenticity, and the contents of these documents are unacceptable
20 to the Defence because the documents which the Prosecution seeks to tender
21 are documents whose authenticity the Prosecution wishes to confirm through
22 the testimony of these witnesses. However, these witnesses cannot confirm
23 the authenticity of these documents.
24 The Defence points out that the context and the veracity of a
25 document needs to be established through direct examination before the
1 courts if the parties disagree. The Defence also wishes to point out that
2 the Defence agrees that if written statements are produced under 92 bis,
3 that we would also submit it into the Court and that, therefore, it is
4 necessary to allow the Defence or rather the accused to cross-examine
5 those witnesses whose statements have been tendered. And the right to
6 cross-examination would be the only thing that would ensure a fair trial,
7 which may not be neglected in any case.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, may I just interrupt you.
9 You know that Rule 92 bis says that the Chamber has to decide
10 whether it admits a written statement and whether the witness should be
11 called to -- for cross-examination. What you are telling us now is that
12 if there is no cross-examination, that the trial would not be fair. That
13 means that you say that Rule 92 bis is such that it opens for the Chamber
14 the opportunity to decide, to choose, for an unfair trial.
15 Should it not be of more assistance to the Chamber if you would
16 indicate under what circumstances the Chamber might allow or might admit
17 the statement without cross-examination of the witness and where
18 cross-examination of the witness would be -- would be necessary, because
19 what you are telling us now is that we should not apply Rule 92 bis. And
20 of course, we will consider, if that is your point of view, whether we
21 should or should not do so.
22 It is not of great assistance, I think, if you do not give us any
23 view on what, in the eyes of the Defence, should be the criteria.
24 Please proceed.
25 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Your
1 Honour, when it comes to the tendering of witness statements, wishing to
2 confirm the authenticity of the documentation, I already said that these
3 are witnesses indicated under item 28. To begin with, the Defence has no
4 proof of the source of documents, that is, we have no evidence as to how
5 those witnesses came by those documents, nor do we have the source of
6 these documents, and that is one of the reasons for which the Defence
7 wishes to cross-examine those witnesses.
8 Secondly, I have already pointed out that when it comes to the
9 documentation, the Defence has never seen the original documentation.
10 Likewise, and thirdly, the third reason why it is necessary to hear the
11 witnesses before the Court is the fact that so far the Defence has pointed
12 out that some documents had been tampered with, as one can
13 see from the photocopies. This goes especially for the documentation
14 which was disclosed regarding the incident at Markale. When I speak --
15 when I say this, I mean the medical documentation, and that is one of the
16 reasons why the Defence challenges the authenticity of each one of these
18 And in our submission for the 5th of February, we have already
19 indicated by Professor Dinko Radnic needed to be heard. The same goes for
20 Mr. Gavro Kapetanovic, therefore, all those witnesses whose statements the
21 Prosecution seeks to tender and also, through the statements, to also
22 tender the documentation.
23 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask one additional question: Am I right, is my
24 recollection right that in your earlier submission that you did not oppose
25 against the statement of Kablar and I think also not of Omerkic.
1 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have before me this
2 submission as for the statements of witness Sefketa Krestalica and witness
3 Dijana Kablar. Have pointed out the submission -- the Defence does not
4 object to these two, and we could not get the third, Haveric. We do not
5 object to their ... Of course, if these documents have not been forged,
6 but we can establish it in the course of the proceedings.
7 So in the submission of the 5th of February, these are the three
8 statements where we pointed out that we did not object to the production
9 of these statements.
10 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... that is still
11 the same because you are, in general terms, objecting against all
12 authentication statements, and Kablar is among them. So that is the
13 reason why I am just asking you specifically. I think Kablar
14 authenticates three documents.
15 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honour. As
16 for the Defence submission of the 5th of February, in it the Defence has
17 also analyzed in detail why is it necessary to examine the witness
18 testifying about incidents which allegedly happened, and this has to do
19 with alleged sniping and shelling.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that. But, so --
21 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] And on the 5th of February, we
22 likewise explained in detail the reasons why is it necessary to examine
23 the witnesses who, as the Prosecution alleges, who are witnesses who would
24 be testifying about -- witnesses we have also explained in detail why they
25 need to be cross-examined.
1 The Defence is also under obligation -- the Defence is also under
2 obligation to respond to the Prosecution's request to admit the statement
3 of the late Hamdija Cavcic. The Defence considers that regardless of Rule
4 92 bis --
5 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to make -- to separate 92 bis (C) issues
6 at this very moment. So let's first now look at the statements of
7 witnesses that are not deceased.
8 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in a motion on the
9 5th of February, we dealt in some detail with the statements of Witness N,
10 whose statement the Prosecution seeks to tender. We pointed out that
11 Witness N talks about the separation lines in her statements from the
12 direction of incoming fire. And for the purposes of establishing these
13 facts, the Defence deems it necessary for the witness -- for Witness N to
14 be heard in court.
15 As for Alisa Deljkovic, Kenan Jamakovic, these witnesses are also
16 scheduled -- are also expected to testify on incidents, and for the
17 purposes of verifying the relevant facts in the relevant times, the facts
18 with which General Galic has been accused, it is necessary for them to be
19 subjected to cross-examination, and also for the purposes of establishing
20 their reliability and credibility.
21 Your Honour, I can address these witnesses individually, if you
22 want me to.
23 JUDGE ORIE: It depends. If you are saying that you stick to your
24 earlier submissions in this respect. Of course, we have read them and it
25 is not -- there is no need to repeat them in court. But if there is
1 anything additional to that, then we would like to hear that. And perhaps
2 you could also respond to a submission made by the Prosecution which says
3 that if, may I call them "sniping incidents," witnesses would have to be
4 called because of the need to cross-examine them on the source
5 of fire, that the Prosecution would alternatively seek the statements to
6 be admitted, but without the parts concerning the -- concerning the source
7 of fire. That would mean that they would mainly corroborate the incident
8 as such that persons were injured or killed, but without the source of
9 fire, that part of the statement to be admitted. Could you please respond
10 to that as well?
11 I did understand you well, Mr. Ierace, that it is the position of
12 the Prosecution?
13 MR. IERACE: That is correct, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please respond.
15 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence cannot
16 accept that only this portion of the statement be subject to the
17 examination of the witness. These witnesses are talking of the wide area
18 of Sarajevo. They were eyewitnesses to the events which took place there.
19 And in order to verify the accuracy of the facts that they mention in
20 their depositions, in their statements, the Defence believes that it is
21 necessary to cross-examine them regarding the issues brought up in their
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that is a clear position.
24 Then, in your earlier submission, you said that the fact that
25 someone of the Prosecutor's office was present during the -- during the
1 procedure would make it impossible for the Defence to accept, since they
2 were not invited, to admit these statements into evidence. Is that
3 position still the Defence position?
4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could you then please explain to me how you interpret
6 the practice directions which I would say prescribe the presence of the
7 parties seeking the statement to be admitted during this procedure, I
8 would say this verification procedure, more or less after the statement
9 has been given the ...
10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have pointed out
11 to the problem of the presence of the investigator who took the statement
12 from the witness, when that statement was verified by the presiding
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but --
15 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Because the Rules of Procedure and
16 Evidence - and I believe I have studied them quite carefully - do not
17 provide for the presence of the investigator during the procedure of the
18 verification of the statement.
19 JUDGE ORIE: But the -- I think the practice directions do, isn't
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Not "statement" but
23 JUDGE ORIE: May I draw your attention to practice direction on 92
24 bis. I have got the French text in front of me at this moment, under 6.
25 I will read it in French.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, we do not have the English
2 translation of it.
3 JUDGE ORIE: No, I might not have it in front of me, as a matter
4 of fact. Do we have the English text available for the interpretation?
5 Yes, if I just try to read it -- it is only part of a line. It is about
6 the officer who deals with it. It says: [Interpretation] "He shall
7 request in particular the presence of a representative of the requesting
9 [In English] So my question still is: Does the Defence take the
10 position that this is an envelope procedure or -- I have some difficulties
11 in understanding you, to complain about the presence of the representative
12 of the requesting party and not spend one word on the directive that
13 prescribes this procedure.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
15 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence happens
16 to know that the individual in question actually took the statement, was
17 the same person who had initially taken the statement, but the Rule says
18 that that should be a representative of the requesting party. That is
19 the party that had taken the statement. I am referring specifically to
20 the presence of Mr. Barry Hogan.
21 JUDGE ORIE: But the representative of the requesting party isn't
22 the requesting party, the Prosecution. We have two possibilities, I would
23 say: Either the Defence or the Prosecution is the requesting party.
24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I fully
25 understand that.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but --
2 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] But Barry Hogan is the person who
3 conducted interview. We don't know for sure whether he is acting in his
4 capacity as a representative of the requesting party. I understand that
5 he is an investigator who took the statement, and we actually object to
7 JUDGE ORIE: So now you say since it is Mr. Hogan -- so that is a
8 totally different argument. Your argument was that no one should have
9 been present when the Defence is not invited to be present. And now I do
10 understand that you changed your position and you say Mr. Hogan is not
11 qualified to act as a representative of the Prosecution during this
13 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Actually, the
14 Defence does not know whether he was that person in that capacity.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Well, that is clear to me now.
16 Yes, one more question. You just told us that a death certificate
17 is not a document to prove that someone is dead. Could you please explain
18 to me what death certificate? I mean, I am not talking about the cause of
19 death, but just about the death. What is a death certificate meant for,
20 if not to prove that someone is dead or someone died?
21 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that certificate and
22 the so-called certificate on death are two different documents.
23 Certificate on a person's death is issued by a hospital, whereas the
24 regular death certificate is issued by the relevant authorities and it is
25 designed to prove that a person has died.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And the hospital certificate is not, is not to prove
2 that someone died?
3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, officially and
4 formally speaking, certificate on the person's death is issued by the
5 institution where the person in question died. And it was in that sense
6 that I distinguish it from the death certificate. Once the certificate on
7 death is forwarded to the relevant authorities, it is the relevant
8 authorities who issue a formal death certificate.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand.
10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] That would be the relevant
11 authority on this in the same area where the hospital is. It is -- the
12 title of the document is Excerpt from the Register -- from the book of
13 deaths. The problem we had was the diagnosis which was written on these
14 certificates. We saw this in the case of Markale. We saw that this
15 information was stricken from these documents and that what we received
16 were actually copies.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand your point. Then --
18 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] With your permission, Your Honour,
19 my colleague wishes to add just a few words on this subject, please.
20 Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, thank you.
23 Generally speaking, one of the reasons why the Defence
24 categorically opposes this is a principle. The admission of documents on
25 the basis of Rule 92 bis is as follows: It is the examination of the
1 witness Richard Mole that has provided us with this type of response. We
2 saw that this witness -- in the case of this witness, it was during the
3 cross-examination the witness made clear certain things which did not
4 result from witness's previous statements, things which are obviously very
5 important for establishing the truth. I am referring to the issue of
6 hospitals and the questions that were asked by the Chamber.
7 We base ourselves on the following principles: In respect of each
8 of this statement and declaration, we have to be given the possibility to
9 bring up other aspects of the case before the Chamber. This was evident
10 today from the examination of this witness. It is not something that is
11 important only for the Defence, it is also important for the Tribunal in
12 general and it is in the interest of justice.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand your position.
14 May I -- may I ask whether the Prosecution has -- no, I'll
15 perhaps, first ask Mr. Piletta-Zanin. I checked in the transcript of the
16 statement of Professor Zecevic that he clearly indicated that the two
17 interviews, that he recognised them, and that these were his statements
18 given to the -- let me just read it to you.
19 The question was: "Do you also see records of what you said in
20 interviews that you gave to OTP officials on the 22nd of November, 2001,
21 the 1st of March, 2002, in both English and B/C/S language?" "Yes." And
22 then, "To the best of your knowledge and belief, Professor, is the
23 information contained in all five of these documents true and accurate? "
24 Then he said, with some perhaps mistakes in translation, but basically
25 everything is there.
1 So he clearly identified these two documents as reflecting the
2 interviews he gave.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, do you wish me to state
4 our position on this issue?
5 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that if you say a document has not been
6 signed, that there could be doubts as to the -- whether this document
7 would reflect at least what the content of the document reflects. And by
8 saying that these documents are true and accurate statements of what he
9 declared, I mean, what's the -- is the signature better or necessary if
10 there is an oral statement which clearly indicates what you would usually
11 establish by looking at the signature under a document?
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the objection
13 is a two-fold one. First of all, there is a principle involved in this
14 issue. When the Prosecution gives us, not a statement as such but only
15 additional or supplementary information, we do not expect this to be
16 treated as a statement which are part of a testimony. In this respect,
17 I think that our rights are being infringed.
18 The other aspect is a practical one. In cases of -- we have often
19 seen contradictions being made as a result of translation or
20 interpretation. So it is always possible there have been technical
21 problems, translation problems, and so on and so forth, when the document
22 is not confirmed by a signature. A signature confirms the integrity and
23 accuracy of the document.
24 So if the witness has not seen the statement, if he was not given
25 the opportunity to read the statement, on having read it out, then we can
1 cannot treat it in the same way. This almost amounts then to an expert
2 statement and not merely a statement as a deposition, as a declaration.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It falls within the field of the expertise of
4 Professor Zecevic.
5 May I ask the Prosecution to respond briefly on specifically the
6 92 bis statement which is followed by a long list of BiH documents of
7 which the -- well, it's just a list at this moment. I remember that we
8 discussed before whether we would like to be provided with all the
9 documents, I think. Could the -- could the Prosecution -- I think it
10 is --
11 MR. IERACE: Excuse me, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just --
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Can we have the assistance of
14 the usher, please, so that we can give this document to the Defence -- to
15 the Prosecution.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I think it is Adem Omerkic. We are provided with a
17 very, very, very long list.
18 MR. IERACE: Yes, we are just obtaining that statement now,
19 Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: What are we expected to do with this list?
21 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, would you allow me a minute or so to
22 confer with my colleagues?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 [Prosecution counsel confer]
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] While the Prosecution
3 confirms -- confers, since this list has not been written in Esperanto,
4 but almost, can the Prosecution tell us what the source of the document is
5 and how it was written? It is partly in English and partly in Serbian. I
6 really have, personally, problems reading it.
7 MR. IERACE: Thank you for that time, Mr. President.
8 Mr. President, the statement has attached to it a number of
9 documents which have come from the archive.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. IERACE: I have talked about that previously. The document
12 that is the statement was initially composed with various purposes in mind
13 in terms of those annexures. The -- that time was previous -- was before
14 we eliminated a number of witnesses from the witness list.
15 There may or may not be some use made of some of the documents
16 which are still annexed to the statement. Therefore, I propose that if it
17 is convenient to the Trial Chamber, perhaps a decision could be made at
18 this stage, along with the other 92 bis statements, as to whether it is
19 within the confines of the Rule, and then at the end of the Prosecution
20 case, we could assist the Trial Chamber by indicating specifically which
21 documents we require to be tendered.
22 I say that because there are some witnesses still to be called who
23 may or may not use those documents. So rather than burden the Trial
24 Chamber with a lot of additional paper at this stage, perhaps if that
25 decision in principle could be made, then on the last few days we can hand
1 up a list of those particular exhibits of which we, in fact, need.
2 Thank you, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have another question in respect of -- yes,
4 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Regarding this new issue, the
6 Defence opposes this way of proceeding. When exhibits are contaminated,
7 you are first of all asked to give a theoretical decision, but we don't
8 know what kind of exhibits will follow. The decision has to be a very
9 specific one and concern specific documents and not be abstract in nature.
10 We know now that we are dealing with the application of Rule 92 bis, but
11 the decision should concern specific exhibits in terms of the application
12 of 92 bis.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand the position. The Chamber does
14 understand the position of the Defence in this respect.
15 Mr. Ierace, a question about a 92 bis statements of
16 Salko Zametica. Do I understand that the Prosecution seeks to introduce,
17 in one way or the other, the death certificate of, and is that attached to
18 the statement? I mean --
19 MR. IERACE: That is, Mr. President. And that is the only
20 significance of his 92 bis statement. Indeed, there has already been
21 evidence given by the deceased's daughter and the neighbour that she was
22 shot twice, and in the case of the daughter at least, that her mother
23 died. So it is corroborative in nature, and I don't recollect there being
24 any suggestion in cross-examination that she did not die as a result of
25 those wounds.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Pilipovic. You are on your feet.
4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, concerning the issue
5 of the admission of certificate on death for Salko Zametica, we have
6 already explained why we wish to cross-examine Mr. Zametica regarding the
7 incident in question. I merely wish to point out that the fact that a
8 certificate on death is an official document and it can serve as proof
9 that the person died but it does not explain the cause of death. Let me
10 just remind you of the fact that such a fact needs to be proved with a
11 post-mortem report, when a pathologist, a forensic expert, establishes the
12 cause of death.
13 JUDGE ORIE: When I have the facts clearly in my mind, the
14 evidence of the wife of Salko Zametica when trying to get water from the
15 Dobrinja river with some shelter of a bridge, but giving up that shelter
16 in order to get water out of the river, that she was hit -- it is not my
17 recollection whether these are one or two bullets - I am not quite sure
18 about that - but that on the spot the -- those who witnessed that event
19 had to pull her out and that the evidence was that she was, as the persons
20 around her saw, no sign of life any more.
21 That is what my -- is it the position of the Defence that she died
22 from any other cause than being hit by that bullet or bullets?
23 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, might I just add to that - this may
24 also jog your memory and that of the Defence - that there was much
25 animated debate about the time of her death as a result of some hospital
1 documentation that went into evidence.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And we did not admit all the medical records.
3 We did not admit one, as far as my recollection goes.
4 MR. IERACE: Yes, but I should say in relation to the time of
5 death, not whether it was a different day but whether it was 1.00 or 4.00.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And it is the position of the Defence,
7 Ms. Pilipovic, that the wife of Salko Zametica would have died by any
8 other cause than being hit at that very moment, at that very place?
9 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, however, the Defence
10 cannot accept that fact because we do not know. We have no proof what was
11 the cause of death.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So you -- the position of the Defence is that
13 she might have died -- that the death might have been caused by something
14 else. Yes. Okay, that's clear. Then I think we dealt with most of the
15 92 bis issues. We will have to give decisions on that.
16 There were other issues, Mr. Ierace, you wanted to raise.
17 MR. IERACE: Timetable, Mr. President. The Rules allow the
18 Defence, following the conclusion of the Prosecution case, seven days to
19 file, if they wish to do so, a "no case to answer" submission. And I
20 think the practice directions require that that be ten pages and no more.
21 And then the Rule allows seven days to the Prosecution to reply.
22 If the Prosecution case does conclude on the 2nd of August, one
23 wonders, after this week's timetable, then that being the last day of
24 term, those two weeks would, on the face of it, require both the
25 Prosecution and the Defence to work through the break, which would be sad
1 for both the Prosecution and the Defence, Mr. President, given that we
2 have just finished some seven months of evidence.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that you will certainly have
4 had in mind as well what would have happened if the Prosecution would
5 have finished its case earlier in July, what would have happened, perhaps,
6 for the Chamber. But let's not speculate on that. Would you say that
7 you would ask leave to reply after the recess of the Court? And I don't
8 know whether the Defence would want to ask leave to file its motion after
9 the recess.
10 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, just before -- might I -- it might be
11 faster if I were to finish the submission. There is one other aspect.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you to my learned
14 colleague. The Rules also provide that the Defence, pursuant to Rule 65
15 ter (G), the Rules provide that the Trial Chamber shall order the Defence
16 to file various documents and Rule 73 ter -- I withdraw that.
17 And clearly implicit in that is a time limit to do so. Those
18 documents include the names of each witness that the Defence proposes to
19 call and a summary of the facts on which each witness will testify.
20 There is no indication as to a time limit to do that. One assumes that
21 that decision is made after the decision in respect of the no case to
22 answer submissions, unless the Defence is required to contingently be
23 ready to file those documents in case they do not succeed on the no case
24 to answer submission.
25 Finally, Rule 73 ter states that the Trial Chamber has the
1 discretion as to whether it will hold a conference, that is a pre-Defence
2 case conference. It does not have to do so, but may do so.
3 So, Mr. President, they are the three matters which will arise
4 predictably at the end of the Prosecution case. The reason I raise it now
5 is this. Already I have explained the difficulties with the break in
6 terms of the no case to answer submissions. But beyond that, the
7 Prosecution would be grateful, and no doubt the Defence as well, for some
8 indication, if it happens that the no case to answer submission is not
9 successful, as to when we might expect the Defence case will commence, and
10 more particularly, when we might expect a witness list so that the
11 Prosecution can make necessary enquiries in relation to the witnesses; an
12 exhibit list for the same reason.
13 Breaking it down, Mr. President, the no case to answer submission
14 is the most immediate issue, but beyond that, if at the time that we go
15 on leave on the 2nd of August we had some expectations to when those
16 other matters might arise, that will be of enormous assistance to the
17 Prosecution in managing its resources, human and otherwise. Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand your concerns and what you did
19 not say loudly is that how could you explain at home on how the holiday
20 will be spoiled or not be spoiled.
21 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Yes. I
23 start from the principle that the Prosecution would sacrifice its holiday
24 for the sake of justice and we will do the same, but I will pursue in the
25 same direction and that is to refer to the question Mr. Ierace -- I am
1 referring to Article 73. We shall see what we shall do. But I say that
2 we will be answering as quickly as possible once we have detailed
3 information and when we have all our exhibits quite clear. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: You are relating to Rule 73 -- no, I think,
5 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you are -- I did hear you say Rule 73, where you might
6 have --
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] 73 ter.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now it is clear to me. But are there any
9 wishes, I mean, if you would say you first finish whenever needed within
10 seven days a motion no case to answer, and then go on holiday, or that you
11 would say, no, you would rather have do it after the recess
12 or -- well, I am not saying that this would be possible. At least I would
13 like to hear whatever wishes there would be.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. I thought I had said so
15 already. But clearly the Defence wishes have as much time as possible, of
16 course, in order to prepare itself. That is obvious. Taking account of
17 what we have heard so far, and since we are going to have the recess, the
18 later that comes in, the better we will be prepared and, hopefully, the
19 more satisfied the Chamber will be. At least this is our hope.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, I do understand. You want as much time as
21 possible. Are there any other procedural issues we would have to deal
22 with at this very moment?
23 MR. IERACE: No, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then I think we will have a break now until a quarter
25 to -- 10 minutes to 1.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 12.26 p.m
2 --- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, the Chamber invites the Defence
5 to file, if there is any need, submissions in relation to the 92 bis
6 statement of Mr. Cavcic, if that could be just briefly done in writing,
7 then we will consider that.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] What is the deadline for
9 that, Mr. President?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Two days. Would that be possible? By the end of the
11 week. Yes? I see --
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Most likely so, as far as I am
13 concerned, but also as far as Madam Pilipovic is concerned. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... and nodding of
15 lead counsel is of course of major importance.
16 Mr. Ierace, it will be Mr. Waespi who will take the next witness?
17 MR. WAESPI: Yes, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And you call, the next witness will be?
19 MR. WAESPI: Will be Colonel Fraser. Perhaps if the Registrar
20 could prepare the map, the clean map, Exhibit number 3644, later to be
21 shown to the witness. Thank you.
22 THE REGISTRAR: The number will be P3644.DF.
23 [The witness entered court]
24 WITNESS: DAVID FRASER
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please put on the headphones of Mr. Fraser
1 so that whenever there would be any intervention from the Defence ...
2 Mr. Fraser, I take it that you understand me -- that you hear me
3 in a language you understand. Before giving your testimony in this
4 court, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn
5 declaration that you will speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing
6 but the truth. May I invite you to make that declaration. And the usher
7 has handed out the text to you.
8 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
9 whole truth and nothing but the truth.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for much, Mr. Fraser. Please be seated.
11 Yes. You will first be examined by counsel for the Prosecution.
12 Mr. Waespi, please proceed.
13 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Examined by Mr. Waespi:
15 Q. Good morning, Mr. Fraser.
16 A. Good morning.
17 Q. Can you please state for the record your rank, name, current
19 A. Colonel David Fraser. I am the project director for land forces
20 reserve restructure at army headquarters in National Defence Headquarters,
21 Ottawa, Canada.
22 Q. Did you ever serve within the UN system in the Balkans?
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. And when was that?
25 A. I served from April 1994 to May 1995 at Sector Sarajevo
2 Q. Did you have a chance to come back later in a different function?
3 A. I returned as the battle group commander as part of S4 in 1997.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Fraser, may I ask you to make a small pause
5 between the question and the answer because the interpreters need some
6 time to translate everything both in French and Bosnian, Serbian,
7 Croatian. So, therefore, if we go too quick, they will not cope with
8 your speed.
9 Please proceed. One way of doing it is looking at your screen.
10 When the cursor stops moving, then you may answer the question. And if
11 there is just one or two words left, you might already start.
12 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Q. Colonel Fraser, can we please focus on your first time in
14 Sarajevo and also on the period between April and early August in 1994.
15 Did you have a chance in that period to see any sniping positions in
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 Q. Can you tell me with the assistance of a map, which I could kindly
19 ask the registrar to show to the witness, where these positions were.
20 If you, Colonel Fraser, could please indicate as good as you can,
21 as accurate as you can, where these positions were and explain them to us.
22 And perhaps you could use, as soon as you have identified them, for you to
23 use a red -- I am sorry, blue pen, and indicate the area.
24 A. We looked at some positions in this area here. And in fact, I
25 remember going with the sector commander on a tour of a number of
1 positions, including what was referred to as the "red building." And we
2 walked through these buildings, and we could see openings and there were
3 boxes and sandbags where shooters could possibly set up and take a look.
4 We looked out the windows and we could see back to the Bosniak side. We
5 could also look down and see where some of the UN positions were, too.
6 Q. Thank you, Mr. -- Colonel Fraser. Can you tell us who arranged
7 those visits for you? To whom did you go to be able to see these
9 A. We would normally do, if we wanted to go for a visit, we would get
10 in contact with our LOs or the Fre-Bats in the area. They would arrange
11 it through the corps headquarters or the respective brigade headquarters
12 and we would coordinate, and we'd actually get escorted. And we were, on
13 this occasion, we were escorted through these positions and shown around
14 on that side.
15 Q. And what corps headquarters are you talking about, of which side
16 of the two warring factions?
17 A. It was the Serbian Corps at Lukavica barracks, General Galic's
18 headquarters at that time.
19 Q. And who was the person, if you could indicate his name or his
20 rank, who had actually shown you around those sniping positions?
21 A. I cannot remember exact the details who actually escorted us
23 Q. Do you know his function?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Although
1 the booth has not protested, I think that there had been omissions of
2 serious -- of considerable portions of the testimony, probably due to the
3 very high speed at which the witness is speaking. We have to take into
4 account the transcript and the interpretation.
5 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, for your assistance.
6 Q. Colonel Fraser, my last question was whether you could recall the
7 function of the person. Was he a soldier or an officer, and if he was an
8 officer, do you recall what his function was?
9 A. I knew that when we went for visits on the Serbian side, that we
10 were always escorted by an officer. And on this particular case, it was
11 an officer but I don't recall his name or function.
12 Q. Was he in uniform?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. If you could just, for the sake of completion, add a letter "A" to
15 the circle which you just drew out on the map, please.
16 A. [Marks]
17 Q. At that occasion or perhaps at another occasion but within the
18 time frame between August and early -- between April and early August
19 1994, what kind of weaponry, sniping weaponry, have you seen, if anything?
20 A. I did not see any weaponry personally, however, the reports that
21 we investigated included what we believed were high velocity rifles,
22 incidents of sniping around the city, including the airport, the area I
23 just showed you, and a place called Sedrenik or Grdonj.
24 Q. If I can take you back, Colonel Fraser, to the weaponry. Do you
25 recall the -- you mentioned high velocity rifles. Do you recall other
1 additions to weapons? You said you have not seen them but you said you
2 have read reports or were given information. Can you help us?
3 A. We had reports and we also investigated UN positions at the Jewish
4 cemetery that were attacked at night by grenades, rifle-launched grenades.
5 That happened several times. Plus the shootings down along what was
6 commonly known as "sniper alley," where we had a task force. And there
7 were other incidents of mortaring of the city and around the area
8 within the sector.
9 Q. Do you have an opinion, again from personal experience or from
10 reports you have read or seen, about the professionalism of the snipers?
11 A. It was our assessment that the people conducting these actions
12 were professional because of our difficulty locating them. They were not
13 presenting themselves in a clear view of the UN soldiers. So they were
14 taking positions of concealment to shoot at both the civilians and UN.
15 This indicated to us that these people knew what they were doing and were
16 very good at it.
17 Q. Just for clarification purposes, when you describe these people,
18 these people from part of which warring faction?
19 A. From the Serbian side.
20 Q. Do you also have an opinion, based on your information,
21 experience, at that time, about the accuracy of sniping coming from the
22 Serbian side?
23 A. It is my opinion, based on the reports and what I witnessed, these
24 individuals were very good because the casualties were a direct result of
25 their actions, and they were numerous.
1 In talking to the soldiers, the French soldiers on -- along sniper
2 alley, they indicated to us --
3 JUDGE ORIE: I think that we are now slowing down -- I said, not
4 without purpose, that if there are still one or two words missing, if you
5 take a low speed, they are always a bit behind. That is no problem. But
6 if it becomes too much -- but then if you talk at a slow regular speed as
7 I do it now, they will certainly be able to follow you.
8 THE WITNESS: The soldiers indicated to us that in the morning,
9 when they adopted their positions along sniper alley, from time to time
10 shooters from the Serbian side would fire at a telephone pole to indicate
11 they were in position. And once in a while they would -- I would call
12 "range" their weapons by firing shots off the UN vehicles to get an
13 indication of where their rifles were firing. And then they would wait
14 during the day to conduct their operations. That indicates to me that
15 these are people who know what they are doing and are fairly confident in
16 their skills because there were several hundred soldiers trying to find
17 out where these people were so that we could stop them from doing what
18 they were there to do.
19 MR. WAESPI:
20 Q. And when you tell us "that we could stop them," and I quote
21 you, "doing what they were to do," or earlier you said and I quote you
22 again, "to conduct their operations," what kind of operations are you
23 talking about?
24 A. In that area, there were only two or -- two groups of people:
25 There were the UN and then there were the local Bosnian civilians. And
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 along that area, the sniping snipers were shooting mainly at the Bosnians,
2 and once in a while at the UN.
3 Q. Colonel Fraser, were you able to form an opinion as to the
4 organisation or whether there was a structure within these snipers you
5 just described to us?
6 A. It is my opinion that these snipers were acting on orders from a
7 higher organisation than the areas because the three areas that I
8 described, Sedrenik, sniper alley and the airport, crossed a number of
9 different Serbian brigades. And the activities appeared to have been
10 coordinated because of the incidents and how they seemed to happen around
11 the city, that there seemed to be some structure.
12 And when there was an incident, we would protest. And in those
13 protests, and in the discussions with General Galic and his headquarters,
14 there seemed to be some control over the level of activity that these
15 snipers had upon the citizens and the UN.
16 Q. Colonel Fraser, how many times would you talk to General Galic
17 about this type of activity you just described?
18 A. When I arrived in April of that year, sniping incidents had been
19 on the rise and there had been some protests, and General Soubirou wanted
20 to improve the situation and prevent it from getting out of control. So
21 he asked for a meeting with General Galic sometime in May or June that
22 year, or July, with the aim of trying to stop the killing. Because it was
23 a tit-for-tat operation and we didn't want it to get out of control any
24 more than it already was. So we met with him a couple of times, that I
1 Q. Do you recall what the response was of General Galic on these
3 A. Well, General Galic would start off by lecturing us, but
4 eventually we would discuss the incidents. And the results of these
5 discussions, there was a notable decrease in most cases in the level of
6 sniping activity around the city after talking to him.
7 Q. Did you only protest because of sniping incidents or were there
8 incidents with other weaponry which would provoke you to take protests to
9 General Galic?
10 A. We conducted protests for any sniping incident, shelling
11 incident, weapons in the exclusion zone, if they were not in the weapon
12 collecting points. Anytime there was a contradiction in the UN agreement,
13 we would go to General Galic and protest those cases in two ways: We
14 would send a letter, a written form, to him, and more effectively, we
15 would ask for a meeting to discuss these incidents in order that we could
16 press the point and get him to cease these activities on Sarajevo.
17 Q. What was the source of the information you had which enabled you
18 to draft these letters or make these oral protests?
19 A. In the sniping incidents --
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it is a
21 multiple question. It seems to concern at the same time the sniping
22 elements and the shelling elements.
23 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... please proceed,
24 Mr. Waespi.
25 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 Q. If we turn first to sniping, what is the source of information
2 which you had at your disposition which made you go to General Galic and
3 make the protests you just talked about?
4 A. In the case of sniping, be it rifle, grenade, or direct fire, it
5 could be the body of a killed Bosnian, it could be the UN position that
6 was attacked at night at Jewish cemetery, which happens several times.
7 The results, whether they were fatal or not, were sufficient for us to
8 make a protest because this was in contravention, that the evidence was
9 pretty clear-cut. We had physical evidence.
10 Q. Was it any different when it came to shelling incidents?
11 A. There was no difference when it came to shelling incidents. In
12 that case, we would sent out a team to go find the crater, conduct a
13 crater analysis, and then based on those results, we would go back to the
14 applicable organisation and make the protest.
15 Q. You said that oral and written protests were made. Can you tell
16 us whether one of them was more efficient, more effective, than the other
18 A. It was our experience that oral protests, i.e. going to the
19 headquarters and dealing directly with the commander, was far more
20 effective than written protests. However, the written protest was a
21 paper record of the actions. And in every case when we went to a meeting,
22 we would write up those meeting notes and put them on our files.
23 Q. Colonel Fraser, when you raised the issue of sniping with General
24 Galic, what was his response, if anything?
25 A. Normally, we would receive a lecture --
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I am really
2 sorry, but the question is much too general. The Prosecution has quoted
3 27 -- 24 incidents. They have to be addressed specifically and not all
5 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, I can rephrase the question, if you
7 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied so it is up to you whether
8 you want to or not.
9 MR. WAESPI:
10 Q. Colonel Fraser, if you could answer this question: When you went
11 to General Galic and confronted him with a sniping incident, do you recall
12 any specific answer he gave?
13 A. I don't recall any specific answer that he gave. I can
14 characterise our meetings with him starting off by being lectured, a
15 denial of what it was we were trying to discuss. However, there was some
16 acknowledgment about sniping around the city and a general consensus that
17 it would be nice if they had an anti-sniping agreement. One which was
18 written up, was not signed by neither party later in that summer, but it
19 is something that we wanted. However, having gone through the meeting
20 with General Galic, the incidents of sniping around the city did diminish
21 somewhat for a period of time. So the meeting was effective.
22 Q. Turning to shelling, when you -- you said earlier that crater
23 analysis was done at times. Did you ever take the results of any such
24 analysis when civilians were killed to General Galic and raise it with
1 A. I can't recall during that period of time taking those results to
2 General Galic, no specifics.
3 Q. Earlier, you said that sniping was conducted at Bosnian civilians.
4 Turning now to shelling, was shelling --
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, from what I
8 remember, the witness spoke about Bosnians but not about Bosnian
10 JUDGE ORIE: Just try to find the --
11 MR. WAESPI: Yes. I think --
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I think that the term used was
13 "Bosnians." I am speaking from my memory, but I can check it.
14 MR. WAESPI: I think the witness said Bosnian Muslims --
15 civilians, Bosnian civilians, in his first sentence. And in his next
16 sentence, he only referred to Bosnians. But we can clarify that with the
17 witness, if you wish me to do so, Mr. President
18 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please do so.
19 MR. WAESPI:
20 Q. Colonel Fraser, when you were earlier talking about sniping at the
21 sniper alley, you said that UN personnel were present in that area and
22 also Bosnian civilians. Who were the targets of sniping from the Serbian
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I am about to check this,
2 Mr. President. But once again, we are coming back to the same thing. One
3 wants to say the word "Bosnian civilians," and that was the substance of
4 my objection to this term.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Either you rephrase the question, Mr. Waespi, or we
6 find the place where the witness ...
7 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, I am happy to rephrase the question.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
9 MR. WAESPI:
10 Q. Colonel Fraser, who were the targets of sniping from the Bosnian
11 Serb side?
12 A. The targets were UN soldiers and Muslims. Bosnian Muslim
13 citizens, for the most part.
14 Q. And by "citizens," do you mean military personnel or civilians?
15 A. In the area of sniper alley, there were no military positions
16 there. They were just civilians walking along the streets.
17 Q. Thank you, Colonel Fraser. Turning to shelling, in the time again
18 between April 1994 when you arrived in Sarajevo and early August, in your
19 experience, from reports you have seen or personal experience, at what was
20 the shelling directed?
21 A. From my experience, shelling was directed either towards the
22 Presidency, various parts of the city, not principally any military
23 position. And there seemed to have been an unwritten convention that the
24 opposing side's headquarters were not shelled. They were always left
25 intact, but the Presidency and other parts of the city were not given the
1 same latitude.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I just interfere. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if
3 you would have looked at page 77, line 8, you would have read: "In that
4 area, there were two groups of people, there were the UN and then there
5 were the local Bosnian civilians."
6 Please proceed, Mr. Waespi. And may I invite you next time, first
7 to check and then to intervene.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 Q. You just gave the answer, Colonel Fraser, that and I quote
11 you: "Shelling was directed either towards the Presidency, various parts
12 of the city, not principally any military position."
13 What do you mean by, "not principally any military position"?
14 A. In the middle of the city, there were no positions. The
15 confrontation lines were a little bit more to the outside. So when
16 shelling happened inside the city, when we would go and investigate or the
17 UNMOs would go in and investigate, for the most part, there were only
18 civilian communities or people in those areas, no military target that we
19 could identify.
20 Q. How many times, Colonel Fraser, did you meet with General Galic?
21 A. I recall a couple of times, but it has been quite some time, so I
22 can't really remember. I know once for sure, twice probably.
23 Q. Can you tell us what impression you formed about his personality
24 and his command style, if you are able to do so?
25 A. What I recall of General Galic was, he was a very confident man.
1 He would take command of the situation, lecture us. He would never give
2 us any ground or latitude. He would make sure that he argued adamantly
3 for his position. I would not personally want to cross him because he was
4 a very strong -- had a strong character. And negotiations with him were
6 Q. Can you tell us why they were difficult?
7 A. I think it is a function that he was a very confident individual
8 and had been doing his job for a while and he was good at what he was
9 doing, and he was not going to allow the UN to push him around. It was
10 his intention to try to control the UN and the situation within inside
11 the city. And it was my commander's attempt to try to keep the situation
12 under control and it was a -- it was difficult for both men because they
13 were both trying to do what they had to do. And General Galic was not
14 going to back away from the UN.
15 Q. Did you have a chance to meet General Mladic?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. Do you have an opinion about the relationship between
18 General Mladic and General Galic?
19 A. It is my opinion that General Galic was a good --
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President. Mr. President,
21 to ask of this question about his opinion regarding this relationship, I
22 don't know. Perhaps he could ask whether he knows what kind of a
23 relationship they had, because I think that his opinion is irrelevant.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please rephrase the question in such
25 a way that we are talking about facts? And we cannot exclude any opinions
1 but, I would rather first see what facts we can establish.
2 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. From the meetings you had with General Mladic and General Galic,
4 do you know what relationship there was between those two Generals?
5 A. I can't answer what the direct relationship was, but they appeared
6 to work well together. That is all I can tell you.
7 Q. Thank you, Mr. Fraser.
8 Turning to a different issue, did United Nations troops, including
9 yourself, know where the tanks were within Sarajevo?
10 A. Yes. We knew where the tanks were in the weapon collecting
11 points, in Lukavica barracks, and there were a couple of tanks outside
12 those positions where we knew. In fact, there was one near an apartment
13 block in the city.
14 Q. Where was that apartment block?
15 A. I can't remember the exact area. It was in the Serbian side,
16 somewhere between -- somewhere just west of Sedrenik. Pardon me,
18 Q. So this was a tank which was, in your assessment, under the
19 control of the Bosnian Serb army?
20 A. Yes, it was. It was in violation of the UN. It should have been
21 in the weapon collecting point. However, it was our assessment that
22 because of the location where it was, the risk to civilians did not
23 warrant us going in to try to move or get rid of the tank.
24 We knew where it was and we monitored it, but the collateral
25 damage was too high for us to take direct action.
1 Q. Can you please refer to the map and draw a circle, as good as you
2 can, as small or big as you can, around the area where you thought the
3 tank was and mark it with a "B."
4 A. This is a guess. I am not very sure about that "B." I just
5 remember that there was a tank somewhere in the city.
6 Q. Thank you, Colonel Fraser. My last issue is the following: In
7 those few months you were in Sarajevo, did you have a chance to talk to
8 civilians inside the city and discuss their experience with them?
9 A. We spent a lot of time moving around the city and talking to
10 people. I had several civilian Muslims working for us, and I would ask
11 them about what it was like to walk to and from the PTT building, what it
12 was like to live in the city. And on our trips into the city, I would ask
13 the locals in the shops what it was like, and a family who also lived
14 during the time of the Second World War where the Germans had occupied
15 their country. In all cases, they expressed the uncertainty and the
16 terror of never knowing what was going to happen next. And you could see
17 that they were visibly traumatized. Many people were suffering from what
18 we would call "post-traumatic stress disorder." And the young people were
19 particularly adversely affected, in my opinion. And the one telling
20 statement that I have always remembered was from this one family who said
21 that the occupation from the Germans was far more orderly and easier to
22 deal with than this war.
23 MR. WAESPI: No more questions, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Waespi.
25 Is the Defence ready to cross-examine the witness?
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I don't know, but it will
2 certainly take us some time, Mr. President, because there is the
3 translation problem. So we shall need at least two minutes to get ready
4 -- two or three minutes, and I will see with my colleague who will be the
5 first one.
6 Very well. We have split our task for the reasons that you
7 already are aware of, Mr. President. And if you will allow me, I will
8 start the cross-examination and then Ms. Pilipovic will conclude, if you
9 do not mind.
10 Cross-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:
11 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Witness.
12 A. Good afternoon, sir.
13 Q. You spoke to us about snipers a moment ago and you, in answer to a
14 Prosecutor's question, you said that their snipers came from the Serb
15 side. Is that correct?
16 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please bring his microphone
18 THE WITNESS: Your question is, did the snipers come from the Serb
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
21 Q. No. My question was: Is it true that you answered, and I believe
22 your answer was, "yes."
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Very well. Does it mean, Witness, that there were no snipers on
25 the -- snipers of the Sarajevo army or on the Presidency side, as it is
1 usually called?
2 A. There were snipers on that side, yes.
3 Q. So you established that there were snipers, and who did these
4 latter snipers fire at?
5 A. They would fire at the Serb side, and in some cases, civilians.
6 And with the same resolve we would protest those incidents with the
7 Bosnian Corps headquarters.
8 Q. Very well.
9 You tell me that these snipers on the Presidency side sought to
10 target civilians. Is that correct? Is that what you are saying?
11 A. From time to time.
12 Q. On the Serb side, too, but on which side the civilians?
13 A. Can you repeat your question? I don't understand.
14 Q. On which -- the civilians on which side?
15 A. In the incidents where there was sniping from the Muslim side, it
16 would be against the Serbs, on their side of the confrontation line.
17 Q. You never heard speaking or knew that there were certain elements
18 which sniped from the Muslim side, but targeting the Muslim side?
19 A. Muslims shooting Muslims, is that your question?
20 Q. [In English] Exactly that, sir.
21 A. There were stories about that.
22 Q. [Interpretation] Very well. You indicated --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if you would need two minutes --
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I will stop now.
25 JUDGE ORIE: We will stop in one or two minutes. Mr. Fraser, I
1 would like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.00 in the same
2 courtroom. The usher will escort you out of the courtroom. And would you
3 please not speak with anyone, whoever it is, about your testimony in this
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Mr. Usher, could you please escort
7 Mr. Fraser out of the courtroom.
8 [The witness withdrew]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I am waiting for the witness
11 to come out, and that is all. Thank you.
12 Within the time that remains here, on page 75.9, the
13 term "notably" was -- the term "at night" was not interpreted. Then on
14 77.23 I see that in French the word, "citizens" was not interpreted. On
15 page 83 -- no, I am sorry. Generally speaking, and on a number of pages
16 we find the term "abandonner tout de suite," which should not be used but
17 there was again another expression which was good by the French booth.
18 And then the last thing on 86.11, the witness said, "collateral damage was
19 too hard" and I think he meant "us," "for us," but that UN forces --
20 "UNPROFOR forces" was not interpreted in French. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You also gave some interpretation of what the
22 witness meant is that the collateral damage for the UN forces was too
23 much. That is an interpretation which is not part of translation. So,
24 therefore, translation fine, interpretation, we will have to understand
25 what we -- and of course, you can ask the witness during
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any other issues we should deal with at this
4 moment? Then we will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9.00.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
6 1.45 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday,
7 the 5th day of July, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.