Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 8966

 1                           Thursday, 4 November 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Good morning, everyone.  Good morning, Mr. Karadzic.

 7     Good morning, Mr. Witness.

 8             Mr. Karadzic, you will have 40 minutes to conclude your

 9     cross-examination.

10             THE ACCUSED:  Thank you, Excellency.

11                           WITNESS:  KDZ485 [Resumed]

12                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

13             THE ACCUSED:  Do I start?

14             JUDGE KWON:  Please.

15                           Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic: [Continued]

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Good morning, everyone.  Good morning, Witness.

18        A.   Good morning.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In order to lose as little time as

20     possible, can we have 65 ter 09784, page 2.  I just wanted to complete

21     this incident in Safeta Hadzica.

22             May I ask you -- may I ask all the parties, towards the tracks,

23     regarding the tracks, it's underneath these elements:

24             "According to the marks, it was established that all the

25     projectiles from an unidentified weapon to date were fired from the west,

Page 8967

 1     which corresponds to the aggressor positions of the rebel Bosnian Serbs

 2     in the Ilidza area."

 3             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].

 4        Q.   With all due respect, you're saying that you don't know what was

 5     the weapon the projectiles were fired from, which, by the way, don't

 6     exist, armoured projectiles.  The only thing that is established is that

 7     they were fired from Serbian positions.  Can you explain that?

 8        A.   I don't see -- it's true that at that point in time, I didn't

 9     know the weapon from which they were fired.  It does not say in the

10     report that it was fired definitely from those positions, but it says

11     that they were fired from the direction of the west.  The projectile

12     exists.  It was photographed, and I assume that the photograph of the

13     projectile is part of the photo documentation.  It's a projectile that I

14     saw with my own eyes, and I copied from it -- or recorded the markings on

15     it in my report.

16        Q.   Thank you.  We must intervene for the transcript.  A part of the

17     witness's answer stating it was not decisively established was not

18     recorded.

19             Did you say that it was not decisively recorded?

20        A.   I said that it was not written in the record that it was

21     decisively fired from that direction, but there is a description that

22     that direction corresponds to the position of the aggressor forces.

23        Q.   Thank you.  What about that stretch of space between the location

24     of the incident and the position of the aggressor forces; was there any

25     soldier -- were there any soldiers there?  There is a territory there

Page 8968

 1     that is controlled by the Bosnia-Herzegovina Army, and then at the end of

 2     that, there is no-man's land, and then there is the Serbian line there

 3     and then the Serbian territory; is that correct?

 4        A.   I assume that there were lines there held by the Army of Bosnia

 5     and Herzegovina.  However, I don't know where those lines were and what

 6     their disposition were.  I don't know that.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 8             Can we now -- I think that this is the same number.  Just one

 9     moment.  Yes, yes.  Can we now get page 12.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Who inspected the material here, which expert was it?  Was it

12     Mr. Suljevic?

13        A.   I cannot see who examined the objects.  All I can see is the

14     signature of the person who I know.  I can see his first and last name.

15     I know that he was the chief of the department.  I don't know who did the

16     actual inspection.  Actually, this is a different organisational unit, so

17     I'm not sure who would have been responsible for that, anyway.

18        Q.   Yes, all right.  We will come to that.  Is it true that in this

19     report, we are talking about an impact projectile of 88 millimetres in

20     calibre?

21        A.   Yes, that's what it says here.  I don't know where the object was

22     found, but it does say that it's a contact fuse, high-explosive

23     projectile, of 88 millimetres in calibre.  I don't see from which event

24     that was.

25        Q.   But did you write that it was a 90-millimetre calibre projectile?

Page 8969

 1        A.   In my report, it does say "90-millimetre projectile," but I don't

 2     know whether this particular report refers to the same projectile that I

 3     saw.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the page before.

 5     Page 11, can we see.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Can you please look at this, this part here, the first page, and

 8     if you can tell us how things stand.  Does this refer to the

 9     Safeta Hadzica incident, this incident?

10        A.   Judging by the introduction, yes, it refers to that incident, the

11     shelling of Safeta Hadzica Street in Sarajevo.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Has this document been tendered?

13             JUDGE KWON:  I take it it has been.

14                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

15             JUDGE KWON:  It was admitted under seal, but we'll have a public

16     version very soon.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18        Q.   Witness, sir, I would now like to deal with the incident -- or,

19     rather, the shelling -- the incident related to the radio/television

20     building.  Did you take part in that investigation?

21        A.   Yes.  For a major part of it, yes.

22        Q.   And did you conclude that the television was hit with a modified

23     air-bomb?

24        A.   I would like to underline that I never concluded anything.  I was

25     just making a report about things that pertain to my part of the

Page 8970

 1     investigation, as some information was told to me.

 2        Q.   Are you familiar with the conclusion of the Military Observers of

 3     the United Nations?

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  But they were present during the on-scene

 6     investigation; is that correct?

 7        A.   Yes.  They arrived together with -- yes, they were present at the

 8     scene, and they were observing while the team was working.  They were

 9     there.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have 65 ter 9825, page 1,

11     please.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   This entire team, was it present on the scene, and did they all

14     take part in the investigation?

15        A.   As far as I recall, yes, the team came on the scene.  They did

16     carry out investigative actions in relation to this incident.  I don't

17     know whether all of them remained right until the end.  I can say, about

18     myself, that at one point I did leave the scene and go to another

19     investigation which occurred in the immediate vicinity.  A modified

20     air-bomb hit an apartment in a high-rise building.  I don't know whether

21     all the other crew members or team members stayed on the scene until the

22     investigation was completed.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Which incident are you talking about, the one that

24     you left for?  Is that the Cetinjska Street?  Which incident did you go

25     to from this particular incident?

Page 8971

 1        A.   This is a high-rise building at Alipasino Polje.  I don't know

 2     what the name of the street at the time was, but I will try to find it in

 3     my report.  It could have been Geteova Street or Cetinjska.

 4        Q.   All right.  Well, we'll leave that for now.

 5             Can we have page 2 of this document, please.

 6             This is your report; is that correct?

 7        A.   May I just look at the signature at the end?

 8        Q.   You have it in your papers.

 9        A.   Yes.  I'm trying to find it.

10             Yes, I do have that report in front of me.  The report was

11     written by my colleague.  I didn't sign it.  I don't know right now why I

12     didn't sign it then.  Probably because I went to the scene of this other

13     incident.  I really cannot remember now why that was.

14        Q.   But they typed your name, and he just initialled it, and you two

15     are mentioned as the persons who drafted the report.

16        A.   Yes.  I can completely stand by what is written in this report.

17        Q.   All right.  Does it not say in this paragraph that around 9.00,

18     between -- do you see that?

19        A.   I don't know which page you're talking about.

20        Q.   It's the first paragraph on page 2.

21        A.   Yes, I see that.

22        Q.   It says:

23             "Just in front of the entrance to the open area on the ground

24     floor, inflicting extensive material damage to the building ..."

25             And then in the second paragraph, it says in line 4:

Page 8972

 1             "... on the part where the western and the northern part of the

 2     building meet, next to the wall of studio C west is the center of the

 3     explosion."

 4             Is that what it says there?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Can you explain how this bomb managed to get right to the base of

 7     Studio C without hitting the upper sections of Studio C?

 8        A.   I cannot explain that.  I'm not that versed in that kind of

 9     thing, and I don't know.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have 09851.  That is the

11     page number.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Before that:  Have we admitted this one, 65 ter

13     9825?

14                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

15             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, it was admitted.  Yes, thank you.  It was a

16     part of your additional disclosure or the additional 65 ter numbers.

17             MR. HAYDEN:  It was indicated as an additional document.  We

18     didn't use it with the witness.  We're happy for it to be admitted now,

19     but I would note that this incident has been dropped from the --

20             JUDGE KWON:  It's a removed one?

21             MR. HAYDEN:  Yes.

22             JUDGE KWON:  But we thought that, since it was in the additional

23     notice, I thought it was one of the associated exhibits.  But it was not?

24             MR. HAYDEN:  No, no.

25             JUDGE KWON:  So the thing is that it hasn't been admitted yet.

Page 8973

 1             Do you like to tender it?

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.  Yes, because these

 3     answers need to be connected to that particular part.  This is in the

 4     statement.  The statement is part of the case file, and that is that

 5     spice to make the stew thicker.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Thanks for the clarification.

 7             We'll strike out that exhibit from the Prosecution's exhibit.

 8     Instead, we'll admit it as a Defence exhibit, under seal.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit D868, under seal, Your

10     Honours.

11             JUDGE KWON:  But I would like you to produce a public version

12     with proper redactions.  We'll give another number for a public version.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  And that will be Exhibit D869.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Is it possible that in this case, the round ricochetted?  How did

16     it leave the normal trajectory?  How did it end up outside any possible

17     trajectory?

18        A.   I don't know how many times I need to tell you:  I really don't

19     know, and I did not meddle in that.  With all the experts in that field

20     of work who were present on the scene, I did not need to get involved in

21     that, and I cannot explain things that I am not an expert for.

22        Q.   Yes, but that's in the report that you stand by.  Did anyone tell

23     you anything about the path of this projectile, out of the 11 people who

24     are on the list?

25        A.   In every report, not only on this incident, but in every report

Page 8974

 1     we made, there is some preliminary data that we received from experts and

 2     people who specialise in these things.  This report is no exception.  All

 3     this data needs to be viewed as preliminary, and all this data needs to

 4     be confirmed after expert examination and reports.  And in every report,

 5     you will see a preliminary indication from where the projectile came, but

 6     there is no conclusion that that was, indeed, so.  That's what experts

 7     are for.  That's why they come onto the scene.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we get 65 ter 09851, page 3.

 9     The lower photograph.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Is this part of the file, this file?

12        A.   According to the captions below the photographs, and from the

13     upper photograph, I recognise the radio/television building.  I suppose

14     it relates to this event.

15        Q.   Does it follow from this that the projectile ricochetted from

16     here and that possibility is not accounted for in your report?

17        A.   I don't know whether it was a possibility or not, whether it

18     ricochetted or not.  In the caption below the photograph, it says the

19     projectile ricochetted from there.  I don't know.  You have to ask the

20     experts who worked with us.

21        Q.   But this is part -- an integral part of the document.  Why was it

22     not said in the report --

23             JUDGE KWON:  To go on with such questions is a waste of time.  We

24     have heard already that the witness is not an expert so as to be able to

25     answer such questions.

Page 8975

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not asking the witness how it

 2     ricochetted, but why it's not in the report that he stands by and that he

 3     signed.  If he can't answer even that question, fine, but the question is

 4     why such a major fact is not mentioned in the report.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Was there any position taken on the azimuth --

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Can you answer the question --

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for the Presiding Judge.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Can you answer the question, Mr. Witness?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll try to repeat what I've

11     already said.

12             Regarding the direction of fire, this is the information we

13     received from the experts on the scene.  Now, why there is no other

14     comment about this than in the photo file, the photo file is done by a

15     completely different person who has the job title of scene-of-crime

16     officer.  This is his document, and I cannot comment on it.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I?

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Just answer one question.  Does that mean that nobody made you

20     aware of the fact that the entire team believed there was a ricochet?

21        A.   Nobody told me, and I don't know how important that would be at

22     that time on the scene.  Until all our opinions are confirmed by

23     expertise, we could have thought or commented whatever we liked, but

24     final conclusions are made through expertise and expert examination.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Regarding the direction from which

Page 8976

 1     the projectile was fired, let's look -- this is probably already an

 2     exhibit, isn't it?

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D526, Your Honours.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we go back to your report.

 5     That's 9825, page 3.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   You put in your report that it was a rocket projectile fired from

 8     the north-west azimuth, 288 degrees, which corresponds to the

 9     aggressor-held settlement Rajlovac.

10        A.   That's in the report.  And let me emphasise I did not write this

11     report.  I just stand behind it.  That's what's written in the report.

12        Q.   Was it completed and submitted on the 28th of June, 1995?

13        A.   I don't know when -- on what day my colleague submitted this

14     report.  That was his job.  I cannot recall and I don't know whether he

15     did it the same day or the next day.  I really have no idea.

16        Q.   Now, who from the team gave you this figure, 288 degrees?  Who

17     determined the azimuth?

18        A.   You're again asking me to recall such details after so much time.

19     Moreover, you can see in the report there were several people who deal

20     with these things; our experts from the police, mainly.  And you're

21     asking me to remember that now.  Even if I really wanted to, I couldn't.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Do you have any other topic to cover with this

23     witness, other than this one?

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Certainly.  I just have one more

25     question on this.

Page 8977

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Then I have to say that it is not a wise use of

 2     time, given that this incident is a removed one, removed from the

 3     indictment, and the Prosecution didn't lead any evidence in relation to

 4     this in relation to this witness.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But it's in the statement, in his

 6     statement, together with other statements, and it makes the statement

 7     more dangerous to the Defence.

 8             MR. HAYDEN:  That's incorrect, it's not in the statement.  It's

 9     recorded in the statement that he attended this investigation, but --

10             JUDGE KWON:  That's all.

11             MR. HAYDEN:  -- that's all.  And it was only by way of context,

12     because he investigated another incident that day, as recorded in the

13     statement.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Move on, Mr. Karadzic.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Then we'll move on to

16     the next incident.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Can you confirm that you participated in the investigation of the

19     incident in Geteova Street, number 5, which used to be called

20     Cetinjska Street?

21        A.   Yes.  If it's about the high-rise and the modified air-bomb, I

22     can find it.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we get 65 ter 9828.  19828,

24     without broadcasting, or 1D9828.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 8978

 1        Q.   Is it for this incident that you left the incident related to the

 2     television building?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   You say that the crime scene was not secured, but it had not been

 5     altered.  Based on what did you conclude that?

 6        A.   Yes, I, indeed, did write that the crime scene was not secured,

 7     but it wasn't altered, compared to the reported incident, because there

 8     was nothing to alter.  It wasn't possible to alter anything from the

 9     moment when we were told of the incident and the moment we arrived,

10     because we came so quickly, and the crime scene was such that it couldn't

11     be altered in any major way.

12        Q.   Did you state that on the eighth floor, a projectile of great

13     destructive power exploded, where it impacted, and the chambers of three

14     rocket motors were found and submitted for expertise?

15        A.   Yes, it's in the report.

16        Q.   Can you look at the last paragraph but one:

17             "Based on the situation as found and the traces found after the

18     impact of the projectile, it was determined that it was fired from the

19     direction south-south-west, azimuth" such and such, "which corresponds to

20     positions in the area of Ilidza."

21             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Hayden, can I get your assistance once again.

22             As to the status of this incident, this is not included in the

23     indictment, and you didn't lead any evidence in relation to this as an

24     unscheduled incident; is that correct?

25             MR. HAYDEN:  No, that's not correct, Your Honour.  This does

Page 8979

 1     appear in the witness's statement at paragraph 22 and 23, and one of the

 2     associated exhibits, which is on the screen before us, was admitted

 3     through this witness.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  So this has been admitted, this report?

 5             MR. HAYDEN:  This report is an associated exhibit, yes.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  I don't think this was one of the associated

 7     exhibits tendered.

 8             MR. HAYDEN:  Sir, I think the one we see on our screen is a

 9     duplicate of the associated exhibit, which is 65 ter 14397.

10             JUDGE KWON:  14 -- there was the origin of my mistake.

11             Please proceed.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13        Q.   Why do you have such a big error margin here, 25 degrees?

14        A.   I don't know.

15        Q.   Is the conclusion here again that it came from Serbian aggressor

16     positions or that it's in that direction?

17        A.   It says the direction west-south-west was established, and it

18     corresponds to positions in the area of Ilidza, and it's written in the

19     report that way.

20        Q.   Are we then to consider it was determined that it came from those

21     positions, or is it again in the conditional, like in previous cases?

22        A.   It's determined or established at the moment when it is

23     established by experts in the area.  And from that moment only, we can

24     consider it as a fact, an established fact, like in all the previous

25     incidents.

Page 8980

 1        Q.   So this does not suffice for us to say that it was fired by the

 2     Serbs?

 3        A.   I don't know what you're trying to say with that question.  In

 4     any case, this is certainly part of the whole material that was gathered

 5     at the scene, and you can treat it as best you think fit.

 6        Q.   You claimed, in an interview with the Defence, that these kind of

 7     data was always provided exclusively by ballistics experts.

 8        A.   Somebody from that area of expertise.  Or if a ballistic expert

 9     was not available, then a scene-of-crime officer.

10        Q.   From that list on the paper, can you indicate, by number, the

11     person who would have been qualified to provide this information?

12        A.   You can probably see from the list that it's an incident that

13     occurred 12 or 13 years ago and that there were several members of the

14     team who were able to provide this piece of information.  I can only tell

15     you that I can't remember the --

16             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

17             Are we looking at the correct translation?  I'm not sure whether

18     those two documents are identical ones.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Cetinjska, Geteova Street, I think.

20     Iset Alihodzic, there's a name.

21             [In English] "... information gathered at the site revealed

22     that --"

23             JUDGE KWON:  No, it's for you to make sure that we are seeing the

24     correct documents.  The English translation seems to be a different one.

25     I don't see such --

Page 8981

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] These markings are on the next

 2     page.  It's the same document, but in English it probably straddles onto

 3     the next page.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  The next page has -- we have to go back to the

 5     original 65 ter document, 14397.  That may be correct.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   While we're waiting for that:  Witness, were there any troops of

 8     the BH Army or anything from the BH Army?

 9        A.   Where?

10        Q.   At the place of impact, the location of the incident.

11        A.   This is a residential high-rise.  It contained apartments of army

12     members, perhaps, but I didn't see any premises where army troops could

13     have been stationed.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Is it now the right page,

15     Your Excellency?

16             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  I see the whole page, which you couldn't see

17     with this previous one.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19             I don't know what the status of this document is.  I think it's

20     an exhibit.

21             Can we now get 1D2691.  1D2691.

22             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters are not sure whether the

23     accused said it can or cannot be broadcast.

24             JUDGE KWON:  We'll not broadcast this.

25             Did you say we can't broadcast?

Page 8982

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, no, we can, we can, we can.  It

 2     has nothing to do with the witness.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Do you agree that this is a combat report of the Army of Bosnia

 6     and Herzegovina, the 1st Corps, dated the 30th of June?

 7        A.   Yes, I only agree that that is what is written there.  Whether

 8     that is so or not, I don't know, but I do confirm that that is what is

 9     written there.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at the next page,

11     please.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Can you please look at the last paragraph of the paragraph 2.2,

14     "Security Status":

15             "On the 29th of June, 1995, from the rubble of the building in

16     Cetinjska Street number 5, which was previously hit by a modified

17     air-bomb, the body of a soldier of the 142nd Croatian Light Brigade,

18     Lovric, Slavko, who was killed, was pulled out."

19             Do you agree that that day, from that location, the body of a

20     fighter was pulled out?

21             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Hayden.

22             MR. HAYDEN:  I don't know if the accused is going to be much

23     longer with this document, but there is a translation available in hard

24     copy.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Just take it and we'll see.

Page 8983

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 2             I didn't ask him whether he agreed or not.  I asked him:  Did he

 3     know whether the following day the body of a fighter of the Army of

 4     Bosnia and Herzegovina, of a Croatian brigade, was pulled out.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't know that.  I didn't know

 6     the first and last name either.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It says that this was a soldier of

 8     the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 9             Can we tender this document?

10             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Hayden.

11             MR. HAYDEN:  We haven't had a chance to look at the translation

12     yet.  When we do, we might be able to respond.  At this stage, no

13     objection, but I can get back to you very shortly.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have 1D02175, please.

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   May I ask you to mark, on this Google map, the building that was

18     hit.

19        A.   It will be very difficult for me.  I don't find my way around a

20     map easily, especially not this type of map.  I lived and worked in a

21     completely different part of town, so it would be very difficult for me

22     to mark, on this photograph of this resolution, the building.

23        Q.   Do you see the television building in this meander on the right

24     side?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 8984

 1        Q.   Does that help you now to orient yourself in relation to the

 2     building that was hit?

 3        A.   Yes, it does help me to orient myself.  I can mark it

 4     approximately, but I really cannot say decisively whether that is that

 5     building or not.  I really can't tell you definitely where the building

 6     is.

 7        Q.   On this television building, do you know where that passage is on

 8     the roof of the building where the first contact of that shell occurred?

 9        A.   I could mark it approximately, but it's very difficult, at this

10     scale, to be precise.

11        Q.   Can you please mark the television building and at that location

12     where you think that that passage is located.

13        A.   [Marks].  I think -- I think it could have been a little lower, I

14     could have put the marking a little lower.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Is it true that across the street from this marking

16     is the building in Cetinjska Street number 5 that was hit?

17        A.   I said that I can orient myself approximately and mark the

18     building, in the general area of the building, but I can --

19        Q.   With a considerable degree of accuracy, mark where the building

20     is.

21        A.   I think that part is here [marks], but again I cannot be quite

22     certain.

23        Q.   Can you put "1" and "2"?

24        A.   Where would you like me to put "1" and where would you like me to

25     put the number "2"?

Page 8985

 1        Q.   Television, "1," the other building "2," and if you can put the

 2     date and number, please.

 3        A.   [Marks].

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be tendered?

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D870, Your Honours.

 7             MR. HAYDEN:  And --

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 9             MR. HAYDEN:  No objection to the previous document,

10     Mr. President.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  In order to understand the context or

12     contextualise his evidence, we'll admit it.  The previous one, the

13     1D2691, will be admitted.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D871, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at 1D2719.  2719.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, you'll have five minutes.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Witness, sir, do you see, below these trees, in the depth, the

21     television building?

22        A.   It's possible that it is the television building that can be

23     seen, but I'm not sure.

24        Q.   That grey concrete one in the back, could that possibly be the

25     television building?

Page 8986

 1        A.   It's possible, but I'm not sure.  With the view on this

 2     photograph, I'm not asserting that it is.

 3        Q.   Is this that high-rise building?  We will show you a different

 4     picture.  I would like you to mark the place where the TV building is

 5     possibly located.  It can be seen right beneath the crown of the trees.

 6             You have zoomed in so that we can see the rest of that building.

 7     That is the part of the television building; is that correct?

 8        A.   [Marks].  I assume that that's what you mean.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Just the date and number.

10        A.   [Marks]

11             JUDGE KWON:  The witness hasn't confirmed that it is the

12     television building, but you said you would come back -- come to another

13     picture.  And then if you get the confirmation of the witness's, then

14     we'll admit it.  We'll just --

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.  Can we have --

16             JUDGE KWON:  -- keep it temporarily.  We'll give it a Defence

17     exhibit number on a provisional basis.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be D872.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21             Can we have 2720, please.  1D2720.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Witness, sir, do you recognise this building that was hit by that

24     projectile?

25        A.   Yes, and you can see the damaged part of the high-rise building.

Page 8987

 1        Q.   Do you agree now that across the street from this building, just

 2     like you marked on the map, lies the television building?

 3        A.   The television building should be located not across from this

 4     building, but actually behind it.

 5        Q.   Yes, yes, behind it, in the depth.  It is concealed by the tree.

 6        A.   I think that even if the tree weren't there, you still would not

 7     be able to see the television building from this angle.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 9             Can we tender this photograph?

10             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D873, Your Honours.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's not necessary to mark it; is

13     that correct?

14             JUDGE KWON:  No.  It's time to wrap up your cross-examination,

15     Mr. Karadzic.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one thing.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Witness, sir, I would like you to understand that nothing was

19     directed against you or against your service.  All we are seeking to do

20     is to establish the facts.  Thank you.  Thank you, yes, thank you for

21     your co-operation, but I must say for the transcript that we did not

22     manage to cover Markale 2, which was also part of your job.  Is that

23     correct?

24        A.   I was at that scene with my colleagues, yes.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, and I wish you a safe

Page 8988

 1     trip home.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  The Chamber sees no basis to admit the Defence

 3     Exhibit D872, since the witness was not able to confirm the location.

 4             And the Chamber is of the view, Mr. Karadzic, that the time that

 5     was allowed to you to cross-examine this witness, i.e., three and a half

 6     hours, is more than sufficient, and it is not acceptable that you are

 7     complaining of shortage of time, having wasted a lot of time.  The

 8     Chamber will come to that issue later on.

 9             Mr. Hayden.

10             MR. HAYDEN:  No questions, Your Honour.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Then it concludes your evidence, Mr. Witness.  I'd

12     like to thank you, on behalf of the Tribunal and the Bench, to come to

13     The Hague to give it.  Now you are free to go.  But stay there.  We'll

14     have a short break in order to accommodate the logistics.

15             We'll break for --

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I -- may I say:  When are we --

17     I would like, before the next witness, just to say one word about this

18     circumstance, this circumstance of time.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, you will have that opportunity when we resume.

20             We'll break for 10 minutes.

21                           [The witness withdrew]

22                           --- Recess taken at 9.55 a.m.

23                           --- On resuming at 10.10 a.m.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 8989

 1             It would be fair and even essential for me to present to the

 2     Chamber my position on the matter of time.

 3             First of all, it's a fact that the Prosecution is introducing,

 4     through these witnesses, let's say through the witness who's coming

 5     next -- the statement of the next witness mentions 19 incidents.  They're

 6     not all in the indictment, but 19 incidents are referred to, and the

 7     statement contains 80 references.  While my team is studying the witness

 8     statements, they found 336 additional references.  If the Prosecution

 9     were to add 17 new incidents, and they do that in order to establish a

10     pattern, and I have to deal with all of these 17 incidents in order to

11     deal with the credibility of the witness and the credibility of that

12     method.  And not only that but I also am doing that by means of looking

13     at these 336 references.  If I go incident by incident with the witness

14     that's coming, and also with the previous witness, one can conclude that

15     I am getting 30 to 40 minutes per incident, based on the time allotted to

16     me.  And, believe me, in your countries, you would be spending at least

17     five or six days dealing with each of these incidents.

18             We also have a very large problem here of incompetent witnesses.

19     We're talking about counter-sabotage protection.  Nobody wanted to

20     discuss that except for Mr. Sabljica.  166 didn't speak of that or

21     Mr. Suljevic either.  We cannot decide who is responsible for what, who

22     is standing behind what in these reports.  They, themselves, are aware

23     and admit that these reports wouldn't be much good before our courts

24     either.  Nevertheless, they appear before this Tribunal.

25             I was watching, in other cases, how much tiny elements were taken

Page 8990

 1     into account, and major official reports of UN observers and so on were

 2     not taken into account and people were convicted because this system of

 3     ours is different from this one that is being applied here, and the

 4     accused were not able to put up a suitable defence.

 5             If I enter into that pattern where there is no chance of me

 6     defending myself, then these whole proceedings have no sense any longer.

 7             Witnesses are like fish.  They wriggle out of one's grasp.  You

 8     cannot keep them to their words.  You cannot find out who is the author

 9     of the investigation materials, author of reports.

10             So with all due respect, I kindly ask you for the indulgence of

11     all parties, particularly the witness -- that I'm in a very difficult

12     position, I'm being pulled in all directions, I'm not getting enough

13     time.  And as Mr. Hayden and Mr. Tieger said a few days ago, time is of

14     the essence.  Actually, time is not of the essence; truth is of the

15     essence.  And I do not wish these proceedings to be made invalid because

16     of a number of minutes.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Tieger, yes.

18             MR. TIEGER:  Let me just note quickly, Your Honour, that that is

19     a deflection from the issue at hand, which is the accused's use of the

20     time allotted, which has repeatedly demonstrated that he's purposefully

21     not using the time allotted to elicit from the witnesses what they know

22     or saw or heard, or challenge those observations or information, but

23     instead to use them as a pretext to argue his case in other ways or

24     submit to them documentation about which they cannot possibly shed light.

25             In addition, as we saw yesterday, he repeatedly refuses to put

Page 8991

 1     his case to the witnesses in a purposeful manner, instead focusing on

 2     matters on the periphery, and only when pressed by the Court, reluctantly

 3     once, then move forward to try to put his case to the witness in a manner

 4     that would allow the cross-examination to proceed efficiently, and also

 5     demonstrated that the time allotted was more than ample and that the

 6     Court had been extraordinarily patient with that cross-examination as

 7     well as previous cross-examinations.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  I'm not sure it is for Mr. Tieger or Mr. Gaynor to

 9     respond to this, but is the next witness a sort of ballistic expert who

10     will give his -- give evidence as to the direction of fire?

11             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes.  He worked for the KDZ of the RBiH MUP, which

12     is the Counter-Sabotage Protection Unit, so his evidence does concern

13     ballistics.  He's a fact witness, not an expert witness, but it does

14     concern --

15             JUDGE KWON:  Is his evidence of the limited nature as the

16     previous one, KDZ485?

17             MR. GAYNOR:  I would say that this witness was more involved in a

18     more complex set of determinations, such as the angle of impact -- the

19     angle of the projectile upon impact and the direction of fire, and so he

20     would -- the nature of his evidence would be a little more complex than

21     the evidence of the witness that we've just heard.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE MORRISON:  Dr. Karadzic, the position is, in effect, as

25     Mr. Tieger has put it:  The reality is cross-examination is a mixture of

Page 8992

 1     an art and a science, and where you elect to represent yourself, you take

 2     upon the burdens of discharging both the art and the science of

 3     cross-examination.  But as I've said before, we recognise that you're not

 4     practiced in it, and it may be unfair for me - and I speak for myself

 5     personally, with some 30 years of cross-examining people both from a

 6     defence and a prosecution perspective - to expect you to be able to adopt

 7     all the techniques and nuances.  But what you are singularly failing to

 8     do, it seems to me, is to do that which Mr. Tieger advances, which is to

 9     put your case to the witness.

10             You do not have to, in cross-examination, go through the whole of

11     a witness's statement.  What matters is that you put the essence of the

12     case where the witness's statement touches and concerns the matters which

13     are against you on the indictment.  Those are the things that the Court

14     is going to be looking at in the long run, and you can be sure that

15     peripheral matters, which do not assist the Court, are not going to be

16     held to your prejudice.

17             What we would very much like you to do with this witness is to

18     try and concentrate on putting your case.  If, as has been the case with

19     virtually every witness we've had, you put your case and we feel that you

20     are making progress, then time may be extended.  There's no promises.

21     But time is, to some extent, of the essence, because part of the fair

22     trial matrix is an expeditious trial, and where a trial is not

23     expeditious, much is lost; not simply for the trial, itself, in terms of

24     an administrative beast, but for you, in terms of concentrating on what

25     really matters.  And that's what touches and concerns us, what really

Page 8993

 1     matters.  So take what I say to heart.

 2             And you may recall, when we first started this case, I gave what

 3     was reported in the press as a short tutorial on cross-examination.  I'm

 4     perfectly prepared to repeat that at some point in the future, but I

 5     shouldn't have to do that, because you have experienced lawyers around

 6     you whose views you should be taking and adopting.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  So the Chamber is not minded to change the time

 8     allotted to you, which the Chamber finds sufficient time for you to cover

 9     all the incidents to be covered by this witness.

10             And for the scheduling matter, we decided to sit until 4.00 this

11     afternoon, thanks to the indulgence of the interpreters and court

12     reporters.  I appreciate it, again.  And the breaks will be planned, and

13     it will be known to the parties in due course.

14             That said, we'll bring in the witness.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16                           [The witness entered court]

17             JUDGE KWON:  Good morning, Mr. Witness.

18             If you could take the solemn declaration, please.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

20     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

21                           WITNESS:  EMIR TURKUSIC

22                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

23             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Please be seated.

24             Mr. Gaynor.

25             MR. GAYNOR:  Thank you, Mr. President.

Page 8994

 1                           Examination by Mr. Gaynor:

 2        Q.   Witness, could you state your full name, please.

 3        A.   Emir Turkusic.

 4        Q.   You've previously testified in the trials of Dragomir Milosevic

 5     and Momcilo Perisic; is that correct?

 6        A.   Correct.

 7        Q.   You've previously given statements to the Office of the

 8     Prosecutor of this Tribunal?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   You've had an opportunity to review an amalgamated statement

11     containing relevant extracts from your testimonies and from your

12     statements; is that right?

13        A.   Correct.

14             MR. GAYNOR:  Could I ask for 65 ter 22270, please.

15        Q.   On the screen in front of you, Mr. Turkusic, do you see an

16     electronic version of the first page of your amalgamated statement?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Now, I understand that you wish to make one correction to a

19     typographical error in the statement on page 5.  I'll note it for the

20     record.

21             At line 5, the word "Kraljevo" should read "Krusik Valjevo"; is

22     that correct, Mr. Turkusic?

23        A.   Correct.  It's an abbreviation that means the place where the

24     fuse of the shell was produced and written.  In Cyrillic, that

25     abbreviation means "Krusik Valjevo," not "Kraljevo."

Page 8995

 1        Q.   Subject to that correction, does the amalgamated statement

 2     accurately reflect the evidence you have previously given?  And if you

 3     were questioned on the same topics today, would you provide the same

 4     information to the Court?

 5        A.   Yes, in full.

 6             MR. GAYNOR:  I seek admission of the amalgamated statement,

 7     please.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P1924, Your Honours.

10             MR. GAYNOR:  I'll now read a summary of the evidence of the

11     witness.

12             Mr. Turkusic was a member of the Counter-Sabotage Protection Unit

13     of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia and

14     Herzegovina, which is the RBiH MUP KDZ.  The witness and his team

15     conducted numerous ballistic investigations into shelling incidents in

16     Sarajevo.  His statement concerns the role of the RBiH MUP KDZ in

17     shelling investigations, the method of determining the direction of fire

18     of a mortar round, the accuracy of mortars, and the nature of modified

19     air-bombs.  He discusses in detail investigative documentation relating

20     to 16 shelling incidents, and comments, in particular, on the nature of

21     the projectiles which detonated and the direction of fire.  He also

22     discusses a shelling incident on the 28th of August, 1995, in which a

23     120-millimetre mortar shell detonated outside the entrance to the city

24     market, Scheduled Incident G19.  Forty-three people were killed and

25     seventy-five injured.

Page 8996

 1             Mr. Turkusic, who arrived at the incident site shortly after the

 2     detonation of the projectile, describes the huge pools of blood and

 3     severed body parts which he saw.  He also describes the atmosphere of

 4     panic and fear at the incident site.  Mr. Turkusic notes the stabiliser

 5     of the projectile bore markings which indicated that it was manufactured

 6     in Valjevo, Serbia, in 1993.  He explains that the 120-millimetre mortar

 7     round is an anti-personnel projectile, designed to destroy manpower.  It

 8     sprays its shrapnel in a horizontal fashion close to the ground.

 9     Mr. Turkusic discusses the minimal angle of descent and the direction of

10     fire of the projectile.

11             That ends the summary.

12        Q.   Mr. Turkusic, is it correct that you hold a PhD in Chemistry?

13        A.   Correct.

14        Q.   Now, within the RBiH MUP KDZ, could you describe your specific

15     duties during your work there in 1994 and 1995.

16        A.   My duties, like those of all the investigating team in the KDZ

17     Unit, were, in every case of shelling that incurred fatalities or wounds,

18     as well as major material damage, to investigate, in the greatest

19     possible detail, and document that as exhibits, as evidence, that we

20     deposited in our archives.

21        Q.   Did -- your specific area of expertise within the KDZ, did that

22     include the field of pyrotechnics?

23        A.   Yes, that was part of my appointment by the minister in a

24     decision where I was appointed inspector for the application of

25     counter-sabotage measures, including pyrotechnics.

Page 8997

 1        Q.   Could you explain, in brief terms, what pyrotechnics is?

 2        A.   Pyrotechnics is just one of the areas of chemistry, and it

 3     studies reactions that are ultra-high velocity chemistry reactions that

 4     release, in a very short time, a large amount of energy.  Pyrotechnics

 5     include the most innocuous devices, like firecrackers, up to the highly-

 6     sophisticated devices for destruction and anything that initiates

 7     explosions in any of the forms to cause major devastation.

 8        Q.   In your statement, at page 5, when you describe your work at the

 9     KDZ, you said you had access to books and manuals.  What did you mean by

10     that?  What kinds of books and manuals did you have at the KDZ?

11        A.   Pyrotechnics as an area of chemistry, is familiar to every

12     chemical engineer.  It's just one of the areas that studies ultra-high

13     velocity chemical reactions.  When we needed to concentrate specifically

14     on that area, I, like all members of the KDZ, our entire team,

15     intensively used very extensive and high-quality literature that we had

16     available to us relating to the area of wartime legal devices, including

17     pyrotechnical devices, and within a very short time we became very

18     well-versed in that area.  Our work was closely tied with the work of

19     engineers employed in the military industry that was very developed in

20     Sarajevo.  And in co-operation with them, we rounded off and constantly

21     added to the knowledge of our team that was multi-disciplinary and

22     included all the specialties and areas of expertise needed for our

23     specific work.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Now, on the subject of books and manuals, did -- the

25     books you had access to, did that include books relating to munitions,

Page 8998

 1     firing tables, that kind of thing?

 2        A.   Precisely.  We had firing tables for all projectiles that were

 3     landing on Sarajevo, mortar and artillery, as well as books that dealt

 4     with the construction and the technical specifications of all lethal

 5     assets, and all the details related to that area.

 6        Q.   I want to turn now to the subject of modified air-bombs, which

 7     you describe in your statement.

 8             Now, did you, while you were at the KDZ, have the opportunity to

 9     inspect the remnants of modified air-bombs which had exploded?

10        A.   There was a period where there were a large number of attacks

11     with those modified air-bombs, and the remaining fragments were

12     conscientiously collected by us, documented, recorded in protocols, at

13     least every one that we considered relevant for our archives, whereas the

14     remaining fragments of those rocket engines and shrapnel and parts of the

15     construction of these air-bombs was deposited in a room that, with time,

16     became overloaded.

17        Q.   At page 6 of your statement, you state that modified air-bombs

18     were not high-precision weapons.  You give a couple of reasons for that,

19     briefly, including references to the symmetry of the charges and other

20     matters.  I want to explore that with you, and I'd like you to identify

21     the factors which are relevant to determining whether a modified air-bomb

22     is a precision weapon.

23        A.   An air-bomb, used in the way it was developed and designed, when

24     it's released from a plane, is relatively precise.  However, in a

25     different combination, when an air-bomb as an explosive device is used by

Page 8999

 1     launching it with rocket engines that, by establishment, are not prepared

 2     for launching such a bomb at relatively close range, devices were made

 3     which, by the way they were improvised and made, could in no way be

 4     precise.  First of all, these rocket engines, in their chain of

 5     activation, have two chemical steps in which there can be a deviation in

 6     the simultaneity of the ignition of all engines.  The second reason is

 7     the following:  It is absolutely impossible, with the improvised

 8     combination of an air-bomb with rocket engines, to achieve sufficient

 9     precision in the parallel nature of the rocket axis -- of the rocket

10     motors with the axis of the air-bomb.  Every deviation in angle,

11     including just 1 to 2 degrees, considering the sophisticated nature of

12     such a device, would lead, and certainly led, to imprecision in

13     direction.  That is to say, the air-bomb rotated in air due to one of the

14     rotation impulses caused by one or more engines, and these impulses could

15     be superimposed or increase each other, and the result is imprecision.

16     For instance, two air-bombs fired one after another will certainly not

17     land in the same place.

18             The third reason that could lead to imprecision is the

19     simultaneity of ignition of all the four engines and the same duration of

20     work of all the four engines.  Both errors lead to a delay in impulse

21     after firing, and the direction of the air-bomb deviates from the

22     direction in which it was launched by the launching pad.

23             And, excuse me, there's one important reason more.

24             A modified device, because that's the only way you can call

25     it - it's a combination of an air-bomb with rocket engines put together

Page 9000

 1     by improvisation - is absolutely not aerodynamic.  Any body flying

 2     through the air, if it's not aerodynamic in shape, is prone to change

 3     direction due to high resistance to air.

 4             I was not an eye-witness, but there were many eye-witnesses who

 5     said they saw this device flying through the air slowly, causing a lot of

 6     noise, and that was at the moment when the rocket engine stopped working,

 7     and all that speaks about the fact that these modified air-bombs were not

 8     aerodynamic at all.  And that's another reason for their imprecision.

 9        Q.   Now, what effect would a slight inaccuracy in attaching one of

10     the rocket motors to the air-bomb have on the direction of the

11     projectile?

12        A.   Imprecision in mounting these air-bombs, the fact that it's

13     impossible to make all these rocket engines parallel, which would

14     guarantee a proper straight direction, and the imprecision of the bomb,

15     itself, makes these devices completely imprecise, in terms of a

16     clearly-defined target.  However, if you define a very large target,

17     because accuracy is relative to size, if you define the target as the

18     city of Sarajevo, then you can say that these air-bombs had the intention

19     to kill, devastate, and destroy.  And if you define them as such and the

20     target as such, then you could say they're absolutely precise.

21        Q.   Just going back to the technical point of ignition of the rocket

22     motors, could you explain what effect a slightly non-simultaneous

23     ignition of one or more of the rocket motors would have on the direction

24     of the projectile?  By "slight," I'm talking a few nanoseconds or of that

25     order.

Page 9001

 1        A.   Well, the main premise in launching is that all four rocket

 2     engines would activate at the same time.  That means with an error margin

 3     close to zero in time, and that is achieved at the level of the

 4     electronic impulse that reaches the fuse.  However, with that electronic

 5     impulse, there are two chemical chains that could introduce a margin of

 6     error in time.  The second engine could react faster.  That's the

 7     activation of fuse and the activation of fuel in every rocket engine.

 8     That inaccuracy, which could be cumulative, could lead to one or more

 9     engines activating faster and working shorter, or activating later and

10     working longer than others which, as the device leaves the launching pad,

11     would immediately lead to a deviation impulse, because that modified

12     device is one body, practically.  Any impact of force anywhere on the

13     body will, according to the law on maintenance of movement, lead to

14     deviation from the course defined by the direction of the launching ramp.

15        Q.   While you were working for the ABiH, and later for the KDZ, did

16     you ever encounter credible information that Bosnian Government forces

17     were using modified air-bombs?

18        A.   Absolutely not.

19        Q.   I'd like to move now to the Markale 2 incident.

20             You say in your statement that you arrived in the vicinity of the

21     Markale Market shortly after the detonation; is that correct?

22        A.   Correct.

23        Q.   Could you describe the circumstances which led you to being in

24     the area at that time.

25        A.   By analysing the events after I and colleagues arrived there, it

Page 9002

 1     was possible to conclude that we did not hear the explosion, itself,

 2     because we were deep inside the building of the Ministry of the Interior,

 3     on a side where noise reaches with great difficulty.  These buildings are

 4     very tall.  A colleague and I went out with the intention of going to a

 5     nearby market, which was the Markale Market, to buy something, using

 6     money and also cigarettes, which also served as a currency.  But halfway,

 7     and we were already close to Markale, we saw a large number of cars with

 8     sirens on, going very fast and passing us by.  And from the open boots of

 9     those cars, you could see that they were full of bodies.  There were

10     limbs protruding.  And the familiar was already -- the scene was already

11     familiar to us that had already happened in many other incidents in

12     Sarajevo.  We knew already that this was work for us, and returned to

13     base.  We took the necessary equipment to analyse the crater, the

14     azimuth, and everything else we needed, and we immediately proceeded to

15     the site of the massacre, arriving, to estimate roughly, 10 or 15 minutes

16     after we saw those cars full of wounded people.

17             MR. GAYNOR:  I'm now going to play a video.  This is Video P1450.

18     The total footage, Your Honours, that I propose to play is less than five

19     minutes, but I'm going to play it in parts.

20             And so the first is from 0 to 1 minute, please.

21                           [Video-clip played]

22             MR. GAYNOR:  Sorry, could we stop the video.  I'd like this to be

23     played with sound, please.

24                           [Video-clip played]

25             MR. GAYNOR:

Page 9003

 1        Q.   Could you describe what you saw in those scenes, please.

 2        A.   It's one of the many cases of massacre that, in my deep

 3     conviction, were deliberate for their psychological effect.  It was

 4     deliberate targeted terror and intimidation and pressure, probably on our

 5     authorities to make them more pliable in negotiations and, finally, to

 6     discourage the Bosnians, the whole population, the army, and our

 7     politicians, in terms of their struggle --

 8             THE ACCUSED:  [No interpretation].

 9             JUDGE KWON:  What is it, Mr. Karadzic?

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, these are qualifications.

11     It's not from his area of expertise.  He's giving qualifications and

12     going much broader, and he's putting me in a position that I have to deal

13     with it in cross-examination.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, you may cover that during your

15     cross-examination.

16             Yes, Mr. Gaynor.

17             MR. GAYNOR:  Thank you, Mr. President.

18        Q.   Could you describe, first of all, the removal of the bodies.  Do

19     you -- do you happen to know who the people are who are removing the

20     bodies?  Do you have any information whatsoever about that?

21        A.   Since these cases were very numerous in Sarajevo, those who

22     removed the bodies and put them in cars, always trying to give first

23     assistance, first aid, were always passersby.  It's simply a reflex of

24     the group, a humane impulse to help.  Of course, these are all laymen.

25     They don't know how to aid people.  They think, naively, the best thing

Page 9004

 1     to do is to put them in a car and transport them to the nearest hospital.

 2             MR. GAYNOR:  Could we now play the next 30 seconds, which is from

 3     1 minute to 1 minute 30, please.

 4                           [Video-clip played]

 5             MR. GAYNOR:

 6        Q.   First of all, could you say anything about the kinds of cars

 7     being used to transport the dead and the wounded?

 8        A.   Well, it's anything that passes by in that direction.  Those are

 9     small cars like Yugo, Volkswagen, Golf.  There was even a van.  Anything

10     that passes by and is able to take in and transport these bodies to the

11     nearest hospital.

12        Q.   And could you confirm the location that we're looking at in these

13     video-clips, the general area?

14        A.   I think directly in the middle of the picture we see the entrance

15     to the market-place.  The open-air area is also called "Markale."  This

16     is the northern entrance.  There is another southern entrance on the

17     other side.  This is the place where the shell landed in the middle of

18     this picture.

19             MR. GAYNOR:  Could I ask that we just go back to 1 minute and 28

20     seconds.  Just freeze it there, please.

21        Q.   On the screen in front of you, you see the body of a person, and

22     there appears to be little fluid underneath the body.  Do you have any

23     observations about that?

24        A.   You see, first the height of the wound on this body absolutely

25     corresponds to the angle at which the angle -- at which the shell fell.

Page 9005

 1     The shell fell in this part towards the south, I believe, at three and

 2     three and a half metres away, which is approximately the distance between

 3     me and you.  And since the shell was inclined towards the south -

 4     relative to a vertical it would be 20 degrees - that means that the

 5     shrapnel that went from the shell towards this body were most

 6     concentrated in the area of the chest of this man, whereas we will see

 7     later that the shrapnel that went southwards hit people in lower

 8     extremities, hitting their legs and feet.  You see how many concentrated

 9     shrapnel fell on this fence.

10             Did you ask me about this stain below, if I remember correctly?

11        Q.   My question was, specifically:  There appears to be little fluid

12     under the body.  Do you have any comments about that?

13        A.   Yes.  Well, you see, from my lay knowledge - I'm not a medic -

14     that the human body contains about five to six litres of blood, and if we

15     know that the abdominal cavity and the lower extremities, which contain a

16     lot of blood, are gravitationally vertical, and if we also know that the

17     upper part of the chest, the head, and the arms are bent across this

18     fence, and they contain, again, this blood which is no longer being

19     pumped by the heart because the heart has stopped, I think -- here,

20     I think there could be have been, in my lay estimate, around two litres

21     of blood below this victim.  In view of the viscosity of the blood,

22     which, as it leaks onto the floor, does not spread into a stain, and if

23     this wound looks open on the body, I believe it's an optical illusion and

24     laymen would think that there should be more blood outside.

25             MR. GAYNOR:  I'd like to move now from 01:28 to 01:55, please.

Page 9006

 1                           [Video-clip played]

 2             MR. GAYNOR:

 3        Q.   This -- again, is this image consistent with death from a mortar

 4     round, just very briefly?

 5        A.   Absolutely, yes.  A mortar shell of 120 millimetres is an

 6     artillery weapon by its calibre.  It's part of the artillery range of

 7     weapons.  It can produce a large number of shrapnel which, at high

 8     velocity, spread in a radial pattern in relation to the axis of the

 9     shell.  And they are asymmetrical bodies, and as they fly after the

10     explosion, they intensely rotate in all directions.  In contact with the

11     flesh, they rip apart the flesh, damaging it more than a bullet would of

12     the same size.  The direction of the motorcycle makes me conclude that at

13     the point in time when the shrapnel hit him, that person was about to --

14     or had left the location where the impact was, and the distance he had

15     covered was some five to ten metres from that place.

16             MR. GAYNOR:  Could we play now from 01:55 to 02:32, please.

17                           [Video-clip played]

18             MR. GAYNOR:

19        Q.   We see, in this photograph, a person who appears to be in

20     military uniform.  Could you confirm, to the best of your knowledge, the

21     extent to which Markale Market was frequented primarily by the civilian

22     population, or partly by the military population, or what do you know

23     about that?

24        A.   It was frequented by civilians by far.  Perhaps, if a soldier had

25     a break or some free time, they could be moving down that street or maybe

Page 9007

 1     they would have come to buy something.  But in any case, they would be

 2     moving down that street.  But in this place, the highest concentration of

 3     people who were there were civilians, people who were selling something

 4     or those who would come to buy something.  It would mostly be food.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is an invitation to speculate.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, during the war, I was

 7     at this market at least 100 times.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, if you have an objection, raise it.

 9     It is not proper to interfere with the examination-in-chief by the OTP.

10             Yes, Mr. Gaynor.

11             MR. GAYNOR:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Could we now play from

12     02:32 to 03:25.

13                           [Video-clip played]

14             MR. GAYNOR:  Sorry, we've dealt with this point.

15             Actually, can we play on until 03:54.  Thank you.

16                           [Video-clip played]

17             MR. GAYNOR:

18        Q.   Now, there's a -- there's a noticeable difference in the noise

19     background in the last few seconds.  Can you describe what we are looking

20     at in this scene here?  What are we looking at, exactly?

21        A.   From what I recall, these were French soldiers who had joined

22     everyone and were doing their own investigation in order to establish the

23     direction the projectile came from, the azimuth angle, and so on.  I

24     could hear them speaking French.  They were on the scene briefly, from

25     what I can remember.

Page 9008

 1             We can see the place of impact, and around it we don't see any

 2     bodies.  In the previous clip that we saw, you could hear the voice of a

 3     man saying, Load everybody up.  This was that spontaneous impulse that I

 4     was talking about of passersby who would simply join in this action of

 5     taking away all the dead and all the wounded urgently to the hospital.

 6             This is footage after a certain period of time, when things then

 7     proceeded to an analysis of the traces.

 8             MR. GAYNOR:  Could we play now from 03:54 to 04:40.

 9                           [Video-clip played]

10             MR. GAYNOR:

11        Q.   What do you understand the two soldiers are measuring in this

12     scene?

13        A.   They're doing the same thing that we were doing independently of

14     them.  They are measuring the distance from the place of impact, the

15     impact of the fuse, the precise point of contact of the projectile from

16     the length of the wall of the market building.

17             MR. GAYNOR:  Can we play now from 04:40 to 05:22.

18                           [Video-clip played]

19             MR. GAYNOR:  Actually, if we can just scroll back a bit.

20        Q.   Did you -- back a few more seconds.  Is that -- so forward one

21     second.  Thank you, Mr. Reid.

22             Is that -- who is that in the background there?

23        A.   That's me in the white shirt.

24             MR. GAYNOR:  Could we just play -- that was at 05:18.  Could we

25     play from now until 05:54.

Page 9009

 1                           [Video-clip played]

 2             MR. GAYNOR:  Okay.

 3        Q.   Now, in the last clip, we saw soldiers doing something.  Are you

 4     in a position to say what it appeared they were doing?

 5        A.   The compass is used to measure the -- on the basis of the trace

 6     left by the shell.  On contact, you can determine the bearing of fire;

 7     that is, the angle or the direction from which the shell came.  That is

 8     the azimuth.

 9             MR. GAYNOR:  Could I now ask for 65 ter 09900, please.

10        Q.   While this is coming up:  Could you describe what your personal

11     role was in the investigation into the Markale 2 incident.

12        A.   My role, as well as the role of the team that had gathered in a

13     large number at the point when the measurements were being done, was

14     always the same; to collect, document, and properly process all relevant

15     data that would indicate the place of impact, the angle of fall of the

16     shell, the bearing, as well as the type of the weapon used or the type of

17     the shell.  Of course, all the relevant measurements are done that would

18     improve and strengthen the calculations, make them more precise.

19             For the final report, in order -- and all this is for the purpose

20     of drafting a final report, where all our assertions would be properly

21     supported and documented.

22             MR. GAYNOR:  Could we go to photograph 4 of this 65 ter number,

23     please.

24             Could we zoom in to the photograph.  Thank you very much.

25        Q.   Could you describe what you see on the screen in front of you

Page 9010

 1     here.

 2        A.   On the screen, you can see the trace left by any mortar shell on

 3     a hard surface.  For purposes of analysis of the angle of fall and the

 4     bearing of fire, the best conditions are a hard surface.  If you have a

 5     hard surface, that would provide the best evidence of the angle and the

 6     bearing of fire.  You can see that the location has very heavy

 7     blood-stains.  The traces are not very clear.  And I also have reflection

 8     from the light above falling on my screen, so it's a little bit more

 9     difficult for me to see.

10             I can see the distribution of shrapnel, indicating the

11     possibility to make a calculation of the bearing.  However, the left part

12     from the center of the explosion of this collection of shrapnel is

13     stained by blood which goes in a straight line, and that also conceals

14     the exact pattern of the shrapnel on the ground.  If the blood is washed

15     away, this could be visible.

16             The photograph, that is -- it's very -- the photograph -- the

17     scope of the angle of the photograph is quite narrow.  Perhaps if the --

18     compared to what you see.

19        Q.   We'll come back later to a version which you marked up in your

20     earlier evidence.

21             Could I now go to photograph number 10, please.

22             Very briefly, could you describe whether this injury or this --

23     what you see in front of you, is this consistent with the impact of a

24     120-millimetre mortar projectile?  If you need the screen to be moved,

25     just let us know.

Page 9011

 1        A.   We can see the part of the foot of a victim.  In relation to the

 2     place of explosion, it is facing the south, in relation to the angle of

 3     the shell.  And now I am reminding you of what I said in relation to the

 4     body of the victim that was thrown across the fence, which was on the

 5     north side of the fall of the shell, and the --

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  The witness is kindly asked to slow down and

 7     repeat what he said.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Witness, Dr. Turkusic, the interpreters are

 9     having difficulty in interpreting your words.  They say you are speaking

10     a bit fast.  Could you slow down a bit for them.  Yes.

11             THE WITNESS:  [No interpretation]

12             JUDGE KWON:  I don't think I heard you, so could you repeat your

13     answer?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Is it necessary to repeat something

15     of what I have just said earlier so that the interpreters could correctly

16     interpret it?

17             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Doctor.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So the manner of wounding of this

19     victim, whereby their foot was literally ripped off, corresponds

20     completely to the angle of the fall of the shell, whereby this victim was

21     located on the south side of the location of impact, because the

22     shrapnel, in view of the angle of fall in this case, are spreading

23     downwards, towards the road, towards the sidewalk.  They fall lower in

24     relation to the center of the explosion.

25             The opposite case to this particular one is the wounding of that

Page 9012

 1     young man who was thrown and is bent over a fence, where the wound was

 2     sustained in the upper parts of the chest area.

 3             Both of these pieces of information about the place of wounding

 4     indicate the angle of the fall of the shell.

 5             This is not just one case of injury to lower extremities.  There

 6     were a number of ripped feet, parts of the foot, heels, and all of this

 7     was on the sidewalk facing the market.

 8             MR. GAYNOR:  I'd like to tender the file of photographs for

 9     admission at this stage, Mr. President.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, that will be Exhibit P1926.

12             And just to correct the record, the statement, 65 ter 22270, will

13     be Exhibit P1925 and not P1924.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

15             MR. GAYNOR:

16        Q.   Mr. Turkusic, did you -- were you involved in the determination

17     of the minimum angle of the projectile at the moment of impact?

18        A.   Yes.  In view of the geometry of the fall and the surrounding

19     buildings, a serious examination of the direction and angle of the fall

20     of the shell would imply the establishing of the smallest possible --

21     theoretically smallest possible angle of fall of the shell, below which

22     angle it would be absolutely impossible for the shell to come in.  This

23     was one of our estimates.  We measured the place of impact, its distance

24     from the building, and the total height of the building from the flat

25     roof of the building to the surface.  We got the main parameters for the

Page 9013

 1     calculation of the incoming angle.

 2        Q.   I'd like to --

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

 4             Mr. Karadzic, did you say something?

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, no, Your Excellency, nothing.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Please continue, Mr. Gaynor.

 7             MR. GAYNOR:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 8             Could we call up 65 ter 09905, please.  If we could show the

 9     English and the B/C/S side by side on the screen, please.

10        Q.   Now, for this portion, Mr. Turkusic, we're going to have to go

11     back to a little bit of high school mathematics.

12             First of all, could you just simply describe:  What is the figure

13     "11.45 metres" that we see in this diagram?

14        A.   I said earlier that we measured -- two members of our team went

15     to the roof of the market building, and they measured, from the roof, the

16     height of the building.  This is a cross-section of one part of that

17     market building, only one part, where you can see the flat roof and where

18     the height of the building is precisely stated.

19        Q.   The height of the building is 11.45 metres; is that correct?

20        A.   Yes, that is correct.

21        Q.   Could you confirm that, as is marked in this diagram, that 4.8

22     metres is the distance from the edge of the building to the location of

23     the impact and explosion of the projectile?

24        A.   That is correct.  That is the distance that we measured

25     accurately, and we could see on the video footage that the French

Page 9014

 1     artillery soldiers were also measuring that same distance.  So this is

 2     now the second piece of data in this triangle used to establish the

 3     angle.  This is the kathete of the triangle.  And on the basis of those

 4     two parameters, one can precisely calculate the angle, which is 67.25

 5     degrees, which, theoretically, is the smallest possible angle of the

 6     descent of the shell.

 7             With this drawing and this calculation, we are stating that that

 8     is the angle of the descent of the shell, and that is the smallest

 9     possible angle.  Had the angle been smaller - and we checked that

10     possibility as well - our team members who were on the roof did not see

11     any traces, or markings, or damage at the edge of the building or on the

12     roof of the building which would possibly indicate any ricochets.  Had

13     the shell dropped onto the roof, it would have stayed up there.  It would

14     have exploded and stayed there.

15        Q.   I just want to clarify part of your answer.  You said there that

16     you -- that this diagram shows the angle of impact.  But to clarify, is

17     this the angle of impact or is this the minimum possible angle of impact?

18        A.   You see, before we made the calculation of the angle of descent

19     of the projectile, which is done in a different way, and we'll see that

20     on the next picture, first of all, then we established the interval of

21     possible angles.  One end of the extreme would be this angle of 67

22     degrees, below which the shell did not descend.  The other benchmark

23     angle would be vertical, of 90 degrees, which theoretically and

24     practically is actually impossible, because a shell would fall at an

25     angle of 90 degrees only if it was fired vertically up in the air.  So

Page 9015

 1     this possibility here is ruled out.  In this particular case, we were

 2     ruling out this first extreme calculation.

 3        Q.   Now, I'm just going to confirm a couple of things with you.  If

 4     you would keep your answers short for this period.

 5             As a general matter, the tangent of an angle is the opposite over

 6     [Realtime transcript read in error "of"] the adjacent; is that right?

 7        A.   By definition of elementary trigonometry, this level of

 8     mathematics, trigonometry, is something that any elementary school pupil

 9     would be able to calculate.  The tangent of that angle is the length of

10     the opposite kathete through the angled one.

11        Q.   Yes.  My question should have read "the tangent of an angle is

12     the opposite over the adjacent."  I just want to confirm some figures.  I

13     want you to keep your answers very short for this period.

14             The tangent of the angle was 2.385416; correct?

15        A.   The tangent from alpha angle is 25384.  The actual angle is in

16     the inversion of function of the tangent.  That is what would indicate

17     the true value of the angle of 67 point something degrees.

18        Q.   Yes, you've anticipated my question, which is that alpha is the

19     arc tangent of 2.38, et cetera; correct?

20        A.   2.385, actually.  Alpha is the arc tangent of 2.385, so the value

21     of the alpha angle is the value of the arc tangent, which is the value of

22     2.3856, and that calculation would give you the exact number of the

23     angle.

24        Q.   To the right -- again, keep your answers fairly short for this

25     period, Mr. Turkusic, please.  We see a measurement based on a system

Page 9016

 1     whereby 360 degrees is 6.000 units; is that correct?

 2        A.   Yes, there are many systems of dividing up a full circle into

 3     angles.  One of the systems used by NATO is 6.400.  From what I know in

 4     this division that was used in the former armija is the same one.

 5             The way in which we represented this angle in the 6.000 division

 6     is just an additional illustration.  I think it is not that important in

 7     relation to the accuracy of the calculation.  It's just a different way

 8     of expressing the values.

 9             MR. GAYNOR:  Could I ask that that be admitted, please,

10     Mr. President?

11             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P1927, Your Honours.

13             MR. GAYNOR:

14        Q.   Now, in your previous answer, you said that they didn't see any

15     damage at the top.  Could you confirm that investigators went to the top

16     of the building to inspect the building during the investigation?

17        A.   That's correct.  They went up for two reasons; to check for any

18     possible damage from the shell, which passed right along the edge of the

19     building, and also to measure the height of the building, which is

20     information that we have in front of us.

21             MR. GAYNOR:  Could I call up now, please, 65 ter 10223.  This is

22     another diagram.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Dr. Turkusic, now for this period, again I'm going to ask you a

25     couple of questions.  If you could keep your answers as short as possible

Page 9017

 1     for -- and then I'll indicate when you can expand a bit.

 2             This diagram shows a calculation of the likely angle of the

 3     projectile at the moment of impact; is that correct?

 4        A.   Correct.

 5        Q.   Now, the distance X, which is marked at the bottom, how did you

 6     measure X?

 7        A.   That was measured as the distance between the place of impact,

 8     the contact of the fuse, the exact place where the shell came into

 9     contact with the ground, and the largest depressions from shrapnel which,

10     like eyebrows, are engraved into the surface, but not in this same

11     projection in which we are looking at the picture.  That's the standard

12     method used in all armies, written in all military books, about

13     calculating the angle of descent, relying on the dimensions of the shell

14     and the traces visible on the ground.

15        Q.   Could you explain, very briefly, first of all, what is the

16     distance marked with the letter H?

17        A.   H denotes the distance between the tip of the shell, the

18     unexploded shell - it's very well known, measured very precisely - and

19     point C, which is the center of explosion.  The center of explosion is,

20     in fact, the center of the mass of the explosive charge of the shell.

21        Q.   What is the source of your measurement of the letter H?

22        A.   The source is the extensive literature we had available to us.

23     Sarajevo was one of the centres of military industry, and there is a

24     voluminous literature containing all the details of explosive devices

25     that we had before and still have, and we had it in Sarajevo at the time.

Page 9018

 1        Q.   Now, as a general matter, the cosine of an angle is the ratio of

 2     the opposite side divided by the hypotenuse; is that right?  I'm sorry,

 3     that should be the adjacent side divided by the hypotenuse.

 4        A.   Precisely, and the cosinus of the angle is a nameless number,

 5     it's 03417.45, but the angle, itself, is the inverse of that number.

 6     Alpha is the arc cosinus of that number, and here it's calculated as

 7     70.01 degrees.

 8             I think it's important to mention one thing here:  The

 9     calculation relevant to this picture we're looking at does not have a

10     single incoming datum nor anything in common with the previous

11     calculation where we're calculating the minimum possible angle of descent

12     relative to the height of the building.  This calculation was done

13     absolutely independently of the other calculation and relied on the

14     traces on the ground.

15        Q.   The angle of 70.01 degrees is equivalent to an angle of 1166.67,

16     using the other measurement system; is that right?

17        A.   Precisely.  But mathematically, these are the same angles.

18        Q.   Now, in your previous evidence, you marked in red some features

19     of this.  I want to focus just on the two arrows marked with the letters

20     L and R.  Could you describe the pattern of distribution of shrapnel at

21     the moment of detonation of a 120-millimetre mortar projectile?

22        A.   As briefly as possible, the greatest density of the shrapnel and

23     the highest force of the explosion goes in the direction marked as L and

24     R.  In this case, I will only recall the injuries to the lower

25     extremities; the torn feet, heels, and parts of the foot.  And at the

Page 9019

 1     other extreme is the man who was hanging over a rail, who was hurt in the

 2     chest.  This explains that victims to the north of the impact were hurt

 3     in the upper part of the body.  So apart from body parts, we saw brains

 4     spilling out and other injuries.  That was at the L direction.  And in

 5     the opposite direction was the line R, and causing completely different

 6     injuries.

 7             MR. GAYNOR:  Could I request that that be admitted, please,

 8     Mr. President.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P1928, Your Honours.

11             MR. GAYNOR:

12        Q.   Now, in respect of the Markale 2 incident, you also determined

13     the direction of fire; correct?

14        A.   Yes.  That's one of the most important parameters for determining

15     the origin of the shell.

16        Q.   Now, I want to clarify clearly.  Were you able to determine the

17     precise distance travelled by a projectile before the moment of impact?

18        A.   No, we did not manage to do that because we didn't know with how

19     many charges the projectile was launched.  However, many facts indicate

20     that this projectile was launched with three plus zero charges, which is

21     an approximate distance of 2400 metres, perhaps 2500 metres, but the

22     exact place could only be determined by observers or by acoustic sensors

23     or by radar.

24             MR. GAYNOR:  I'd like to move now to 65 ter 10222, please.

25        Q.   Now, do you recall the conclusion you came to regarding the

Page 9020

 1     direction of fire of the projectile in the Markale 2 incident?

 2        A.   Yes.  That was the azimuth, 170.  In the attempt to establish the

 3     azimuth as correctly as possible and to exclude the subjective factor,

 4     which cannot be avoided, all members of our team determined this

 5     direction independently one of another, and then we compared our

 6     measurements.

 7             Now, 15 years after the incident, even though I was certain of

 8     the direction then, I am even more certain now, after having read all the

 9     reports by the UN observers and other experts who confirmed the angle

10     that we arrived at by very precise analysis.  I'm not saying it's our

11     angle; I'm saying that the angle we determined is very correct.

12        Q.   And on the screen in front of you, we see a line pointing towards

13     a figure of 170.  Is that the direction of fire of the projectile in this

14     incident?

15        A.   Yes.  We wrote in the report "170 degrees plus/minus 5 degrees,"

16     as the allowed error of margin, accounting for subjectivity or, perhaps,

17     inclarities [as interpreted] on the ground.  That's the standard error

18     margin assigned to an angle that we believe to be accurate.

19        Q.   Can you explain - you can use a pen if you want to - why did you

20     exclude a possibility of there being a direction of fire of 220 degrees?

21        A.   I would kindly ask that, for my benefit and that of the other

22     witnesses who come here, this screen be turned a little sideways towards

23     me, because the light reflects from the ceiling and I can't see so well.

24             MR. GAYNOR:  Perhaps the usher can assist the witness with the

25     screen.

Page 9021

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right, I'll manage.

 2             MR. GAYNOR:

 3        Q.   There's no need to mark the screen, unless you have to.  I just

 4     want to you explain --

 5        A.   It's fine, it's fine.  It's all right, there's no need.

 6             But on one picture, I saw much more clearly, in this part that

 7     I'm marking now [marks], an extended wing of the trace of this shrapnel,

 8     which confirms the assertion that the azimuth was 170 degrees.  I believe

 9     these scars of the shrapnel was stained over by blood on that photograph,

10     and that's why I want to clarify this here.  But on the spot, we did not

11     have that dilemma, because when you are looking at the real thing, it's

12     much clearer than a photograph can reproduce.

13             You have, among your documentation, one picture that shows the

14     traces of these shrapnel that I tried to hint at with these blue lines.

15        Q.   Very well.  We'll try to get that photograph.  But could you

16     explain, briefly, your reasons for excluding the possibility of an

17     angle -- a direction of fire of 220 degrees?

18        A.   Yes, certainly.  If you speculate with an angle of 220, and some

19     reports even play with an interval of between 220 and 240, that means

20     that there would have to be a so-called "eyebrow-shaped" line showing the

21     spread of the shrapnel towards dotted line G, in relation to which the

22     vertical would be -- would form this angle of 220.  Since left of the

23     explosion, this line here -- this other line here has no base -- has no

24     traces of shrapnel towards this G line, I believe that a 220 angle is

25     absolutely out of the question as azimuth.

Page 9022

 1             MR. GAYNOR:  I'd like to bring up now the file of photographs

 2     which you looked at earlier, which is 65 --

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Do you like to tender this one, as marked?

 4             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  And for the record, I wanted to make sure that the

 6     markings already on the picture is done by the witness in previous cases?

 7             MR. GAYNOR:  That's correct, Mr. President.  This is part of --

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Have you confirmed that with the witness, that this

 9     is part of the associated exhibit?

10             MR. GAYNOR:  That's correct, Mr. President.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.

12             MR. GAYNOR:

13        Q.   Perhaps, Witness, could you sign and date this photograph,

14     please.

15        A.   [In English] What is the date today, the 11th?

16             JUDGE KWON:  I take it it's the 4th of November, if I'm not

17     mistaken.

18             THE WITNESS:  [Marks]

19             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Both versions will be admitted.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, the previously-marked version will

21     be Exhibit P1929, and the annotations made today will be Exhibit P1930.

22             MR. GAYNOR:  Now, if we could bring up the previous file of

23     photographs, which is 09900.

24        Q.   Now, Witness, if we go to photograph 7 now of this, please.

25             Does that photograph assist your recollection at all?

Page 9023

 1        A.   Absolutely.  Those traces of shrapnel that I just hinted at with

 2     the blue fields on the previous picture are now visible on the left.

 3     Looking from the place where the shell landed, to the left.  Is it

 4     necessary to mark it?

 5        Q.   Yes.  For the record, I think it would be clearest if you marked

 6     that, please.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Could you wait a minute.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Zoom out, please, zoom out.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Before you touch the screen, you may need to push

10     some button.  Yes.

11             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

12             MR. GAYNOR:

13        Q.   Could you mark the area that you were talking about earlier and

14     explain the point that you were making.

15        A.   [Marks]. [Interpretation] These are the shrapnel traces that are

16     now between and inside these blue lines, that are hardly visible on the

17     previous picture, where I indicated they should be, because I saw them in

18     another picture.  However, when we were determining the azimuth in the

19     flesh, so to speak, we saw these traces, and we acknowledged their

20     symmetry to determine the azimuth correctly.

21        Q.   Could you sign and date that photograph, please, Mr. Witness.

22        A.   [Marks]

23             MR. GAYNOR:  And could I tender that, please, Mr. President?

24             JUDGE KWON:  Could you put your signature and date.

25             THE WITNESS:  [Marks]

Page 9024

 1             JUDGE KWON:  That will be admitted as P1931.

 2             MR. GAYNOR:

 3        Q.   Now, my final couple of questions, Witness:  Could you tell the

 4     Court, in a general manner, in respect of how many incidents where you

 5     were a participant in the investigations did you personally visit the

 6     scene of the incident?

 7        A.   This is very hard to say, because we never kept statistics of our

 8     activities.  But from my recollection, it was at least 100 scenes where I

 9     participated directly, and perhaps as many more where I participated as a

10     consultant.  And our team was the most responsible for such cases, while

11     consulting as many colleagues as possible, in the fields of their

12     expertise, to take into account as many facts as possible in every

13     investigation.

14        Q.   In all those investigations that you participated in, did you

15     ever encounter credible information suggesting that Bosnian Government

16     forces were deliberately targeting civilians in Sarajevo?

17        A.   Absolutely not.

18             MR. GAYNOR:  That ends the direct examination, Mr. President.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

20             MR. GAYNOR:  Perhaps I should deal with the associated exhibits

21     at this stage.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

23             MR. GAYNOR:  In our notification, we pointed out two exhibits

24     which have previously been admitted.  I'd now like to point out that one

25     further exhibit has been admitted through the witness who testified

Page 9025

 1     earlier.  65 ter 09906 has been admitted as P1908 in the public redacted

 2     version and P1909 as the original version under seal.  And I tender for

 3     the admission of the rest of the associated exhibits.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Could you kindly name those two exhibits that have

 5     been already admitted again?  I note one 09867?

 6             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes, I'll just get my copy of the notification.

 7     Bear with me for one moment, please.

 8             Yes, Mr. President, 09786 has been admitted as P1324, and 09867

 9     has been admitted as P1336.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Any objections?

11             Yes, all the others will be admitted and given numbers by the

12     Court Deputy.  Thank you.

13             Before you start your cross-examination, Mr. Karadzic,

14     Judge Morrison has a question for the witness.

15             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes.

16             Dr. Turkusic, you said, in answer to one of the questions from

17     the Prosecution -- or gave a statement as to what your views were as to

18     the policy or reasoning behind the incident we've been dealing with, and

19     to paraphrase it, that it was, in your view, done in order to cause fear

20     amongst the population and to drive their political leaders into

21     negotiation, or words to that general effect.  Do you recall that?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.

23             JUDGE MORRISON:  Now, would you agree that those are your

24     personal views that you have formed as a result of your own experiences

25     and observations?

Page 9026

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would not agree, because my

 2     opinion is shared by a huge number of people who have gone through the

 3     inferno of Sarajevo and bore witness to the fact that in all the places

 4     where the shells fell, there were only civilian targets, that air-bombs

 5     fell on the most densely-populated part of Sarajevo, Alipasino Polje, a

 6     bomb of 300 kilos is falling on a neighbourhood full of high-rises where

 7     the density of population is the greatest.  What else could it be except

 8     intention to intimidate, sow fear and panic, and pressurise our

 9     leadership to be more pliable and more accepting, whatever that means?

10             JUDGE MORRISON:  No doubt there may be a great many people who

11     share your views, but I want to concentrate on your views.  You may share

12     your views with a lot of people, but your views are, of course, your

13     personal subjective views, formed as a result of your own experiences and

14     observations.  Other people may have similar views, but those are your

15     views, aren't they?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but I would add to my

17     explanation just one fact.

18             It's well known that very frequently, after firing one shell,

19     another was fired five minutes later onto the same place.  It's well

20     known that when many people gather to help the victims, that again is a

21     good target for shelling, and these people are the object -- the target

22     of the second shell.

23             JUDGE MORRISON:  And the thrust of your evidence is to provide

24     the scientific and mathematical calculation and crater analysis to

25     determine where this particular shell came from; that's correct, is it

Page 9027

 1     not?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.

 3             JUDGE MORRISON:  Dr. Karadzic, it seems to the Bench that the

 4     views of the witness have been made plain, but your task is not to, as it

 5     were, examine those views, but to concentrate on the scientific and

 6     mathematical calculations and the crater analysis which has led this

 7     witness to the conclusions that he has made and from which other

 8     conclusions may flow.  So rather than embarking upon a political analysis

 9     of his views, concentrate on a scientific analysis and cross-examination

10     of his findings.

11             JUDGE KWON:  I propose to take a break now.

12             We'll have a break for an hour, so we'll resume at 10 to 1.00.

13                           --- Luncheon recess taken at 11.50 a.m.

14                           --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Before Mr. Karadzic starts his cross-examination,

16     there are a couple of matters I would like to deal with.  The first thing

17     is I'd like to revisit the issue of admission of associated exhibits.

18             Mr. Gaynor, amongst the exhibits, associated exhibits, are there

19     any reports which relate to unscheduled incidents?

20             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes, there are, Mr. President.

21             JUDGE KWON:  Could you identify them now for our purpose?

22             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes.

23             The incident at -- well, 21611 is the incident at Bolnicka

24     Street 25.  21628 is the incident at Baruthana Street number 9.

25             JUDGE KWON:  The 65 ter number, 21 --

Page 9028

 1             MR. GAYNOR:  Sorry.  The second one is 21628.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  21628.  And the first one was ...?

 3             MR. GAYNOR:  21611.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 5             MR. GAYNOR:  The third one is 09867.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  098 -- could you give it again?

 7             MR. GAYNOR:  09867.  The next one --

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Which is already admitted?

 9             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes, as P1336.

10             The next one is 21629.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

12             MR. GAYNOR:  The next one is 21632.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

14             MR. GAYNOR:  21631.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

16             MR. GAYNOR:  22035.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

18             MR. GAYNOR:  21634.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

20             MR. GAYNOR:  21625, 21636, 21635.

21             Now, there are Exhibit -- sorry, 65 ter 16835 concerns two of the

22     shells which fell around the same time as the Markale 2 shell.  So, in a

23     sense, they are associated with that incident.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

25             Mr. Gaynor, do you remember that the Chamber has stated

Page 9029

 1     previously that it would not admit detailed evidence going to unscheduled

 2     incidents, including those incidents that had been included in the

 3     schedule, and in relation to which evidence should no longer be presented

 4     pursuant to Rule 73 bis (D)?

 5             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes, I recall the Chamber's ruling, yes.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  So upon reflection and to ensure consistency with

 7     our previous rulings, the Judges have decided to partially reconsider

 8     this earlier decision, admitting those associated exhibits in relation to

 9     the unscheduled incidents.  So the Chamber has decided to reconsider our

10     decision to admit those associated exhibits, which are Bosnian Muslim

11     reports on various unscheduled incidents.  I take it there are 12 or 11,

12     excluding the Markale 2 incidents.

13             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes.

14             JUDGE KWON:  So the reason for this is that it will be -- we are

15     going to take steps, whenever we can, to make this case more manageable.

16     So if you -- since these reports are not admitted into evidence, I will

17     give you an opportunity, if you so wish, to go through, in a very general

18     manner, in relation to those unscheduled incidents.

19             MR. GAYNOR:  With the witness in direct examination?  Yes, I can

20     do that.

21             JUDGE KWON:  If you so wish.

22             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes, I would like to do that, Mr. President, for one

23     particular reason, and that is the reports indicate the markings on the

24     stabiliser fin in the -- on the projectiles in respect of many of those

25     incidents.

Page 9030

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Except those you went through with the witness in

 2     your direct examination.

 3             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes.  In respect of many of the unscheduled

 4     incidents which weren't discussed in direct examination, the reports

 5     state that the stabilisers contain markings showing that they were

 6     manufactured in Krusik Valjevo, in Serbia.  And then tying in with other

 7     evidence in the Prosecution case, those stabilisers were then transported

 8     to VRS troops within Bosnia to the Sarajevo Romanija Corps.  So this

 9     evidence -- the point I'm making, Mr. President, is that this evidence

10     goes beyond merely proving the scheduled incidents; it goes to showing

11     the provenance of the projectiles and goes towards our case.

12             JUDGE KWON:  If you wish, you may go through the topics with the

13     witness in the second direct examination.

14             MR. GAYNOR:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I'll do that now.  Thank

15     you.

16             MR. ROBINSON:  Excuse me, Mr. President.

17             Thank you very much for that ruling.  I was actually biting my

18     tongue not to be objecting to unscheduled incidents, which seemed to be

19     something that we agreed.

20             JUDGE KWON:  To the understanding, to the understanding of the

21     Chamber.

22             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, thank you.

23             But following up on that, the amalgamated statement contains a

24     lot of information about unscheduled incidents that ought to be redacted,

25     consistent with your ruling, including some conclusions that the shell

Page 9031

 1     had been fired from the area under the control of the aggressor; for

 2     example, in item 8 on page 10.  So if the idea is to save time, I think

 3     that we should also redact the amalgamated statement so that it doesn't

 4     contain any information about unscheduled incidents, and then leave it to

 5     Mr. Gaynor to decide how much he wants to try to elicit, and leave it to

 6     the Chamber as to how much you want to hear.

 7                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Do you have any response, Mr. Gaynor?

 9             MR. GAYNOR:  No.

10             Your Honours have previously given a ruling as to the

11     admissibility of evidence going to unscheduled incidents, generally,

12     related to a widespread and systematic nature of the attack on the

13     civilian population and the existence of a campaign of shelling and

14     sniping, so I don't believe that Mr. Robinson's submission is consistent

15     with that ruling by the Chamber.

16             JUDGE KWON:  You would like to comment?

17             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes.

18             If this was a jury trial, Mr. Robinson, there would be every

19     reason to redact it from material that was going before the jury.  You'll

20     have to trust that redaction is a mental process, as far as a chamber

21     which has judges of both fact and law.  We've already seen this material

22     in the statement, anyway, so simply physically redacting it from the

23     document is not going to make a material difference.  It's a mental

24     redaction that's required, and you can rest assured that that will

25     happen.

Page 9032

 1             MR. ROBINSON:  Thank you.

 2             I appreciate that, but actually a 92 ter statement is part of the

 3     evidence as if it was direct examination.  It can be used in the

 4     judgement.  So if the idea is to stop -- not spend a lot of time on these

 5     incidents, the fact that they are contained in the 92 ter statement,

 6     regardless of their influence on you, compels us, I think, or gives us at

 7     least the obligation to deal with those incidents.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Robinson, what we allowed is a general

 9     overview -- a general analysis in relation to the unscheduled incidents.

10     What we decided to avoid is a detailed analysis into it.  So I think, for

11     example, the Prosecution's asked the witness, Based upon his experience

12     and investigation, you have a general overview about these incidents.  He

13     can answer whatever he likes to.  And the statements reflected in the

14     statement fits to that general description.

15             MR. ROBINSON:  I understand that, Mr. President.  However, I

16     don't think that would solve our problem cross-examining on the details.

17             JUDGE KWON:  But you know the ruling of the Chamber to allow the

18     Prosecution to lead evidence, in a general manner, on unscheduled

19     incidents.

20             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, I understand that, but I don't see how we're

21     going to save a lot of time in cross-examination if the material in the

22     amalgamated statement remains.  But, anyway, we can cross that bridge

23     when we welcome to it.  I understand your ruling, and I appreciate it.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

25             Mr. Gaynor.

Page 9033

 1             MR. GAYNOR:  Thank you.

 2             So I'll now go briefly through the documents in question,

 3     Mr. President.

 4             Could I ask for 21624, please.

 5        Q.   The document coming up, Mr. Turkusic, if we look on the second

 6     page of the document in the original version, we see at the bottom of the

 7     second page the signature of Mirza Jamakovic and, to the left of that,

 8     the letters "ET."  Could you confirm what the letters "ET" mean?

 9        A.   These are my initials.

10        Q.   Does that mean that you drafted this report?

11        A.   Correct.

12        Q.   Now, a little bit above your signature, we see a reference to a

13     marking on the stabiliser, and the marking is "MK M74 KB 9309."  Could

14     you tell us what that means?

15        A.   That indicates the type of the weapon or the shell.  The "KV" and

16     "9309," that means that the fuse and the stabiliser of the shell was

17     produced in September 1993.

18        Q.   The letters which are "KB" on the shell, is that the Cyrillic

19     equivalent of the Latin letters "KV"?

20        A.   Correct.

21        Q.   And we see your conclusion concerning the direction of fire and

22     your conclusion that the projectile had been fired from the area in the

23     direction of Grdonj and Mrkovici.  Could you just explain briefly how you

24     came to that conclusion?

25             MR. ROBINSON:  Excuse me, Mr. President.

Page 9034

 1             I would just like to object -- maybe I misunderstood your ruling,

 2     but I thought you didn't want to go into this level of detail.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Agreed.

 4             MR. GAYNOR:  Very well.  I'll simply go through the documents

 5     slightly faster.  Is that what you wish?

 6             JUDGE KWON:  I was mistaken.

 7             You are on 65 ter 21624?

 8             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes, Mr. President.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  This is also related to an unscheduled incident?

10             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes, this is the first unscheduled incident.  It's

11     on page 7 of the amalgamated statement.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Without going into the detail of the reports, can

13     you cover the unscheduled incidents in general terms?

14             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes, very well.

15             JUDGE KWON:  That's what I intended.  I thought that was -- that

16     was the report on one of the scheduled incidents.  I was mistaken.  But

17     what I wanted you to do is to cover the unscheduled incident without

18     relying on these reports.  Just go through in general terms.

19             MR. GAYNOR:  I understand.

20             JUDGE KWON:  The whole purpose is to show the pattern or the

21     systematic nature or the widespread nature.

22             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes, that's correct.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, please, Mr. Gaynor.

24             Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I?  I'm waiting for the

Page 9035

 1     interpretation.  May I ask something?

 2             If I know and see that this is an error, that it was incorrectly

 3     established, and if this is part of the case file, and if it can have an

 4     effect on the final outcome, on the judgement, do I have the right to

 5     dispute every single detail of that?

 6             JUDGE KWON:  You do.

 7             Mr. Gaynor.

 8             MR. GAYNOR:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 9        Q.   Now, Witness, you also participated in the investigation of a

10     shelling at Bolnicka Street number 25 on the 26th of May, 1995; do you

11     recall that?

12        A.   Could you please show me the material just so that I can refresh

13     my recollection?

14             MR. GAYNOR:  Could we have 65 ter 21611, please.

15        Q.   Does that refresh your recollection of this investigation?

16        A.   Yes.  We were given a request from the Sarajevo CSB to analyse,

17     and it says that:

18             "The following material is submitted for expert opinion -- the

19     following material collected at the crime scene was submitted for expert

20     analysis:  Fragment of the projectile with wings, 10 metal fragments of

21     the irregular shape," and then the rest is illegible.  Perhaps we can

22     zoom in a little bit.  I think it says "calibre of the projectile," but

23     it's a bit indistinct.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps the translation in English

Page 9036

 1     is --

 2             JUDGE KWON:  I'm sorry to intervene.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can we scroll down a little bit

 4     more in the English?

 5             JUDGE KWON:  I'm sorry to intervene, interfere with you so many

 6     times, but there seems to be a misunderstanding.

 7             I just quickly went through his amalgamated statement again right

 8     now, and it really contains, albeit briefly, the elements -- the evidence

 9     contains the elements of unscheduled incidents, i.e., the date and time,

10     calibre or -- calibre, and the markings, and where they are from, and

11     also there is some evidence about the direction or azimuth.  So I'm

12     wondering whether you need to go through them again.  I said if you so

13     wish, given that we are not admitting those reports, you may go through

14     quickly, but I didn't say you have to.  It's up to you, Mr. Gaynor.

15             MR. GAYNOR:  I understand Your Honour's point.  Apologies for

16     that.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

18             MR. GAYNOR:  I think the material points of each report are

19     reflected in the amalgamated statement; and in that case, there's no need

20     to question the witness about that.

21             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. Gaynor.

22             MR. GAYNOR:  Thank you.

23             JUDGE KWON:  I wasn't clear enough.

24             Before you start your cross-examination, Mr. Karadzic,

25     Judge Baird has a word for you.

Page 9037

 1             JUDGE BAIRD:  Dr. Karadzic, I would like to make an addendum to

 2     what Judge Morrison told you before the break.

 3             We were offering advice; nothing more, nothing less.  This must

 4     not be construed in any way as being any sort of restriction that we are

 5     imposing on what you should or what you should not cross-examine.

 6     Obviously, if you asked a question that is irrelevant, it wouldn't be

 7     allowed, but we are not prohibiting you in any way from cross-examining

 8     in the manner you see fit.  Well, as long, of course, as it is within the

 9     bounds of propriety.

10             You have the conduct of your defence.  What is your defence, you

11     have, in pectore, and you, and you alone, would decide the form your

12     cross-examination would take.

13             Thank you.

14             JUDGE KWON:  So I hope that through this reconsideration

15     exercise, the parties are fully aware of the Chamber's concerns regarding

16     the scope of the case, and I think this reconsideration is one step in

17     this regard.

18             Mr. Karadzic.

19             MR. GAYNOR:  Sorry, Mr. President.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Gaynor.

21             MR. GAYNOR:  In line with the spirit of Your Honour's ruling, can

22     I just ask one or two additional questions of the witness, please?

23             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

24             MR. GAYNOR:  Thank you.

25        Q.   Mr. Turkusic, in your statement, you've described investigations

Page 9038

 1     into a number of incidents in which markings were contained on the

 2     stabiliser, indicating that they'd been manufactured in Krusik Valjevo in

 3     Serbia.  You recall that?

 4        A.   Yes, I do; not only Krusik Valjevo in Serbia, but also during the

 5     war, and this is important to know as well.

 6        Q.   And is this merely a selection of the incidents which you

 7     investigated in which you found stabilisers with markings suggesting that

 8     the stabiliser had been manufactured in Krusik Valjevo?

 9        A.   I, personally, wasn't able to have any influence on the selection

10     of cases.  After the war, those who participated in the investigations

11     here came to Sarajevo.  They copied the entire documentation.  And then

12     the selection made by the OTP was something that was presented to me, and

13     I gave my answers on the basis of that.  We didn't make any selection.

14        Q.   Now, could you -- you've anticipated my point.  But the reports

15     which you've reviewed are merely an illustrative set of examples of

16     investigations into incidents where the projectile bore markings

17     suggesting that the stabiliser had been manufactured in Krusik Valjevo;

18     is that right?

19        A.   Yes, that is correct.

20        Q.   Now, generally speaking, concerning the targets of incidents

21     which you investigated, could you give the Court an overall impression

22     whether the targets of the incidents which you investigated were

23     primarily civilian or primarily of a military nature?  Could you clarify

24     that for the Court, please?

25        A.   These were predominantly civilian targets; residential homes,

Page 9039

 1     hospitals, schools, kindergartens.  They were all predominantly civilian

 2     targets.

 3             MR. GAYNOR:  Thank you, Mr. President.  No further questions.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. Gaynor.

 5             Dr. Turkusic, probably you heard this from the VWS, but I'd like

 6     to remind you once again.  Because Mr. Karadzic and you are speaking the

 7     same language, you need to put a pause between the question and answer in

 8     order for the interpreters to follow you.  So if you are starting your

 9     answer -- giving your answer before the interpretation is over, because

10     of the overlapping, they can't hear you answering.  So please bear that

11     in mind.  One option for you is to look at the transcript, and if it

12     stops, then you can start your answer.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will, thank you.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16             First of all, I would like to thank Your Excellencies Morrison

17     and Baird for this encouragement and for the useful suggestions.  What I

18     am concerned about is the ambition of the Prosecutor to introduce

19     technical data --

20             JUDGE KWON:  It's time to ask questions.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All I wanted to say is that I have

22     15 minutes per incident.  This is what I wanted to say.  Very well.

23                           Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic:

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Turkusic.

Page 9040

 1        A.   Good afternoon.

 2        Q.   I would just briefly and, if possible, with as many yes-or-no

 3     answers as possible, to cover with you as many matters as possible so

 4     that both of us could go home as soon as possible, especially you.

 5             Can you please tell me:  Which party were you a member of in the

 6     elections of 1990 and after 1990?

 7        A.   I didn't belong to any party.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  At the beginning of the war, you were a volunteer or

 9     you were mobilised in the 1st Dobrinja Brigade; what is correct of that?

10        A.   Volunteer.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Put a pause.  Yes.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13        Q.   At the beginning, how many brigades were there in Dobrinja?

14             JUDGE KWON:  I'm sorry.  Because of my intervention, probably,

15     your answer was not correctly reflected.  What did you say to the

16     previous question?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That I voluntarily joined the

18     1st Dobrinja Brigade.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Can you please tell us:  How many brigades were there in Dobrinja

22     in the beginning?  This was the 1st.  How many more were there?

23        A.   The first one and the only one.  I don't know of any others.

24        Q.   Is it correct that it was later renamed as the 5th Motorised and

25     then later the 155th Brigade?

Page 9041

 1        A.   Yes, I think that that corresponds to the fact.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  And which battalion were you in?

 3        A.   I wasn't in any battalion.  I wasn't in any battalion but in a

 4     sector that dealt with the same things that I later dealt with in the

 5     KDZ.

 6        Q.   So you were in the HQ of the brigade, in a way, weren't you?

 7        A.   Yes, in a way.

 8        Q.   Who was your commander?

 9        A.   It's a well-known name.  I frequently hear of that name in the

10     streets of Sarajevo, but, actually, right now I cannot remember the name.

11        Q.   Thank you.  How many battalions did the brigade have?

12        A.   I have no information about that whatsoever.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Where was its HQ?

14        A.   The HQ was in the ground floor and the cellar of a building in

15     Dobrinja.

16        Q.   Do you remember the address?

17        A.   No.

18        Q.   Thank you.  And what was exactly the work you were doing there?

19     Were you dealing with weapons?  What was the work you were focused on as

20     part of your regular duties?

21        A.   The group -- I, myself, and the group that I described were

22     disarming or de-mining unexploded shells.  Thank God there were such

23     shells.  We would extract explosives from some of them and provide it for

24     further use in defence, because we were the only ones subjected to the

25     embargo of all the armies that were waging war then.

Page 9042

 1        Q.   Thank you.  I am astonished to hear that there were many

 2     unexploded shells.  Can you tell us:  Which were the ones which most

 3     frequently failed to explode?

 4        A.   In the literature worldwide, there is statistics about unexploded

 5     shells, and it ranges in the amount of a couple of percentages, which

 6     depends on the angle of descent and ricochets.  There were

 7     cumulative-charge shells, which are quite easily deactivated, as well as

 8     mortar shells.  However, if, out of a thousand grenades, shells, you've

 9     got 4 per cent unexploded, that's 40, so that would be quite a few.

10        Q.   So 4 per cent.  But out of these shells, were some more prone to

11     failures than others?

12        A.   I don't have the requisite knowledge to be able to either confirm

13     or deny the statement in your question.

14        Q.   Thank you.  I can see that you were also involved in the

15     manufacture of arms, and you used explosives.  What is it that one can

16     put to use out of a shell?

17        A.   Well, quite a few things.  Number 1, explosives, which is most

18     frequently the TNT, which is harmless to handle, because it can basically

19     melt out of an unexploded shell through vapour or can be hammered out of

20     a shell.  If I compare the TNT to the candle wax, then I think that it

21     will make things much clearer to everyone, because the material is quite

22     similar.

23        Q.   Thank you.  In some of your material, you say that you produced

24     shells and even rifles.  Could the body of the shell be put to any use?

25     And if so, which use was it put to?

Page 9043

 1        A.   I don't have that sort of information.  I don't have information

 2     to the effect that ever a body of an unexploded shell was reused, or the

 3     casing.  And you also said that I manufactured rifles.  That's not true.

 4     I don't know where you got that information from.  I never stated

 5     anything of the sort in relation to rifles.

 6        Q.   Very well.  You said that most of the shells were manufactured in

 7     towns across Bosnia-Herzegovina and that Bosnia-Herzegovina had capable

 8     personnel to manufacture the weapons.

 9             And this was stated by you in Perisic on the 21st January 2009 at

10     page 2775.  This is for the benefit of everyone in the courtroom.

11             Is this what you stated?

12        A.   If we're talking about Bosnia, it is common knowledge that there

13     were several locations in Bosnia which produced weapons, which meant that

14     they had to have highly qualified and professional cadre to do the job.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Can you, for the benefit of Their Honours, briefly

16     enumerate the various companies dealing with special-purpose industry in

17     Bosnia and Herzegovina and under whose control they were during the war.

18        A.   Before the war, the highest manufacturing capacity was by the

19     Pretis factory in Vogosca, which I think was the highest manufacturing

20     capacity of artillery pieces in the entire Yugoslavia.  That's my view.

21     Right at the outset of the war, we weren't able to control either the

22     location or its production, and I'm talking about Pretis.

23             I know that there was another industrial plant in Bugojno

24     producing ammunition, as well as in Konjic.

25        Q.   Novi Travnik; right?

Page 9044

 1        A.   Right.

 2        Q.   What was there -- what was produced there?  Cannons, I believe.

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   What sort of shells were produced by Pretis?

 5        A.   Cannon shells, Howitzer shells, and, I believe, mortar shells, if

 6     I remember correctly, because for many years before the war, large

 7     amounts of such shells were laid out in the industrial grounds

 8     surrounding the plant.  They would be transported by forklifts from one

 9     stage of manufacturer plant to another.  So this was the largest

10     industrial plant of the sort which, right at the start of the war, the

11     Serbs placed under their control.

12        Q.   Do you also agree that air-bombs were produced there?

13        A.   No, I don't have information to that effect.  According to what I

14     know, air-bombs were repaired in Serbia or Montenegro, perhaps in Tivat.

15     They were repaired and serviced there and made ready for use.  They were

16     subsequently used in ways you are better familiar with than I am.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Do you agree that of the various military, economic,

18     and political centres, Bihac, Tuzla, Zenica and down-town Sarajevo

19     remained under the control of the Muslim-Croat coalition, i.e.,

20     federation?

21        A.   This is the first time I hear of a Muslim-Croat coalition.  I

22     don't know who you mean.

23        Q.   I mean the BH Federation, which was first called [indiscernible]

24     the Dayton Accords, but let's leave it at that.  Did these not remain

25     under the control of the BH Federation?

Page 9045

 1        A.   You mean these towns?  Yes.

 2        Q.   Do you agree that in Tito's era, industry and stocks were spread

 3     out and stored across Yugoslavia in the event of an attack, for the

 4     eventuality of an attack?

 5        A.   The complete arsenal and stockpiles were, before the war, placed

 6     fully under the control of the then Yugoslav People's Army.  Now, the

 7     ammunition and weapons held by the Territorial Defence were, shortly

 8     before the war, also placed under the control of the Yugoslav People's

 9     Army, which, in practice, meant a full disarmament of Bosnia-Herzegovina

10     before embargo was imposed.

11        Q.   Very well.  We'll deal with this matter with someone else, but I

12     do claim that huge stockpiles of weapons, like those in Zenica, remained

13     where they were.  Is that right?

14        A.   I would very much like the case -- this to be the case, but this

15     was not the case.  Republika Srpska had under their full control all of

16     the weapons and ammunition and stockpiles.  Nothing was left to chance.

17     Even the weapons held by the Territorial Defence, or those that were

18     still in the possession of the various factories and intended for the TO,

19     these were weapons that were bought by the funds of the workers who

20     produced them.  These were all placed under the control of the JNA, with

21     a view to fully disarming Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is what happened.

22        Q.   Very well.  Do you agree that in the month of April, there were

23     several attacks by Green Berets on Pretis?  Some of them were successful

24     and resulted in a large number of material and technical equipment and

25     weapons being seized?

Page 9046

 1        A.   I don't know that.

 2             MR. GAYNOR:  In any event, we need a year in the question.  We

 3     just have "April."

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   April of 1992, there were several successful attacks by the

 6     Green Berets on Pretis; yes or no.

 7        A.   I know of one successful attack, and I don't know that the

 8     Green Berets conducted the attack.  Rather, it was the police special

 9     units.  At the time, they seized a number of hand-held rocket-launchers,

10     thankfully, because they were used to defend the Presidency in an attempt

11     to carry out a coup on the top leadership in Skenderija.

12        Q.   Thank you.  In early 1994, you transferred to the special-purpose

13     industry, it is stated here, in your evidence in the case of

14     General Milosevic on the 19th of February, 2007, page 2409, that you

15     transferred to the special-purpose industry centre for manufacture of

16     rifles and hand-grenades for the purposes of the Army of Bosnia and

17     Herzegovina.  Do you recall stating that?

18        A.   No, and I claim that I could not have stated this, because it's

19     not the truth.  It's not true that we manufactured rifles.

20        Q.   What about hand-grenades?

21        A.   Hand-grenades, yes, and precisely out of the explosives I

22     referred to earlier on.  We exercised our primary inherent right to

23     self-control.

24        Q.   Mr. Turkusic, I am not denying anyone's rights.  I'm merely

25     trying to establish facts.

Page 9047

 1             Did you, in Sarajevo, manufacture mortar shells as well?

 2        A.   No, I don't have information to that effect.  One needs to have a

 3     press and specialised technology to produce mortar shells.  And although

 4     it was nearby in Vogosca, we didn't have it.  As far as I know, not a

 5     single mortar shell was produced in Sarajevo, to the extent of my

 6     knowledge.

 7        Q.   Mahmoud Cehajic, whom you know as deputy prime minister and a

 8     high functionary in the Party of Democratic Action -- is that right?

 9        A.   Well, I don't know him personally, but I know who you mean.

10        Q.   In his book, entitled War in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, at

11     page 282, he says that in Sarajevo, a town as encircled as it was, some

12     40.000 mortar shells of the calibre of 82 millimetres was manufactured --

13     were manufactured.  Is it possible to produce mortar shells with anything

14     other than a press?

15        A.   I would that this figure were true.  I don't have knowledge to

16     the effect that a single mortar shell was produced in Sarajevo, and I'm

17     referring to the area of Sarajevo which was under siege.  I am speaking

18     here based on my memory and to the best of my knowledge.  I cannot deny

19     or challenge what someone says in his book.

20        Q.   Very well.  But will you agree that a shell can also be cast and

21     not only used -- produced by a press?

22        A.   Well, iron-casting is a very demanding job.  We didn't have

23     either the power or the requisite technology in Sarajevo to do that.  Had

24     this technology been used, I would have been informed of it, and I

25     haven't been.

Page 9048

 1        Q.   Very well.  You were in that manufacturing centre.  Is it true

 2     that your immediate supervisor was Farik Kulovic?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   And in the capacity of some sort of a boss, there was also

 5     Veljko Zecevic; right?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   The centre dealt with innovations, manufacture, and adjustment of

 8     material and technical equipment?

 9        A.   We produced hand-grenades and rifle-launched grenades, and these

10     were assets of a low explosive capacity.  And that was the core

11     production of the centre.

12        Q.   Thank you.  And you produced these for the purposes of the Army

13     of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

14        A.   Right.

15        Q.   Which of the anti-aircraft defence systems were used by the

16     BH Army?

17        A.   You mean "anti-aircraft," not "anti-air."

18        Q.   Yes, precisely, PVO.

19        A.   Well, as far as I know, none of it.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have 1D2680 in e-court.

21             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Fikret Prevljak was the commander of either the 1st Corps or the

23     12th Division; is that right?

24        A.   Well, I can see his signature here.  If this is what a credible

25     document states, then there's no need for me to confirm it.  This is what

Page 9049

 1     the document reads.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Please look at the first sentence, although I'll read

 3     it:

 4             "While touring the units of the 12th Division, it was established

 5     that fire positions for anti-aircraft and defence assets used for firing

 6     on the ground have not been done properly.  In order to improve the

 7     situation, I hereby order as follows:

 8             "The fire positions which were erected for targeting targets on

 9     the ground should be further reinforced and fortified in order to fully

10     guarantee the safety of those operating them and to enable prolonged

11     combat activity."

12             Under 2:

13             "They should be fully camouflaged."

14             Do you agree that this order was issued on the 23rd of July,

15     1995?

16        A.   That's the date that the document bears.

17        Q.   That's right.  And they hid this, they concealed this from you,

18     did they?

19        A.   Well, I wasn't interesting enough for anyone to conceal things

20     from me; to either inform me of them or to conceal them.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22             Can we have the document admitted, please?

23             JUDGE KWON:  I see no basis to admit this through this witness,

24     who said nothing about this document.  How can you complain about

25     shortage of time?

Page 9050

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness said that he did not

 2     see or observe the BH Army using air-bombs and anti-aircraft defence

 3     assets for targets on the ground, and this document proves the contrary.

 4     This document shows that they were fully masked and camouflaged so that

 5     no one would be able to detect them.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  You'll have another opportunity to tender this

 7     document, and then you can make your submission as to the credibility of

 8     this witness's evidence.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10        Q.   You said that afterwards, you took part in investigations, and

11     that these investigations were just like in peacetime, except that they

12     had undergone certain adjustments, they were adapted to a certain extent.

13     Is that what you said?  Can you tell us what it was that changed in

14     relation to peacetime investigations?

15        A.   Well, that's very simple.  When the Department of

16     Counter-Sabotage Protection, which exists in any police force in wartime

17     and peacetime, does its work, they go to investigate situations when

18     there are a large number of casualties, and then they go to investigate

19     all the technical aspects involved with a particular incident and they

20     apply their technical knowledge in order to carry out an on-site

21     investigation that explains, in detail, what had happened, what the

22     origin of the incident was, what the equipment was that caused loss of

23     life and injury.  If it was military equipment and if it was air-borne,

24     it is only logical to look at the azimuth, the direction from where it

25     had been fired, and everything else that pertains, in a technical sense,

Page 9051

 1     to the facts that may remain documented and archived.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  From the point of view of criminal law, were your

 3     investigations more thorough or more superficial during the war?

 4        A.   As far as I know, not in a single war can a police force --

 5        Q.   Please, do not explain anything to us in general terms.  What was

 6     the situation where we were?

 7        A.   What do you mean "us"?

 8        Q.   Well, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 9        A.   Well, if you mean the KDZ where I was, they were a lot more

10     thorough.  We dealt with every little detail very seriously, a lot more

11     seriously, and we did not want to record anything that we were not

12     absolutely certain of.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Well, that is an answer, isn't it?  Later on, you

14     were appointed inspector for pyrotechnics.  What did that mean?

15        A.   That meant a maximum level of knowledge and professionalism in a

16     field that is relevant to the defence of the country.

17        Q.   But the application and development of pyrotechnics, what did

18     that denote?

19        A.   Well, that is, actually, what it says in the appointment when I

20     was appointed to this position.  When we collected unexploded ordnance,

21     we actually took this apart, and I am not aware of that ever having

22     happened before that in any war.  We took out the explosive, once we

23     removed the fuse, and then we handed it over for further processing for

24     defence purposes.  That was one of our tasks.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Which method did you use to extract the explosive?

Page 9052

 1        A.   I said already there are two ways of getting TNT out of this kind

 2     of a shell; using a high-temperature steam at 80 degrees, and then it

 3     melts and it literally drips like wax when a candle is burning.  The

 4     other possibility is when it is hammered out.  When stone is carved, for

 5     instance, you can compare it to that.  However, it is important not to

 6     have any sparks, because that may cause a further explosion.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  So you did that at the technical school; right?

 8        A.   I did not do that at the technical school.

 9        Q.   So where did you do it?

10        A.   At the CMP, and at the KDZ later.

11        Q.   Where are these facilities, where are they located?

12        A.   What?

13        Q.   CMP and then KDZ.

14        A.   CMP was at the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and the Faculty

15     of Natural Sciences and Mathematics.  It was by the very separation line.

16        Q.   The KDZ?

17        A.   The KDZ was in Titova Street, Tito Street.  That is the building

18     of the federal MUP nowadays.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Do you know whether any accidents happened at any one

20     of these locations, and do you know that some young men got killed when a

21     workshop exploded, some young men lost their lives?

22             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not hear the names.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is not at our location.  I

24     don't know.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 9053

 1        Q.   That was at the technical school.  So do you know which

 2     explosives were manufactured at Bosnalijek?

 3        A.   I have no information about that, absolutely none.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Today, you spoke about the effect of coaxiality --

 5     the effect of coaxiality on the montage of rocket engines as a factor of

 6     imprecision.  On the basis of what did you establish that?

 7        A.   I'm certain of that on the basis of the following fact:  That

 8     placing rocket engines in an improvised manner, together with an

 9     air-bomb, can only be done in a very sophisticated plant where there are

10     three-dimensional pieces of positioning equipment that are based on

11     laser, for instance, just like what the aircraft manufacturing industry

12     uses so that there is no mistake when engines are made.  That is the way

13     in which they were made, and that is -- what you call them in your

14     documents, you call them make-shift devices.  So from the point of view

15     of parallel engines and the parallel bombs, the device can rotate.  The

16     trajectory can change immediately after it is launched.

17        Q.   Thank you.  But that is your position, but how did you actually

18     establish that?

19        A.   I know enough physics to be certain of that.

20        Q.   So you knew that theoretically.  So that is a theoretical

21     assumption that you did not confirm on an unexploded bomb; right?

22        A.   Well, unexploded ordnance would not be appropriate for confirming

23     that.  It would have been deformed if it had not exploded, so that would

24     be an unreliable source for any kind of measurement.

25        Q.   So you did not experiment, you did not do any research, you did

Page 9054

 1     not come to this conclusion on the basis of any kind of literature?

 2        A.   Literature about rocket -- rocket-propelled engines is something

 3     that we had at the KDZ.  We knew about rockets.  These are basic

 4     elements, that rocket engines that propel a bomb that weighs almost 300

 5     kilometres [as interpreted] have to be absolutely symmetrically

 6     positioned with axes that are ideally parallel.  That is more than clear.

 7     Even the smallest deviation of the axis of the engine in relation to

 8     others can lead to a change in the direction of the air-bomb and turn it

 9     into an imprecise piece of equipment.

10        Q.   Thank you.  You said that we had under our control Pretis, which

11     was the best factory of special production.  Did we also have under our

12     control Oro in Rajlovac, which manufactured air equipment of the greatest

13     possible precision?

14             MR. GAYNOR:  Objection, sorry.

15             I believe that the accused has not yet elicited evidence that

16     this location in Rajlovac manufactured air equipment of the greatest

17     possible precision.  That's assuming a fact not in evidence.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that this is assistance

19     that is being given to the witness.  He doesn't need any assistance.  The

20     witness knows what he's talking about.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The factory in Rajlovac,

22     Mr. Karadzic --

23             JUDGE KWON:  But separate from this issue, I hoped that

24     Judge Morrison's kind lecture would work.  When would you come to the

25     real questions?  In relation to these issues, you can just put your case.

Page 9055

 1     Be more efficient.  Think about it.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Then I am going to put

 3     it that way.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Mr. Turkusic, you are not right when you say that this is

 6     imprecisely mounted, because we had excellent factories in our hands and

 7     excellent experts.  This was not done in a blacksmith store, in a car

 8     repair store.  This was done in factories with sophisticated technology.

 9     Did we not have two such factories in Sarajevo?

10        A.   Yes, you had the factory in Sarajevo.  And if what you are saying

11     is true, then you intentionally targeted Alipasino Polje, the most

12     densely-populated area of Sarajevo, with a modified air-bomb.  If you are

13     saying that you were precise, then you did that intentionally.

14        Q.   Leave that aside.  That is the most important thing.

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreters note, we did not hear the witness

16     at all.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Because of overlapping, the

18     interpreters couldn't hear you, Dr. Turkusic.  After saying that, I

19     quote:

20             "If you are saying that you were precise, then you did that

21     intentionally."

22             Did you say something else?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  I said, If you were precise

24     and if you claim that these modified air-bombs were very sophisticated,

25     precise, manufactured in a modern factory, it is only a logical fact,

Page 9056

 1     then, and it is proof that the modified air-bomb targeted the most

 2     densely-populated area in the Balkans, perhaps, but certainly in

 3     Sarajevo.  This bomb fell in Alipasino Polje, among buildings which were

 4     purely residential buildings, apartment buildings, so the logical

 5     conclusion is that you did it on purpose, if it is a precise piece of

 6     weaponry.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, please continue.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 9        Q.   Mr. Turkusic, on the basis of such statements, the indictment

10     charges us with having used ammunition that cannot be used.  We say that

11     that is not the case, and you said that also this lack of aerodynamic

12     quality of this air-bomb contributes to its imprecision, and a sound is

13     created, and therefore it is less precise.  What about mortar shells?

14        A.   Mortar shells are highly aerodynamic, although they create a

15     sound, and it is a well-known thing that in a war, if you hear the sound

16     of a mortar shell, it will not kill you, but you do not hear the sound of

17     the one that will kill you.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In the transcript, there are

19     mistakes.  It is probably because we speak so fast, but it is not right.

20     Can it please be corrected through the audio-recording.

21             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Let's go through this again, and then let's see how much time we

23     have left.

24             Did you investigate the incident in relation to the Holiday Inn

25     on the 24th of November?  It is a rocket-launcher 94; right?

Page 9057

 1        A.   Please remind me by using a document to jog my memory.

 2        Q.   This happened in Hamdije Cemerlica, which was formerly the street

 3     of Bratstvo-Jedinstvo; right?

 4        A.   Could the document please be shown to me to refresh my memory?

 5     This was 15 or 16 years ago.  I don't know which date you mean.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D2712, can we have that, please.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Do you remember this?  Is that the incident?

 9        A.   The first thing I see -- the first thing I see in this document

10     is that what was sent to us from -- from us to the KDZ was this document

11     from the ministry in Sarajevo, on the basis of which we compile a report.

12     So the CSB addressed us, and so on, in relation to expert findings

13     related to the explosion on the 24th of November, 1994, in the urban area

14     of Sarajevo, and during the on-site investigation several metal pieces

15     that were irregularly shaped were there.

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We did not hear the

17     question.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What was submitted to us were these

19     metal pieces that we were supposed to analyse, and the type of projectile

20     was supposed to be established, and the direction from which they were

21     fired.  I cannot see the end, so I do not see what it says further on.

22             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters did not hear Mr. Karadzic

23     again.

24             MR. GAYNOR:  Sorry.  I just want to note for the record,

25     Mr. President, that at the moment we're dealing with an incident which is

Page 9058

 1     not a part of the amalgamated statement of the witness and is not

 2     referred to in the indictment against the accused, just in terms of

 3     assessing the relevance of this line of cross-examination.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So it's not in the indictment, and,

 5     actually, I'd like to give up on this.  Sorry.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   As you confirmed today, did you work on the investigation of

 8     Markale 2, as it is known?

 9        A.   That's right.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have 65 ter 14404, page 17.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   While we're waiting for that:  You said today, Mr. Turkusic, that

13     what happened often was that one shell would fall, and then after that,

14     in order to increase the number of casualties, then another one would

15     fall.  Could you please give us incidents of this nature?  Could you

16     please list some of them?

17        A.   Well, I cannot really list them, nor can I refer to them in terms

18     of the dates when they happened, but everyone who was in Sarajevo at the

19     time will confirm to you that that happened very often.

20        Q.   How often, and what were the incidents involved when there would

21     be one shell, and then investigation would be carried out, and then

22     another shell would fall?

23        A.   There were several such incidents at funerals, when the dead were

24     being buried.  One shell would fall.  When people are trying to deal with

25     those wounded, then another one would fall in the same place.

Page 9059

 1        Q.   Please tell the Trial Chamber where and when that happened.

 2        A.   In view of the fact that it's been 15 years now, I cannot say

 3     that on the basis of memory only.  If you insist on that, it is very easy

 4     to come by this kind of information.

 5        Q.   The transcript reflects what you are claiming, so I will insist,

 6     Mr. Turkusic.  Did any investigator ever get killed by such a second

 7     shell?

 8        A.   No.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Is this a record -- Higher Court in Sarajevo; right.

10     Record on the shelling in the street of Mula Mustafe Baseskije number 64.

11     Does this refer to Markale 2?

12        A.   Yes, that's right, at 1305 hours, and this is a record that was

13     compiled by the Higher Court in Sarajevo.

14        Q.   So the shell fell at 1305 hours; right?

15        A.   According to many of the witnesses who were nearby at the time,

16     that is the hour that is most frequently referred to.

17        Q.   And your task in the investigation was to establish the direction

18     and also to provide your expert opinion on the traces involved in the

19     explosion; right?

20        A.   Yes, that's right.

21        Q.   How did you start the on-site investigation?  What was it that

22     you found there on the spot?  What did you find there on the spot, and

23     when did you start the on-site investigation?

24        A.   When I first testified before the break, I told you how I came to

25     the site.  I saw automobiles with bodies of the dead and wounded.  I went

Page 9060

 1     to the market to buy some food.  That was the centre for food exchanges

 2     in Sarajevo, generally speaking.  When I saw what had happened, I

 3     returned to headquarters, I took what I needed for the on-site

 4     investigation, and I immediately went to the site, itself.  That was the

 5     beginning of the on-site investigation.

 6        Q.   Let us try to describe this to the Trial Chamber now.  You

 7     understood that something had fallen.  Did you hear a single shell?

 8        A.   I've already said before the Trial Chamber and before the break

 9     that I was in a building from which the impact of the shell could not be

10     heard.

11        Q.   I think that you did say somewhere that you heard the shell, that

12     you were on Titova Street, some 10 minutes or less away from the spot.

13     Did you go to see what it was all about and then go back to fetch your

14     instruments?

15        A.   No, we went to fetch our instruments only after we'd seen cars

16     full of bodies, car trunks ajar with limbs sticking out.  And as soon as

17     a convoy of the first cars of the sort passed us by, we went to fetch our

18     instruments and then attended the scene.  And I could not have said

19     anything else anywhere because it would not have been the truth.

20             MR. GAYNOR:  Objection, Mr. President.

21             I let the first incident go, but in this case Mr. Karadzic has

22     said that the witness previously testified that he did hear the impact of

23     the shell while he was on Tito Street.  Can Mr. Karadzic provide a

24     reference to that, please?

25             And I'd just like to note, for the record, Mr. Karadzic's earlier

Page 9061

 1     reference to a page number of the witness's evidence in the

 2     Dragomir Milosevic case does not, in fact, contain the passage that he

 3     claimed it did.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Can you give us the reference, Mr. Karadzic?

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before the end of business, I will

 6     find the reference.  And if I don't inform you of it, we'll let it stand,

 7     but I will.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].

 9        Q.   Mr. Turkusic, can you tell us:  How many shells landed on that

10     day in that zone?

11        A.   This one shell, which became part of history, in the very center,

12     and four more of them fell on a square where there is a theatre to the

13     south of that area, and there were two more that landed on a parking-lot.

14     The four shells I mentioned did not result in any fatalities, and just as

15     millions of others that landed elsewhere in Sarajevo and did not result

16     in fatalities, it did not attract the attention of anyone.

17        Q.   Can you tell us:  What was the time-line according to which these

18     shells landed?

19        A.   Well, I don't know.  I think that the shell that hit Markale was

20     the first one, and then followed by the four.  But there are reports on

21     all these shells, and if one looks at the times of impact associated with

22     them, one can reconstruct the time-line.  At any rate, in a very short

23     span of time, all five of them landed.

24        Q.   Very well.  And then you said that you saw that people were

25     placed in cars in such a way that their limbs were sticking out; is that

Page 9062

 1     right?

 2        A.   No, that's not right.  I saw a number of cars passing me by, and

 3     from the car boot, which was ajar, I could see limbs sticking out.  And

 4     that was on my way to the base that I saw this.

 5        Q.   Are you talking about passenger cars?

 6        A.   I'm talking about the sort of cars that we were able to see at

 7     the start of today's session.  Any car that would pass me by; a Yugo,

 8     Golf, van, whatever the vehicle that happened to pass by would be

 9     immediately in the service of transporting casualties to the hospital.

10        Q.   Can you tell us where it happens -- where would it so happen that

11     people who have just been injured or wounded or killed would be actually

12     stuck into a car that happens to pass by?

13        A.   Well, I can explain it by the monstrosity of the war.

14     Taxi-drivers would use filtered oil, they would recycle it, they were

15     cleanse it, and then use it again.  So we were forced to make use of

16     whatever we had.  Where else would we have put these bodies, these

17     people; ambulances?  Well, whatever was on the move was a target.

18        Q.   In a special report from the Security Services Centre of

19     Sarajevo, dated the 29th of August, 1995, page 9916, it is stated that

20     the CSB was informed of the shelling at 11.30, which is an hour and a

21     half before the shelling took place.  How do you account for this?

22        A.   In no way can I account for this.  I have never seen the

23     document.

24        Q.   The reference, 65 ter 009906 -- 65 ter 09906.  An hour and a half

25     before the explosion took place, the CSB knew that there was one or was

Page 9063

 1     about to be.

 2        A.   Well, you haven't shown me the document.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we call up 65 ter --

 4             MR. GAYNOR:  Perhaps we can call up the redacted version of this.

 5     The public redacted version is P1908, please.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  You have offered already the redacted version?

 7             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes -- actually, I beg your pardon, no, I'm not able

 8     to confirm we've done that.  Pardon me, Mr. President.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Not yet.  We'll not broadcast this.

10             MR. GAYNOR:  Thank you, Mr. President.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Does it not state in the first sentence here that:

13             "On the 28th of August, at 11.30, the centre - Homicide

14     Department - was informed that the center of the town had been shelled

15     and that many --"

16             JUDGE KWON:  Why don't we show the next page to the witness.

17     Yes.

18             What is your question, Mr. Karadzic?

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   My question is:  Who was clairvoyant enough to know an hour and a

21     half before an event that shells would land?  How do you account for

22     this?  How do you explain this?

23        A.   I didn't write the report.  It could be a typographical error.

24     1130, 1330; it doesn't make a difference in my mind.

25        Q.   How can it be 1330 if the commission -- and you will see later on

Page 9064

 1     next to number 9, or below number 9, this was the commission which

 2     attended the scene on the 28th of August, 1995, at 12.15.  The document

 3     does not leave room for lies.

 4        A.   Well, you use big words.  There's no question of lying here.  It

 5     says, below, information was collected on the spot; that on the 28th of

 6     August, 1995, at around 11.00, et cetera.  I think it's a typographical

 7     error.  I have nothing to do with this.

 8        Q.   You investigated this.  There was an impact at 11.00, at 11.30

 9     you were informed, and at 12.15, you attended the scene; right?

10        A.   No, that's not right.  I wasn't informed by anyone.  I attended

11     the scene of my own initiative when I saw cars full of wounded and

12     killed.  A colleague of mine from KDZ and I, when we saw this, we went to

13     the base to get our instruments.  All these interventions were ad hoc.

14        Q.   Is this your name next to number 5?

15        A.   Right.

16        Q.   Asim Kanlic, a judge of the High Court of Sarajevo, appointed you

17     to this commission; right?

18        A.   This is something I learned only at a later date.  The commission

19     was set up in a time of war.  One cannot imagine, in such circumstances,

20     having a protocol and all the various procedures.  The commission was set

21     up.  I was at the spot -- at the scene at the time the commission was set

22     up.  I was unaware of it.  At any rate, the commission came into its own

23     later on with all the various analyses that were produced.

24        Q.   Later when?

25        A.   Well, in the course of the following day.  We worked hard

Page 9065

 1     throughout the night, making calculations.  And I think that the main

 2     report -- you made mention of a court.  Well, our report from the KDZ

 3     was -- had the date of the following day, which was when we produced our

 4     report.  And for the rest, I would have to have a look and could only

 5     then give you my comments.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Is this an exhibit?  It's a

 7     P exhibit, is it not?

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, it is already exhibited as a Prosecution

 9     exhibit.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   So you proceeded to carry out an on-site investigation.  Based on

12     the minutes or the report from the on-site investigation, the

13     investigating team was led by whom?

14        A.   Can I see the bottom of the document?

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we get -- can we see the last

16     page of the document, the one bearing signatures.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These were the wounded.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Very well.

19        Q.   Who is mentioned here as the author of the text?

20        A.   Well, attachment lists, and the report was made by Nedzad Zvizdic

21     and Enes Cermagic.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Turkusic, did Lieutenant General Harry Konings

23     attend these investigating procedures together with his investigating

24     team?

25        A.   When my colleagues and I were at the scene, there were artillery

Page 9066

 1     members, and we saw them in the footage.  There were others, but I didn't

 2     pay attention to them.  I didn't have either the time or the interest to

 3     do so.  We did our job properly, we took all the relevant data, we made

 4     our calculations -- or, rather, we would gather the data on the basis of

 5     which we would make calculations.

 6             You asked me about names, you asked me -- you gave me a name.  I

 7     can't testify about that.  I didn't introduce myself to anyone, nor did

 8     anyone introduce themselves to me.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  You ascertained the direction of fire, did you not?

10        A.   Not just I; my colleague and I.  And the report was signed by our

11     group leader.  The important procedure we applied was as follows:  Every

12     member of the KDZ would independently write down the azimuth number based

13     on their experience and knowledge.  Next, we would compare our respective

14     findings and establish that we have arrived at the same conclusion.  So

15     our azimuth is 170 degrees plus/minus 5 degrees, so the margin of error

16     which -- this was the standard margin of error that we always had, and

17     that was of plus/minus 5 degrees.

18        Q.   Who was it whom you established you arrived at the same

19     conclusion?

20        A.   Well, all of us from the KDZ.  There was my colleague and I.  We

21     were later on joined by several other colleagues.  Two of them went up on

22     the rooftop to establish whether there had been a ricochet or a change of

23     direction, and we measured the height of the roof.  We talked about it in

24     the first session.  All of us were experienced in establishing the

25     azimuth.  And in order to minimise any errors, we each made our

Page 9067

 1     measurements independently.  And by comparing our respective findings, we

 2     agreed that this was the direction of fire which we can -- could

 3     establish.

 4             Now, 15 years later, I can say that I am proud of the fact that

 5     the most competent teams of artillerymen confirmed our angle.

 6        Q.   That's not really the case, but let's leave it.

 7             Which is the table that you used; that the circle was 6.000 or

 8     6.400?

 9        A.   6.000.  We would have the division of a circle into 6.000.  This

10     is a table that is less frequently used.  Mathematically and technically,

11     it makes no difference if we use a circle for the establishment of the

12     azimuth as that of 6.000 or 6.400.  It's the same thing as if you

13     referred to five oranges in a different system of weights, but it's

14     always the same number.

15        Q.   Very well.  But did you use 6.000 or 6.400?

16        A.   6.000.  The conversion of degrees we used was that of 6.000,

17     which, in technical terms, means nothing; the angle is the same.

18        Q.   The azimuth you determined was one which could have been 165

19     degrees.  Isn't that almost straightforward south?

20        A.   Yes.  In fact, it's 5 degrees -- it's full south short of 5

21     degrees.

22        Q.   What was the azimuth determined or established by the French

23     investigators?

24        A.   I reviewed all these reports, but as I sit here now, I can't

25     remember which were the ones they established or others.  It's a matter

Page 9068

 1     in the public domain, anyway.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Gaynor.

 3             MR. GAYNOR:  Just a brief interpretation correction.

 4             Where it says "165 degrees," I believe the original might have

 5     been "175 degrees."

 6             JUDGE KWON:  That should be clear.  Thank you, Mr. Gaynor.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Yes, that's correct,

 8     170 plus/minus 5.  So it could be 175, which is almost straightforward

 9     south.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   So are you familiar with the fact that the French established the

12     azimuth at 2.850, which is, in actual fact, 160 degrees?

13        A.   Well, if that's a document that exists and that's in the

14     possession of the Court, that's all very well, but I would never sign a

15     document with such a calculation.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we call up 65 ter 15060.

17     65 ter 15060, page 29.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  This is Exhibit P1447, Your Honours.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't see a 65-degree angle here.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   And do you see "2.850"?

22        A.   Yes, I do.  I would have to have a calculator now to see, and I

23     would have to know which division was the one that they use, 6.000 or

24     6.400, which isn't something I can tell from the document.

25        Q.   Didn't the French in the NATO --

Page 9069

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter didn't catch the exchange.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   They wouldn't use --

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Be slower, please.  They couldn't hear from your

 5     question:

 6             "Didn't the French in the NATO ..."

 7             And then they stopped.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I asked if the French were in NATO,

 9     and then the witness said, Yes.  So then I said that I suppose that the

10     French use not the Russian table but a NATO table, and the witness

11     confirmed it.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, as far as I know, the English

13     are a member of NATO as well, but they confirmed our calculations and the

14     angle of 175 degrees.  So they added the 5 degrees and stuck by it.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   But which of the tables were used; 6.000 or 6.400?

17             JUDGE KWON:  What I wanted you to do is to repeat your question,

18     instead of wrapping up on your part.  What was your question?  It's not

19     clear to us what the question was and what the answer was.

20             In any event, it's time to take a break now.  We'll have a break

21     for half an hour.

22             But before that, Mr. Tieger, I forgot to ask you this morning

23     regarding the witness schedule for next week.  I asked you to get back to

24     us by today, morning.  Can I hear the answer?

25             MR. TIEGER:  Yes, Your Honour.

Page 9070

 1             Mr. Turkusic will be the last witness, in view of the Court's

 2     order.  No other witnesses present or in transit.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  And you will come back to us by Wednesday, whether

 4     there are any witnesses who are locked in specific dates?

 5             MR. TIEGER:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  We'll resume at 3.00.

 7                           --- Recess taken at 2.31 p.m.

 8                           --- On resuming at 3.05 p.m.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue.

10             For your scheduling purpose, we will have a short break, 10

11     minutes or 15 minutes, at 4.00.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13             JUDGE KWON:  I was advised that -- from the Court Deputy that the

14     interpreters and the court reporters have kindly agreed to go on until

15     5.00 today.  Is it agreeable to the parties?

16             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes, it's agreeable to us.  Thank you,

17     Mr. President.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Thank you again.

19             Yes, let's continue.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] For the participants and for the

21     learned Mr. Gaynor, in the case against General Milosevic, on the 19th of

22     February, 2007, on page 2418 -- 7-2418, this witness said he arrived at

23     Markale after about 10 minutes -- about 10 minutes after the incident,

24     that is.  And then on page 2419, he said he was very close, that the bomb

25     squad was very close to the bank, the central bank that is nearby.  And

Page 9071

 1     then on page 2549, he said that at the time of the explosion, he was

 2     en route to the market to buy cigarettes, and they went back to get their

 3     equipment straight away, and in about seven or eight minutes, they were

 4     on the scene of the incident.  So during the explosion, he was in the

 5     street, and he came with his equipment at about -- in about 10 minutes,

 6     at 1305 hours.  That is what his statement said.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Mr. Turkusic, did the UN monitors inform you that they did not

 9     see any kind of firing coming from the Serbian side or across the line of

10     separation?

11        A.   I know, from the monitors - some of them were not in Colina

12     Kapa - that there was no firing registered from the northern site of

13     Trebevic, where our positions were, definitely.  Since no firing was

14     heard from that side of Trebevic, that is definitely proof that the

15     firing came from the top or the other side of Trebevic that was then

16     under the control of the Serbs.

17        Q.   In that case, that shell would have to fly over them; right?

18        A.   Depending on the charge, 0 plus X, going all the way to 6, it has

19     different trajectories.

20        Q.   Please, please don't hold this against me.  Let's not go into

21     theory.  This particular shell, would it have to be registered by a

22     radar, and would it have to be observed by the monitors, in view of the

23     charge?  Not theoretically; this particular one.

24        A.   Monitors cannot see a shell.  They can only hear the firing and

25     the fall.  Their report says that the firing, that was an exceptionally

Page 9072

 1     strong explosion, had not been noticed by these monitors, which

 2     absolutely rules out the possibility, theoretical, practical and any

 3     other, that it had been fired from our positions, because then they would

 4     have heard it.  Radar would be another way of doing this.

 5             What was your question in relation to the radar?

 6        Q.   The radar did not register any kind of firing from the Serb side;

 7     right?

 8        A.   You see, the closest airport to us is the Amsterdam Airport, and

 9     the radar there is not going to register any aircraft flying from Munich

10     to America, because that's the way it's adjusted.

11        Q.   I'm talking about Cymbeline radars that register shells, and

12     UNPROFOR had them.

13        A.   That radar scans a particular area.  If a shell happens to be

14     flying above that area, the radar sees several points, and its software

15     analyses its trajectory, analyses its ballistic trajectory, and where it

16     falls.  The radar observes, under quotation marks, this area, and then we

17     will see this shell.  But if it is not adjusted, it will not.  So if the

18     shell comes above or below the radar, as it were, it cannot register it,

19     as I explained in the case of the aeroplane a moment ago.

20        Q.   So if it flies below the beam, it will not register it.  But if

21     it goes above the beam?

22        A.   No.

23        Q.   You said the minimum angle of descent; right?

24        A.   Yes, that's the minimal theoretically possible angle.

25        Q.   If it were less than that, the shell would have to go through the

Page 9073

 1     building?

 2        A.   No, it wouldn't go through the building.  It would stay on the

 3     roof, due to explosion.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  So the maximum angle for a 120-millimetre shell is

 5     what?

 6        A.   Maximum?  Well, a crew can fire a shell vertically at 90 degrees,

 7     so there is no limit.  So that's the maximum angle, 90 per cent

 8     [as interpreted].  It's a paradox, but it's true.  And the minimal

 9     possible angle is the one that we had determined.

10        Q.   Thank you.  You determined the minimal one.  Did you establish

11     what the actual real angle was of this shell?

12        A.   Precisely.  If you followed the first session today, we conducted

13     two measurements and two calculations with parameters that are absolutely

14     independent.  The first one meant setting the minimal possible angle

15     under which we rule out the smaller one.  That was the objective of the

16     first measurement.  The second measurement that we carried out, and on

17     the basis of which we did our calculation, was the measurement that,

18     according to all books that relate to the relevant mortar and the

19     projectiles, is based on mathematical conclusions, and our calculation

20     had to do with the most probable angle of impact of this shell.  It's

21     about 3 degrees bigger than the possible one.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have 10223.  That's the

23     65 ter number I'd like in e-court.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Can you help us -- can you explain to us how you calculated this

Page 9074

 1     real, actual angle?  You said that Point C is the point of the explosion

 2     and that H is from the vast array of literature that you had; right?

 3        A.   Yes, that's right.

 4        Q.   Point C is crucial for these relations here, right, for these

 5     numerical relations and for determining the real angle; right?

 6        A.   Since the explosive wave hydrodynamically spreads through this

 7     mass, the center of explosion is always taken as the center of the mass

 8     involved, because the entire mass of the explosive explodes at a

 9     particular moment, regardless of whether it's closer to the tail or

10     closer to the fuse.  And the center of explosion is where the explosion

11     is strongest, and it corresponds to the center of the mass.

12        Q.   The center of the explosion corresponds to the center of the

13     mass?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Where does it say that?

16        A.   Well, in the theory of hydrodynamic waves in ultra-rapid

17     reactions.  It is well known that explosives do not burn like a fuse in

18     real time but by way of hydrodynamic waves, and at the same time it is

19     activated in its entire volume.  And the strongest explosion is

20     concentrated in the center of the mass of the explosive involved.

21        Q.   Do you know that the French team established the center of the

22     mass, not the center of explosion, because they do not know of that

23     concept?  They said the center of the explosion, and this H is much

24     longer than in your case.  Do you know about that?

25        A.   I don't, but that doesn't impress me at all.  I don't have to

Page 9075

 1     honour a document that I've never seen or analysed.  Please show it to

 2     me.

 3        Q.   Do you know that their findings are different from yours?

 4        A.   I don't know until I see it, so show it to me.

 5        Q.   All right.  When we can, we will show that to you.  And do you

 6     know that others from the United Nations had different views on this?

 7        A.   I am not exactly well-versed in the analyses of others with

 8     regard to the angle of descent.  But anything that you would like to deal

 9     with, could I please have it on the monitor?

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now we're going to have your

11     sketch, 65 ter 14404, and then page 32.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   While we're waiting for that:  Without knowing the angle of

14     descent, it is not possible to set the range or to see the place from

15     where it was fired; is that right?

16        A.   That's right.

17        Q.   Thank you.  What was the depth of the crater in the case of this

18     shell?

19        A.   I cannot remember right now, but we will easily find it in the

20     KDZ report.  The depth of the crater, well, one of them is the one that

21     corresponds to the point of impact.  It is a very specific radial.  And

22     the other one is a projection of the radial spreading from the axis of

23     the shell, and depending on the angle involved, it creates a different

24     picture on the ground.

25        Q.   What we mean by that is what the fuse does, the bottom, what this

Page 9076

 1     shell does to the ground once it falls.  Do you remember that in the case

 2     of Markale 1, there was a 120-millimetre mortar shell and that its

 3     tail-fin got stuck 9 centimetres into soil that was rather hard?

 4        A.   I cannot recall that, but what you're saying is not correct.  The

 5     soil that the tail-fin got stuck in was a lot softer.  It is tarmac, like

 6     in the case of Markale 2, but it is a pedestrian area, it's a market.

 7     And, therefore, it is much less firm than where 20-ton trucks move.  So

 8     when the surface is softer, because of the acceleration on impact and

 9     because of the vacuum during the explosion, the fuse falls with the same

10     velocity.  At the moment of explosion, the fuse moves even faster and it

11     literally sticks into the ground if the surface can take it.

12             In the case of Markale, it was different, although the surface

13     looked the same; it was tarmac in both cases.

14        Q.   I have to wait for the interpretation.  Can you mark on this

15     photograph the place where the fuse was found?  Sorry, stabiliser,

16     tail-fin.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Should we not turn around this sketch?

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, 90 degrees.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

20             THE ACCUSED:  Clockwise.

21             JUDGE KWON:  That's fine, but let's zoom in a bit further, yes.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can see it.  There's no need for

23     it.

24             The place where the fuse fell is not the one that we established.

25     I think it was done by the CSB Sarajevo.

Page 9077

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   No, not the fuse; sorry.

 3        A.   Tail-fin.

 4        Q.   Can you mark the place of impact?  I don't think we've got the

 5     north indicating in the right direction.  Do we have north marked on

 6     here?

 7        A.   Yes, it should be right up there.

 8        Q.   The market is on the south, and the other end is north, isn't it?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Can you mark the place of impact?

11        A.   Well, I didn't make this sketch, or analyse it, but if -- in

12     relation to this motorist, if what we see to the left is west, what we

13     see up there is south, in fact.

14        Q.   So it should be flipped by 180 degrees?

15        A.   I don't mind it as it is.

16        Q.   Very well.  It will be rotated.  Can you mark the place of impact

17     and the place where the tail-fin was found?

18        A.   I can't give any information about the tail-fin, because it was

19     the CSB that found it, photographed it, and marked it with a number.

20             The position of the tail-fin was mentioned in some of the reports

21     by foreign military forces.  My team and I, in other words, did not find

22     the tail-fin or measure the distance from where the tail-fin was to the

23     place of impact.  Although the sketch is quite unclear, if the square

24     stands for the town market, and if this is the tarmac where we see

25     numbers 1 through 5, though upside down, what we see to the left is the

Page 9078

 1     motorcycle leaving, then the place of impact of the shell should be

 2     [marks] -- oh, I happened to touch the screen with the pen.  I didn't

 3     intend to place this dot.  So this is probably this position 1 [marks],

 4     though it's very difficult for me to interpret this sketch because this

 5     is the first time that I'm looking at a representation of it.

 6        Q.   If I were to assist you by referring to a key, would you recall

 7     that where we have number 9, although it's upside down so it's 6, would

 8     you agree that this is 30 metres away from impact?

 9        A.   I can't tell you.  I can't even testify about where the tail-fin

10     was found.

11             Let me repeat that the CSB found the tail-fin, photographed it,

12     marked it with a number, labelled it with a number, and it's referred to

13     in the reports by foreign teams.

14             JUDGE KWON:  There should be a legend about these indications,

15     and an interpretation as well.  Why do we have to ask the witness to mark

16     the place where something has been found?

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that the legend, or the

18     key, is on the previous page.  So could we have a split screen with both?

19             JUDGE KWON:  This is all a waste of time.  Just put your

20     question.  All the materials are before us.

21             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Very well.

22        Q.   Tell me, do you know that the minimum range of a 120-millimetre

23     shell, with a primary charge is 300 metres and with a secondary charge is

24     400 metres, and that it cannot reach beyond that?

25        A.   Well, the parameters you mentioned are roughly those, as far as I

Page 9079

 1     know.

 2        Q.   If I were to tell you that, according to the legend, the tail-fin

 3     is under number 12, though it's upside down, and that it's 30 metres from

 4     the place of impact, would that tell you anything about the range or the

 5     speed at which the shell hit the ground?

 6        A.   No.  When hitting ground that it cannot penetrate, the tail-fin

 7     elastically deforms itself.  If you ever watched billiards, you would

 8     know what it means when you have two balls hitting each other.  So when

 9     it cannot penetrate the ground, the tail-fin would basically ricochet off

10     the ground and then end up in whatever is close by.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Gaynor, could you tell us the English page for

12     this legend?

13             MR. GAYNOR:  Certainly.  I'll look for that immediately.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think it's 31 in Serbian; perhaps

16     in English as well.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   If a shell runs at a very high speed, then the explosion will

19     certainly not affect the tail-fin, but if the shell flies at a very low

20     speed, then the explosion would basically push the tail-fin away?

21        A.   No.  This makes no sense.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have page 25 in English, and

23     I want a split screen.

24             JUDGE KWON:  I don't think we have to keep that marking.  We can

25     go on.

Page 9080

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then we don't need the legend

 2     either?

 3             JUDGE KWON:  We need it.  I think it's from page 24 to 25.

 4     Mr. Gaynor?

 5             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes, that sounds about right.  I'm trying to count

 6     through the pages.  That's right, but on 65 ter 14404.  Thank you.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There, 1 through 9, but it

 9     continues on to the next page, because there should be 12 in all.

10             JUDGE KWON:  We can have it, so you can continue without having

11     to show that page.  Now we can see it on our own.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13             Can we have P1450.  Will you broadcast it?  So we'll broadcast

14     the portion we're interested in.  Channel 2 should be changed.  Yes.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   This is what you observed.  The time is 3 minutes 50.  Tell us,

17     please, at which point does a shell fragment?

18        A.   Because of a very high fragmentation rate, it is called a

19     "contact-action fuse."  It happens so fast that you cannot possibly split

20     the time to analyse it.

21        Q.   Thank you.  So at the point when fragmentation is complete, as

22     many fragments as you had in a split second, that's how many fragments

23     you will find; right?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Can you tell me, how big must a fragment that can split the chest

Page 9081

 1     this way be?

 2        A.   Well, a fragment of some seven, eight centimetres tore a part of

 3     a man's feet, so if we have -- a part of a man's foot.  So if we have the

 4     entire chest broken and we have shells arriving not radially but

 5     spinning, then they will have the effect of destroying the entire chest.

 6     And, in fact, the height at which we see it tallies with the trajectory,

 7     and I'm referring to my answer where I had to draw a red line to indicate

 8     what the lines meant.  Those were the lines of the densest fragmentation

 9     of shrapnel which spreads out in space perpendicularly to the axis of the

10     shell.  And if we look at the dimensions of the street, the distance was

11     three and a half, four metres, perhaps, so that's less of a distance than

12     there is between the two of us.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Turkusic, will you agree with me that, in

14     addition to five litres of blood, a man would have several litres of

15     lymph and some 40 litres of tissue liquid?

16        A.   Well, that's ridiculous, because you can't possibly extract the

17     liquid that is present throughout the tissue of a human being.  So that

18     particular liquid cannot be counted into the picture; only the blood,

19     which is under pressure up until the point the heart ceases to beat.

20        Q.   Would you agree with me that arteries had to have been ruptured

21     here and there had to be an arterial haemorrhage as well?

22        A.   Well, for a brief period of time, for as long as the pressure in

23     the arteries exist.  However, in this case, it's very difficult for me to

24     say anything.  The heart certainly didn't beat for as long as to pump up

25     all the arterial blood that we can see here.

Page 9082

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Our case, Mr. Turkusic, is that the entire story

 2     around Markale 1 and Markale 2 has been invented, and has been

 3     constructed in order to provoke NATO bombing, which was true, and that

 4     all the bodies, these corpses, were actually brought here from elsewhere,

 5     and they were, in the process, treated with complete and utter

 6     disrespect, they were packed into cars and lorries, and this is something

 7     that, in our culture, one does not do with dead bodies and dead people.

 8     What do you have to say to that?

 9        A.   I tell you that you should not have referred to the term

10     "culture."  And let me just say that the thesis that you present is

11     identical to the thesis that the English, in World War II, with rockets

12     F1 and F2, hit London in order to attach or attribute this and lay the

13     blame at the Germans.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

15             Let's see 1D -- let's look at the following footage, the next

16     frame.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Can we see the French photographing a tail-fin of a

19     120-millimetre shell?

20        A.   I don't see why you think these are the French.  What I can see

21     from the man's sleeve is that they are members of the UN.

22        Q.   Isn't it true that it was first the French UNPROFOR members who

23     reached the site and conducted their investigation?

24        A.   This isn't something I can confirm.  At that point in time, it

25     wasn't the most important thing for us to see, who arrived at the scene

Page 9083

 1     first, second, or third.  Under the circumstances, anything of the sort

 2     was impossible to detect and note.

 3        Q.   Will you agree with me that UNPROFOR members are photographing

 4     and making note of a tail-fin?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   According to your information, who was it who reached the scene

 7     first?

 8        A.   Since I got there with my colleague, as I said, when the wounded

 9     and dead had already been taken away, I only found body parts; feet,

10     hands, bits of brain, and other body parts at the scene.  So roughly

11     about that time, those who were among the first reached the scene.

12        Q.   So some 10 minutes after the explosion, you got there, and 10

13     minutes later, therefore, 10 minutes after the explosion, the place had

14     been evacuated and the bodies had been taken away; is that right?

15        A.   I repeat, I got at the scene some 10 minutes after I saw vehicles

16     driving away the dead and the wounded.  When I saw the vehicles, I went

17     back to the office to get my equipment, and returned to the scene, which

18     must have taken an additional 10 minutes.  And that's it.

19        Q.   So you arrived there 20 minutes after you had seen corpses being

20     driven away, and an unknown number of minutes after the explosion?

21        A.   No.  According to my rough estimate, which, given the

22     circumstances, may be mistaken, after I saw cars full of bodies driving

23     along the street, I realised that there was a massacre, which wasn't

24     something that was unusual at the time in Sarajevo, I got back -- I went

25     back to my office.  You have to factor in the time that I took to reach

Page 9084

 1     my office and return to the scene.

 2             Now, we were able to see at the beginning of this footage the

 3     speed at which the events took place, where individuals were, as soon as

 4     possible, put into vehicles and driven away.

 5        Q.   When you got there, dead bodies and the wounded were already

 6     evacuated.  Did these French arrive there before you?

 7        A.   I cannot possibly confirm or deny what you're saying.  How would

 8     I know when the French got there, if those were the French, the ones we

 9     look at here?

10        Q.   They are the UNPROFOR members.  Were the members of the CSB the

11     ones who first reached the scene or were those the French?

12        A.   I told you already that we did not observe or take care to see

13     who got there first.  It would have been absurd of us to even attempt

14     such a thing.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have 1D2732.  Sorry, we

16     will get to the tail-fin with the help of the film.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Mr. Turkusic, we have to establish who got there first.  That's

19     very important.  Who secured the scene?  Who got there first, who got

20     there second, et cetera?  Did the police get there before UNPROFOR?  Is

21     it at all possible for you to give us an answer or does it not matter, as

22     you say?  Well, we think it matters because -- who left the tail-fin

23     behind, this tail-fin?

24        A.   I think that several members of the CSB and UNPROFOR

25     members - let me refer to them in this way - materialised there before my

Page 9085

 1     colleague and I and the rest of my team got there.

 2        Q.   At any rate, the local police was there before UNPROFOR; right?

 3        A.   I can only assume.  I cannot confirm.  It may have happened the

 4     other way around.  Neither you nor I have evidence to that effect.

 5        Q.   I will be asking for evidence to that effect.

 6             Is this the tail-fin in question?

 7        A.   Well, to the best of my recollection, it is.

 8        Q.   What sort of force would effect such a change on these wings?

 9        A.   A smaller passenger vehicle and, of course, a larger vehicle.

10     Any vehicle larger than a small vehicle, because the tail-fin is made of

11     a very thin and soft tin.  They are intended to direct the shell rather

12     than be resilient to any impact, so basically one can bend them with the

13     strength of a foot.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Is what you're trying to say that shortly after the

15     explosion, a lorry appeared and destroyed the tail-fin?

16        A.   Why are you imputing this to me?  This isn't something that I

17     said.  After the explosion, the vehicles that arrived there certainly

18     paid no attention to any tail-fins of any sort, and it is possible that a

19     couple of them drove over it.  I didn't say "a lorry."  I said that even

20     a small vehicle would do this.  It would not smash it, but it could

21     deform it in this way, because, let me repeat, the wings are very

22     fragile.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Do you see the part of the tail-fin called the cap?

24        A.   Of course.

25        Q.   So the cap did not fall off; it's still there?

Page 9086

 1        A.   It never falls off.

 2        Q.   This is what we are talking about:  We are talking about the cap.

 3     Is it there?

 4        A.   If that's the one that you can find on any bullet, coming from a

 5     gun, or a rifle, or whatever, it's there.  It's possible that it's

 6     inside, because when it is activated, it's even pushed inside by the

 7     needle.  But most probably, yes, viewed from this angle.

 8        Q.   Do you see erosion on the body of the tail-fin, around these

 9     holes?

10        A.   Which holes?

11        Q.   On the body of the tail-fin, closer to the body itself.  Do you

12     see the erosion?  Has it eroded?

13        A.   I'm sure that you're not very familiar with this term, "erosion."

14     You don't really know what it is.  When there is such a strong explosion,

15     the body of the tail-fin, which is made of relatively soft material, can

16     be deformed in this way.  It is not surprising at all.

17        Q.   I'm not disputing it.  I'm just asking whether you claim or

18     confirm that this body had eroded.

19        A.   No, I am denying what you're saying, that that's erosion that is

20     reminiscent of corrosion and all of that is supposed to mean that it had

21     been stuck somewhere for a long time.  This is precisely what it looks

22     like after an explosion like this.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  We'll go back to that.

24             Let us now see part of the film and the photograph from the film

25     that shows -- actually, it's 27:32.

Page 9087

 1                           [Video-clip played]

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Do you agree that this is the view from the east, in relation to

 4     the entrance, or, rather, is this the view from Bascarsija?

 5        A.   Yes, from the east.

 6        Q.   Can you mark the center of the explosion here in this photograph?

 7        A.   Absolutely not.

 8        Q.   Do you know where it is?

 9        A.   If this, what one can discern on the left, is the entrance, then

10     the center of the explosion is a bit lower than that.  It is on the

11     sidewalk, in that case.  However, with so many wounded and dead that are

12     concealing the center of the explosion, it is practically invisible.  One

13     can only indirectly speculate about this, if we want to have exact

14     references.

15        Q.   I seem to have to wait a little.

16             Do you see this whitish mass on the ground and on the sidewalk?

17     What is that?

18        A.   Now that it's been zoomed in, it's still hard to say, though.

19        Q.   Could it be glass?

20        A.   I don't rule that out, because when there is such a blast, such

21     an explosion, such a detonation, most of the glass that is in that area

22     simply shatters.  However, I'm not claiming that it is glass, but it's

23     quite possible that it is.

24        Q.   Thank you.  On the skirt of this woman, do you see traces of

25     shrapnel?

Page 9088

 1        A.   Yes, on her right leg.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  And around them and further in depth, where the shell

 3     is, we see this whitish mass or, rather, glass; right?  Or, rather, no,

 4     whitish mass, some whitish mass, right?

 5        A.   Where?

 6        Q.   Well, around these people, and further on where the shell fell.

 7     Do you see that there, this whitish/bluish mass?

 8        A.   I cannot call it a bluish/whitish mass, because I simply don't

 9     know what it is.  A photograph with this kind of a zoom and under such

10     circumstances and this blur, I cannot discern anything, I cannot say

11     exactly what things are.  This is a lighter field.  If we're talking

12     about glass, it could also be a litre of spilled milk that would create

13     this kind of a white field, but that is a level of speculation that I

14     don't want to go into.

15        Q.   Do you see a man down there whose hand is indicating the car

16     there?

17        A.   Is there a yellow car behind him?

18        Q.   No, no, the car that's on the road.

19        A.   I don't see that.  I don't understand what you are saying.  You

20     have an indicator in your hand, so perhaps you can show me what you're

21     referring to.  I see this arrow, or cursor, so why don't you show me what

22     you have in mind?

23        Q.   Do you see that?  Is this a man whose hand is pointing towards

24     the car?

25        A.   It may be put that way, but not with any degree of certainty.

Page 9089

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let's have a look at the next one,

 2     the next clip.

 3                           [Video-clip played]

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Did you see that that man was alive?

 6        A.   Which man?

 7        Q.   The one whose hand was pointing to the car.

 8        A.   Yes.  As the film continued, we saw that that which we may

 9     recognise as a hand was going down.

10        Q.   These two men who we saw now in the previous image are on the

11     street, itself; right?

12        A.   Which two men?  The one with his hand down is one, and who's the

13     other one?

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1 minute 34, let's move on.  From

15     32 to 36, that's the seconds that I'm referring to.

16                           [Video-clip played]

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Do you see that these two men are alive at the very point of

19     impact of the shell?

20             JUDGE KWON:  We saw the first man.  Who is the second man you are

21     referring to?

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We are going to play it, and then

23     you're going to see that there is two men there and that they are both

24     alive.

25                           [Video-clip played]

Page 9090

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now move on?  1.34.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I respond to what you asked me

 3     a moment ago?

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please go ahead.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In view of the height of the shell

 6     and the density of shrapnel, and in view of the axis of the shell, people

 7     who are wounded in the lower limbs stand a far greater chance to survive

 8     after the explosion than those who are a bit further away from the shell

 9     and who are hit in the upper part of their bodies.  As you know full

10     well, that's where the most vital bodily parts are.

11             So your suggestion that this man close to the point of impact is

12     still alive may mean that he had lost both legs.  Sarajevo is full of

13     people like that now, and they were very close to the explosion, and

14     that's why they lost their legs.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16             Can we now go from 1.34 to 1.37 to show that no one's touching

17     that man.  He is there as if nothing were happening.  He doesn't seem to

18     be attracting anybody's attention, and he is precisely in the place where

19     the shell had impacted.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That what you said.

21                           [Video-clip played]

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] From 1.34 to 1.37.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Is that the place where the shell impacted?

25        A.   I cannot discern the point of impact when I have this kind of

Page 9091

 1     resolution.  I would have to see the exact imprint that the shell created

 2     when it exploded.

 3                           [Video-clip played]

 4             MR. GAYNOR:  Mr. President, in view of the fact that the accused

 5     is claiming that this was a staged incident, could I request that he play

 6     the video with volume to assist Your Honours in determining whether or

 7     not this incident was a staged incident?  With the volume on, I mean.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Fair enough.

 9             But we are still waiting for the scene referring to the two alive

10     men.  Are you going to withdraw that question?

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, no, I'm not going to withdraw

12     that question.  I just -- actually, let me just show you what this looks

13     like, what the traces look like here.  Please, can I --

14             JUDGE KWON:  At this time, can we play it with sound.

15                           [Video-clip played]

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Go back to that other part, the one

17     that we had announced.

18             JUDGE KWON:  I think it's Mr. Marko Sladojevic that's playing the

19     video.  Yes.

20             THE ACCUSED:  Frame for frame [No interpretation].

21             [Interpretation] Frame by frame, please.  Let us just see the man

22     with the bag.

23             If you had planned a break, could we consult during the break

24     about these seconds?

25             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.

Page 9092

 1             We'll break for about 15 minutes, and we'll resume at 10 past

 2     4.00.

 3                           --- Recess taken at 3.56 p.m.

 4                           --- On resuming at 4.15 p.m.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  As you can notice, we are sitting pursuant to 15 bis

 6     for the remainder of today.  Judge Morrison is away due to urgent

 7     business.

 8             I would like to express the Chamber's appreciation to the

 9     interpreters and court reporters for their agreement to work for extended

10     hours.  We deeply understand how difficult it is to work for such a long

11     time, given the concentration they need in order to perform their

12     function.

13             We'll sit until 5.00 today.

14             Mr. Karadzic.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The Defence joins your expression

16     of gratitude, all the more so because we speak so fast.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Mr. Turkusic, do you agree that on this picture, we see two men

19     whose heads are facing the center of the explosion?

20        A.   No.  I do not recognise what you claim, nor the opposite, by the

21     way.

22        Q.   When we play it, we'll see.

23             Do you agree that this man's trousers are torn?

24        A.   I cannot confirm that either.  The time of the massacre is the

25     28th of August.

Page 9093

 1        Q.   But it's visible on the picture.

 2        A.   You mean the one with white trousers?

 3        Q.   No, the one close up.

 4        A.   Yes, and we can see traces of shrapnel on his lower limbs.

 5        Q.   The one closer to us, does he have trousers on?

 6        A.   I can't see that, because the white thing we see could be shorts.

 7     It was August.

 8        Q.   The man in front, does he have legs?

 9        A.   I can't say that either, because if the one closer to us is lying

10     on the other man, then he's lying on his legs.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see the next clip.  Please

12     look closely at the man who is just raising his head where the cursor

13     points.

14             Can we now play it to see how far he raises his head, and his

15     shoulders as well.

16                           [Video-clip played]

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Did you see that, sir?

19        A.   I did.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Can we now look closely at this photograph.  Do you

21     see this pattern of shrapnel around this man and on his bag?

22        A.   I don't know what you mean.  What pattern?

23        Q.   Do you see around him a pattern, a drawing made by the shrapnel,

24     and on his back?  Was this man lying when the explosion happened?  Does

25     it fit into the picture?

Page 9094

 1        A.   Not at all.  This bag lying on the ground, and the pattern of

 2     shrapnel, would not be at all looking like this if the bag had been lying

 3     on the ground when the explosion happened, because then the shrapnel

 4     would have hit from the side.  And precisely the shrapnel on the bag

 5     tells us that during the explosion, this woman or man was standing

 6     vertically.  You can see that the bag was vertical, upright.

 7        Q.   How do you explain the pattern of shrapnel around him, because

 8     the shrapnel fell vertically, as you say, and there is the same pattern

 9     on his bag?

10        A.   What I see on the back of this person, on the jacket and what I

11     see on the bag is consistent with the vertical position of the body at

12     the time of the explosion of the shell, because this even disposition of

13     shrapnel holes in the bag would have been impossible if the bag was lying

14     at the moment of explosion.  That bag must have been hanging alongside

15     the body of the victim, as if he or she was standing vertically, upright.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] For me, Mr. Turkusic, this

17     picture -- this pattern on the bag is consistent with the pattern on the

18     asphalt.  The man was lying at the moment of the explosion.  It's, again,

19     an old corpse, just set there to frame this explosion, to set it.

20             THE INTERPRETER:  Could Mr. Karadzic repeat.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D2728.

22             JUDGE KWON:  The interpreters couldn't hear your last question.

23             THE INTERPRETER:  It was the number, Your Honour.  The number was

24     repeated.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, you just made a statement, and you

Page 9095

 1     didn't have to, but you didn't respond to Mr. Gaynor's intervention that

 2     your case is that this scene was staged.  Can I ask you whether it is

 3     your case that this scene was staged?

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, I affirm that

 5     those few incidents, with massive casualties, were altogether -- they

 6     were not more than 100 victims here in the center of the city, at

 7     Markale, were staged by the BH Army with the view to involving NATO and

 8     the international community into the war.  Most of the bodies were

 9     brought from the front-line, bodies already dead.  You can see that from

10     the man whose half thoracic cavity is missing.  They are dumping

11     bodies --

12             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Then you should put that question to the

13     witness.

14             Witness, earlier on the accused said:

15             "What I see on the back of this man's jacket and on the bag is

16     consistent with the time of the shell, because this --"

17             No.

18             "... jacket and on the bag is consistent with the time of the

19     shell -- as the pattern on the asphalt, because this even disposition of

20     shrapnel holes in the bag would have been impossible if the bag was lying

21     at the moment of explosion.  That bag must have been hanging alongside

22     the victim, as if --"

23             Sorry, is that the question or answer?  Yes:

24             "That bag must have been hanging alongside the victim as if he or

25     she had been --"

Page 9096

 1             That's your answer.  But after that, the accused said:

 2             "For me, Mr. Turkusic, this picture -- this pattern on the bag,

 3     is consistent with the pattern on the asphalt.  The man was lying.  It's

 4     just a corpse set there to frame this explosion, to set it."

 5             Do you have any comment to that?

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I just, for the record, add --

 7     it is not on the record.  I said the explosion happened here, but most of

 8     the bodies were laid there before, and the way they treat these bodies

 9     shows that those were old corpses.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   What do you say to that, Mr. Turkusic?

12        A.   In forensic medicine, these are elementary things.  How old a

13     corpse is can be determined up to an hour or two, or even a few days, but

14     it can be determined exactly.  After the bodies were taken to

15     Kosevo Hospital, large numbers of journalists, UNPROFOR members, and

16     other people interested in photographing and examining these bodies, and

17     anybody and everybody was able to see from the appearance of those

18     corpses how old they were, whether it was 10 or 15 days or half an hour.

19     Those are elementary things in forensic medicine.  I am not the proper

20     witness for this.  You would need an expert in forensic medicine.  But I

21     claim that what I said are elementary things that refute this kind of

22     speculation or view of yours, which is the only thing that could possibly

23     be more monstrous than this scene, itself.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25             Can we now see 1D2730.

Page 9097

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   And while we're waiting:  Let me tell you, Mr. Turkusic, we will

 3     prove here that none of those people made even an external examination of

 4     the body.

 5             Do you know of any external examination of the bodies, at least,

 6     that were submitted to you, let alone a post-mortem report?

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Gaynor.

 8             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes.

 9             I was going to say if Mr. Karadzic wishes to put his case to the

10     witness, he's welcome to do that, but it sounded like he was either

11     arguing with the witness or making submissions.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Yes, I agree.

13             Yes, what is your question?

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My question is:  Mr. Turkusic said

15     that a large crowd of people gathered around the bodies to see them.  My

16     question is:  Did their investigation team receive at least an external

17     description of the bodies, let alone a post-mortem?  We saw that some

18     foreigners came and saw some bodies in a hole, and nothing else.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Did you receive an external description of the bodies?

21        A.   That question is properly addressed to another witness.  I did

22     not go to the place where the bodies were collected or the wounded were

23     placed, nor did I receive any report about that later, because that was

24     not my job or my responsibility.  But I'm sure that there are detailed

25     reports about the condition of those bodies, and you can distinguish

Page 9098

 1     between two hours from death and two days from death very easily and very

 2     clearly.

 3        Q.   Do you know that these young men from your army who transported

 4     these bodies called them frozen and kept them in refrigerators, in

 5     freezers?

 6        A.   I hear that for the first time.  You can show me a document, if

 7     you have it.

 8        Q.   Later.  Do you agree that on this post, on this lamppost, the

 9     traces of fragments are opposite to the place of explosion?

10        A.   It's not a rare occurrence that these and such lampposts are

11     pierced by shrapnel.  You can find them in Sarajevo still today, because

12     the enormous kinetic energy can pierce the post from all sides.

13        Q.   Wouldn't this hole look different?  Wouldn't the exit hole look

14     different?  These are entry holes.

15        A.   I do not associate them with this explosion.

16        Q.   Well, did any other explosion happen here?

17        A.   I know nothing about it.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19             Can we now see 1D2725.

20             MR. GAYNOR:  Mr. President, Mr. Karadzic is suggesting that he

21     may have documents showing that young men from the ABiH transported these

22     bodies, called them frozen, and kept them in refrigerators, in freezers.

23     I'd invite him to tender his documents to the Court as soon as he

24     possibly can so that we can show them to witnesses.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Can you give us a reference or can you show

Page 9099

 1     us?

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Our military service filmed that or

 3     recorded it, so we would need to reach the military service, and I'm now

 4     separated from all these structures.  But those who follow this broadcast

 5     will know what I want and will send it to us.  But I know at that time,

 6     we had access to that.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  But you said "these young men from your army."  Who

 8     did you refer to?

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The army of Mr. Turkusic, those who

10     staged this scene.  They kept those bodies for several days, and on radio

11     they were heard talking about ice blocks.  And their commander warned

12     them to stop talking and to keep silent.  Our service intercepted it, and

13     I'm about to receive it.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's -- that's precisely the sort

15     of conversation you can fabricate with radio equipment.  You can

16     establish a communication line on the radio, you can have people talking

17     on one side, and record them on the other.

18             Your Honours, every time I asked Mr. Karadzic to show me a

19     document when he made a claim, he said, I will.  And now that the time of

20     my testimony is running out, there are four or five documents he was

21     about to show me, and I think that he is not going to show me any of the

22     documents he owes me.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't owe you anything, except

24     this recording.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 9100

 1        Q.   Let me remind you that in the Milosevic case, you said that at

 2     the time of the explosion, you said you were on your way to the market,

 3     and you arrived there within 10 minutes.  I gave you the pages of that

 4     transcript.

 5        A.   You didn't.

 6        Q.   I told the OTP what page it was.  Let them give it to you.

 7             Do you see this photograph, Mr. Turkusic?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Do you see the man sitting next to the woman in the purple dress?

10        A.   Is this -- do you mean somebody behind her?

11        Q.   Right next to her, behind her.

12        A.   I can see something that could be a person's back.

13        Q.   Did you see the man who's lying in the street behind the man in

14     the black suit?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   Is his head facing the direction from which the projectile came?

17        A.   I do not see clearly where the head is facing, the head of the

18     person lying behind the man in the black suit.  You cannot see that

19     clearly from that picture.

20        Q.   But can you confirm that the place where the shell landed is just

21     behind the man in the black suit?

22        A.   I cannot see the entrance to the market on this picture.  From

23     this angle, you can't see it.

24        Q.   Do you now see those two men that I said had their heads facing

25     towards the place of the explosion here in the right corner?

Page 9101

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Are their heads facing the place of the explosion?

 3        A.   I cannot see the place of the explosion here.  It could have been

 4     both to the left or to the right, because you cannot see the trace of

 5     impact.

 6        Q.   Is it in the opposite direction of the direction where the heads

 7     on the pavement are facing?

 8        A.   Some were propelled by the blast in one direction, and some were

 9     wounded, were left standing for a second or two, and then fell to the

10     ground in a direction that is determined by nothing except by the free

11     falling of a dead body.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May this document be received?

13             JUDGE KWON:  Together with the previous picture showing the

14     lamppost?

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.  There are three photographs.

16             JUDGE KWON:  We have been shown two photos.  They will be

17     admitted.  I see no problem.  That's a part of that video-clip, the still

18     images from that video.

19             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes, they appear to be still images from that video.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  We'll admit them.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibits D874 to 876 respectively, Your

22     Honours.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So three; right?

25             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

Page 9102

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Can you tell us, Mr. Turkusic, the crater and the entire place,

 3     what were they cleaned with and whitewashed with before the arrival of

 4     UNPROFOR so that there is not a single trace of blood?

 5        A.   Well, we saw an image where we have an imprint of the shrapnel,

 6     and we have the image where the wing was recovered.  When we were

 7     discussing azimuth, I drew your attention to that.  Chalk is used to mark

 8     the depression or the impression of the shell, and in this way the

 9     crater, itself, is made more visible for the purposes of the analysis and

10     photography.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We will see the crater now when the

12     French arrive.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

14             MR. GAYNOR:  Very briefly, an interpretation correction.  I think

15     the word "wing" should probably mean "stabiliser."

16             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Thank you, Mr. Gaynor.

17             Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we play the video.

19                           [Video-clip played]

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Do you agree that the crater is quite clean?  What has it been

22     cleaned with?

23        A.   I don't know.

24        Q.   Is there a possibility that only after the departure of the

25     French, blood was spilled over?

Page 9103

 1        A.   This is a speculation that cannot be addressed to me.  I cannot

 2     either confirm it or deny it.

 3        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Turkusic.  Let's move on to a different incident.

 4             Did you investigate the incident at Safeta Zajke Street?

 5        A.   It does sound familiar.  Can we -- can I have the document shown

 6     on the screen?

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It happened on the 24th of May,

 8     1995.  It was formerly Zrinska Street, now Safeta Zajke Street.

 9             Can we have 65 ter 09786, page 3.  65 ter 09786, page 3.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Do you recall this conclusion, this finding?  Have a look, and

12     tell us what it was that you did in this particular case.

13        A.   I have to see the first page in order to give you a complete

14     answer.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have page 1 in Serbian.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The document was written in

17     Bosnian.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   That does not exist.  Vuk Karadzic was the one who created the

20     Serbian language.

21        A.   He certainly did not create the Bosnian language.

22        Q.   Can you see here "the 24th of May," and you were delivered

23     something to work on it?

24             Let's look at your -- what you said about it in the statement.

25        A.   Well, we have the specification of the material that was

Page 9104

 1     delivered to us.  Five steel deformed pipes; two iron deformed sheets of

 2     tin; five meshy rings, et cetera.  So -- five lattice rings.  So I've

 3     only looked at a couple.  We can all see what the document contains.  Can

 4     we now have page 2?

 5        Q.   In your amalgamated statement, this can be found at item 5.

 6     Please have a look at that as well.  What was it that you did in this

 7     particular case?

 8        A.   We were asked to carry out a forensic examination to establish

 9     the calibre and type of the projectile, but I can't see the relevant

10     part.  This is just the introductory part where we are stated -- we are

11     told what we are supposed to do with the material that was given to us.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the next page.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   So the forensic examination has established as follows; is that

15     right?

16        A.   Yes.  This is a device which was most probably made of a contact

17     fuse aerial bomb and five rockets of the Grad type, so this is a

18     description relating to the examination of a modified air-bomb which was

19     launched on Sarajevo on several occasions within a short span of time.

20        Q.   Your boss signed it, and you wrote it; right?  Look at number 5

21     in your statement.

22        A.   What is number 5?

23        Q.   Incident number 5, or job number 5.  That's page 8 of your

24     report.

25        A.   I can't find it here.  Is it the one with my initials, that page?

Page 9105

 1        Q.   No, no, you must have it in your hands.  Right?

 2             Very well.  What is written here, and I'm translating from

 3     English:

 4             "I investigated the attack with a modified air-bomb which

 5     exploded on the 24th of May, 1995, in Safeta Zajke Street number 3,

 6     Sarajevo.  We produced a report about this incident.  I confirm the facts

 7     and conclusions that are stated in the report are true."

 8             Is this your position?

 9        A.   The way you present it here, I don't accept it, because you're

10     translating from English a document which I don't have before me.

11        Q.   You stated this --

12             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

13             MR. GAYNOR:  Sorry.  To clarify, the witness appears to get lost.

14             Mr. Karadzic is quoting from your amalgamated statement,

15     Mr. Turkusic.  And subject to the Court's direction, if you want to see a

16     copy of that, we can give that to you.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Do you like to see your statement, Mr. Turkusic?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, because it will most certainly

19     be directly related to the question that will be put to me.

20             JUDGE KWON:  It would be helpful if you could hand over the

21     photocopy, if you have it.

22             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes, certainly, Mr. President.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  What's the para number?

24             MR. GAYNOR:  It was on page 5.  I'd have to find my other --

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 8, paragraph 5.

Page 9106

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Have you had a look at it?

 4        A.   Can you direct me to the passage that you've just read out in

 5     English?

 6        Q.   Item 5, and paragraph 1 was what I read.  There's a footnote 15

 7     there, which is 65 ter 09786, and footnote 16 is your statement which you

 8     gave to this Tribunal on the 1st of December, 1996.  So do you agree that

 9     this is the case?

10        A.   Yes.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12             Can we now have 1D02 -- 2199.  I skipped some things in order for

13     us to finish sooner.  I -- or, rather, to cut the time short, we will not

14     be changing it.  Just a moment, please.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Can you mark here the crossroads of Esad Midzic and Safeta Zajke

17     Streets?  Is that where the incident took place?

18        A.   You're asking me something that happened 15 years ago.

19        Q.   Look at the report, or look at your statement.

20        A.   Very well.  Safeta Zajke.  You can help me by indicating the

21     street as it is on this map.

22        Q.   Do you know where what was formerly Zrinska Street was?

23        A.   No.

24        Q.   North of the railway line, is that Zrinska Street, and then you

25     have Esad Midzic?

Page 9107

 1        A.   You mean above the tobacco factory?

 2        Q.   That's right.  Do you see the wire factory there?

 3        A.   I do.

 4        Q.   Do you see, north of the wire factory, Esad Midzic Street?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Is that where the incident took place?

 7        A.   Esad Midzic?

 8        Q.   Safeta Zajke, where it intersects with Esad Midzic.

 9        A.   It might well be.

10        Q.   You got that order.  Where is that document we looked at earlier?

11     What did you precisely receive?

12             1D2634.  Can we have 1D2634 on the left-hand side and keep the

13     map on the right-hand side.

14             Can we rotate by 90 degrees -- no, 180.  The position is not

15     right.  Just a moment.

16             Do you agree that Safeta Zajke runs east-west or west-east and

17     that Esad Midzic runs to the north?  Right?

18        A.   Right.

19        Q.   Does this sketch help you remember the incident which you were

20     charged with to investigate?

21        A.   I don't recall this sketch at all, and I don't know who did it.

22     I don't think I did.  And as for the specification we looked at quickly,

23     what we were asked to do had nothing to do with this sketch.  Rather,

24     through the examination of several pieces, we were to establish what

25     happened, i.e., what it was that exploded.  We were also supposed to

Page 9108

 1     describe the origin of the material we were provided with.

 2        Q.   You established that what was most probably the case -- or,

 3     rather, did you make an assertion with certainty or probability?

 4        A.   Where did you read that we said that it was most probably this

 5     and that?

 6        Q.   9786 was the document, page 3.  So you can't mark anything on the

 7     map?

 8        A.   Well, there's no need for that.  The CSB tasked us with analysing

 9     the material they provided us with.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have that 65 ter document,

11     please.  We need page 2 -- page 3.  Page 3.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   So this is the document signed by your boss, which you drafted.

14     You will remember that you worked on it?

15        A.   Very well.

16        Q.   So this is a device most probably made up of -- right?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Do you know what was the basis on which you concluded that it was

19     a contact fuse air-bomb?

20        A.   On the basis of the fact that many such bombs were launched on

21     Sarajevo, by the fact that they had rocket engines, there are not many

22     contact fuse bombs -- or, rather, sorry, contact fuse air-bombs.  There

23     are not many types of those, in view of their destructive power, and the

24     fragments that were left behind were thick pieces, which show that the

25     bomb had a very thick steel wall.  And in view of the elements that kept

Page 9109

 1     the parts of the bomb, that kept it together -- parts of the rocket, we

 2     made this conclusion, as we said, "most probably."

 3        Q.   Thank you.  And what was the destructive power of the bomb?

 4        A.   Enormous.  In view of the total mass of an air-bomb, roughly half

 5     of it is, from what I remember, the explosive mass.  So you could

 6     actually calculate that half of the weight of the bomb is due to TNT.

 7        Q.   On the basis of what did you conclude that it had five

 8     122-millimetre Grad-type rockets?

 9        A.   Well, on the basis of the parts we were provided with, because

10     normally you have the power unit of the rocket, which is at its end, and

11     the explosion propels the unit, and it can always be found somewhere in

12     the perimeter.

13        Q.   The parts of the engine that were recovered --

14             JUDGE KWON:  I intervene at this moment.

15             For the planning purpose, Mr. Karadzic, you have had so far two

16     hours and a half.  So we allowed you four hours to cross-examine the

17     witness, and it's apparent that it cannot be done by today.  So I'm

18     asking the parties whether -- and witness whether it would be agreeable

19     to sit today for a limited time.

20             MR. GAYNOR:  It's certainly fine by the Prosecution,

21     Mr. President.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic.  Did I say what?  Tomorrow, yeah.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

24             JUDGE KWON:  I take it it is in your -- yes, Mr. Robinson.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can do it today.

Page 9110

 1             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President, it's no problem to proceed

 2     tomorrow.  But I just want to indicate to you that I wouldn't be here

 3     because I have an interview in another city, that's been long planned, of

 4     a witness.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 6             I take it that would be in your interest as well, Mr. Turkusic,

 7     to sit tomorrow instead of continuing next week.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.  I agree.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

10             I was able to get the confirmation from the interpreters and

11     court reporters that they can work for -- there's no logistical problem.

12     That they can work, at the maximum, for two hours tomorrow, so we'll sit

13     tomorrow at 10.00.

14             We have five more minutes.  Let's continue.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16        Q.   In the last paragraph but one, you describe an aluminium part

17     which you suppose served as a distance -- to fix the distance between the

18     engines.  Did you manage to reconstruct this part to establish how many

19     engines there were?

20        A.   We didn't.  We thought that unnecessary, and it was up to those

21     who improvised and made the bomb.  From everything else, it's clear that

22     it's an improvised device that combined an air-bomb, that was supposed to

23     be launched from a plane, dropped from a plane, with rocket engines

24     of Grad type, and that's how they made this device for the purpose which

25     we now see.

Page 9111

 1        Q.   Do you know that the destructive effect in the street is minimal,

 2     and in this shallow crater there are four engines?

 3        A.   No.  Show it to me.

 4        Q.   It's in the evidence.  So since we are working tomorrow, we'll

 5     show it tomorrow.  And tomorrow, then, with the kindness and the courtesy

 6     of the Trial Chamber and all the participants, we would deal with a

 7     number of other incidents in whose investigation you participated.

 8             Do you agree that, in that case, they did not provide you with

 9     enough elements, because you say this is a very destructive device?

10        A.   Where does it say which elements we were given and which we were

11     not?  You speak of the crater as an element.  Information of that type is

12     not given in the request that we were given.  You can go back to page 1

13     and check.

14        Q.   But you said it had huge destructive power?

15        A.   That's correct.  That amount of explosive must have huge

16     destructive power.

17        Q.   We'll look for that photograph in the evidence for tomorrow.

18             Do you know that the Energoinvest factory "armatura" [phoen] was

19     used during the war to cast casings for shells?

20        A.   The first I hear of it.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We still have time to see 1D2171.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   How far is this Energoinvest factory?

24        A.   From where?

25        Q.   From your people.  Do you know where that factory was located,

Page 9112

 1     and is it far from Safeta Zajke Street?

 2        A.   The factory Armature is somewhere in the same plane as the

 3     television building, and perhaps it's a couple kilometres away towards

 4     Drinska Street.  I'm just guessing.

 5        Q.   But it's close to the site of the incident.  If it's between the

 6     television building and Drinska Street, it's very close to Safeta Zajke

 7     and Esad Midzic Street?

 8        A.   No, you completely mixed up my answer.  The factory of Armature

 9     is close to the television building if we look north-south.  And if we

10     look at Drinska Street, we have to go to the east, and that's where the

11     distance is a couple of kilometres.

12        Q.   We'll have to go back to the map.  Is this an interview with

13     Berko Zecevic, who was some kind of manager in your military industry

14     during the war?

15        A.   I see the document on the screen.

16        Q.   Can you look at paragraph 7 on page 1?

17        A.   The first paragraph on page 1?

18        Q.   Paragraph 7:

19             "Austrians produce efficient mortar munitions from cast steel,

20     which is not unlike munitions from a different type of steel.  That must

21     be done with special equipment which is high technology, and it was

22     impossible in Sarajevo during the war.  In Sarajevo, shells were made in

23     Livnica at the casting -- the smelting factory in Alipasino Polje."

24        A.   I think you are reading sentences that are contradictory.  It

25     says it had to be done with special equipment, which was not possible in

Page 9113

 1     Sarajevo during the war.  And then in Sarajevo, shells were made in a

 2     smelter in Alipasino Polje.  If this person said these two things in one

 3     statement, then he is contradicting himself.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  We'll stop here and continue tomorrow at 10.00.

 5             You should be able to -- you should finish your cross-examination

 6     in one and a half hours tomorrow.

 7                           [The witness stands down]

 8                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.02 p.m.,

 9                           to be reconvened on Friday, the 5th day of

10                           November, 2010, at 10.00 a.m.