Page 8562
1 Friday, 29 October 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
7 Yes, good morning, Mr. Gaynor.
8 MR. GAYNOR: Good morning, Mr. President.
9 I just wanted to clarify one procedural point arising out of the
10 witness's evidence yesterday. I'd just like to ask him if he formally
11 adopts his amalgamated statement as his evidence in that trial, which is
12 a question which I omitted from the presentation yesterday. I've cleared
13 this with the Defence.
14 JUDGE KWON: What is it that we admitted as Exhibit P1830?
15 MR. GAYNOR: If that's the exhibit number for the amalgamated
16 statement --
17 JUDGE KWON: 90198.
18 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, that's the amalgamated statement of the
19 witness. I simply wanted to ask him if he formally adopts it as his own
20 evidence. It was simply that one sentence I left out.
21 JUDGE KWON: Please do that, Mr. Gaynor.
22 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 WITNESS: DRAGAN MIOKOVIC [Resumed]
24 [The witness answered through interpreter]
25 Examination by Mr. Gaynor: [Continued]
Page 8563
1 Q. Witness, yesterday we discussed your amalgamated witness
2 statement which you had an opportunity to review last week. Do you
3 remember that?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. I would just like to ask you if adopt that statement as your
6 evidence, and if you were asked questions on those subjects, that you
7 would provide the same answers if asked about those subjects today.
8 A. Yes, I adopt this statement as mine, and I would have answered
9 every question posed in that statement in the same manner.
10 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. Miokovic. Thank you, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Gaynor.
12 Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue your cross-examination.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, everyone.
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic: [Continued]
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Good morning, Mr. Miokovic.
17 A. Good morning.
18 Q. Could you please tell us, did your government keep secret from
19 the public incidents that involved massive casualties?
20 A. With all due respect, I don't understand your question.
21 Q. Well, here it is: The incidents that involved massive civilian
22 casualties, were those incidents publicised or was that concealed?
23 A. Every incident, as you call them, along the line of the police
24 control and command, was reported in the proper manner as the police do.
25 Whenever there were fatalities in these incidents, the department that I
Page 8564
1 worked at at the time was notified, again by following proper procedure,
2 and we would, in turn, inform that investigating judge. What followed
3 was we would go to visit the site with or without the investigating judge
4 to carry out on-site investigation, and every piece of information and
5 detail would subsequently be forwarded to the investigating judge. This
6 is all I can tell you with regards to this issue.
7 Q. Thank you. That's one side of the coin, but was that imparted on
8 the public? Was that widely covered or was that concealed from the
9 public?
10 A. Sarajevo is a small town. That was particularly the case during
11 the war. Anything of that nature, i.e., shooting from infantry or
12 artillery weapons that resulted in one or more fatalities, would shortly
13 after that become public without any specific publication. I'm not aware
14 of a single incident that was in any way whatsoever hidden from the
15 public.
16 Q. Thank you. With all due respect, I would kindly ask you to
17 reduce as many answers as possible to a yes or a no answer, and I, in
18 turn, would try to put as many questions to you and possibly without
19 asking an extension of time.
20 Yesterday, you said that you were involved in some hundred
21 incidents' investigations?
22 A. Yes, roughly speaking.
23 Q. Thank you. In another trial, you said a couple of hundred or
24 several hundred. Which one of these figures is correct?
25 A. Approximately not fewer than 100.
Page 8565
1 Q. Can we now have the findings of yours relating to these
2 investigations?
3 A. I don't know the answer to that question. Everything I did, as I
4 said, was done following a proper procedure and was submitted to the High
5 Court in Sarajevo that existed at the time. That applied not only to me,
6 but also to the entire team that worked on investigations.
7 Q. Thank you. That's a good answer. We'll ask for this from the
8 OTP and then from the Bosnian Government. But the fact is that these
9 documents relating to every single investigation do exist?
10 A. Absolutely.
11 Q. Thank you. How many of these investigations involved massive
12 civilian casualties? Can you enumerate them?
13 A. The term "massive civilian casualties," as far as police
14 terminology is concerned, does not exist. Therefore, I don't know what
15 you mean by "massive civilian casualties."
16 Q. Thank you. I'll try to be more precise. If, on the average,
17 seven or eight casualties took place, everything above that could be
18 called massive.
19 A. So what is your question? I'm sorry.
20 Q. Can you list the incidents that you investigated that involved
21 seven or eight or more civilian casualties?
22 A. I really cannot give you this information off the top of my head.
23 I don't know.
24 Q. Out of these hundreds of investigations that you carried out, how
25 many of them involved seven or more casualties? Can you tell that --
Page 8566
1 tell us that percentage-wise?
2 A. Not more than 10 or 15 per cent.
3 Q. Can you give us some specific examples?
4 A. No, I cannot remember.
5 Q. That would then involve 70 to 100 casualties. Now, where are the
6 remaining 10.900 casualties who were involved?
7 A. I don't think I am the proper person to be asked that question.
8 Q. I wouldn't have asked you this hadn't you, yourself, given the
9 figure of 11 casualties.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 11.000 casualties.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Dr. Karadzic, I just provided an
12 estimate that was prepared by the Sarajevo CSB, and as I said, to this
13 date a large number of governmental and non-governmental organisations
14 have confirmed this figure to be correct.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Approximately it's contradictio in adiecto. We're looking for an
17 exact figure. Do you take it that, on the basis of this, there was
18 250.000 to 300.000 victims and that the total in Bosnia was 97.000?
19 A. Dr. Karadzic, I don't want to speculate on any figures relating
20 to casualties. I really don't want to speculate and guess.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
22 MR. GAYNOR: Yes.
23 This witness is not being presented as an expert witness in the
24 field of demographics. There will be an expert witness in the field of
25 demographics and total fatalities. Dr. Karadzic can direct his questions
Page 8567
1 to the appropriate witness, when the appropriate witness arrives. This
2 witness simply does not have that knowledge, and this, in my submission,
3 is a waste of time.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I agree.
5 Mr. Karadzic, I think you exhausted this topic. Move on to your
6 next topic.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I was seeking an explanation
8 to the effect whether I am entitled to dispute everything that is being
9 said by this witness. And if he's willing to withdraw this figure of
10 11.000, if is he prepared to do so, then I'm satisfied.
11 JUDGE KWON: Your right is not disputed. But it is of my opinion
12 that the witness had given his answer as far as he could, so it's better
13 for you to move on.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 Q. Mr. Miokovic, did you carry out investigations irrespective of
16 the victim's ethnicity?
17 A. Absolutely.
18 Q. How many investigations did you carry out relating to murders of
19 Serbs?
20 A. Are you referring to Serb victims who were killed by shelling or
21 some other activity that came from the VRS lines or are you referring to
22 the murders committed during the war but had nothing to do with the
23 activities on the front-line?
24 Q. Both.
25 A. As far as the former is concerned, we in the police never kept
Page 8568
1 record that would show the ethnicity of the victim because we didn't
2 believe -- or, rather, the legislators didn't believe that was important.
3 Now, as for your second question, I really cannot remember. I
4 really cannot remember not even the identity of the victims that got
5 killed outside of any shelling or sniping activities.
6 Q. Thank you. Are you trying to say that the generals of your army,
7 Caco and Juka Prazina and the others, were not killing Serbs around
8 Sarajevo?
9 A. As I said and as I confirmed, throughout the whole time I was in
10 the police, Caco, as you call him, and Juka were never generals. And if
11 you're asking me whether, during the aggression against
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina and Sarajevo, if there were any murders in Sarajevo
13 simply because they were Serbs, yes, there were such cases.
14 Q. And who investigated those cases?
15 A. The Sarajevo CSB, and probably the security services of the Army
16 of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, that is something that I don't know
17 anything about.
18 Q. Did you take part in any of those investigations into the
19 killings of Serbs?
20 A. The bulk of these cases occurred during the 1992/1993 period,
21 meaning at the very beginning, in the first year of the war. And I
22 already said that I joined the CSB in December 1993, so I did not. But I
23 am aware that a certain number of these cases was investigated and that a
24 certain number of those cases was resolved, the perpetrators were
25 prosecuted, and this applies to the wartime period.
Page 8569
1 Q. Does this refer to the victims who were thrown into Kazani? Did
2 you hear of Kazani?
3 A. Absolutely, yes, I have heard of Kazani.
4 Q. And this referred to the victims of Kazani?
5 A. Yes, absolutely, this applies to the victims of Kazani
6 -- actually, to the perpetrators of the deeds at Kazani, the crimes of
7 murder committed at the Kazani locality.
8 Q. Do you remember how the situation relating to the Seve was
9 resolved, and Nedzad Ugljen and Nedzad Herenda and Garaplija?
10 JUDGE KWON: Just a second, Mr. Miokovic.
11 I'm wondering, Mr. Karadzic, how this is relevant to your case.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Like this: We have a prominent
13 investigator here who was investigating violent crimes or crimes in
14 Sarajevo, and I'm going to state here -- I'm going to tell the witness
15 here that the Serbian side in Sarajevo has names of 5.000 to 8.000 Serbs
16 who disappeared in the town. This is a figure ranging between 5.000 to
17 8.000 Serbs, and this is something that was concealed by the Government
18 of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And this witness was in a position to
19 investigate these particular cases, so I would like to see what he has to
20 say about that.
21 JUDGE KWON: While that may be important, my question is how that
22 was relevant to your case. Probably, we allowed you too much time. I
23 told you to prioritise your questions, and you cannot complain about a
24 shortage of time while asking such irrelevant or marginally relevant
25 issues. Come to your questions.
Page 8570
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one more question for you to
2 see that this relevant.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Mr. Miokovic, would you kindly explain to the Trial Chamber what
5 the Seve are?
6 A. I don't have that information, other than the fact -- or other
7 than the things that I read about that in the media, and this is for a
8 very simple reason. Seve, if they existed in the capacities that were
9 published in the Bosnia and Herzegovina media, this was a unit that was
10 part of the then Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia and
11 Herzegovina, and I was never a member of that ministry. I was a member
12 of the Sarajevo CSB. So I'm not able to provide any relevant information
13 about that group to you or to the Trial Chamber.
14 Q. All right. But if I were to tell you that Seves were the secret
15 armed force of the Secret Police, which organised sniping of citizens in
16 town and the killings of Serbs, and that finally the three of their
17 founders, Nedzad Ugljen, Nedzad Herenda, were killed by that same police,
18 and I don't know what happened to Garaplija. This is the information
19 that I'm seeking from Bosnia-Herzegovina - you're an investigator - is it
20 correct what I say, that Nedzad Ugljen and Nedzad Garaplija were killed?
21 A. Well, with all due respect, I think you're getting things mixed
22 up a little bit. Nedzad Ugljen was killed, Nedzad Garaplija is alive,
23 and the other Nedzad is alive as well.
24 Q. But they're in prison?
25 A. No, that's not correct.
Page 8571
1 Q. And is it correct that this was an armed formatio of the Secret
2 Police, of the Secret Service?
3 A. I think that I was quite clear; I simply don't know.
4 Q. Do you know what --
5 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, first of all, you're exploring
6 matters that the witness has stated categorically that he can't answer.
7 And so not only are you wasting your time, you're wasting everybody's
8 time.
9 Secondly, when you analyse what you're asking, you're often
10 making a statement which is in the guise of a question. You simply make
11 an interrogatory remark at the end of a long statement. That is not
12 proper cross-examination. What you're doing is making submissions
13 disguised as cross-examination, and the time will come for you to make
14 proper submissions.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Miokovic, you said that a major obstacle to the
17 investigations into the sniper incidents was created by the fact that the
18 Serbs were using fragmentation ammunition. Can you please tell us what
19 you meant by that?
20 A. I don't remember saying that this posed an obstacle, but I do
21 recall being asked, in a previous situation, the same question, and I
22 remember stating that, during firing at trams - because in one of the
23 cases that I investigated, this was the case - so-called fragmentation
24 ammunition was used. I'm not a ballistics experts, so all I know about
25 that is that this would be a fire-arm bullet, a rifle in this case,
Page 8572
1 which, in contact with a certain surface, would burst into fragments, a
2 number of fragments, and such a bullet can wound, injure, and kill more
3 than one person.
4 Q. On the fifth page of your latest statement, fourth paragraph from
5 the top, you say that it was customary for the army of the Bosnian Serbs
6 to use fragmentation bullets. Do you know that this ammunition is
7 banned?
8 A. It's banned, Dr. Karadzic, just as the siege of a town with a
9 population of 400.000 is banned, but it still took place. I know
10 fragmentation ammunition is banned. The use of cluster bombs is also
11 banned, but it was still used.
12 Q. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Do you know that such
13 ammunition does not exist for a rifle?
14 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat his answer.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Sir, with all due respect --
17 JUDGE KWON: Both of you were overlapping. The interpreters
18 couldn't follow. We stopped with the question whether -- Mr. Miokovic,
19 whether you know that such ammunition does not exist for a rifle. Can
20 you start from there again? What was your answer, Mr. Miokovic?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am not a ballistics
22 expert. What I do know is that on several occasions -- on plenty of
23 occasions during investigations into sniper fire at trams, in the
24 investigation of such cases, I was told by technicians and ballistics
25 experts, in an official manner at the scene, that in a specific case what
Page 8573
1 was most probably used was fragmentation ammunition.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Can you please look at your statement on page 5 and allow me that
4 because your statement is admitted, I must dispute everything or I must
5 attempt to prove everything. You did not say that in any conditional
6 form. What remains in the statement will be admitted. Such ammunition
7 does not exist. Such an ammunition must have an explosive charge; isn't
8 that right?
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. So why did you say something that you don't know? Did you ever
11 see us having obtained such ammunition? Did we ever obtain such
12 ammunition? And can you please tell us, who manufactured such ammunition
13 and such rifles?
14 A. I was never interested in your procurements. And the second
15 thing is, I'm saying this once again: What is stated in my official
16 reports as for technical details among other things, that I put
17 ammunition that was probably used, was something I was informed about by
18 my colleagues, who were experts in that field, who were at the scene.
19 Q. Thank you. You said a lot of things off the cuff, Mr. Miokovic,
20 and now I have to cancel that out. Isn't it correct that you were quite
21 approximate in the positions that you stated?
22 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat his answer.
23 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
24 Please put a pause between the question and answer. The
25 interpreters couldn't hear your answer, Mr. Miokovic.
Page 8574
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that this is Dr. Karadzic's
2 assessment.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 Q. Can we now focus on the incident of the 8th of November, 1994, in
5 Livanjska Ulica. You were at that on-scene investigation? If possible
6 can you please answer with yes or no, and I'm going to try to put my
7 questions in that way.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. The first investigative judge in that incident was
10 Milorad Potparic; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you. At what time did you go to the scene?
13 A. In order to answer that question, I would kindly like to look at
14 my official report on the screen.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
16 Can we now look at 65 ter 09678. I think this is probably a P
17 exhibit. This is 65 ter 09678.
18 MR. GAYNOR: That's P1704. Thank you.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, it's okay to publish the
20 name. It's not a problem.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Is this the report from this incident?
23 A. Yes, it is.
24 Q. You were informed at a quarter to 4.00. At what time did you
25 actually go to the scene of the incident?
Page 8575
1 A. That is not specified in my report, so I can just estimate that
2 this was perhaps at around 1610 hours. I really don't remember exactly
3 anymore.
4 Q. And what about how early it got dark on the 8th of November in
5 Sarajevo?
6 A. I cannot answer that question precisely, but I'm quite sure that,
7 as far as that is concerned, the conditions were quite sufficient for us
8 to be able to conduct our investigation on the scene.
9 Q. Then at 1640 hours, people from UNPROFOR turned up, military
10 observers in one vehicle and other people from UNPROFOR in another
11 vehicle; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And then you had a misunderstanding with them, and you prevented
14 them from accessing the scene and participating in the inquiry?
15 A. I cannot answer that question with a yes or no, in any case,
16 because the answer, itself, if you wish to have an answer, requires me to
17 elaborate. I cannot answer with a yes or a no.
18 Q. All right. Then after talking with them -- you can look at your
19 statement. This is page 8, and I think this is in the previous
20 statement, where you say that after 1640 hours, you began your
21 investigation activities. Is that correct?
22 A. I don't see that on the screen, Dr. Karadzic. I really don't
23 know.
24 Q. This is the third page of your previous statement. The ERN
25 number --
Page 8576
1 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Karadzic please repeat the ERN
2 number.
3 JUDGE KWON: What page, Mr. Karadzic?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page -- ERN 0305-9529. This is the
5 ERN number of the translation.
6 MR. GAYNOR: This statement has been incorporated into the
7 amalgamated statement, so essentially Mr. Karadzic is referring to page 3
8 of the amalgamated statement. It's the same evidence.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, it's formulated a little bit
10 differently here, so the previous statement is a bit more precise.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. So you completed your conversation with them at 1640 hours and
13 you started the investigation; is that correct?
14 A. We began the investigation even before the military observers and
15 the UNPROFOR members came to the scene. It's been a long time since
16 then, so I'm unable to remember the precise time.
17 Q. Well, you were asked about this in other cases, but now I'm going
18 to read that paragraph:
19 "I came back to the scene, and one of my people told me that
20 Major Iki" something - from Kenya, probably - "tried to pull out a shell
21 from the ground, but it was so firmly stuck in the ground that it could
22 not be moved. My men warned him not to do that. Then we began the
23 investigation."
24 According to this statement, you began the investigation at 1640
25 hours.
Page 8577
1 A. I remember very well that event and what I stated. What I'm
2 absolutely sure about, and it's very simple to establish that by looking
3 at the video footage which is part of this official report, is that even
4 before the UNMOs and the UNPROFOR soldiers came, we began the
5 investigation.
6 Q. And you came to the scene after 4.00; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you finished at 1655 hours?
9 A. Yes, that's what it says in my statements, but I repeat, once
10 again, that I cannot, after such a long time, confirm the exact timeline.
11 Q. Thank you. Can you please tell me whether you invited them to
12 participate, or did you prevent them from attending and participating in
13 the investigation, themselves?
14 A. Two military observers first came to the scene, and they were
15 immediately told -- it was explained to them what this was all about very
16 quickly. After them, the two combat vehicles, as far as I can remember,
17 came to the scene which were usually used by members of the French
18 UNPROFOR battalion. One soldier, in full combat kit, came out of the
19 vehicle, together with an interpreter, and he set off towards the scene
20 of the incident. I note that in this event, one little girl was killed
21 on the spot. A number of persons were wounded, some of whom died later.
22 There was a certain number of people there, citizens. I mean, simply,
23 the atmosphere there at the scene was very tense because of everything
24 that had happened and because of the fact that throughout that whole
25 time, the shelling of the town was going on.
Page 8578
1 This French soldier who started to move towards the location was
2 a little bit unusual. I stepped in front of him and asked him, through
3 his interpreter, what does he want, why was he going there. This was not
4 the usual way in which UNPROFOR soldiers that worked on investigations
5 together with us behaved. He said that he just came to see the scene,
6 and I warned him that the atmosphere was what it was and that there is no
7 problem, that they can do the investigation together with us, but we
8 would need to follow the usual procedures. He called somebody on the
9 radio, spoke with them, and immediately -- actually, before that, he said
10 that they were very quickly going to come to the scene. Then he got into
11 his vehicle, and then he left.
12 Immediately after he -- after those soldiers left, the scene --
13 the military observers also left the scene who were informed about all
14 the relevant information that we had had up until that time at the
15 location.
16 Q. Thank you. You acted as the leader of the on-site investigation
17 team; correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In other words, had this gentleman behaved differently, you would
20 allow them to attend the on-site investigation; correct?
21 A. His intention was never to attend the on-site investigation.
22 That's not why he was there. Was that the reason why he had come there,
23 he would have done it, but his reasons were elsewhere.
24 Q. What were his reasons, Mr. Miokovic?
25 A. Well, he just said, I came to see what was going on. I told him
Page 8579
1 what was going on. Then he exchanged a few words with someone, and he
2 said, Very soon our team will come as well.
3 Q. Thank you. A few moments ago, you said that his conduct was the
4 reason why you prevented him from attending the scene, the crime scene.
5 Was the conduct, his conduct, the reason -- and you said it wasn't fair.
6 Was that the reason why you didn't let him attend the scene?
7 A. Well, I didn't say "his conduct," I said "his body language."
8 For instance, the way he carried his rifle, I assessed and I was quite
9 certain that he was not a member of an investigation team. His bearing
10 was military, and in the situation in which I found myself, I judged that
11 such a conduct of his could be -- could jeopardise both him and his men,
12 as well as the investigation itself.
13 Q. Thank you. Now, had he not been armed, your position would have
14 been different; correct?
15 A. They were always armed. But it's one thing to have your rifle on
16 your shoulder and the other thing is to have it -- to hold it in your
17 hands almost cocked.
18 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that before that incident, you had
19 taken the position - when I say "you," I mean investigators - that
20 UNPROFOR should not be allowed to attend the on-site investigations and
21 that they should not be allowed to conduct an investigation before you
22 had a chance to do it?
23 A. Yes, that's correct.
24 Q. Who convened the meeting where this position was taken?
25 A. I cannot recall who it was, exactly. It was probably some -- an
Page 8580
1 authorised person. But that meeting was convened at our prompting, the
2 investigators' prompting, the investigator in the Violent Crimes
3 Department of the Sarajevo CSB, the persons who normally conducted this
4 type of on-site investigation.
5 Q. On page 2 of your amalgamated statement, you say that it was
6 standard practice within the centre for investigative procedures --
7 [In English] "It had been a practice for UNPROFOR, who were more
8 mobile and better organised up until then, to get to the scene before us.
9 Then they then took the trace, such as shell fragments, which were then
10 vital to our investigation. After taking the traces of evidence, they
11 would issue a report that we were not able to challenge."
12 [Interpretation] Was it possible to check and repeat every
13 on-site investigation? And I mean reconstruct it.
14 A. What type of investigation do you mean?
15 Q. Well, on-site investigations.
16 A. Well, every on-site investigation that was conducted was properly
17 documented. What do you mean, was it possible to check them?
18 Q. Mr. Miokovic, what was it that prompted you on this occasion to
19 issue an order to the effect that no one should be allowed to attend the
20 scene, and especially so where UNPROFOR members were concerned? What
21 kind of experiences that you previously had prompted you to do that?
22 A. Well, Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time --
23 Q. Let's leave Bosnia and Herzegovina aside. What was it that
24 prompted you not to allow UNPROFOR to attend on-site investigations that
25 you conducted, that you -- what were the -- what was your past experience
Page 8581
1 with them that prompted you to take such a decision?
2 A. Well, the main task --
3 Q. Would you please refrain from giving us lectures here. Just tell
4 us why you -- what prompted you and what made you take such conclusions.
5 A. Your Honours, these are very serious questions, and the way they
6 are being put to me, I'm not capable to answer them. This is a very
7 serious question. However, I cannot answer in just one or two sentences.
8 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, you're the author of your own
9 misfortune. You asked for yes-and-no answers, and then you ask questions
10 which patently cannot be answered simply yes or no. And you are also
11 tending to engage in argument with the witness, which is not -- again,
12 not a proper form of cross-examination. You've got to think about these
13 things more carefully.
14 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Gaynor.
15 MR. GAYNOR: No, that's quite all right. I was simply saying
16 that Mr. Karadzic claimed that the witness was giving us lectures. The
17 witness has not been giving us lectures at all.
18 JUDGE KWON: Not at all.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 Q. Mr. Miokovic, I accept the Trial Chamber's -- I will accept the
21 Trial Chamber's instructions. I will try to be more specific, and,
22 please, would you also be more specific in your answers.
23 Now, was this conclusion or this position taken at someone's
24 initiative at this meeting of all police investigators in Sarajevo?
25 A. It was a conclusion or a position taken exclusively on the basis
Page 8582
1 of the needs of our service, because it was our responsibility under the
2 law to collect all relevant material evidence. Now, in practice, there
3 were frequent instances where UNPROFOR, precisely for the reasons that
4 you quoted that I mentioned in my statement, actually reaches the site
5 before us, collects all that evidence, and then, once we arrive there in
6 order to conduct an on-site investigation, there was no more trace
7 evidence there. And I would like to stress here, again, we at the CSB,
8 the Sarajevo CSB, did not attend UNPROFOR on-site investigations. It was
9 our legal obligation to document each incident, and it was the free -- it
10 was at the UNPROFOR's will to actually assess whether they want to check
11 it or not.
12 Q. Thank you. Mr. Miokovic, now, you say in your statement that
13 UNPROFOR would issue a report that then you could not contest; in other
14 words, you were bothered by their investigative practices. Now, could
15 you please tell us what it was that bothered you? What practices or what
16 techniques did the UNPROFOR implement that you object to, that led you to
17 act as you did? Could you give us some example?
18 A. Well, I really can't. I don't know.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In other words, in practice, there
21 were instances where UNPROFOR, either publicly or addressing themselves
22 to the officials of Bosnia and Herzegovina, would put forth some
23 statements that had to do with one of the incidents, either shelling or
24 sniping, and where their findings were not consistent with what our
25 findings were. In order to avoid misunderstandings and to come to the --
Page 8583
1 I can't really say "absolute truth," but to try to establish the truth to
2 the best of our abilities about a certain incident, the only thing that
3 we insisted on was to be able to conduct an on-site investigation in a
4 fair manner and in keeping with the usual practices within our
5 profession, and that is why we demanded that no investigation be
6 conducted until our investigative team came to the scene.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Mr. Miokovic, did the investigation in Livanjska Street -- was it
9 a representative sample of your service's way of conducting an
10 investigation?
11 A. Well, I don't think this is a representative sample for a simple
12 reason: The circumstances in which we conducted this on-site
13 investigation were really impossible, even for Sarajevo, but we did try
14 to follow the procedure that was the standard procedure.
15 Q. Well, what would your objections be to this on-site
16 investigation, or, rather, to this report? What is it that is missing
17 from it, regardless of what the reasons were? Or, rather, what is
18 missing from this on-site investigation?
19 A. Well, I can't really see that there's anything missing in this
20 official report.
21 Q. In other words, it is a representative sample. If we are able to
22 explore this one thoroughly, then that would be tantamount to having
23 explored all the other ones?
24 A. Well, I can't really say that. I can't say that in wartime
25 conditions you could say that there is a representative sample.
Page 8584
1 Q. Thank you. Now, did the investigating judge authorise you to be
2 the team leader, and did he issue a written statement to that effect?
3 A. Written decisions are not normally issued, and that's not
4 something that is normal procedure, but he did authorise me to conduct
5 this on-site investigation.
6 Q. In doing so, did he know that you did not -- that you do not have
7 a college -- university degree?
8 A. Well, I doubt it.
9 Q. In other words, he thought that you do have -- did have a college
10 degree?
11 A. Well, Your Honour, I was not an illegal police employee. I had
12 been a police officer for many years up until then, and I believe that
13 Mr. Potparic perhaps didn't even know whom he was talking to, I mean,
14 personally. He was the investigating judge, and I was the police officer
15 at the scene, and he was the person issuing orders that I had to follow.
16 Q. Thank you. Yesterday, on page 16, lines 2 and 3 -- well, let me
17 ask you this before: What was the purpose of conducting the
18 Livanjska Street investigation?
19 A. I don't understand your question.
20 Q. Well, was it conducted in order to bring the perpetrators to
21 court?
22 A. Well, it was our deep conviction -- or at least it was our deep
23 desire to see all and each and every one of our on-site investigation
24 reports reviewed before a court.
25 Q. In other words, your answer is, yes, you conducted this
Page 8585
1 investigation in the effort to have the perpetrators brought to justice?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you. Yesterday, on page 16, on top, you said that
4 investigating judges always attended on-site investigations, that was the
5 case then, whereas today it would be the prosecutor, and then there would
6 also be a police officer conducting an investigation who would have a
7 university degree?
8 A. Well, either you did not understand what I said or you're
9 misquoting here. You should make a difference between an investigation
10 and a forensic on-site investigation. A forensic on-site investigation
11 is only a portion of the overall investigation.
12 Q. Well, was this on-site investigation irrelevant?
13 A. No, of course not. It was very important. In this case, it was
14 even crucial.
15 MR. GAYNOR: Objection, Mr. President.
16 I think Mr. Karadzic has, in fact, misquoted the evidence. And
17 just for the record, I want to quote the question and answer.
18 The question was:
19 "When we talk about the crime of murder, is it important for the
20 Court that the investigation was conducted by an investigating judge?
21 "A. At that time, that was an investigating judge. Nowadays,
22 it's a prosecutor."
23 And he goes on with his answer.
24 The reason I raise it now is because this is not the first time
25 Mr. Karadzic has blatantly misquoted the evidence -- the prior evidence
Page 8586
1 of a witness during cross-examination. Thank you.
2 JUDGE KWON: I'm telling you, Mr. Karadzic, for the third time,
3 come to your specific questions about this case.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Very well.
5 Q. Witness, on page 3, you go on to say that it was standard
6 procedure to determine the direction from which the shell came; correct?
7 A. That was established by my colleagues, ballistics expert, who
8 attended the crime scene together with the forensic technicians, of
9 course.
10 Q. What method was used to establish that?
11 A. I'm not a ballistics expert, and I don't know what method was
12 used to establish that, in general, let alone in this particular case.
13 Q. In this particular case, did your conclusion differ again from
14 UNPROFOR's?
15 A. In my previous answer, I tried to explain how the whole thing
16 proceeded vis-a-vis UNPROFOR in this particular case. So speaking of the
17 8th of November, after the on-site investigation was carried out, as far
18 as I know, UNPROFOR did not have any information about this incident
19 other than what we had forwarded to them.
20 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to refer you to the first page of
21 your on-site investigation report, where you mention six individuals who
22 participated in this investigation under your leadership. Which of these
23 individuals is a ballistics expert?
24 A. Mirza Sabljica.
25 Q. Did he submit a report in which he determined the direction of
Page 8587
1 the shell?
2 A. Are you referring to what he did on the spot?
3 Q. Generally speaking, did you compile your report based on that?
4 A. Again, with all due respect, are we talking about this official
5 report that I see in front of me on the screen?
6 Q. Yes, yes, the first one you submitted on the 8th of November.
7 You submitted it the very same day.
8 A. Now I understand what you mean.
9 The procedure is as follows --
10 Q. Can you please -- do not try to educate us on that. Did you
11 submit this report on the very same day, at the request of the Presidency
12 of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
13 MR. GAYNOR: Objection, Mr. President.
14 Mr. Karadzic --
15 JUDGE KWON: It is not a proper statement. Once you ask the
16 question, let the witness -- the witness is entitled to answer in what
17 form he wants to answer.
18 That's what you wanted to say, Mr. Gaynor?
19 MR. GAYNOR: That's quite right, Mr. President. Thank you.
20 JUDGE KWON: And often you overlap. On your part, put a pause
21 between the answer and the question.
22 And we'll come to the question of -- you referred to
23 Mr. Sabljica's report, and you come to the question abruptly as to the
24 date of his submission of statement. What was your question,
25 Mr. Karadzic?
Page 8588
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Miokovic was asked about --
2 actually, he asked which report I was referring to.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. But I'm asking you: Is it true or not that you, on the same day,
5 at the request of the Presidency, submitted your report?
6 A. With all due respect, you are again mixing up things. What you
7 see on the screen is my official report. It was my duty -- it was
8 incumbent upon me that as soon as I get back to my office from any
9 on-site investigation, to draft this official report containing all this
10 information that you can see here, including the technical details that
11 were provided to me by the ballistic expert and the criminal
12 investigation technicians as preliminary information. This official
13 report is only one integral part of the case file that, after the
14 ballistics expert and forensic technicians do their work, was submitted
15 to the judge. This official report of mine was never submitted to the
16 Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, nor was it compiled with that
17 purpose in mind.
18 Q. In -- I'm sorry, I have to -- in your statement, you said that at
19 2000 hours on that same day, the UNPROFOR spokesman - that's
20 paragraph 3 - said at the press conference that the Bosnian police had
21 not allowed them to carry out an investigation.
22 A. To be present during the investigation, that's correct.
23 Q. To conduct an investigation.
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Then on the same page, you said that you had ordered the
Page 8589
1 investigation to be finalised by 1730, but that the next shell came at
2 5.20?
3 A. I don't understand your question. Can you please be more
4 specific? What do you want me to answer?
5 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Witness, do you have your statement in front of
6 you? Do we have a B/C/S version of this?
7 MR. GAYNOR: No, the amalgamated statement is just in English.
8 There should be a B/C/S version of the original statement. I'll try to
9 find that now.
10 JUDGE KWON: If you'd like to put your question, Mr. Karadzic,
11 give an exact citation and put the question accordingly.
12 What your statement says is like this, Mr. Miokovic. For your
13 information, I will read it out:
14 "On that same day, on a press conference held by UNPROFOR at
15 8.00 p.m. that evening, a spokesman said to the journalist that Bosnian
16 police had not allowed them to carry out an investigation. On that same
17 evening, our minister of interior passed an order to prepare the report
18 because it was requested by the presidency of the state, and I did."
19 So that's what you said in your statement, and Mr. Karadzic asked
20 about -- asked whether it was done by the request of the Presidency.
21 That was the question. Can you answer the question again?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 This official report, which is in front of me at the moment, is a
24 single document. When, at 2000 hours, the UNPROFOR announced everything
25 that was said, I was informed by my superiors everything that you already
Page 8590
1 quoted. The minister was interested to know what happened with our
2 communication with UNPROFOR and whether it was true that UNPROFOR did not
3 attend the investigation. Of course, I sent a separate report on those
4 questions to the minister. He, or the Presidency, were not interested at
5 all in the data that is in the document in front of me. I prepared this
6 document, and I described how things happened, and I passed this on to
7 the minister through proper channels.
8 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Miokovic.
9 Don't argue with the witness. Put your questions one by one.
10 Please continue.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Is it true that you ordered the investigation to be finalised by
13 5.30, and that at 5.25 another shell fell?
14 A. After UNPROFOR departed, I waited for about 10 minutes after the
15 completion of our investigation, expecting them to come and for me to
16 give them information that they would require. Since they failed to
17 appear, and the shelling was in progress, I issued an order for all the
18 relevant clues and evidence to be collected from the spot and that we
19 remove ourselves from the scene. What I can assert with full
20 responsibility, at 5.25, when, at about 20 or 50 metres from the
21 investigation site, another shell fell, my investigation team was not on
22 the spot.
23 Q. Thank you. Is it true that the reason why you conducted this
24 investigation in such a hasty manner, the reason that you cited was that
25 there were shells falling in the general area?
Page 8591
1 A. Yes, I did say that we conducted our investigation under such
2 circumstances.
3 Q. But the next shell fell only at 5.25; is that correct?
4 A. I'm not sure that the term "only" is an appropriate one when you
5 speak about shells. Had my team been there on the spot when the shell
6 fell only at 2.25 [as interpreted], I cannot imagine what the
7 consequences would be, but I believe that both I and my team would be in
8 direct danger.
9 Q. Are we then to take it that while you were on the spot after
10 5.00, no shells fell in your vicinity?
11 A. No, not in this micro-area.
12 Q. Do you say that the initial finding of the French UNPROFOR of the
13 9th of November, 1994, specified that the shell was fired from the
14 position of BH Army?
15 A. I only attended this investigation, and I say "attended" because
16 the investigating judge was there at the time. What I do remember is
17 that the ballistic experts from the CSB and the republican ministry
18 conducted their separate investigations, whereas members of the French
19 Battalion did their investigations. Their findings concerning the origin
20 of fire of the shell were identical. However, there was a dilemma
21 whether the shell had been fired from the positions of BH Army or the
22 Republika Srpska Army, and UNPROFOR's argument was that the charge of the
23 shell was insufficient for it to arrive at the spot had it been fired by
24 the VRS. In order to corroborate that, they provided information from
25 Finnish tables, I believe, to which our ballistic expert provided them
Page 8592
1 with another table that had been used by the Yugoslav People's Army, and
2 that there was some discrepancy in the charges. The Finnish tables did
3 not take into account the charges that existed in the shells used by the
4 former JNA.
5 Q. We'll come to that later. Is it true that on the 9th this case
6 was taken over by another investigating judge?
7 A. Another investigating judge became involved primarily in order to
8 conduct an investigation on the second and third shells that fell on the
9 8th, the one at 5.25 and 5.30. Because members of the UNPROFOR were
10 already there, wishing to investigate the first shell that fell at 5.30,
11 but I'm not sure about the times any longer, then the investigating judge
12 instructed our team to join in into this reconstruction.
13 Q. Thank you. So the investigating judge for the first shell was a
14 Serb, Milorad Potparic, whereas the investigating judge for the other two
15 shells was a Muslim; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you. Let me quote the words of Mr. Sabljica, who is stated
18 as a ballistic expert in your report. It's document 20874, 65 ter,
19 page 3.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 1735, Your Honours.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Could you please focus on paragraph 7, where it reads:
23 "I saw these were Finnish mortar tables. He explained that they
24 used the maximum charge for their calculations. When comparing it to our
25 tables, we saw that the maximum tables of the Finnish tables correspond
Page 8593
1 with the second or the third charge indicated in our tables, in which we
2 have six possible charges. Then we showed them our tables, which were
3 original JNA documents, which indicate --"
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the accused please indicate the second
5 part that he's reading from.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what kind of answer
7 you're expecting me to give.
8 Your Honours, I honestly don't understand. I absolutely don't
9 understand what I am being asked, and I cannot answer this question.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's not recorded in the
11 transcript --
12 JUDGE KWON: Just put a pause. Your question was not noted by
13 the interpreter, so that we couldn't understand what your question was.
14 What was your question?
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Do you agree that this is what Mr. Sabljica stated in this
17 statement? Is that correct?
18 JUDGE KWON: How can he know what Mr. Sabljica stated or not?
19 What is your question? This is Mr. Sabljica's statement, and what is
20 your question?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With all due respect,
22 Your Excellency, Mr. Miokovic was a team leader. He was responsible for
23 this investigation in every respect. Sabljica was his co-worker. He,
24 himself, mentioned the Finnish tables.
25 JUDGE KWON: What is your question, Mr. Karadzic, to the witness?
Page 8594
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Mr. Miokovic, the third and particularly the second charge,
3 according to the JNA tables, indicate that the shell had been fired from
4 the territory of BH Army, and that was something that you took an issue
5 with?
6 A. Your Honours, at the time when this on-site investigation was
7 carried out, I was not the team leader. The investigating judge, Izet
8 Bazdarevic, was the team leader. Never had I in any way whatsoever got
9 myself directly involved in any technical discussions conducted by
10 experts. I still don't know what is the difference between the second
11 and the third charge of mortar shells, neither according to the Finnish
12 or to the tables of the former Yugoslav People's Army.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have 1D02264. 1D02264.
14 THE REGISTRAR: This is Exhibit D738, Your Honours.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have page 9.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Is that the report, the technical report; is that correct? Are
18 you familiar with this map and this diagram, this drawing?
19 A. This is the first time that I'm seeing this.
20 Q. Can you see that, according to their tables, a shell has eight
21 charges and not four, as stated by your ballistics expert?
22 A. Your Honours, with all due respect, I really don't want to go
23 into the merits of the technical portion of the report, because I'm not
24 qualified to do that.
25 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, you are simply wasting your time. We
Page 8595
1 heard the witness's answer, that he was not in the position to answer
2 these technical questions.
3 Was that your point, Mr. Gaynor?
4 MR. GAYNOR: That's correct, Mr. President, yes.
5 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber is concerned about your way of putting
6 your questions, in particular today.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, like this, Your Excellency:
8 This witness said that the conflict -- or the misunderstanding between
9 them and the UNPROFOR investigation team was in the Finnish tables, and
10 that is not correct.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. The dispute was about the point of firing, isn't that right, that
13 the UNPROFOR concluded that this was fired from the territory under the
14 control of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Yes or no. That was
15 their conclusion.
16 JUDGE KWON: Was that a question, Mr. Karadzic?
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That was the question.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Was the dispute, or, rather, the misunderstanding between your
20 team and the UNPROFOR team relating to the place of firing, and they
21 claim that this was fired from the territory that was under the control
22 of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
23 A. Until the decision was made to use one set of tables or the
24 other. But, still, this was a conversation between the technical part of
25 the team. I listened to this conversation, but did not take part in any
Page 8596
1 element of that conversation, so I don't know what the official
2 conclusion of UNPROFOR is on this matter.
3 Q. You don't know whether they accepted your suggestions or not. Do
4 you know that what you're talking about, this difference in the tables,
5 is not true and that they actually used Yugoslav tables; do you know
6 that?
7 A. No, I don't know that.
8 Q. Mr. Miokovic, do you know that they made a comparison of the
9 values of the tables, and that you did not convince them that it was what
10 you were saying; that they stayed by their own findings?
11 A. I've already said that, and I'm repeating it again. Thus, even
12 now, when you and I are talking, I don't know what the definitive
13 conclusion of UNPROFOR was in this matter.
14 Q. Well, Mr. Miokovic, this is what it says on page 4 in your --
15 that you -- after the investigation, you went to the premises, and that
16 you looked over the findings, that you established -- you said that they
17 had used Finnish tables, that they showed you something else, and that
18 you saw their report here in 2007 in court. Is that correct?
19 A. I would like to have on the screen all of the things that you
20 have just mentioned so that I can remind myself.
21 Q. Page 14 of your statement. In response to a question:
22 [In English] "I remember that the UNPROFOR carried out some
23 measurements there, and that they conducted an on-site investigation. I
24 also know that it was a common practice then in such situation."
25 [Interpretation] Then you go on to say that:
Page 8597
1 [In English] "All these named parameters coincided. With regard
2 of the position of UNPROFOR in relation to local police, I am referring
3 exclusively to the city of Sarajevo. Mind you, UNPROFOR was not obliged
4 to officially inform police of their findings. Yesterday or the day
5 before yesterday - correct me if I'm wrong - I saw UNPROFOR's official
6 report about this on-site investigation about these two mortar shells for
7 the first time."
8 [Interpretation] So it's not new to you now. You said a little
9 bit earlier that you'd never seen it, you don't know what their
10 conclusion was, but at the trial of General Milosevic, you did see that
11 report, and you did see that there is a difference there from your
12 report.
13 A. I would ask you again, if possible, for me to have what you have
14 allegedly now quoted and what have you in front of you. I stand by every
15 word in every proceedings that I have been in, but in this way I cannot
16 answer that.
17 Q. Well, the problem is that there is no amalgamated statement of
18 yours in the Serbian.
19 But this is page 14, so I would like the Prosecution to help
20 their witness.
21 JUDGE KWON: Why don't you bring that up, Exhibit P1830, page 14.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] From line 23 to 35.
23 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Miokovic, do you read English? Is it okay? So
24 shall I read it so you can hear the interpretation or you can read your
25 statement in English?
Page 8598
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is sufficient, Your Honours.
2 I just need a little bit of time to read it.
3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What is written here stands, with
5 the proviso that from this context, I'm really unable to tell what I
6 meant when I said "UNPROFOR report," whether that was what was published
7 in the media, because at this point I really don't recall that I saw an
8 official report of UNPROFOR on this event. I don't remember reading it
9 carefully and checking it. And in the end, for me, professionally, in
10 this situation the position of UNPROFOR was not a decisive matter, as far
11 as I was concerned.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Did they have smaller professional capacities than your team?
14 A. I doubt that. Quite the contrary, I believe that they did have
15 the capacity and, I assume, also the personnel that was capable of
16 performing the job properly.
17 Q. And their conclusion was that the shell came in from the
18 territory under the control of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina; is
19 that correct?
20 A. I don't see that conclusion of theirs, Dr. Karadzic. I really
21 don't see it. I don't know whether they officially confirmed, wrote, and
22 signed what you have just said.
23 Q. So what was the disagreement between UNPROFOR and your team,
24 then?
25 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, if Dr. Karadzic is going to keep
Page 8599
1 referring to this report, it's already in evidence at D738. The
2 conclusion of the UNPROFOR team is at the third page of that report. And
3 in my submission, it's already in evidence, Your Honours have it, they
4 have the Bosnian reports as well, and they have all the relevant evidence
5 relating to this incident, and Your Honours can consider that at the
6 opportune moment. This cross-examination is going well beyond this
7 witness's participation in the investigation.
8 JUDGE KWON: I agree.
9 It's time to take a break for 20 minutes, and we'll move on to
10 another topic.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, for
16 allowing me to address you.
17 I have to state that this case is a blatant case of all the
18 things that happened in Sarajevo. What happened here is that they
19 changed the direction of the first shell and did not allow UNPROFOR to
20 investigate the case. They moved the direction or the axis of the
21 direction from which the shell had come. They did not have time to do
22 the same with the second shell, and the UNPROFOR then concluded that it
23 had come from the Muslim side. So that's number 1. They had not allowed
24 UNPROFOR to attend the site on the first day, and then they tried to say
25 that the Kenyan member of the UNPROFOR had tried to manipulate this.
Page 8600
1 Now, I would like to have an additional 10 minutes to show how
2 this all happened there and how it was done, and all the things that are
3 being imputed to me, which is why I'm sitting here as the accused.
4 That's very simple. He has to know this because he was the person who
5 took the photographs away. If he's not a ballistics expert, okay, but
6 these things he must be aware of because he was the one who did these
7 things.
8 And I do admit that I'm not being very efficient today, but this
9 is because of the witness, who is refusing to answer properly or
10 directly.
11 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, Dr. Karadzic, it would be a brave man who
12 said that he was efficient every day.
13 We realise very much the direction in which you wish to go in
14 this. You will understand that we've all been in this business for many
15 years. It isn't the relevance of the central thrust of your
16 cross-examination that's the problem. It's been the way in which it was
17 conducted.
18 If you have a direct point to make to the witness concerning the
19 issues that you've just raised in the last few minutes, then put them
20 directly to the witness, as direct questions, and see what the response
21 is.
22 We're not trying to stop you cross-examining. What we're trying
23 to do is make it more focused, and that's really for two reasons: First,
24 to make it more time efficient, and, secondly, to make sure that you get
25 out of the cross-examination that which you need to get out of it. That
Page 8601
1 mustn't be seen, as it were, as any bias towards you. But we well
2 recognise that you are not a professional lawyer and the Prosecution
3 lawyers are professional lawyers, and so, to a degree, there is latitude
4 being given to you to take that into account. But it can only be to a
5 degree. There cannot be an unreservedly open account in respect of
6 either time or methodology.
7 It may be, and this is something -- I'm speaking entirely for
8 myself now, this is not something that the Trial Chamber has discussed in
9 the absence -- in our short absence recently, but I'm just speaking for
10 myself. It's something I'm thinking aloud, in essence. It may be that
11 without, in any sense, giving up your right to self-representation, that
12 there are some witnesses that you would feel it better to delegate
13 cross-examination to a professional lawyer. I don't expect a response
14 from you instantly on that, but I think it's something you ought to think
15 about, because we've got a long road ahead of us, and the easier it's
16 made is going to be beneficial for all parties.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 JUDGE KWON: Let's bring in the witness.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 JUDGE KWON: My apologies for your inconvenience, Mr. Miokovic.
21 We had something to discuss in your absence.
22 So we'll open the curtain again.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Miokovic, we will briefly now touch upon some matters that
25 you must have been the one who conducted them.
Page 8602
1 Is this procedure of collecting evidence, and especially
2 specifically photo documentation, was that your job?
3 A. Well, yes, in the professional sense. But technically speaking,
4 that was the work of the forensic technicians.
5 JUDGE KWON: It is now for you to ask questions.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Is it correct that the Kenyan UNPROFOR officer tried to recover
8 the fins -- the tail-fin of the first shell, because that is what you
9 stated in your statement; correct?
10 MR. GAYNOR: Excuse me, Mr. President.
11 I don't know why Mr. Karadzic keeps referring to this officer as
12 Kenyan. The evidence was there was one major from Nigeria and one from
13 Bangladesh. There are no Kenyan personnel involved.
14 JUDGE KWON: But we all understood.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My error. My apologies.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Did an UNPROFOR officer, wherever he may have been from, try to
18 recover the tail-fin of the first shell?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you. Did anyone try to recover the tail-fin of the second
21 shell?
22 A. No, I'm not aware of that.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 Can we now have 65 ter 20879, please.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P1702, Your Honours.
Page 8603
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Are you familiar with this sketch? Is this part of the
3 investigative file?
4 A. I cannot confirm that with certainty because, from what I see on
5 the monitor, I cannot really infer from that that this sketch actually
6 relates to this particular case.
7 Q. Well, it is from the same file, but never mind. Can we then
8 briefly just hear this from you: Did you take the photo documents?
9 A. Well, this on-site investigation also had video documentation, in
10 part.
11 Q. Thank you. But do you accept that this sketch is part of your
12 report? I mean, will you take it from me or do I need to prove that?
13 A. With all due respect, I would rather not rely on what you're
14 saying. But if you show me the number or the evidence -- or exhibit
15 number, I will then be able to answer your question.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, thank you.
17 Then let's take a look at the video excerpt, and then we will see
18 whether this was part of the on-site investigation report.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Now, here we see that -- on the sketch that we saw earlier, we
21 saw that the angle -- the incoming angle was 67 degrees; correct?
22 A. Well, 66.96, that's the angle alpha, if that's what you're
23 referring to.
24 Q. Well, thank you. Can you see the time shown here? It says "1630
25 hours."
Page 8604
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please watch this carefully. The
3 next moment, we will see that it shows "1631."
4 Can we now please play this video?
5 [Video-clip played]
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Can you discern the angle of this stabiliser or tail-fin?
8 A. Well, from this photo, I can just conclude that there is a part
9 called a stabiliser, a tail-fin, but that's all I can conclude.
10 Q. But isn't the angle almost perpendicular, 90 degrees?
11 MR. GAYNOR: Objection.
12 The witness has said several times that he's not an expert in
13 ballistics. That was the role of other members of the team. This is
14 venturing clearly into the area of ballistics.
15 JUDGE KWON: I don't think the witness would be able to answer
16 the question from this video-clip. I tend to agree with Mr. Gaynor's
17 observation.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. I won't ask him about
19 the angle. What I want to know is whether the position of this
20 stabiliser, whether it had been altered.
21 Now, please, I would like to ask you all to bear in mind this
22 photo and the position of this tail-fin, and then we'll move on.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. So did this person, or, rather, was this video edited in any way
25 or was it just one video excerpt in continuity?
Page 8605
1 A. Well, this video was taken on-site and it was in sequences. In
2 other words, it did not cover the entire on-site investigation.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, let's move on. So we
4 see it's "1631" here. Let's move on. Let's play the video.
5 [Video-clip played]
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Now, can you see that there was some intervention here -- that
8 there was some editing done here on the video?
9 A. Well, I don't really understand your question, or your claim.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, let's play it again, and then
11 you will see that there is a cut there. So this was not actually taped
12 in continuity, there was a cut, but let's play it over again.
13 [Video-clip played]
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Here we see the moment; correct?
16 A. I don't know which moment exactly you're referring to. I don't
17 understand what you're trying to tell me.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Can we now have 1D2675, please. 1D2675.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Would you agree with me that the photo on the left-hand side is a
22 still from the video that we saw a moment ago? Or, rather, I apologise.
23 The still on the right-hand side.
24 A. Well, yes, the one on the right-hand side, yes.
25 Q. Now, can you see that on the left-hand side, we can see the same
Page 8606
1 tail-fin stabiliser which is a bit differently placed and that the angle
2 is smaller?
3 A. Well, with all due respect, what you're asking me to do is to
4 speak about things that I am not an expert on. And in view of the fact
5 that I'm not an expert on this, I really cannot observe this difference
6 that you can, comparing these photos.
7 Q. Mr. Miokovic, we see a measuring stick, and that was placed there
8 by your team. Now, we can see that this is the same exact impact site.
9 Now, is this curve that we see here, was that -- and this different
10 angle, is that the result of somebody pulling out the stabiliser or is it
11 something else?
12 A. Well, the only way I can answer your question is this: Fully
13 aware of the fact that I am under oath as I testify here, I state with
14 full responsibility that any manipulation for the purpose of altering the
15 crime scene or falsifying the evidence, no such manipulation was done
16 here, and I stand by what I've just said.
17 Q. Thank you. But can you see that the -- where we see that the
18 asphalt or the pavement is cracked, that it's exactly the same and that
19 the angle at which the stabiliser lies is now a bit different?
20 A. According to all the features of both of these photographs, I
21 assume -- or, rather, I think that it is the same impact site and the
22 same shell. The differences that you're referring to, or the
23 similarities, I really cannot comment in any way, in view of the fact how
24 the photographs are taken and whether they're close up or not.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
Page 8607
1 Can we now have 1D2676, please.
2 JUDGE KWON: Before we move on: Mr. Miokovic, do you not agree
3 that in order to say there must have been some alteration or not you have
4 to see the same picture from the same angle? These two pictures were
5 taken from a different angle. The picture on the right side is a picture
6 seen from the left side of the left photo. It's very difficult to tell
7 there's -- the angle of descent is the same or not from these pictures.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I fully agree with
9 what you said. Naturally, I have my own opinion about this. However,
10 given that I'm not an expert in ballistics, I really don't want to
11 intentionally try to make some speculations and things like that. I am
12 quite sure that the Court has -- can bring people who would be fully
13 qualified to comment on that.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 I think that the next photograph is going to show exactly what
16 your question was about, so I would like to call up 1D2676, and
17 eventually we're going to tender these photographs into evidence.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Mr. Miokovic, do you agree that here we have two frames from the
20 video and we have your photograph here? Let's forget about the angles
21 and the ballistics. Let's just concentrate on what we can see with the
22 naked eye. Do these two positions, one on the film and one on the
23 photograph, differ?
24 A. Your Honours, upon arrival on the site, as always, and in this
25 specific case as well, the first thing to be done was to film and
Page 8608
1 photograph the position of the fragment of a projectile embedded in the
2 asphalt, and this is what one can see in these two film frames.
3 As for the photograph where you can see the stick in position, it
4 means that in the meantime the criminal investigation technicians have
5 cleared the area around the mortar shell, itself, in order to enable them
6 to physically position a benchmark according to which, in the further
7 proceedings, the angle of descent of the mortar would be determined, and
8 this is a difference between the situation shown in these two frames as
9 opposed to the situation in the photograph underneath. So there is no
10 dispute that before the photo was taken with regard to these frames, the
11 crime-of-scene officer approached the shell in order to clear the space
12 around it for the stick.
13 Q. Let's leave aside the issue of angle. It couldn't be less than
14 80, but let's forget about that.
15 Somebody tried to pull out this shell, and its position was
16 altered. The position of the second shell was not changed, for which the
17 UNPROFOR decided it came from your position. As for the first one, whose
18 position had been altered, it was determined that it came from the
19 Serbian positions; is that correct?
20 A. You are again making assertions that you expect me to confirm and
21 to take your word for that. I don't want and I cannot do that.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 Let's move now to the next incident. But before that, can we
24 have these photographs admitted into evidence?
25 JUDGE KWON: Let's deal with them one by one.
Page 8609
1 Do you tender that video-clip?
2 THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]
3 JUDGE KWON: Can we have the 65 ter number? Is it 40574?
4 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, Mr. President, 40574 is the entire video. It's
5 about four minutes long.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, so we have to identify that time portion, but
7 we didn't.
8 We'll admit that portion which was shown to the witness, and the
9 time slot will be identified by the Defence, to be conveyed to the Court
10 Deputy.
11 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
12 JUDGE KWON: The entire video has been admitted.
13 THE REGISTRAR: The video is Exhibit P1849, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
15 Could you identify the time slot for the record later on.
16 And then we -- and --
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
18 JUDGE KWON: And about the photo analysis, do you have any
19 objection, Mr. Gaynor?
20 MR. GAYNOR: I would like -- I would like to note that this photo
21 compilation has been prepared by the Defence team for Mr. Karadzic.
22 JUDGE KWON: With that caveat, we'll admit both of them.
23 THE REGISTRAR: 1D2675 will be Exhibit D844, and 1D2676 will be
24 Exhibit D845.
25 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
Page 8610
1 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 Q. Did you investigate the sniping incident number 16 from the
4 F list, the one that took place on the 3rd of March, 1995?
5 A. Yes, I can remember taking part in that, but I would kindly ask
6 for my official report relative to this incident to be placed on the
7 screen.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In that case, can we have 65 ter
9 10439, page 6.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. In addition to this report that you made, was there another
12 Sarajevo MUP report produced?
13 JUDGE KWON: I take it this is P1727.
14 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, I believe so, Mr. President.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that I made this official
16 report. But whether there were any other reports, I am not able to tell
17 you at this point in time.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Thank you. Is it true that we see your names here -- your name
20 here and that you were designated the chief inspector here, because you
21 are number 1?
22 A. We used to call that the team leader for a specific on-site
23 investigation.
24 Q. And in this instance, that was you; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
Page 8611
1 Q. And who set up the team and who appointed you the leader?
2 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
3 Are we looking at the same document?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The translation refers to another
5 report that I made reference to.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Yes, it's coming. Yes.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. So did Judge Potparic set up a team and appointed you the leader?
9 A. The investigating judge is not the one who set up a team. There
10 is an obligation to notify the investigating judge from the relevant
11 department. In this instance, I informed the judge, and he, in turn,
12 appointed me the leader of the investigation team. After that, through
13 proper channels of information, I informed my fellow workers from the
14 Criminal Investigation Ballistics Section to join me in this
15 investigation.
16 Q. Was there any written order or authorisation issued in this case
17 to the effect that you would be the team leader?
18 A. As I said earlier, in such situations no written authorities were
19 envisaged by the law. Consequently, no authorisations of that nature
20 were issued at all.
21 Q. So according to the law, the judge does not issue or write any
22 orders under the law?
23 A. Orders relating to what?
24 Q. An order relating to the investigation and the forming of the
25 team and the on-site investigation.
Page 8612
1 A. I'm not aware of any such provision in the law. In practice,
2 both during the war and in peacetime, I have never received a written
3 order from an investigating judge back then or from the prosecutor
4 nowadays to conduct an on-site investigation.
5 Q. I'm sorry, I have to wait for the interpretation to finish.
6 Did Judge Potparic, himself, visit the scene of crime, and did he
7 lead the investigation?
8 A. In my official report of 3rd March 1995, it is stated that
9 Judge Potparic led the team, visited the site, and conducted on-site
10 investigation.
11 Q. So he was the one who commenced it and finalised it; is that
12 correct?
13 A. It was standard practice for a judge to both commence and
14 complete the on-site investigation once he is present there. I cannot
15 remember any extraordinary occurrence that would remove him from the
16 spot. After so many years, I cannot confirm that he was there all the
17 time, but I suppose he was.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have 65 ter 10439.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Do you know who Mihajlo Pavlovic is?
21 A. As far as I can remember, at the time Colleague Pavlovic was, I
22 believe, an operative in the Centar Police Station, which in hierarchal
23 terms is one step below the CSB.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 Can we now have page 5 of this document, page 5 in both the
Page 8613
1 Serbian and the English, or the previous page. Yes.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].
3 Q. Is this a report compiled by another investigating team led by
4 Mihajlo Pavlovic, but your name is also mentioned here as a member of the
5 team?
6 A. Is it possible that I have this report in my own language? Thank
7 you.
8 Q. Do you agree that in paragraph 2 it says:
9 "The duty investigating judge of the Sarajevo High Court was
10 notified ..."
11 And then added by hand, "Milorad Potparic, who formed an inquiry
12 commission consisting of ..." The composition is pretty similar. We
13 have "Mihajlo Pavlovic," number 1, and number 2, we see
14 "Dragan Miokovic"; is that correct?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. Thank you. We can see from your report that this incident took
17 place where?
18 A. Can I have my report on the monitor, please?
19 Q. Let's first see, according to this report, where this incident
20 occurred. Can you say specifically at which intersection this happened,
21 according to the report?
22 A. From what I can see here is that the tram was moving from
23 Cengic Vila towards Bascarsija. If you can help me find exactly where
24 the location is specified. The tram was at the intersection of
25 Zmaja od Bosne and Franje Rackog.
Page 8614
1 Q. So according to you, this happened at this intersection between
2 Zmaja od Bosne and Franje Rackog Street; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the previous page, or,
5 rather, the next page, in which we see Mr. Miokovic's name first on the
6 list.
7 JUDGE KWON: The next page.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Below the names, is there anywhere where you can determine where
10 this incident happened?
11 A. You're referring to this paragraph which starts: "Upon arrival
12 at the scene at the tram stop Marin Dvor ..."
13 Yes, I hereby confirm that the on-site investigation was carried
14 out at tram stop Marin Dvor.
15 Q. Is the difference between these two locations between 200 and 300
16 metres?
17 A. Yes, there is a difference. But I would like to say and
18 underline that in my colleague Mihajlovic's [as interpreted] report, he
19 specifically indicated the place where allegedly the tram was fired on.
20 But in my report, I specify the position of the tram, itself, and the
21 place where the on-site investigation was conducted.
22 Q. Thank you. It says the examination of the scene happened in the
23 presence of the Higher Court judge, Mico Potparic; operative of the CSB,
24 Dragan Miokovic; and Mirza Sabljica; and Criminal Investigator Sasa
25 Kurto; is that correct?
Page 8615
1 A. I don't have the report in front of me, but that's probably what
2 it says.
3 Q. And what does it say in your report about that? Let's take a
4 look.
5 Can we look at the next page of this report, please.
6 So you carried out the investigation at a distance of 200 to 300
7 metres away from the alleged impact point of the bullet; is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And then it goes on to say -- can we look at page 2 so that we
10 can see whether the judge carried out the investigation.
11 The investigative judge was informed about this, and then it says
12 that the investigating judge heard that an UNPROFOR soldier was hit, and
13 that he abandoned the on-scene investigation relating to this event.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We don't know where the
15 accused is reading from.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Is that correct? The one paragraph but last. So the
18 investigating judge abandoned an investigation into this case:
19 "UNPROFOR personnel also carried out an investigation on the
20 site"?
21 A. Yes, I see that. This document that you are quoting is a
22 dispatch, it's a telegram, simply put, in order to convey information
23 internally within the CSB. Judge Potparic abandoned the investigation at
24 the scene, or establishing the facts at the scene relating to the fact
25 that an UNPROFOR member was hit, because somebody from the command
Page 8616
1 personnel of the FrenchBat that was there did not permit the
2 investigating judge to conduct an investigation. So the fact that the
3 judge abandoned the investigation relates to the information that an
4 UNPROFOR soldier was hit. It does not imply a suspension of the
5 investigation which related to the original event or incident due to
6 which we came to the scene.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have 1D02545, please.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Do you know that one of the victims and a witness here,
10 Alen Gicevic, stated in a statement that he was hit at a tram station at
11 Marin Dvor, the one facing the factory, the tobacco factory, once the
12 tram had passed the Executive Council building?
13 This is not this one. 1D02545, or, rather, 1D02545.
14 Are you aware that Gicevic gave a statement the first time that
15 he was hit after the tram had passed the Executive Council building,
16 somewhere along the stretch of the tobacco factory?
17 A. I cannot remember that detail after so much time has passed.
18 Q. Do you see here -- can we have the Serbian version that
19 Mr. Miokovic -- so that Mr. Miokovic can see what Gicevic said.
20 And this was later corrected, but the first statement was that
21 the impact point was at the place where you inspected the tram.
22 Can we look at the Serbian version of this document.
23 JUDGE KWON: What part of this document do you like the witness
24 to take a look?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wanted to look at the Serbian
Page 8617
1 version, because I can find my way around that much more easily.
2 JUDGE KWON: I'm advised that there's no B/C/S version for this
3 information sheet.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Then we are going to
5 call up the photograph so it can help us to locate or situate this
6 incident.
7 Well, can we then have the map while we're waiting for the
8 photograph?
9 JUDGE KWON: You may bear in mind what Judge Morrison told you a
10 moment ago. The witness said he cannot remember that detail after so
11 much time has passed, and there's no point to put similar questions to
12 the witness. Just put your case to the witness and hear what he says.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, but we need to situate
14 where the incident happened.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Did you -- did your team establish the angle of the incoming
17 bullet?
18 A. If this information has been noted down as a preliminary piece of
19 information in my report, or, rather, if within the dossier there is
20 relevant documentation that has to do with that particular segment of the
21 inquiry, then I am able to answer that question for you. But like this,
22 just going by my memory, I really cannot recall that particular detail in
23 relation to that case. I cannot speak with any authority about that.
24 It's a question of whether this was established or not established, and
25 I'm sure that this is something that was documented in the report by the
Page 8618
1 ballistics expert.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 Can we look at page 19 of this 10439. Page 19, 10439, please.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. I'm going to read while we are reading that:
6 "The mouth of the fire-arm at the moment that the bullet was
7 fired was on the left side of the tram, behind the tram; namely, the
8 direction of fire was in relation to the right-hand side of the tram from
9 the back towards the front, from the right towards the left, and from the
10 top down. The angle of the trajectory of the bullet in relation to the
11 right side of the tram was 80 degrees."
12 A. Yes. Is this the report signed by Zlatko Medjedovic, because
13 I can see that on the screen.
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. Yes, I can see what you have read out, the last paragraph. That
16 is correct.
17 JUDGE KWON: Can you locate the correct English page for this?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It says here "Report from the
19 Criminal --" now we're going to look and see where it is.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. The last paragraph:
22 "The mouth of the fire weapon ..."
23 Is that what it says here, "the muzzle."
24 A. Well, if you are putting this question to me, then, yes, that's
25 what it says.
Page 8619
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 JUDGE KWON: I can't find the similar passage in English.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The last paragraph, the last
4 paragraph of this page 0331-6379, the ERN number.
5 JUDGE KWON: I'm asking the English page.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the English version on
7 the right-hand side of the monitor, please.
8 JUDGE KWON: That's page 19 of the English version.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Do you agree that it says here that the angle of the trajectory,
11 in relation to the right side of the tram, is 80 degrees, and the angle
12 of the bullet trajectory, in relation to the floor, is 4 degrees?
13 A. Yes, that's what it says.
14 Q. Would that be an almost vertical strike, almost at the right
15 angle?
16 A. I really cannot comment on this, in view of the fact that the
17 angle of the bullet trajectory, in relation to the ground, is something
18 that I really don't know anything about. I am not a ballistics expert.
19 I don't see a connection between these two pieces of information, this
20 80-degree angle and 4-degree angle.
21 Q. I think it's page 9 in the English. Can the participants please
22 pay attention to the top part of the page on the right-hand side.
23 Well, let's leave the angle of 4 degrees. The angle of 80
24 degrees, does that appear as if the shot was fired almost at a right
25 angle in relation to the tram?
Page 8620
1 A. If we only look at that piece of information, then yes.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have -- well, this page
3 can stay.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. I would like you to look at the previous paragraph, which states
6 that:
7 "The entry point of the first bullet in the tin is located in the
8 metal of the back part of the tram, right outside side, 84.5 centimetres
9 from the center of the tram and 153.5 centimetres inside the tram."
10 Is that correct?
11 A. Yes, that's what it says.
12 Q. Thank you. And how thick is the wall, the side of the tram?
13 A. With all due respect, you are again embarking on technical
14 aspects of this whole matter. I really have no idea how thick the side
15 wall of the tram is.
16 Q. All right. Let's do it like this: Between 84.5 centimetres,
17 where the bullet entered the wall of the tram, and 6.5 centimetres [as
18 interpreted], the difference between those two measurements is 18
19 centimetres; is that correct?
20 A. Yes, in simple calculation, that's right.
21 Q. Well, this does not appear to be a perpendicular angle, but a
22 very sloped angle. So no matter what the thickness of the wall of the
23 tram was, the bullet would be travelling through the wall of the tram for
24 18 centimetres; is that correct?
25 A. Your Honours, I really am unable to -- I'm a serious man. I
Page 8621
1 cannot participate in the clarification of this kind; not because I don't
2 want to, but simply because I am not able to follow this terminology. In
3 my practice, when I have a case like this, the things that Dr. Karadzic
4 is talking about are clarified for me and dealt with by my colleagues who
5 are experts.
6 Q. Thank you. You concluded that the bullet came from Metalka, from
7 Grbavica, a building which was under the control of the Serbian forces;
8 is that correct?
9 A. I would like to see again my official report so that I could
10 possibly confirm what was just being said.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We don't have time for that now.
12 Can we now look at --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the accused please repeat the number of
14 the document.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. And is it true that the bullet came from Serbian positions?
17 A. Yes, that was my conclusion.
18 MR. GAYNOR: Just for the record, could Mr. Karadzic identify
19 where, exactly, the witness said it came from the Metalka building?
20 JUDGE KWON: Do you withdraw that question, Mr. Karadzic?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is definitely stated somewhere
22 in the investigation documents. I don't know if that is in his part of
23 the report. I'm talking about the whole report, and this witness was the
24 team leader.
25 JUDGE KWON: Then you refer to the exact page.
Page 8622
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. While we're looking for this: Mr. Miokovic, you said that the
3 bullet came from Serbian positions. Which part of the Serbian positions?
4 A. Once again, I will kindly request that my official report be
5 placed on the monitor.
6 Q. In your part of the report, it says "from Grbavica." Did you not
7 conclude that the bullet came from Grbavica?
8 JUDGE KWON: Page 6 in B/C/S and 7 in English.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Was that your conclusion?
11 A. I still don't see my report in front of me.
12 I see it now.
13 Q. The automatic weapons from the aggressors' positions --
14 A. Can we look at the second page, please.
15 Q. No, no, no, the first paragraph.
16 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not see where Mr. Karadzic
17 was reading from.
18 JUDGE KWON: It should be the previous page, first paragraph:
19 "On the 3rd of March, this centre was informed ..."
20 That was information he received.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Was this information confirmed in your investigation?
23 A. The official report that I drafted, in general, as well as the
24 one we see before us here, I've already explained the methodology of
25 preparing these reports. And I stress, and I will do it again, each
Page 8623
1 technical detail, such as it had come from Grbavica, and what type of
2 weapon, that is something that I enter in my report as a preliminary
3 information. And then ballistics experts and forensic technicians
4 prepare their own reports within a time-frame assigned, and those reports
5 contain the full information, and they are, as such, forwarded to the
6 investigating judge.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 Could we now please have 1D2433.
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Tieger.
10 MR. TIEGER: I'm sorry. While we're waiting for the document to
11 come up, I just wanted to indicate I would ask the Court for two minutes
12 at the end of the session to address one scheduling matter.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Could you please mark on this photograph, going from left to
16 right, the site where you found the tram? First of all, let's do that.
17 The exact point.
18 A. Just a moment. In other words, the tram was moving from the new
19 to the old part of town. I don't have the report before me. Can you
20 just help me and tell me, was the tram moving from the old to the new --
21 from the new to the old part, or the other way around?
22 Q. That's correct, from the new part of town to the old part, from
23 west to east.
24 A. Okay.
25 Q. And you found it -- where you found it, it was at Marin Dvor.
Page 8624
1 Could you please mark that location on the photograph here?
2 A. Well, it's not easy to find my bearings, but I think it's about
3 here somewhere [marks].
4 Q. Thank you. Would you now please mark the old tobacco factory.
5 A. The premises of the old tobacco factory?
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. I really don't know what you mean. I lived in Sarajevo for 50
8 years, but I've never heard of the old tobacco factory.
9 Q. All right. Could you then please mark the Vrbanja Bridge?
10 A. Of course [marks].
11 Q. Would you please put "1" next to the tram stop at Marin Dvor and
12 "2" at the Vrbanja Bridge?
13 A. [Marks]
14 Q. Would you now please put the number 3 on the Executive Council
15 building?
16 A. [Marks]
17 Q. Number 4 for the Assembly building?
18 A. [Marks]
19 Q. Would you now please draw a line through Djure Danicica Street,
20 as it was called in the past, which runs --
21 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the directions.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] How do you want me to mark that?
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Well, just draw a line through it, and please put the number 5
25 next to it.
Page 8625
1 A. [Marks].
2 Q. And would you now please mark the Franje Rackog Street, all the
3 way to the Holiday Inn, or, rather, to the tram tracks.
4 A. [Marks]
5 Q. Would you agree with me that what we see perpendicular to the
6 tram tracks, that that is an articulated tram?
7 A. Yes, I think that's a tram.
8 Q. Would you please put the number 7 there.
9 A. [Marks]
10 Q. And then on the right-hand track --
11 A. I really can't see. Can you help me?
12 Q. Well, it lies across the road.
13 A. Very well, I can see it now [marks].
14 Q. Would we agree now that this tram that we see at number 8, that
15 it is moving from the Stari to Novi Grad, from the old part of town to
16 the new part of town?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Would you now please mark the spot where your investigative team
19 determined that the tram was impacted?
20 A. In my official report, it says that the round had come from
21 Grbavica.
22 Q. Thank you. Now, for the transcript, would you please say the
23 right-hand tram -- number 8, it's moving from the new to the old part of
24 town. I just want to say that for the transcript.
25 Now, first, mark the spot where your team determined that the
Page 8626
1 tram received the bullet.
2 A. If I'm not mistaken, I think it was the corner of Zmaja od Bosne
3 and Franje Rackog Street. It is approximately in this area here. I'll
4 mark it now [marks].
5 Q. Thank you. Where had the round come from?
6 A. From Grbavica.
7 Q. Did you determine the direction and the place --
8 JUDGE KWON: Put number 9, for the record, for the place of
9 incident.
10 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 Q. Can you please just confirm whether the tram, marked with
13 number 8, is moving from the new part of town to the old part of town,
14 from Novi Grad to Stari Grad?
15 A. Well, I can confirm that that is, in fact, the track leading from
16 the old -- the new part of town to the old part of town.
17 Q. Would you please mark the tram that has not yet entered the
18 curve.
19 A. Again, I don't see that tram that you're referring to.
20 Q. Well, is the tram that is about to enter the place which you
21 marked with a circle number 9; can you see it?
22 A. [Marks]
23 Q. Very well. Would you please the number 10 there.
24 A. [Marks]
25 Q. Now, could we put, either on this photo or on a new one -- could
Page 8627
1 you indicate the trajectory -- the trajectory -- the bullet trajectory
2 and the position from which it came? Perhaps you can use the red pen and
3 we can mark the trajectory on this same photo.
4 A. Well, all I can do is draw a line with an arrow indicating the
5 direction from Grbavica to the spot where the tram was.
6 Q. Please do so.
7 A. [Marks]
8 Q. So this bullet was supposed to hit the tram, flying over the
9 museum building; correct?
10 A. Again, I don't quite understand your question.
11 Q. Well, tell us, where the red line begins, is that the Metalka
12 building?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Well, this is the building that several witnesses have confirmed
15 to be the Metalka building, but never mind.
16 Would you please date and sign this photo.
17 A. [Marks].
18 JUDGE KWON: It's time to take a break, Mr. Karadzic.
19 We'll admit it as a Defence exhibit.
20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D846, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Tieger.
22 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 The next witness, I wanted to note, has actually been here since
24 Sunday, mainly to accommodate the accused's request to participate in an
25 interview. We anticipated that we would begin his testimony on Thursday,
Page 8628
1 based on the projected schedule. Clearly, we won't begin until today. I
2 wanted, however, to inquire, particularly in light of the witness's
3 co-operation and accommodation, if we could do the same for him and if
4 there was a possibility of an additional session today. I note that a
5 courtroom is available. I appreciate the logistical issues involved, but
6 I would ask the Court to consider the possibility of an additional
7 session, for example, from 2.30 to 4.30, to maximise the prospect of
8 concluding this witness's evidence, if not today, at least first thing on
9 Monday, before the videolinks.
10 If the Court needs any additional information, I'm happy to
11 provide it, but I think you understand the situation, and it would be
12 extremely helpful if we could implement measures that would maximise the
13 prospect of concluding this witness's -- the next witness's testimony at
14 the earliest possible moment.
15 JUDGE KWON: We'll consider the matter.
16 But, Mr. Karadzic, after the session you will have about 15
17 minutes to conclude your cross-examination.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, in that case, many of the
19 incidents will remain unclarified. I will not be able to explore them
20 with this witness. And I do acknowledge that there is a certain
21 responsibility on my part for not being efficient enough, but I will not
22 be able to examine all these incidents.
23 The team leader of an investigating team has to be aware of the
24 information. He has to know the explanations for certain things. So who
25 else can I examine these issues with, if not with him?
Page 8629
1 JUDGE KWON: I told you, you had to prioritise your questions and
2 not to waste your time. After having wasted a lot of time, asking for an
3 extension is unacceptable. The Chamber will discuss your request for
4 extension of time.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I just address you with one
6 final issue.
7 Can I ask the following: Whatever I fail or am unable to cover,
8 no matter how efficient I am, and even if I do prioritise it, can
9 whatever was left out of what I was able to check, can that be the basis
10 for a conviction? If that is the case, then there should be no
11 prioritisation.
12 JUDGE KWON: Half an hour. We'll resume at 12.40.
13 --- Recess taken at 12.09 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 12.43 p.m.
15 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, you will have half an hour to conclude
16 your cross-examination.
17 And thanks to the indulgence of all the staff involved, I'm
18 pleased to inform you that we can go until 3.00 this afternoon, albeit we
19 may have a short break in the meantime.
20 Mr. Karadzic.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 Q. Mr. Miokovic, who is Enes Bezdrob?
23 A. Enes Bezdrob was a police employee who, at a certain period of
24 time during the aggression against Bosnia-Herzegovina and Sarajevo, was
25 chief of Security Service of CSB Sarajevo.
Page 8630
1 Q. Mr. Miokovic, I hope that when I say "you," and by that I mean
2 the BH Army, I hope this is not irritating you. Therefore, do not refer
3 to what we did as an aggression.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Can the accused please repeat the question.
5 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
6 The interpreter couldn't hear your question. What is your
7 question, Mr. Karadzic?
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. My question was whether Enes Bezdrob was the chief of the centre
10 during the time that this incident that we are dealing with took place.
11 A. Yes, as far as I can remember, he was the chief of the CSB.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 Can we have again 1D2433.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Can you please mark the end of the street that used to be called
16 Titova Street?
17 A. I'm not sure whether this is the end or the beginning, but
18 I think it's somewhere here [marks].
19 Q. Thank you. Can you please now draw a straight line along the
20 middle of the tram, which is here, so extend it.
21 A. Parallel with the vehicle?
22 Q. No, no, you can do it through the tram, itself.
23 A. [Marks]
24 Q. Thank you. Can you do the same with the tram which is positioned
25 before the S-curve.
Page 8631
1 A. [Marks]
2 Q. Can you please just put number 1 where you think Titova Street
3 ends.
4 A. [Marks]
5 Q. I don't think it's clear enough.
6 A. [Marks]
7 Q. Now it's okay. Now, Mr. Miokovic, I'm going to put to you what
8 is contained in the report by the team that you headed and under whose
9 leadership they operated. The report says that the bullet came from
10 above, from the right, and travelled downwards to the left from the back
11 side to the front side. So this is what is said in the report, that the
12 bullet came from the back side of the tram, travelled towards the front
13 end of the tram, downwards to the left; is that correct?
14 A. I remember having read this a minute ago, yes.
15 Q. Thank you. At the same time, it was established and determined
16 that the angle of trajectory had an angle with the axis of the tram of 80
17 degrees; is that correct?
18 A. That's what the ballistic report says, the one that I read.
19 Q. Thank you. Can you please put the date and your signature on
20 this picture.
21 A. [Marks]
22 Q. Mr. Miokovic, according to the axes of these trams, can you use
23 them as a benchmark and draw an angle of 80 degrees, which would indicate
24 the incoming trajectory towards the tram?
25 A. Well, I'm not able to draw that.
Page 8632
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, it's simple geography. This
2 is not ballistics.
3 But, anyway, can we have this document admitted into evidence?
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D847.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Can we now have 65 ter 10439, page 4.
8 Well, let's keep this image for a second.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Can you please now mark the spot where you conducted your on-site
11 investigation.
12 A. [Marks]
13 Q. Can I now ask you to draw a straight line from the top of the
14 building of the Executive Council, from both tops, to the tram.
15 A. Which ones do you mean; the one closer to the tram stop?
16 Q. From both north and south, from which one can see the tram stop.
17 A. [Marks] So this is from the Executive Council building. That's
18 number 1.
19 Q. And then from the southern corner of the Executive Council
20 building.
21 A. [Marks]
22 Q. Thank you. Can you also please date and sign this photograph.
23 A. [Marks]
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have 10439, page 4.
25 Has this image been admitted into evidence?
Page 8633
1 JUDGE KWON: I was about to say that asking the witness to draw
2 meaningless lines is unhelpful.
3 We'll admit this.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D848, Your Honours.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 Can we now have page 4 that I asked for, 10439.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Can you please look at this document. Was it signed by Enes
9 Bezdrob, the chief of the centre, on the 4th of March, 1995?
10 A. The document that I see in front of me is a dispatch, and earlier
11 I explained what this means. And as a rule of service, all the
12 dispatches were signed by Enes Bezdrob.
13 Q. Can we see here that in paragraph 3, the site location was
14 determined as being at the intersection of Marsala Tita Street and
15 Franje Rackog Street; is that correct?
16 A. Yes, that's what's written here.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Is this already in evidence? If not, can we tender it, please?
19 JUDGE KWON: It's already admitted as part of P1727.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 Can we now have -- can we now have 1D2673.
22 Once again, I am not going to throw you into any ballistic
23 discussions, but we will deal with simple geometry that is being taught
24 in elementary schools.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
Page 8634
1 Q. Mr. Miokovic, in your report with respect to the articulated part
2 of the tram, the difference between the entry and exit wound is 18
3 centimetres or 180 millimetres; is that correct? From 84.5 to 66.5
4 centimetres, the balance is 18 centimetres?
5 A. I don't have my report in front of me, but to the best of my
6 recollection, that is what is written there.
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
8 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, I think we're heading down -- despite what
9 Mr. Karadzic said, we're going straight into the area of ballistics,
10 which this witness has said repeatedly he is not -- it was not his area.
11 And, also, the expression "entry and exit wound" might be intended to
12 read "entry and exit point" in the question, in the English translation.
13 JUDGE KWON: And I didn't follow, for myself, how we could come
14 to the number of 18 centimetres when he asked the question. The witness
15 didn't confirm it entirely with you. I agree with Mr. Gaynor.
16 Move on to another topic.
17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: It's not entry and
18 exit wound, it's entry and exit point.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With all due respect, in the report
20 signed by Mr. Miokovic, it is stated that the external entry point is
21 84.5 centimetres above the articulated part and that the exit point is at
22 66.5 centimetres. You can apply simple arithmetic, and get 18
23 centimetres, which means that the bullet travelled through the wall of
24 the tram along the line of 18 centimetres. It's clear to everyone, and
25 the witness confirmed that these entry and exit holes were at these
Page 8635
1 dimensions. This is simple arithmetic and geometry.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. So, do you agree if --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the accused please slow down. It is
5 impossible to follow all these figures and numbers. Thank you.
6 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. I'm sorry, Mr. Miokovic.
7 The interpreters couldn't hear you because you are too fast. But
8 I told you to move on to another topic. You can discuss it with your
9 expert.
10 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, these are matters which are
11 contained in the report and can be contested by -- either contested or
12 confirmed by an expert witness later. As I understand this, these are
13 not an original analysis by this witness, anyway, but simply a repetition
14 of findings by others.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is simply a visualisation of
16 the figures contained in this witness's report. The figures were
17 accepted. I just wanted to present this visually.
18 Can we again have document 1D2433.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Miokovic, do you agree -- or do we agree that between
21 Grbavica and the tram track, at any point represented in this picture are
22 the buildings that were being used by the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
23 A. I never became familiarised precisely with the positions of the
24 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. However, what I know and what I'm certain
25 about is that Vilsonovo Setaliste and the River Miljacka were practically
Page 8636
1 no-man's land and that practically that was the separation line between
2 the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Army of Republika Srpska.
3 Q. Thank you. Do you accept that the buildings, such as the
4 museum -- both museums, actually, the Faculty of Philosophy, the Assembly
5 building, the Government building, Unis skyscraper, the technical school,
6 were being used by the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
7 A. I don't know, and I cannot confirm your statement.
8 Q. Who controlled this area that I described? Was it the Army of
9 Republika Srpska or the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
10 A. The Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
11 Q. Thank you. In view of the angles stated in your report, did you
12 investigate the possibility of the bullet coming from any of those
13 buildings?
14 A. This type of analysis, as far as I know, was not carried out.
15 However, I would like to reiterate that this particular investigation was
16 led by the investigating judge and not by me. So if the investigating
17 judge gave such an order to the ballistic experts to do so, then it was
18 done.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 JUDGE KWON: Let me confirm about the 18 centimetres you raised.
21 Can you bring up page 9 of the Exhibit P1727. I mean the English
22 page. And I also refer to the transcript page, page 59, line 5 to 8.
23 Yes. Is there a misinterpretation, a typo, in the English
24 translation? It says "84.5 centimetres from center of the train," and
25 later on, "6.5 centimetres from the center of the tram," and you come to
Page 8637
1 18 centimetres. I didn't understand that right. The transcript reads
2 like --
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In the original, it says "66.5."
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, that's why I didn't follow it at the time.
5 In any event, let's move on.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Do you agree that in your report, it says "66.5"?
8 A. Can I kindly ask to have a look at my report on the screen,
9 please.
10 Q. Yes, and we have it here on this side. It says:
11 "The damage on the external part of the tram, between the --" [No
12 interpretation].
13 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask to look at the text
14 on the screen.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a criminal investigation
16 technician report, and I confirm that it is written just the way you have
17 read.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 JUDGE KWON: This is not the same page, I take it. Can we see
20 the report written by Medjedovic. It's probably page 7 or 8 in B/C/S.
21 THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
23 MR. GAYNOR: I think Mr. Medjedovic's report is at about page 17
24 in B/C/S. This is the report that Mr. Karadzic has been presenting as
25 Mr. Miokovic's report, I believe.
Page 8638
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Miokovic was the leader of that
2 team, and --
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I was able to notice "66.5, left side of the
4 tram." Thank you. It's hidden from the end of the frame. Yes, "66.5."
5 Let's move on.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Q. Can we now deal with the sniper incident number 14 from the
8 List F, the incident that took place on the 23rd of November, 1994. Did
9 you take part in the investigation of that incident?
10 A. I seem to remember so, but I would kindly ask to have my official
11 report on the screen.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 Can we have 65 ter 09699, page 1.
14 JUDGE KWON: Exhibit 1714, P1714.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Were you the leader of the team in this investigation as well?
17 A. This investigation was also headed by the investigating judge,
18 and by that very fact, I was somebody who was acting under his
19 instructions. This investigation was headed by a judge.
20 Q. Do you need to look or can you briefly tell us what happened and
21 what you concluded? What was your final conclusion? Can I recommend the
22 first passage to you after the names. Is it correct that you did not
23 carry out the on-scene investigation but that you did this in the garage?
24 A. Yes. On the basis of what is written here, absolutely, yes.
25 Obviously, in this situation, we did not perform the investigation at the
Page 8639
1 scene.
2 Q. And would this be important for the purposes of establishing,
3 down to the metre, the precise position of the tram when it was impacted
4 by the bullet?
5 A. In each kind of ballistics expertise, this is something that is
6 exceptionally important.
7 Q. Thank you. And here, nevertheless, the investigation of the tram
8 is being carried out at the garage, in the depot, and the position is
9 taken that the bullet had come from Serbian positions; is this correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you. And it states here that the tram was hit with one
12 bullet of an undetermined calibre, which fragmented, due to which two
13 bullet traces were left; is that correct?
14 A. Yes, that is what it says.
15 Q. Thank you. Are you able to tell us what the consequences were?
16 A. If I remember correctly, and I can see that here, that two
17 females were wounded.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Can we now look at 1D2415. Is this -- this is probably part of
20 the exhibit, this thing, P17.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Are you able to mark, on this Google Maps photograph, the
23 location that you were told where the tram was when it was hit?
24 A. I would kindly ask you to read from my report, if you have it in
25 front of you, what it says.
Page 8640
1 Q. I'm going to read it now. It says that you -- the duty officers
2 informed you that from the aggressor's position from Grbavica, and so on
3 and so forth, was fired, and that the tram was hit in the section between
4 the technical school and the Marsal Tito Barracks and Zmaja od Bosne
5 Street. The tram was hit in the area of its middle section; more
6 precisely, a little bit in front of the articulated part. The shot was
7 fired from the south/south-west, isn't it -- south-east --
8 south/south-east, and this was at the turning towards Nova Stanica.
9 Are you able to mark here the turning to the Nova Stanica? Are
10 you able to mark the technical school here?
11 A. I am just trying to orient myself here. This is the technical
12 school, if I'm not mistaken.
13 Q. Isn't it this black square part that is a bit to the west in
14 relation to the Holiday Inn?
15 A. Yes, you are correct. I made a mistake. Yes, yes, I confirm
16 that.
17 Q. Can you please, then, circle the building where the technical
18 school was.
19 JUDGE KWON: Wait a minute, Mr. Miokovic.
20 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 Q. What about the Marsal Tito Barracks?
23 A. You can only see a part of it here.
24 Q. Can you please mark it with the number 2?
25 A. [Marks]
Page 8641
1 Q. And can you please now mark the trams that are going from the
2 S-curve to the Nova Stanica. You can mark the tracks along their length,
3 and can that be number 3?
4 A. [Marks]
5 Q. And can you now mark the place where the tram was when it was hit
6 and what was its position?
7 A. I would just like to ask you again: In my report, did you say
8 that was in this part of the tram that leads to the new railway station?
9 Q. Ah, and you don't remember that, do you?
10 A. Dr. Karadzic, I did many of such investigations at the scene, and
11 they are all more or less similar. Or you can just call up my report on
12 the screen, and after that I will be able to mark the location of the
13 tram precisely.
14 Q. Then we would lose -- well, I would like it to be given to you.
15 You can have my copy of the hard copy of your report.
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Then maybe in the meantime I'll read out the
17 passage. It says:
18 "The tram was hit in --" forgive my pronunciation -- "in
19 Zmaja od Bosne Street, between tehnicka skola," I take it "technical
20 school," "and the KMT. It was hit in the center, more precisely, near
21 the connecting platform. The bullet was fired from south or south-east."
22 You have that report with you now.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will mark it with the number 4
24 [marks].
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
Page 8642
1 Q. Had the tram already turned towards the station? More
2 specifically, what was the position of its horizontal axis?
3 A. Dr. Karadzic, I don't see anywhere in my official report that the
4 tram was turning towards the new railway station.
5 Q. Well, it says here that it was at the S-curve.
6 A. Yes, but that is why -- this is the S-curve. There is the
7 right-hand part of the tram tracks going to the new railway station, and
8 on the other side it's going towards the new part of town. So I don't
9 see that, at the point when the tram was hit, that it was about to turn
10 north towards the railway station.
11 Q. Thank you. Are you able to indicate on this picture where the
12 south-east is, one long, straight line indicating the south-east?
13 A. In relation to the tram position?
14 Q. Yes, in relation to the point marked with the number 4, where the
15 tram was hit. That is the direction that is stated, and you can extend
16 the line a little further, please.
17 A. [Marks]
18 Q. Thank you. Can we mark this now with the number 5?
19 A. [Marks]
20 Q. That is the direction -- that is one of the directions that is
21 indicated in the report; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Thank you. And do you know where the line of separation is
24 located here on the left bank of the Miljacka River?
25 A. As far as I know, it's from the Vrbanja Bridge towards the west.
Page 8643
1 The entire left bank was under the control of the Army of
2 Republika Srpska.
3 Q. Thank you. Are you able to mark the building of Unioninvest,
4 which is now the building of the High Representative? And you can mark
5 that building with the number 6.
6 A. Well, I'm going to try, but I would also ask you to follow on the
7 screen [marks].
8 Q. In relation to Vrbanja, you will remember where it is?
9 A. I think that's this.
10 Q. Thank you. Can you mark that with the number 6.
11 A. [Marks]
12 Q. In your opinion, who had that building in their hands?
13 A. I know that that building in the Ljubljanska Street was --
14 actually, that the lines between the Bosnia and Herzegovina Army and the
15 Bosnian Serb Army was not always a constant straight line, so things
16 changed. So I don't know at the time who had control of this building.
17 Q. If I tell you that right from the beginning of 1992, that
18 building was under the control of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
19 would that be acceptable to you?
20 A. The only thing that I can reply to that, with all due respect, is
21 that I cannot accept that assertion of yours for one simple reason, and
22 that reason is that I don't know.
23 Q. All right, thank you very much. Fair enough. And now, please,
24 were any measurements taken on the tram, itself; height measurements and
25 the relational measurements along the vertical and the horizontal lines?
Page 8644
1 A. Well, according to my experience, that is the main task of my
2 colleagues, technicians from the Criminal Investigation Unit.
3 Q. And were the measurements given in the report?
4 A. These measures should have been quoted in that report, and that
5 report should have been a part of this file. It should have accompanied
6 my official report.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we ask the Prosecution, my
8 learned friend Mr. Gaynor, to help us to find, in material that he has,
9 whether this report exists?
10 JUDGE KWON: Now it's time for you to wrap up your
11 cross-examination.
12 Could you kindly put the date and your signature on this marked
13 picture, and we'll admit it as a Defence exhibit.
14 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit D849.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Excellencies.
18 Mr. Miokovic was working, especially on the 1st of July, on some
19 incidents, but today we don't have time. I kindly ask for the support of
20 the Trial Chamber and the Prosecution so that we can get all the reports
21 of all the investigative actions in which Mr. Miokovic took part, if the
22 Prosecution has them. If not, we can request them from the Government of
23 Bosnia and Herzegovina.
24 JUDGE KWON: Do you have re-examination, Mr. Gaynor?
25 MR. GAYNOR: I do, yes, have a few minutes of re-examination.
Page 8645
1 Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Re-examination by Mr. Gaynor:
3 Q. The first subject concerns the sequence of events on the 8th of
4 November, 1994. Mr. Karadzic was asking you a few questions about the
5 time of your arrival at the site of the first impact, the time of your
6 departure, and the time of your return after the second and third shells
7 came. Do you recall that?
8 A. I do.
9 Q. Now, did you, on Wednesday, with my assistance, create a short
10 summary of the sequence of events on the afternoon of the 8th of
11 November, 1994?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. GAYNOR: Could I ask for 65 ter 90199, please.
14 Q. Is that the short summary which you had an opportunity to review?
15 A. Yes, that is the short summary.
16 Q. You had an opportunity to make corrections to this, and, in fact,
17 you did make corrections; is that right?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. Is that your signature that appears at the bottom of this
20 document?
21 A. Yes, I signed that on the 27th of October.
22 Q. And that is an accurate summary of the events of the afternoon of
23 the 8th of November, 1994; is that right?
24 A. That's right.
25 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, I'd like to tender that for admission,
Page 8646
1 Mr. President.
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1850, Your Honours.
4 MR. GAYNOR: The next subject I'd like to turn to is: On the
5 next day, the 9th of November, 1994, Mr. Karadzic was making the point
6 that the investigative judge on that day was a Muslim.
7 Q. Do you remember him referring to that?
8 A. I remember that very well.
9 Q. Now, in your report of the incident, which is P1706 -- no need to
10 bring it up unless you want to see it, but you list the participation of
11 the expert ballistics member of your team, who is Zlatko Medjedovic. You
12 know that man?
13 A. Yes, unfortunately, I knew him. I say "unfortunately" because he
14 passed away in the meantime.
15 Q. Do you happen to know his ethnic background, what his ethnic
16 background was?
17 A. I think he was a Croat.
18 Q. Now, is that the same Mr. Medjedovic who is referred to as the
19 ballistics expert in your reports concerning the other -- the sniping
20 incident of the 3rd of March, 1995, and the sniping incident of the 24th
21 of November, 1994?
22 A. Yes, that's the same person.
23 Q. Earlier on today, Mr. Karadzic showed you a report dated the 3rd
24 of March, 1995, prepared by Mihajlo Pavlovic. Do you know that man?
25 A. Yes, I know him.
Page 8647
1 Q. Do you happen to know his ethnic background?
2 A. Mihajlo is a Serb.
3 MR. GAYNOR: No further questions, Mr. President.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I address you briefly with a
5 question or short explanation? Namely, I do not attach any importance to
6 ethnic background of any expert or government officials, but it was
7 Mr. Gaynor who introduced this topic from Day 1.
8 JUDGE KWON: Your intervention is not helpful, Mr. Karadzic.
9 Judge Lattanzi has a question for you, Mr. Miokovic.
10 Questioned by the Court:
11 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, I need some
12 clarification from you regarding your relationship with the UNPROFOR.
13 This morning, during cross-examination, it appeared, regarding a
14 specific incident, I think the one in Livanjska Ulica, but I'm not just
15 referring to that incident because you presented the question as being
16 general, you mentioned some misunderstanding or lack of understanding
17 with UNPROFOR, so when you were investigating during on-site
18 investigation. That's what you mentioned. I wanted to know whether
19 there was an agreement between the UN and the BiH Presidency or
20 Government as to the procedure to be followed during on-site
21 investigations with regard to UN personnel participation or even for
22 independent on-site investigation. So I was wondering whether you were
23 aware of such specific procedures. Thank you.
24 A. You're absolutely right, there were procedures, and now I'm
25 talking about the Security Services Centre of Sarajevo, of which I was a
Page 8648
1 member, in relation to UNPROFOR forces deployed in the Sarajevo canton.
2 Now, concerning investigations -- on-site investigations of this
3 and similar incidents, the police of the CSB of Sarajevo canton and its
4 investigating organs, by which I mean investigating judge, were
5 completely independent, professionally speaking. In professional terms
6 and in terms of legal provisions that were in force in Bosnia and
7 Herzegovina at the time, the position of UNPROFOR was not specified
8 precisely by any means. Let me be quite clear. Anything that was
9 determined during an on-site investigation is something that the local
10 investigating team takes responsibility for.
11 In view of the situation prevailing at the time, I'm just
12 limiting myself to the area of Sarajevo. The interest, if you wish, of
13 the Presidency and the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time
14 was to have everything relating to incidents of this nature be completely
15 transparent. So in the majority of cases and in principle, and the
16 investigations that I was personally involved in, certainly 90 per cent
17 of them were attended by representatives of UNPROFOR who, in most cases
18 when they were present, again in 90 per cent of such cases, practically
19 did nothing. They were just standing there and supervised, in a manner,
20 the operations that we carried out.
21 As much as I would like, I cannot remember a single on-site
22 investigation that I carried out of this type when UNPROFOR requested
23 that they carry out their separate investigation and that reconstruction
24 was requested.
25 So we had very clear-cut relationships with them. In practice,
Page 8649
1 there were instances, prior to the meeting mentioned by Dr. Karadzic,
2 that UNPROFOR, due to the fact that their technical capabilities, in
3 terms of the vehicles they had, and the possibility of their moving
4 through the town during shelling or some other safety hazard, would
5 arrive on the crime scene before us. I have no reason to doubt that,
6 vertically hierarchically, the UNPROFOR had their guide-lines and
7 instructions as to how to conduct themselves during on-site
8 investigations.
9 There were some instances when, I must say that, UNPROFOR
10 representatives did not conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
11 They would come before us to the site, I don't know why, and then they
12 would simply collect all the relevant evidence. For example, if we had a
13 shelling incident, they would take all the fragments of the explosive
14 device, which made it virtually impossible for us to carry out an on-site
15 investigation.
16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] To understand it properly, to
17 sum it up, the UNPROFOR was entitled to take part in on-site
18 investigation carried out by you, but they were not entitled to conduct
19 independent on-site investigations; is that right?
20 A. They had the right to conduct independent investigations. We
21 never wanted or did dispute that. However, according to the procedure
22 laid down by our law, that could not be considered a relevant part of the
23 investigation relating to a specific incident.
24 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
Page 8650
1 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Miokovic, that concludes your evidence. Thank
2 you for coming to -- thank you for your coming to The Hague to give it.
3 Now you are free to go.
4 Before we start again with the next witness, we'll have a short
5 break for 10 minutes, and we'll resume at quarter to 2:00 clock.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 --- Break taken at 1.36 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 1.48 p.m.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 JUDGE KWON: Good afternoon, Mr. Brennskag.
11 If you could take the solemn declaration, please.
12 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
13 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
14 WITNESS: PER ANTON BRENNSKAG
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Please be seated.
16 Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Examination by Ms. Sutherland:
19 Q. Witness, could you please state your full name.
20 A. Per Anton Brennskag.
21 Q. You gave statements to the Office of the Prosecutor of this
22 Tribunal in May 1996 and October 2006; is that right?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. You testified here on two previous occasions, and that was in the
25 trials of Dragomir Milosevic and -- in March 2007 and in Momcilo Perisic
Page 8651
1 in February 2009; is that correct?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. On Tuesday, the 26th of October, you had an opportunity to review
4 and sign an amalgamated statement which contains relevant parts from your
5 earlier statements, testimony, and information provided to the OTP. Do
6 you recall that?
7 A. Yes.
8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could I ask for 65 ter 90195, please.
9 Q. Mr. Brennskag, on the screen in front of you, do you recognise
10 that which bears your signature, an electronic copy of the first page of
11 your amalgamated statement which you indicated you had an opportunity to
12 review?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Does that statement accurately reflect your previous statements
15 and testimony, or, in fact, those portions of the previous statements and
16 testimonies which have been put into this statement?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. If you were examined in court today on the same subjects, would
19 you provide the same information to the Court in response to those
20 questions?
21 A. Yes.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: I tender for admission 65 ter 90195, the
23 amalgamated statement.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
25 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, I simply note the objection to some
Page 8652
1 unscheduled incidents which are contained in paragraphs -- the beginning
2 of paragraph 39 and also paragraph 50. You've already ruled on that, in
3 principle, and I don't have anything to add.
4 JUDGE KWON: I'm wondering whether you have to repeat every time.
5 MR. ROBINSON: Perhaps if it could be understood that we have a
6 continuing objection to unscheduled incidents, I won't do that anymore.
7 JUDGE KWON: That will be more convenient. Thank you for your
8 understanding, Mr. Robinson.
9 Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND: The exhibit number, please.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that will be Exhibit P1851.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: With the Court's permission, I'll read a short
13 summary of the evidence contained in the amalgamated statement.
14 Mr. Brennskag, a retired lieutenant-colonel from the Royal
15 Norwegian Army, was deployed with the United Nations in Bosnia and
16 Herzegovina on the 22nd of March, 1995, as a military observer in Sector
17 Sarajevo. At that time, he held the rank of major.
18 The witness was stationed in Pale until 24 May 1995. He was part
19 of the military observer team responsible for monitoring weapons stores
20 and weapons collection points.
21 On the 2nd of June, 1995, the witness was posted to the side of
22 Sector Sarajevo held by the Bosnian government. The witness confirmed
23 that he was in Team Pofalici, based in the north of Sarajevo. A number
24 of locations could be observed from the team's observation post. The
25 team had a clear sight of the territory west of Sarajevo.
Page 8653
1 In June 1995, it was very hectic. The witness observed up to 150
2 impacts incoming into Sarajevo during a 24-hour period.
3 The witness confirms a situation report concerning an explosion
4 in the area of Dobrinja on 18 June 1995, where the fire originated from
5 the VRS side.
6 Mr. Brennskag describes the use of modified air-bombs by the VRS.
7 During his service in Sarajevo, he observed a number of modified aircraft
8 bombs being fired from VRS positions which landed in the area of
9 Alipasino Polje and to the east of that area. The witness investigated
10 two incidents involving modified aircraft bombs, one on the 22nd of June,
11 1995, in Alipasino Polje, the other on the 1st of July, 1995.
12 The witness also describes the shelling of the TV building and
13 the PTT building in Sarajevo on the 28th of June, 1995. The damage to
14 the TV building was caused by a modified aircraft bomb. He witnessed the
15 bomb being launched from an area held by the VRS.
16 That concludes the brief summary, Your Honour.
17 Q. Mr. Brennskag, in paragraphs 7 to 16 of Exhibit P1851, which is
18 your amalgamated statement now in evidence, you describe your posting in
19 Sector Sarajevo with the Pale observer team.
20 In paragraph 10, you state that part of your duties was to
21 inspect two weapons collection points, one situated in Bljustavac,
22 commonly known as Mokro barracks, and the other in Kresevo.
23 Were these collection points the only places of inspection by the
24 UNMO team that you were part of?
25 A. This was the two weapon collection points, yes.
Page 8654
1 Q. Were those two collection points the only places where weapons
2 were inspected by the UNMO team?
3 A. No. There were some weapons in positions that were not in the
4 collection points.
5 Q. Whereabouts were these situated, these places?
6 A. Those I inspected were nearby Resa [phoen] and on the other side
7 of a canyon called Gradiste.
8 Q. Who controlled the territory where the collection points were and
9 these other areas that you have just mentioned?
10 A. This was on BSA side.
11 Q. And what do you refer "BSA" to mean?
12 A. Bosnian Serb Army.
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: Mr. Registrar, I call for 65 ter 23024.
14 Q. Mr. Brennskag, do you recognise what is on the screen in front of
15 you?
16 A. Yes. This is a copy of my map which I used in 1995.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could we zoom in to the area just east of
18 Sarajevo.
19 Q. What do -- the markings that we can see there in the area of Resa
20 [phoen] and Gradiste, what do those markings depict?
21 A. Those are my markings on my map where each single weapon outside
22 the weapon collection point were situated.
23 Q. Do you recall now what the letters and numbers signify?
24 A. No, I'm sorry, I can't remember.
25 Q. But you said that each of the markings and each of the -- if we
Page 8655
1 could zoom in again further.
2 But you're saying that each of the dots on that map signifies
3 where a single weapon was outside the collection point?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. To what area were these weapons directed to?
6 A. Towards the eastern part of Sarajevo.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: I seek to tender this map, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1852, Your Honours.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND:
11 Q. Mr. Brennskag, I wish to focus now on your posting in Sector
12 Sarajevo on the territory held by the Bosnian Government. This is
13 contained in paragraphs 17 to 57 of your statement.
14 In paragraphs 17 to 18, you describe that you were posted to an
15 observation team called "Team Pofalici," which had its observation post
16 in a hill north of the city. Where, exactly, was the OP located?
17 A. This OP was located on the hills, on the place called Vitkovac.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: Mr. Registrar, can I have 65 ter 23025.
19 Q. Do you recognise what is shown on the screen in front of you?
20 A. Yes. It's a map of a part of Sarajevo. And in 2006, I marked
21 the OP, the observation post, with the triangle you can see on the map.
22 Q. That triangle is in blue, just above the word "Vitkovac"; is that
23 correct?
24 A. That is correct.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I seek to tender that document.
Page 8656
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1853, Your Honours.
3 MS. SUTHERLAND:
4 Q. In paragraph 36 of your statement, you said that you saw the
5 first modified air-bomb, during your time as an observer in the Pofalici
6 team, around the middle of June 1995. From what location did you observe
7 this from?
8 A. It could be from the OP, and it could be also from other places
9 where I were working in Sarajevo.
10 Q. How many modified air-bombs did you observe during your time as
11 an UNMO?
12 A. Around four or five, six.
13 Q. What direction did the modified air-bombs come from?
14 A. Apart from the bomb I investigated at the 2nd of June -- of July,
15 mostly, as I remember, from the west.
16 Q. Do you know the name of the area where the -- that you're
17 referring to as being west?
18 A. Yes. It's the area which we called "Ilidza area."
19 Q. Who controlled this position at that time?
20 A. At that time, it was a BSA area.
21 Q. How did you know that they were modified air-bombs?
22 A. I didn't at first know that it was modified air-bombs. But as I
23 got to know and when I was observing, and when I was investigating the
24 impacts, I learned now that this was modified air-bombs.
25 Q. Was there any -- anything that you could notice as this
Page 8657
1 projectile was in the air?
2 A. Yes. They had, in a part of their flight, a smoke tail from a
3 rocket.
4 Q. You also said that you got to know that they were air-bombs when
5 you were investigating the impacts. How were you able to determine that
6 they were, in fact, modified air-bombs?
7 A. You saw the rest of the rocket when we investigated the impact.
8 Q. And, in particular, what do you mean when you -- can you describe
9 what you mean by "the rest of the rocket"?
10 A. It was mounted on the shrapnel or the rest of the bomb.
11 Q. And how was that different to the other sorts of shells?
12 A. Artillery or mortar don't have any rocket rests on their -- that
13 you can find when it has exploded.
14 Q. In paragraph 52 of your statement, you describe witnessing the TV
15 building in Sarajevo being hit by a modified air-bomb. Where were you at
16 the time that you witnessed this event?
17 A. This morning, I was on my job at the observation post at
18 Vitkovac.
19 Q. What direction did the modified air-bomb come from?
20 A. The direction of the -- where it come from, from Ilidza area.
21 Q. And, again, at this time on the 28th of June, 1995, who was
22 controlling this position at Ilidza?
23 A. It was still BSA.
24 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour. That concludes my
25 examination.
Page 8658
1 I seek to tender into evidence the associated exhibits listed in
2 Appendix A and Confidential Appendix B to the Rule 92 ter notification.
3 And I have a correction to make to the Rule 92 ter filing, and I
4 apologise for this. It was -- there's a typographical error in
5 paragraph 2 of the notification in a sentence. A change was made in
6 paragraph 48 by the deletion of a reference number, 65 ter 14919, in
7 fact, should read "14939." And that is also in paragraph 3(b). In
8 relation to Confidential -- sorry, in relation to Appendix A; the first
9 associated exhibit has the 65 ter number 10002, and that's the witness's
10 statement from May 1996. I don't seek to tender the statement, but I
11 wish to tender the three -- in the comments column, it says "Two maps
12 attached," but, in fact, there's two maps and a diagram. The first map,
13 ERN -- sorry, the first diagram, ERN 0039-1399 is referred to in
14 paragraph 54 of the witness's statement, and that -- Mr. Reid has given
15 these three documents new 65 ter numbers so that they are single exhibits
16 and not attached to the witness statement, because we don't want the
17 witness statement into evidence. So that 65 ter number is 23026.
18 Then there is a map with an ERN number 0039-1400 that's referred
19 to in paragraph 49 of the amalgamated statement. That is 65 ter 23023.
20 The second map, which is the one that we just looked at, that is
21 now Exhibit P15 -- 1852.
22 The second 65 ter number is -- in the column is 10143, and again
23 that's the witness's October 2006 statement. I don't seek to tender the
24 statement, but I wish to tender the map which is attached. And this was
25 an oversight in not listing that in the comments column. The map has an
Page 8659
1 ERN of 0604-9663. It's referred to in paragraph 18 of the witness's
2 statement, and the 65 ter number is 23025.
3 JUDGE KWON: Which we have admitted now a minute ago. We
4 admitted --
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour, yes, and that is --
6 JUDGE KWON: P1853.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: 1853, yes, you're correct.
8 Then the next in line is the transcripts of the witness's
9 evidence in Milosevic and Perisic. We don't seek to tender. Neither do
10 we seek to tender associated Exhibit 14731. But we do seek to tender the
11 remaining exhibits listed there. One already has been admitted. That is
12 P1528.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, thank you. Why --
14 MS. SUTHERLAND: In relation --
15 JUDGE KWON: Why under seal, the last item?
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: Simply, as I've explained with previous
17 witnesses, where it's been an under-seal exhibit in another case, I've
18 put it in the confidential appendix for this purpose, but that exhibit
19 can be tendered publicly in this trial.
20 JUDGE KWON: Any objection, Mr. Robinson?
21 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President.
22 With respect to that last document, 09814, the amalgamated --
23 first of all, it's a 33-page police report about this incident, and the
24 amalgamated statement simply says that this document confirms the
25 witness's presence at the scene of that incident. We don't think that
Page 8660
1 that's a sufficient basis to admit the entire report.
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
3 I -- at this stage, I would ask that two pages of that exhibit
4 be -- if two pages, 0090-5111 to 0090-5112, could be admitted from that
5 exhibit.
6 JUDGE KWON: Let me take a brief look at para 48.
7 I take it there's no opposition in that case.
8 MR. ROBINSON: That's correct.
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll admit them all.
10 To make clear -- again, to make it clear: His personal note is
11 not being tendered?
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
14 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Brennskag.
19 A. Good afternoon.
20 Q. Before I begin, I would like to express my gratitude for meeting
21 with the Defence team, and I hope that the cross-examination will go
22 smoothly because of that.
23 Are you able to tell me, with these three observation points at
24 the Muslim side, how many observation points did you have on the Serbian
25 side in Sarajevo?
Page 8661
1 A. I'm not sure what you mean. I was working on one observation
2 post inside Sarajevo. At my time on the Bosnian Serb side, I had no
3 fixed observation post.
4 Q. Thank you. If I were to tell you that, on the Serbian side, you
5 always had from 11 to 13 observation posts, or four to five times more
6 than in the Muslim side, would that correspond to what you know about
7 this?
8 A. I am not able to remember how many observation posts
9 Sector Sarajevo had.
10 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that the UN Military Observer teams,
11 and their staff in their headquarters in Sarajevo, received reports and
12 reported back every day orally and in writing?
13 Mr. Brennskag, did you receive a translation?
14 A. Oh, yes. I'm just reading it.
15 Normally, our UN observer military HQ in Sarajevo got -- received
16 reports every day from their teams.
17 Q. Thank you. May I ask you, what was your mandate, exactly? What
18 was it that you were observing and what were you reporting on?
19 A. As military observer, my mandate was to inspect weapon collection
20 points, or let me say that the Total Exclusion Zone of 20 K around
21 Sarajevo was in order, and the next mandate for the observer team was the
22 anti-sniper deal inside Sarajevo. Then we also had a mandate to
23 investigate impacts of heavy weapon on both side of the confrontation
24 line.
25 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me, Mr. President.
Page 8662
1 If I could just make a suggestion, and I realise the witness is
2 not speaking in his native language, but I think he's distracted by the
3 monitor when he's giving his answers. And it might be easier for him if
4 he gives the answer without following the reading, because he seems to be
5 doing that, and it's making the -- making the testimony somehow not very
6 smooth.
7 JUDGE KWON: Without having the benefit of interpretation, I can
8 understand that. But do we have difficulty in following him?
9 MR. ROBINSON: Not difficulty in following him, but the evidence
10 is very slow, and it may affect the time that Dr. Karadzic has for his
11 cross-examination.
12 JUDGE KWON: We'll bear that in mind, Mr. Robinson.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 Q. And did you conduct these investigations that you mentioned in
15 your previous answer?
16 A. I conducted investigations of impacts at my time as an observer
17 inside Sarajevo.
18 Q. What was the objective of those investigations? What did they
19 encompass?
20 A. My job was to investigate the impacts that was told me from my
21 UNMO HQ in Sarajevo, and the objective of those investigations is my -- I
22 can't understand, sorry. The objectives of those investigations is the
23 UNMO HQ to tell.
24 Q. Thank you. And was the objective to establish the type of
25 weapons, or the projectiles, and elements which would, without doubt,
Page 8663
1 prove which side had fired the shot?
2 A. When we investigated an impact, it was always to find what kind
3 of weapon was fired, the direction from where the firing were coming,
4 and, in case it was possible, to find the point of firing. And, of
5 course, if we were able to do it, it was to find what happened around the
6 impact; injuries or so on.
7 Q. Thank you. And were these investigations, in the criminal legal
8 sense, investigations which would establish without doubt the
9 perpetrators and the consequences?
10 A. We delivered our investigation report as a part of a whole
11 investigation of an impact, and it was the UNMO HQ and UNPROFOR to decide
12 exactly what was happening.
13 Q. So you established the direction from which a projectile came.
14 Did you also establish the distance from which it came, or did you try to
15 calculate the position -- the location from where the projectile was
16 fired? To be more precise: In how many cases was it possible to
17 determine the distance?
18 A. At your last question, I don't remember. At your first question,
19 it was not always possible to find from -- the firing point.
20 Q. Thank you. Did you make some sort of selection about the events
21 that you were reporting on or did you report everything that was
22 happening?
23 A. When I was on the observation post, we reported what we were able
24 to detect as impacts, and we always had to be two observers to agree,
25 what we saw or heard, before we reported it.
Page 8664
1 Q. Thank you. And how unimportant did an event have to be that it
2 would not be included in your report?
3 A. I have to answer that I can't remember.
4 Q. If I may help you. Can we consider it that what you reported on
5 was important and what you did not report on was not important?
6 A. Everything we reported were, for us, important.
7 Q. But what you didn't report on you considered unimportant; is that
8 right?
9 A. No, it's not correct.
10 Q. So there were some important things that you didn't report about;
11 is that correct?
12 A. I can confirm that there were some evidence we didn't report, but
13 they were not -- that was not why, they were not important.
14 Q. What were the reasons, then?
15 A. At times, it was very, very busy, and two observers were not able
16 to report everything that happened.
17 Q. Thank you. Can you just briefly tell us: What were the
18 restrictions or limitations you had in your work? Now I'm speaking about
19 your work in Sarajevo, in the Muslim part of Sarajevo.
20 A. Normally, we should have freedom of movement as observers. This
21 is not -- this was not true. Inside Sarajevo, the ABiH put restrictions
22 on our movements; where to go, when to go there, yes.
23 Q. Thank you. Did that prevent you from getting an insight into
24 certain events of which you wanted to report?
25 A. Yes, of course, because we were not allowed to go close to the
Page 8665
1 confrontation line, as they said to us, for our own safety.
2 Q. Thank you. Is it true that you heard that among the UN troops,
3 there had been rumours about Muslims shooting at their own civilians?
4 A. It may happen that I heard those rumours, but I can't remember
5 exactly.
6 Q. Do you agree with me that you saw the BiH Army opening fire from
7 Sarajevo? Most usually, the fire was mortar fire; is that correct?
8 A. I saw and heard BiH Army firing mortars from BiH side, yes.
9 Q. Thank you. Since you were on that side, you couldn't see where
10 the shells fell in the Serbian part of Sarajevo? It was not customary
11 for monitors from one side to cross over to the other side; right?
12 A. From my --
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: Sorry. Compound question.
14 JUDGE KWON: There are two questions.
15 Can you answer the question, Mr. Brennskag?
16 THE WITNESS: I answered the question: From my side inside
17 Sarajevo, I could not see the impacts of those mortars firing from inside
18 Sarajevo.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 Q. And the second question was this: Was it customary for monitors
21 to cross from one side to the other side across the confrontation line or
22 did they actually stick to their original side?
23 A. I entered Sarajevo -- inside Sarajevo, on the BiH side, at the
24 2nd of June, and at that time, sector UN observers -- Sector Sarajevo did
25 not have any observers on BSA side, and we, inside Sarajevo, were not
Page 8666
1 allowed to go across the line and inspect on BSA side.
2 Q. Thank you. What were your observation posts known as? What were
3 they called?
4 A. I can only remember exactly my own observation post, and this was
5 on the hills of Vitkovac. And as far as I remember, it was called
6 Sierra Victor 2.
7 Q. Thank you. Is it also correct that you observed that the Muslim
8 side had opened mobile mortar fire, and after that, the mobile mortars
9 were moved to a different position?
10 A. I didn't observe that the firing from mortars were mobile, but we
11 knew that they -- after the firing, they moved the weapons.
12 Q. Thank you. Do you agree with me that you were aware -- that you
13 had either seen, yourself, or learned from others that the Muslim forces
14 deployed their mortars close to your positions; for example, close to the
15 PTT building and so on and so forth?
16 A. We knew that the BiH -- ABiH had mortars in a junkyard downhill
17 from our OP, but I was never able to spot the mortars visually.
18 Q. Thank you. Did you establish that the Bosnian Army, as you call
19 it, set up its military positions in the civilian zones, which, according
20 to you, they should not have done?
21 A. I'm not sure of the word you mean, "establish."
22 Q. Did you see them do that? Were you sure that they were doing
23 something that they were not supposed to do, that they should not have
24 done?
25 A. I did not see any weapon positions, as I earlier said, inside
Page 8667
1 Sarajevo. We knew they had weapons; for example, what I said about the
2 mortars in the junkyard. And, also, if they had weapon positions close
3 or inside civilian area, where civilian people are living, they shouldn't
4 do that.
5 Q. Thank you. Allow me to quote a sentence from your statement
6 provided on the 26th of October, 2006. On page 4:
7 [In English] "I did see the Bosnians establish military position
8 within civilian areas, which is something they should not have done."
9 [Interpretation] Is this your sentence, a sentence from your
10 statement?
11 A. Yes. I said first that I didn't see any weapon positions. I
12 know -- and I visited military offices inside Sarajevo, close to where
13 people were living.
14 Q. Thank you. You also stated that, judging by the fire, you could
15 establish that the fire had been opened from 80-millimetre mortars, and
16 those were the mortars that were deployed within the city of Sarajevo?
17 A. I know that they were firing from that junkyard, as I have stated
18 before.
19 Q. You also stated, did you not, in the Dragomir Milosevic case, on
20 the 8th of March, 2007, on page 3492:
21 [In English] "Several times I saw soldiers in the uniform of the
22 BH-held side of Sarajevo"?
23 A. Yes, there were a lot of soldiers in uniform, or uniformed
24 people, inside Sarajevo.
25 Q. Thank you. You also saw, close to your observation post, a 55
Page 8668
1 tank belonging to the BiH Army; right?
2 A. Yes, I saw this every time I went to my OP on Vitkovac.
3 Q. Thank you. You also realise that Alipasino Polje and the
4 "Oslobodjenje" building were close to the PTT building, and that trenches
5 and a front-line were in front of the two of them; right?
6 A. No, I didn't see any trenches in the place where I call
7 Alipasino Polje.
8 Q. And do you know where the "Oslobodjenje" building was? And if
9 you do, could you tell us whether that building was on the front-line,
10 itself?
11 A. I can't remember where the "Oslobodjenje" building was.
12 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that the 1st Corps of the BiH Army was
13 deployed in the Muslim part of Sarajevo?
14 A. I can't remember.
15 Q. If you didn't know the name of that strategic unit, did you at
16 least know the names -- the deployment of brigades in Sarajevo? I'm
17 talking about Muslim brigades in the Muslim part of Sarajevo.
18 A. I can't remember the deployment of the brigades inside Sarajevo.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 Could the Court please produce 65 ter document 14731.
21 I would like to jog your memory of the things that you once
22 noted.
23 Can this be blown up. I don't think that there is a translation.
24 Or, rather, there is. Can we have the English and the Norwegian page.
25 We don't need the translation in Serbian. Instead of Serbian, if
Page 8669
1 available, can we see the Norwegian version.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Are these your notes, sir?
4 A. Yes, it's my personal notes.
5 Q. Thank you. In the third paragraph after the date, it says:
6 [In English] "All that I have left from that time is a loose
7 collection of personal notes."
8 [Interpretation] Can you tell us where these notes are, and would
9 it be possible to use them?
10 A. These notes were made for me, I think, around 2001, and they were
11 at that time meant just for me. Some of the comments are what I had
12 observed and seen, some of the comments are just my own thoughts, and
13 some of the comments are second-hand information collected after the war.
14 Q. Thank you. You stated at one point that the two of us had never
15 met; is that correct?
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. Thank you. Do you agree with me that now I have the right to be
18 shocked, when I read the fifth paragraph in your notes, where it says:
19 "I also write this article with a sense of shock that neither
20 Radovan Karadzic nor Ratko Mladic have been arrested ..."
21 And so on and so on.
22 [Interpretation] Why were you in a state of shock, given the fact
23 that the two of us do not have any sort of history together?
24 A. As I said, this is my personal notes, and it was meant for me.
25 And you have the right to react as you want.
Page 8670
1 Q. Thank you. Is your shock now over, and can I take it that your
2 testimony here today has been and will continue to be impartial?
3 A. I don't know any answer to that question. Could you please be
4 more correct?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 Can we now go to page 16.
7 I am still confident that your state of shock that you once felt
8 will pass in the course of this testimony.
9 It's the previous page in English -- or, rather, in Norwegian.
10 The section that I'm interested in is on the previous page.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Can I draw your attention to the last paragraph in English, and I
13 believe that you will find the case to be the same in Norwegian. You
14 were talking about military units within Sarajevo in the summer of 1995.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And then you say that BiH liaison officers at the headquarters
17 for UN Sector Sarajevo were Captain Edvo and Captain Nermin, and then you
18 say that the Command of the 1st Corps was close to the October Square; is
19 that correct?
20 A. Yes. It's the office, yes.
21 Q. Thank you. Does it arise from all that that you knew that the
22 1st Corps consisted of the 12th Division, the 14th Division, and the 16th
23 Division, and that the 12th Division was deployed in the city of
24 Sarajevo, itself?
25 A. I can't say the accuracy of this note. This was my personal
Page 8671
1 notes, what I had managed to obtain. And what is correct of it, I can't
2 say today.
3 Q. Very well, but these are your notes. You either checked all that
4 or you believed somebody's words.
5 Do you know that the 12th Division consisted of brigades and that
6 they were deployed in the Muslim part of Sarajevo?
7 A. It's two questions. I try to ask -- to answer the first
8 question, if I had checked all that or you believed somebody's words. I
9 noted this, what I heard, for myself.
10 As to the second question, do you know that the 12th Division
11 consisted of brigades and that they were deployed in the Muslim part of
12 Sarajevo, I didn't exactly know.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 Can we go to the following pages, both in English and Norwegian.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. To console you, sir, I can tell you that your notes are
17 absolutely correct. Does it say here that the Staff of the 111th Brigade
18 was in the city and that the Staff of the 112th Brigade was close to the
19 Dolac Railway Station, and then the 115th Brigade had its headquarters in
20 Stari Grad, and the 152nd Brigade headquarters was in the old part of the
21 town of Kovaci, and then the 155th Brigade had its headquarters at
22 Dobrinja? Is all that correct?
23 A. I said I'm not sure if my notes are correct. But if you say it's
24 correct, maybe I have got my notes correct. But this was what I heard in
25 meetings or from others. I did not exactly check where those
Page 8672
1 positions -- where they were.
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
3 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I was going to rise a moment ago to
4 say: Can the accused be told to refrain from making comments and put
5 questions?
6 JUDGE KWON: Let's move on, Mr. Karadzic.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 Q. Do you see that the Slavne Olovska Brigade was headquartered near
9 Buco Potok and that Buco Potok was very close to Vitkovac, where your OP
10 was?
11 A. I don't know where this position is.
12 Q. Very well. When we look at the map, then we will establish it.
13 Does it not say here that the Tvrtko Brigade had its headquarters in
14 Cengic Vila, and the Staff of the 1st Mechanised Brigade was near Hrasno,
15 and of the 102nd Mechanised Brigade, its headquarters was close to Dolac,
16 and outside of Sarajevo, at Igman, was the 82nd Mountain Brigade, in
17 Hrasnicki Stan, Hrasnica, 181st Brigade, and in Hrasnica itself the 104th
18 Brigade; is that correct? Did you not write that in your notes
19 about the deployment in Sarajevo?
20 A. I don't have a map here. I noted what's stated in my personal
21 notes, but I don't know where the positions are.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 Can we -- can I just read just one sentence of Article 31 of your
24 statement:
25 [In English] "It was a very hectic time. There could be up to
Page 8673
1 150 impacts incoming into Sarajevo during a 24-hour period."
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Do you know that in June, a large Muslim offensive began to
4 unblock Sarajevo, as they called it?
5 A. No.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Can we look at page 10, and that will be the last thing for
8 today. Page 10 of this same document, please. Page 10 --
9 JUDGE KWON: We'll adjourn for today. We'll continue next week.
10 I was told that --
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] One --
12 JUDGE KWON: -- we need to adjourn right now.
13 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
14 JUDGE KWON: I misunderstood the situation.
15 It is my understanding that you have to leave by 4.30 on Monday.
16 THE WITNESS: I've already told that I had to leave Monday, not
17 the time.
18 JUDGE KWON: I think that's arranged by the -- is there any
19 reason why we should not sit in the morning on Monday, then?
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE KWON: No, there is a reason for that for Monday. We are
22 supposed to have a videolink testimony, which should be conducted in the
23 afternoon, because the morning session should be used by another Chamber
24 which uses the same videolink.
25 I think you will have about less than two hours on Monday, and --
Page 8674
1 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
2 JUDGE KWON: It was suggested to us by the Court Deputy to sit in
3 the morning, to conclude the evidence of this witness in the morning, and
4 then we continue with videolink in the afternoon, if that is agreeable to
5 the parties.
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I say what I think. May I say
9 what I think.
10 Namely, Mr. Brennskag speaks Norwegian. He doesn't speak Serbian
11 or English. On the other hand, the Prosecution has no restrictions in
12 relation to written materials that they can introduce through this
13 witness. So I believe that the time that -- that the time allocated to
14 me, in view of the mother tongue of Mr. Brennskag and the slow manner in
15 which he's responding, is overly restrictive, and I would kindly like to
16 have this matter reviewed once more.
17 I understood that Mr. Brennskag did not have to leave, but that
18 somebody else told him that he had to leave on Monday.
19 JUDGE KWON: It is the VWS that arranged the travel arrangement
20 for him.
21 And I don't agree with your observation that he does not speak
22 English. His English is just perfect. I don't see any problem.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With all due respect, Brennskag,
25 himself -- Mr. Brennskag, himself, has said that he needs to read it. I
Page 8675
1 understand that he understands English, but he also needs to read it, and
2 this is taking up a lot of our time. So if it may be permitted, that
3 I can remind Mr. Brennskag of what we have here. BH starts an
4 offensive --
5 [In English] "The offensive gradually peters up to the BS
6 intensifies its bombardment of Sarajevo and other so-called safe areas."
7 [Interpretation] Therefore, you were aware of the --
8 JUDGE KWON: No, we'll --
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- the offensive.
10 JUDGE KWON: We'll continue on Monday.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: I was just going to say that Your Honour had
14 already decided that we would not continue further for today.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we will adjourn today, but there are a couple
16 of other matters.
17 If it is agreeable to the parties and staff, we will resume on
18 Monday at 9.00, and the conclusion of which we'll resume to hear the next
19 witness through videolink at 2.15. Monday may be a long day for all of
20 us.
21 And in relation to - is it the 26th motion? I didn't count -
22 which requested for an adjournment or suspension, we've received the
23 response from the Prosecution. Whatever the decision we may make, it is
24 our opinion that immediate [indiscernible] is not warranted, so we'll
25 continue next week, and we'll try to issue our decision as soon as
Page 8676
1 possible.
2 Mr. Brennskag, we'll adjourn for today and resume tomorrow
3 morning -- yes, Monday morning, and please be reminded that you are not
4 supposed to discuss your testimony with anybody else.
5 Please have a nice weekend.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.09 p.m.,
8 to be reconvened on Monday, the 1st day of
9 November, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25