1 Monday, 12 November 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
8 This is the case IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 The Chamber was informed that there was one preliminary about
11 scheduling. Or is there not? There seems to be -- yes, Mr. Stojanovic.
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
13 On Friday, we received your decision to work extended hours on
14 Monday and Tuesday. We discussed the issue with Mr. Mladic. Objectively
15 speaking, he is not able to attend the extended sessions because of his
16 health condition. That's why the Defence team decided to better organise
17 our cross-examination, because we did prepare in advance both the
18 documents and the intended length of our examination.
19 So this is to put you on notice that for the next witness, RM511,
20 we plan to have our cross-examination last five hours. For the upcoming
21 witness, Mr. Thomas, the cross-examination would last two and a half
22 hours, and the following witness in this week, RM087, Ms. Birte Weiss,
23 the cross-examination would last one and a half hours.
24 Based on these estimates, we believe that we have cut down our
25 initial estimate by four to five hours. On that basis, we do not believe
1 that it will be necessary to work the extended afternoon sessions.
2 Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Have you discussed the matter with the Prosecution,
4 Mr. Stojanovic?
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, we announced
6 that we would be cutting down our estimates to the Prosecution on Friday
7 afternoon. This morning, they issued us again with a preliminary
8 schedule of witnesses, and the reduced it time for cross-examination of
9 Mr. Thomas and Birte Weiss was something that we worked on over the
10 weekend and were not able to inform them about it this morning.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
12 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, can I suggest that Mr. Stojanovic and
13 myself speak at the first break. Perhaps some information did not reach
14 me, but I will do some calculations and advise the Chamber at the start
15 of the next session on my views of whether or not we need the extended
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And of course the Chamber will think about it
18 as well. For the -- we'll discuss it during the first break as well.
19 Then if there's no other matter to be discussed before the
20 witness enters the courtroom, could the witness be escorted into the
21 courtroom. And, due to face distortion, the curtains need to be down for
22 a minute.
23 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honour, good morning. As he is being
24 brought in, if I could go head and begin making a record of the
25 adjudicated facts.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
2 MS. HOCHHAUSER: There are a number of adjudicated facts upon
3 which the Prosecution relied in deciding to redact certain portions of
4 the tendered statements including, 2037, 2045, 2065, 2134, 2571, 2845,
5 and 2852. Additionally there are a number of adjudicated facts upon
6 which we relied in deciding not to tender certain document and not to
7 elicit information during the direct examination in consideration of your
8 Your Honours' 2nd May 2012 fourth decision on Prosecution motion for
9 judicial notice of adjudicated facts concerning the rebuttal evidence
11 So in addition to the ones already listed above these would be in
12 regard to Incident F-11: 2297, 2299, 2300, 2302 through 2304.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 MS. HOCHHAUSER: In regard to G-13: 2546, 2548, 2549, 2554 and
15 2555. In regard to G-15: 2564, 2571, 2576 through 78, 2580. In
16 addition to the shelling incident on 28th June of 1995 of the TV
17 building: 2834, 2835, 2844 through 2846. And with regard to that
18 incident specifically, Your Honour, the Prosecution is refraining from
19 entering into evidence 65 ter number 10167 which is listed on our exhibit
20 notification for this witness.
21 In regard to the shelling incident on Geteova street on
22 28 June 1995, that would be adjudicated fact 2849, 2849, 2852. And with
23 regard to this incident, Your Honours, the Prosecution would like to
24 specifically point to 65 ter numbers 10210 and 103 -- I'm sorry, 13865,
25 the latter being an associate exhibit which we referenced on Friday.
1 Both documents on our exhibit notification list for this witness which we
2 are refraining from tendering for last incident based on the adjudicated
3 facts, and I'm sorry for the length of that record.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and apart from that also for the speed of
5 speech, I take it.
6 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Yes, I apologise for that as well.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Witness RM110.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
9 JUDGE ORIE: It is not very polite to continue to speak when
10 you're entering the courtroom.
11 This is not a criticism, Ms. Hochhauser. It's just -- just to
12 the witness.
13 Witness RM110, I would like to remind you that you're still bound
14 by the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony
15 last Friday.
16 WITNESS: RM110 [Resumed]
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hochhauser will now continue her
19 examination-in-chief. Please listen carefully to her questions.
20 Please proceed, Ms. Hochhauser.
21 Examination by Ms. Hochhauser: [Continued]
22 Q. Good morning, RM110.
23 A. Good morning.
24 Q. I'm going to turn now to some questions about G-18, the bombing
25 of the Markale market on 28 August 1995.
1 If we could, Your Honours, please go into private session.
2 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
3 [Private session]
11 Pages 4900-4906 redacted. Private session.
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
4 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Turning -- can we please turn to page 27 of
5 this -- of these photographs -- this exhibit.
6 Q. And, sir, the pictures at page -- pages 27, and then also 28 and
7 29, the following two photographs, does this accurately depict the
8 damaged mortar stabiliser recovered at the entrance of the Markale market
9 on the 28th of August, 1995?
10 A. Yes. That's the stabiliser of a mortar shell. It was also found
11 on the scene.
12 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honours, at this time I -- I would like to
13 tender 10288 [sic] into evidence.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
15 THE REGISTRAR: [Microphone not activated]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, there is apparently something wrong
17 with your microphone. Could that be -- could you please repeat and could
18 you carefully check whether we have the right number, the right 65 ter
20 THE REGISTRAR: [Microphone not activated]
21 JUDGE ORIE: There's -- one second.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Can you hear me now?
23 JUDGE ORIE: It's now better.
24 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number that was this photo is 10228, and
25 it's assigned number P499.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence as a public exhibit.
2 Yes, and we now see that the reference, as we find it in the
3 transcript, on page 13, line 7, which was a mistake, is now corrected on
4 page 13, line 16.
5 Please proceed.
6 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honours, at this time I would like to play
7 the entirety of Exhibit P446 which was entered into evidence during the
8 testimony of a previous witness but only a very small segment of it was
9 played. The video is approximately seven minutes and 15 seconds long and
10 that would conclude my examination -- I'm sorry. I would have one
11 question after it and then that would conclude my examination.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
13 You do not rely on text.
14 MS. HOCHHAUSER: That's correct, Your Honour.
15 [Video-clip played]
16 MS. HOCHHAUSER: May I, Your Honours?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
18 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
19 Q. Sir, in the first portion of that video, we see -- we see what
20 appeared to be a -- civilians moving -- moving the bodies out of the
21 scene. Is that what you were describing earlier in your testimony?
22 A. No, no. Before -- I've never seen this video before.
23 Q. Sir, did you -- did you have an opportunity to review this video
24 prior to coming to court the other day over the -- last week?
25 A. Well, yes, last week. I'm sorry. I mean, I meant the earlier
1 period, before I came here. I didn't mean the period since I've been
3 Q. And the first portion of that video where we see the bodies of
4 victims being removed from the scene, you were not present for that; is
5 that correct?
6 A. Yes, I was not present then.
7 Q. And how about the latter part of the video where we see once the
8 victims have been removed?
9 A. Yes. By that time, I was already there, and I do recognise these
10 people. That is to say, the team from the international force. I think
9 [Private session]
11 Pages 4911-4914 redacted. Private session.
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
19 If the parties are discussing scheduling issues over the next
20 break, the Chamber would encourage that you'd come up with a detailed
21 plan, because if we start with concerns about whether we could conclude
22 our whole programme for this week and if then it's just a matter of,
23 We'll take less time, we'd like to know exactly what day, what session,
24 for what witness, and for the Chamber to accept a solution as suggested
25 by the Mladic Defence, a detailed schedule would certainly assist.
1 We take a break, and we'll resume at five minutes to 11.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: We perhaps first deal with scheduling issues.
5 Could I hear from the parties -- by the way, Mr. Groome, I take
6 it that you have been informed about the fact that the Chamber noted that
7 three and a half plus one and a half is five instead of four, as was seen
8 on last week's schedule.
9 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. I believe we've --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which means that the schedule you prepared
11 would amount to 20 and a half hours rather than 19 and a half.
12 Could I hear from the parties.
13 Mr. Lukic.
14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 We just discussed the scheduling issue, and we divided it into
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. LUKIC: So we should start tomorrow with RM511.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. LUKIC: He should be finished by the end of Wednesday.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. LUKIC: Then we have Thursday for RM171.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let me have a look. Yes.
24 MR. LUKIC: And if necessary it can be finished on Friday,
25 because, now, for RM087 in total, we have Prosecution and the Defence two
1 and a half hours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Two and a half.
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes. So we are pretty confident that all these
4 witnesses can be finished in this week without having any extended
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now, Mr. Groome, that would be today for RM110
7 without extra sessions. Would Witness RM511 be available already to
8 start if we would ...
9 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that is today, that's Monday. Tuesday,
11 Wednesday for Witness RM511. Thursday for Witness RM171. Would one day
12 be sufficient?
13 MR. LUKIC: Probably. But, if necessary, we can take one hour
14 from Friday as well.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And Friday then would still remain sufficient
17 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Now, the Chamber is -- is willing to follow the
19 suggestion made by the parties, but it's -- now and then happens that
20 unexpected things arrive. I mean, this will then be a tight schedule.
21 And if these things happen both parties commit themselves to limited time
22 in such a way, I mean, if we are half an hour -- if there's a power cut,
23 you'll have to resolve that. We're not going to change it in any other
24 way. The Chamber has made three hours extra available and expects the
25 parties to conclude this programme this week.
1 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. If I may.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. LUKIC: I agreed with Mr. Groome, if it fits Your Honour, if
4 necessary which might have Friday extension if necessary, but we doubt
5 that it would be the case.
6 JUDGE ORIE: No, but, of course --
7 MR. LUKIC: If there's a power cut, we cannot control power cut.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that. But Friday it is just
9 impossible. Not all Judges are available, so that would be a problem.
10 And I add to this, Mr. Lukic, that the Chamber is happy to follow the --
11 the schedule as suggested by the parties. The Chamber, however, by doing
12 this, does not implicitly accept the health reasons which are claimed.
13 At this moment we have no medical reports which would support that,
14 neither has the Chamber observed itself anything which would give further
15 support to that.
16 So although agreeing with the suggestion, it's on the basis of an
17 agreement and a commitment of the parties not on the basis of health
19 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 Yes, Mr. Groome.
22 MR. GROOME: Can I just say the following. That this -- this
23 schedule is made possible by revised estimates of cross-examination by
24 the Defence. I cannot commit to less time in direct examination,
25 although the Prosecution always endeavours to take the minimum amount of
2 Could I suggest to the Chamber that in order to plan for the
3 possibility of something unforeseen, that the extra time now scheduled
4 for tomorrow not be foregone or not cancelled until we see tomorrow how
5 things have gone and -- if that's possible.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let me check for one second with Madam Registrar.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll proceed as suggested.
9 Could the curtains be down. Could the witness be escorted into
10 the courtroom.
11 And, Mr. Stojanovic, after all that's done, you may continue with
12 your cross-examination.
13 But I think we have to move -- do we still have to move in
14 private session, Mr. Stojanovic?
15 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the document that
16 we will be using is under seal, and only the first few questions need to
17 be put in private session. And then, after that, we can move into open
19 JUDGE ORIE: We now move into private session.
20 [Private session]
11 Page 4920 redacted. Private session.
13 [Open session]
14 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. While we're waiting for the document to be uploaded - but I think
18 we can see it now - I would like to ask you if you're able to recognise
19 this area.
20 A. Yes, I can recognise it. This is part of the Svrakino Selo
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Microphone not activated]
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Microphone.
25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. I would now kindly ask the usher to hand you a marker so that you
2 can circle the building that was hit by a modified air bomb on that
3 occasion, according to your best recollection.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Can I now ask you to mark the right-hand side of the circle with
7 an MB, modified bomb.
8 A. [Marks]
9 Q. Thank you. And now please mark the RTV Dom building, the federal
10 television building, if you see it in this photograph. Could you mark
11 the building with a circle?
12 A. [Marks]
13 Q. And can you mark the circle with a RTV?
14 A. [Marks]
15 Q. Thank you. What do you think, how far is this building from the
16 RTV Dom that was hit by this modified air bomb?
17 A. Well, as the crow flies, I -- I really couldn't be very specific.
18 Perhaps it could be a couple of hundred metres. Perhaps not even that
19 much. But, really, I -- I could not say exactly.
20 Q. If you can see it in this photograph, could you please mark the
21 police station in the formerly Prvomajska Ulica Street. If you can see
22 it in this area?
23 A. You cannot really see it very well. All you can see here are
24 roofs. So you cannot really see the police station building clearly.
25 Q. Yes, I know. But if I can just ask you to mark the roof with a
2 A. Well, it should be somewhere here.
3 Q. If I may ask you to -- oh, we've lost it now.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. All the markings apparently are lost.
5 Madam Registrar, any technical solution for this?
6 MS. HOCHHAUSER: If I could also ...
7 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
8 MS. HOCHHAUSER: If I could just add to that, Your Honour, all of
9 our middle monitors have gone out so we're unable to follow the evidence
10 and the markings at the moment. If somebody could come assist us. I
11 don't want to stop the examination.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Perhaps we use the time, meanwhile, to have
13 the old markings to be done again.
14 Could you again with the assistance of the usher with the ...
15 Could -- could ... could the usher assist the witness in marking
16 again, first, where the modified air bomb landed; that is, the marking
17 was close to where G-13 is.
18 Witness, could you please be so kind to mark that again.
19 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could you add the letters there, modified air bomb,
21 MB again.
22 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Would you now mark again the radio/TV station, as
24 you did before.
25 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
1 JUDGE ORIE: And add the letters you wrote there before.
2 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
3 JUDGE ORIE: And could you now -- what is visible from the police
4 station even if it's only partial, could you mark that.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can just see roofs on this
6 building. So that would be here.
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. If I may ask you to mark that circle with a PS, police station.
9 A. [Marks]
10 Q. Thank you. Was the police station located in the same building
11 in May 1991?
12 A. Yes, it was.
13 Q. And are you able to mark, according to your best recollection,
14 where the cannon shells, as you said, fell in the then-street of
15 Safeta Hadzica. Can you please mark approximately more or less that
17 A. You cannot really see it, but there is an area behind these four
18 buildings. To the right, there was a school, so I could perhaps just
19 draw a line approximately where that was. But you cannot see the ground
20 where that happened.
21 Q. Yes. Could you then please mark it in the way that you've
23 A. So roughly beyond these buildings here, as far as I can remember.
24 Q. Thank you. To the best of your recollection, what was the
25 distance between the impact points of these shells and the police
2 A. I can't tell that you. After all, we didn't even measure that
3 distance; that's to say, the distance between the police station and the
4 point where the projectiles impacted the ground.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave, I
7 would like to tender page 39 of P3 as marked here as a Defence exhibit.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number of the photograph marked
9 by the witness would be ...
10 THE REGISTRAR: Would be D95, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
12 Mr. Stojanovic, do we have to stay in -- oh, we are in open
13 session, yes.
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Sir, before we remove the document from our screens, let me ask
16 you this: These shells, regardless of how many there were, and the
17 modified air bomb, did they impact the ground roughly at the same time,
18 in your view?
19 A. With hindsight, can I tell you that they impacted at very short
20 intervals of time. You could even say that they hit the ground almost at
21 the same time. Of course, I'm giving you information that we got from
22 eye-witnesses who were there at the scene.
23 Q. And did they all come from the same direction?
24 A. From what I remember, they did. But you have the direction from
25 which they came, all of them, contained in my report.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'd like us to look
3 at it again. At P45 -- or, rather, P495. And let me remind you again
4 that it's under seal, but I do believe we could stay in open session,
5 until a point, at least.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, not to be broadcast, but we can discuss
7 it in open session.
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Let us look at page 2 in both
9 versions. Page 2.
10 Q. Sir, we will be now following roughly the answers that you gave
11 earlier on. Please look at paragraph 2 of the report which reads:
12 "Based on the recovered unexploded projectiles and parts of the
13 exploded projectiles that were recovered, it was established that in all
14 these cases the same armour-piercing explosive artillery projectiles were
15 used of 90-millimetre calibre produced in the Nazi Germany and bearing
16 the following marks."
17 Do you see that?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. This is my question: Who established that the calibre in
20 question was 90 millimetres? Please don't give us the name, only the
22 A. I said that it was the individual under number 3 who was a member
23 of the crime-scene examination team and these were the findings that he
24 arrived at at the scene. Of course, all these various elements were
25 certainty to the Ministry of Interior to the KDZ department for their
1 final examination and ultimate analysis.
2 Q. Thank you. Did that same individual also provided the
3 information contained in this report to the effect that they were
4 armour-piercing explosive artillery projectiles?
5 A. Yes, that too.
6 Q. Who is behind the statement that in all these listed cases - and
7 based on my calculations they were ten plus 1, that's to say, 11 - the
8 same artillery piece of the same calibre was used which was produced in
9 the Nazi Germany?
10 A. What do you mean when you say "who is behind the statement"? Do
11 you mean the sentence written in the report or are you asking about what
12 it was that the person under number 3 established at the scene?
13 Q. I will formulate my question slightly differently.
14 You will see that it reads here: It was established that in all
15 the listed cases the same artillery piece indicated here was used.
16 Who was it? Who established this?
17 A. I received information about it from the individual under
18 number 3, and I included it in my report. As I said earlier, the
19 information was obtained at the scene during the crime-scene examination.
20 All these various elements were then forwarded on for final forensic
21 examination and definitive findings.
22 Q. Very well. Let me ask you this: Is my understanding of this
23 report correct; i.e., that all these shells that were listed in the
24 paragraph above in fact 90-millimetre armour-piercing explosive artillery
25 projectiles produced in the Nazi Germany?
1 A. Yes. All of them or, rather, this qualification here applies to
2 all those projectiles listed above, because the damage and the traces
3 found at the scene all came from the same type of shell, the same type of
4 weapon, except for the second paragraph where you see that they say that
5 the damage comes from an unidentified weapon which fired from the
6 westerly direction.
7 Q. This was supposed to be my next question but let us just
8 establish this. You were not able to ascertain the weapon which might
9 have fired such shells as were qualified here as the 90-millimetre
10 artillery pieces from Germany?
11 A. No, not myself. I wasn't an expert in that area. I only related
12 the information I received from the individual under number 3. So I
13 repeat: This is not my own formation.
14 Q. I didn't find anywhere in this report or note that you weren't
15 able to say with any certainty what the distance of fire was.
16 A. Yes, as I said, I wasn't trained for this sort of work. Had
17 anybody been able to establish the distance from which fire was opened, I
18 would probably have included that information in my report.
19 Q. Thank you. And I will conclude with this question.
20 To the best of your recollection, can you tell how far removed
21 was the front line between the Army of Republika Srpska and the BH army
22 from the point or from the scene which you examined?
23 A. I can't tell you that because I was never present at the front
24 line. I never had an opportunity to go there.
25 Q. This same report in the next paragraph states that the shells
1 were fired from an unidentified weapon from the westerly direction which
2 would correspond to the positions of the insurgent Serbs in the area of
3 Ilidza. Now, whose statement was this?
4 A. It was made by the person under number 3.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let me -- let me just -- does the document say
6 "insurgent" or "aggressor," the original?
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] With all due respect, I'm
8 reading from the B/C/S version which says "insurgent Bosnian Serbs" or
9 "rebel Bosnian Serbs."
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 Q. While we have the document here, let's look at page 12 of the
13 B/C/S and 11 of the English version of the document.
14 While we're waiting for it to appear, let me ask you a few things
15 about the document.
16 You say that the fragments of the shells that you were able to
17 find at the scene, you seized and sent on for further forensic
18 examination which was how the rules governed it; right?
19 A. Right.
20 Q. In the document before us which was authored by the Ministry
21 of Interior of Bosnia-Herzegovina Anti-Sabotage Department, on the basis
22 of a forensic examination of the elements that you sent them, they
23 established that, in their view - and if you can see this in
24 paragraph 1 - it most probably involved a contact-fuse high-explosive
25 shell, 88 millimetres in calibre.
1 Will you agree with me that in forensic examination is contrary
2 to what the individual who provided information for the other report
3 arrived at?
4 A. Well, I don't know if it was contrary. At any rate, what I do
5 know is that this is what the Ministry of Interior established. The fact
6 that there's a difference calibre ... well, is this report by the
7 Ministry of Interior the final one?
8 Q. If I were to tell you that following consultation with experts in
9 this field, there is no such thing as the armour-piercing explosive
10 projectile. If I were to tell you this, would you then agree with what
11 you see here?
12 A. Well, I can't go into that. I have not had the appropriate
13 training. I am not an expert in this field.
14 Q. Thank you. Let us look at this document, the last page, which
15 reads, and this is what the team of experts say, "that an analysis of the
16 fragments taken from the scene," can we stay with the same document,
17 please, "established." That's page 12 of the B/C/S and 11 of the English
18 versions, P495. Thank you. Yes, that's the document.
19 It reads that the members of this MUP department, the BH MUP
20 department, established that this shell, this type of projectile, was of
21 an earlier date and was one that could be found in the JNA arsenal.
22 Do you see this?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. Will you agree with me that what we read here is, yet again,
25 contrary to what the Official Note says; i.e., that all the shells that
1 were fired were of the same origin, of the -- of the same calibre, and
2 had come from Germany?
3 A. Yes. The report stated that it was produced at that time;
4 whereas this document here only says that it was to be found in the
5 former JNA arsenal but did not refer to its date of manufacture.
6 Q. Do you mean to say that the shells which originally came from
7 Germany and dated back to World War II were present in the JNA arsenal
8 after the war?
9 A. No, that's not what I said. You asked me what the documents
10 differed in, and I told you what they differed in. The report stated
11 where the weapons had been manufactured, and this document states that
12 they were in the JNA arsenal. I didn't state one or the other, simply
13 because, as I said already, I'm not an expert in the field. I'm not able
14 to give you any details about it.
15 Q. Will you agree with me that the weaponry that belonged to the
16 former JNA could also be found in the BH army?
17 A. I don't know that. I don't know what type of weapons there were.
18 I didn't have any such contacts. I wasn't at the front line. And I
19 didn't know what sort of weapons the army had. I was a policeman, and I
20 only did policing work.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now look at P497 in
23 e-court; photograph number 1. Can we blow it up, please.
24 Q. Sir, does this document reflect the impact site of one of the
25 shells addressed in the notes as a result of a forensic examination?
1 A. As far as I can remember, yes.
2 Q. You had an opportunity to see this photograph before you
3 testified; is that correct?
4 A. Yes, that's correct.
5 Q. Could you please tell me, to the best of your recollection and to
6 the extent to which you can see, the central part marked with an arrow,
7 is that the point of impact of one of these shells that you recorded in
8 your document?
9 A. I think so. I think that that is one of the points of impact.
10 Q. Would you agree with me that the roof of this auxiliary building
11 was built of a light material that we know as "salonit"?
12 A. Well, I cannot say exactly. It is covered with snow here, and
13 given the time that has gone by, I cannot recall what the roof was made
15 Q. Sir, I did not quite understand you. You said that it was
16 covered with snow?
17 A. Well, that what it seems like to me from here. Well, practically
18 there was any snow. Something white. Perhaps this was a slip on my
19 part. It's sort of white. I cannot see what it is made of, and of
20 course there couldn't have been any snow at the time. I do apologise.
21 Q. I'm asking you all of this because of the following, if you can
22 give me an answer, on the basis of all of the experiences that you've had
23 with these on-site investigations: Is it possible if a shell, the way
24 you described it in either one of the two reports after the expertise, in
25 view of the point of impact that we see here on the photograph, is it
1 possible that due to the impact wave it does not disturb the roof at all,
2 regardless of the material that was used to make the roof?
3 On the basis of your experience, would that be possible?
4 A. Again, I don't want to go into this kind of assessment or
5 estimates because I'm not that familiar with the area. I cannot really
6 discuss this field competently. I think that this needs to be dealt with
7 by an expert.
8 Q. Thank you. Then I'm going to ask you, bearing in mind the
9 marking of buildings that you conducted and that we saw in that
10 photograph, in war time, is a police station a legitimate military
12 A. I don't know. I'm not a military analyst and this is not
13 something that I'm very familiar with.
14 Q. Thank you. And I will conclude with the following question: The
15 RTV centre, although you're not a military analyst, in your view is that
16 a legitimate military target? Yes or no.
17 A. I don't know what you mean by this, "legitimate military target."
18 I don't see what you mean when you say that. Could you please explain
19 that to me.
20 In any rate it seems to me that my answer would be the same. I
21 cannot say what a legitimate military target is and what it is not.
22 Q. Thank you. My understanding is that you carried out on-site
23 investigations in several places where modified air bombs, as you called
24 them, fell; is that correct?
25 A. Yes, that's correct.
1 Q. Did your experience lead to you a situation in which you would
2 realise that such a projectile could ricochet?
3 A. I did not go into any such thing. I'm telling you yet again: It
4 is experts who conveyed information to me as to how an explosion took
5 place, whether it happened in this or that way.
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may we see P495
7 again. I would like to remind you of the fact that it is under seal,
8 although we'll be using pages 2 in both versions. I believe that we can
9 remain in open court. Thank you for your assistance. And ...
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: You mean not to be broadcasted but can still be
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour.
15 Q. So this is what I asked you: To the best of your recollection,
16 all of the shells on that date, did they come from the same direction?
17 And you said: As far as I can remember, yes. But I would like to see
18 the document. And now I would just like to direct you to this.
19 According to this document, according to the record, shells arrived from
20 the west, which would correspond to the area of Ilidza. Do you see that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In the last paragraph on this page in B/C/S - and could I please
23 have the next page in English - this is what it says when describing the
24 analysis of the modified projectile trajectory: It is established that
25 it was fired from a south, southwesterly direction corresponding to the
1 aggressor positions of the rebel Bosnian Serbs in the Lukavica area.
2 Do you see that?
3 A. It's not the rebel Bosnian Muslims. It's the rebel
4 Bosnian Serbs.
5 Q. I do apologise. The rebel Bosnian Serbs?
6 A. Yes, I see that and I will go back to what I said a moment ago.
7 As far as I can remember, that's the way it was. And I would like --
8 JUDGE ORIE: One second. Do we have the same in English as we
9 have in ...
10 Oh, yes. It's the bottom, the very last -- let me see, yes.
11 Yes, I see it. Yes. Thank you.
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Please go ahead. Perhaps you have been interrupted. You wanted
14 to say something in relation to the direction from which these
15 projectiles came.
16 A. Yes. I said, as far as I can remember, in relation to your first
17 question, I would like to see this document and now I see the document,
18 and it is certainly the way it was. It is the way I wrote it down when
19 it happened. That is a fact that was established on the spot at that
20 point in time.
21 When I gave my first answer, I said "to the best of my
22 recollection." But what is correct is what is stated here in the report,
24 Q. So it would be correct to say that shells and explosive devices
25 that fell on that occasion had not come from the same direction.
1 A. Yes, that's the way it would be. That is what was established,
2 too; that is to say, the west and south-west.
3 Q. Appreciating the point of impact of these shells, can you tell
4 the Chamber what the distance is between the area of Ilidza and the area
5 of Lukavica?
6 A. I cannot say exactly, as I've already said in relation to the
7 distance between the housing facility and the television building.
8 At any rate, it's not a major distance as the crow flies; that
9 is, if you look at the boundaries of the municipality of Ilidza and the
10 neighbourhood of Lukavica.
11 Q. As for this event that we discussed now, you said that there had
12 been material damage and also that some persons were injured; is that
14 A. I don't see that in my report. I assume that I did establish
15 that, and if I established it then that is correct. I cannot see it. I
16 cannot see the page where that is stated.
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may we please take
18 a look at page 3 in B/C/S and in English as well.
19 Q. And now if we look at the second paragraph in B/C/S where it
21 "Several persons were injured and the surrounding buildings
22 extensively damaged in the explosion of a modified explosive projectile
23 which hit the roof," et cetera.
24 Do you see that?
25 A. Yes I see that.
1 Q. This is what I'm asking you now: All the persons that are listed
2 here were they injured by that projectile of the modified air bomb or are
3 these person who had been injured by all the shells that were fired on
4 that day within that period of time?
5 A. Well, I cannot remember exactly now. But roughly what was stated
6 was that this was due to the projectile that fell on the roof. I can
7 just confirm that what I established is correct, as far as lighter and
8 more serious injures are concerned.
9 Q. So if it were to be the way you put it, then my conclusion is -
10 and could you please confirm whether it is correct or not - that no one
11 was injured by the other shells, is that correct, in view of what was
12 written in this report.
13 A. I'm saying again, in view of what was written in this report and
14 on the basis of what I can remember now, that's the way it was. That is
15 what was stated in the report.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
18 move on to a document that is under seal now, and I'm aware of the time.
19 So would it be the right time to take the break or should I move on to
20 the other document?
21 JUDGE ORIE: We could take the break. But before we do so, could
22 I seek one matter to be clarified.
23 Mr. Stojanovic, you took the witness to the part of the report
24 which said that all the shells mentioned arrived from the west, from the
25 area of Ilidza. And then you, a few lines furthers down, you said, well,
1 here you say that this one came from Lukavica, and you noted that there
2 was a discrepancy.
3 Is that correctly understood by me that you saw a contradiction
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. Perhaps
6 there's an interpretation problem or perhaps it's the way in which I'm
7 expressing myself. All these shells came from one direction, from
8 Ilidza, according to this report. But the modified air bomb came from a
9 different direction, south-west, from the direction of Lukavica.
10 And the answer that we received was: These are two different
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but that is clear from the report. What is the
13 problem? Why did you -- I try to understand why you put those questions.
14 Of course, Lukavica is not Ilidza, that's clear. But -- I -- I mean,
15 what I'm trying to understand what your questions and what the answers of
16 the witness added to what we see already in the report. Or just that
17 Ilidza is not Lukavica.
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this just had to do
19 with the witness's initial answer; namely that all the projectiles had
20 come from one direction. So this is what I put to him so that we could
21 agree on the fact that from a elementary point of view this was not
22 correct. So we finally got to this: That the witness agreed that this
23 had come from two different directions.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let me check that for one second. Let me just see.
25 One second, please.
1 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honour?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I apologise, but I see that the witness is
4 trying to indicate that he had something to add to the conversation.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I'd first like to have a ... let me just see.
6 Yes, you would say that the witness earlier said that -- he
7 talked about both the shells and the modified air bomb. And immediately
8 you asked him then did they all come from the same direction.
9 And then the witness says:
10 "From what I remember, they did. But you have the direction from
11 which they came, all of them contained in my report."
12 So he says, Well, find it in my report, and the report was
13 perfectly clear on the matter. And Ilidza is not the same as Lukavica.
14 Yes, now at least I do understand your line of questioning.
15 Whether there was any need to further explore what was in the report is a
16 different matter.
17 We take a break, but could the witness be escorted out of the
18 courtroom first, and the curtains down. If the witness would like to add
19 something, then at the beginning of the next session he has an
20 opportunity to do so.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break, and we'll resume at 20 minutes past
24 --- Recess taken at 11.59 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 12.21 p.m.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
2 Curtains down.
3 Meanwhile, I use the opportunity to address the following matter.
4 On the 9th of November in regard of Witness RM165, an urgent
5 92 ter motion was filed in which the Prosecution, in a footnote at least,
6 says, Well, this is only 26 days between this filing and the day on which
7 the witness is expected to give testimony. But also on the 9th and also
8 again on the 12th of November, urgent 92 ter motions were filed - I'm
9 referring to witnesses RM063 and RM046 - where there is only far more
10 limited number of days between the expected day of the testimony and the
11 day of filing of the 92 ter motion. I think the guidance was 30 days.
12 [The witness takes the stand]
13 JUDGE ORIE: I do not find anything in the footnote there,
14 Mr. Groome. It's 11 and 9 days before.
15 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, the Prosecution apologises for
16 that and it has to do with some scheduling problems with other witnesses
17 and the pace that the trial is going. We fully appreciate that the
18 Chamber could reject deciding on the issue.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Before doing so, of course we'd like to hear from
20 the Defence.
21 Mr. Lukic, I have raised the matter not necessarily to respond
22 immediately but at least that you are aware that we are concerned about
24 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Witness RM110, we'll now continue with your
2 Mr. Stojanovic, if you're ready, you may proceed.
3 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honours, I don't know if the issue remains
4 from the previous session.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Was there anything you'd like to add,
6 Witness RM110, in relation to the questions put to you by Mr. Stojanovic
7 and the follow-up inquires I made with Mr. Stojanovic?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would just like to
9 state that the first time when the Defence asked me about the direction,
10 all I said was that it was like that, according to my best recollection.
11 And then you said that this was in my report. So all I wanted to say,
12 that I didn't assert that at the time. I just said that it was according
13 to my best recollection and that only what is written in my report is
15 JUDGE ORIE: That is clear, I think, also from my follow-up
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Q. Before we move to it the next document, I just wanted to put one
20 more question to you. Hrasnica and Igman, in relation to the location of
21 the impact of the shells in Svrakino Selo, are they in the direction of
23 A. A part of them is, yes. But I don't know who was there in those
24 sectors, who held though positions.
25 Q. Thank you. Now I would like us to look at P493.
1 I just would like to say that this is again a document under
2 seal, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And therefore not to be shown to the public.
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Sir, can you see the document in front of you?
6 A. Yes, I see it.
7 Q. Can we agree that this is a report drafted by a person working at
8 the Sarajevo Security Services Centre.
9 A. Can I look at page 2?
10 Q. Of course. Yes, we can look at page 2. This is not going to be
11 broadcast in public so there will be no problem.
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at page 2 of the
13 B/C/S version? Actually, the third page of the B/C/S version and the
14 English version.
15 Q. You can see the name of the person who drafted the report here?
16 A. Yes. I see the name. I recognise the person. The person did
17 work in the Security Services Centre.
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now go back to page 1 of
19 both versions, please.
20 Q. I'm going to put a few questions to you about this, because this
21 is an incident that is cited in the indictment.
22 Do you recall this incident; and do you recall going for the
23 on-scene investigation?
24 A. Well, I cannot say that I completely recall the incident, but
25 judging by the document, I was there. I remember very little.
1 Q. All right. Then we can go through the text because I don't want
2 anything to be contrary to what is written here in respect of my
4 If I read it correctly, on the 8th of October, you were informed
5 about an incident that occurred involving fire at two trams moving along
6 the Bascarsija-Marin Dvor or the western part route; is that correct?
7 A. Actually, it wasn't the Marin Dvor-Bascarsija route. It was vice
8 versa, the other way around. It was the Marin Dvor-Bascarsija. It was
9 that route.
10 Q. Thank you. And then when you came to the scene, you observed
11 that two trams were fired at, number 206 and number 236; is that correct?
12 A. Yes, that is correct. That what is stated in the report.
13 Q. And then you describe the incident and note - or, actually, the
14 author, the person who drafted the report does - that first a burst of
15 fire occurred at the -- on the 206 tram and then two or three minutes
16 later, tram 236 was also struck.
17 I am asking you: Were both trams moving in the same direction,
18 going towards Bascarsija?
19 A. First of all, this was stated based on a statement by the tram
20 driver and that was noted by the person who drafted the report.
21 As far as I can recall, I think that both trams were moving in
22 the direction of Bascarsija.
23 Q. The driver's statement, the driver of the first tram, stated -
24 and this is written in the report - that:
25 "The aggressor's soldiers most probably fired from the Grbavica
1 PZT or from the Metalka building."
2 Do you see that?
3 A. Yes, I can see it.
4 Q. Can you please tell the Trial Chamber who stated this. Was it
5 the tram driver or was it the officials who conducted the official
7 A. If you read this sentence carefully, the beginning of the
8 sentence, you will see that it says that the driver stated that a burst
9 of fire was directed at the tram at 1219 hours. This something that the
10 driver said.
11 Q. Yes, that's how I understood it as well. Let me ask you this:
12 The officials who drafted the report, did they ever note this fact or did
13 they establish where the fire or the shots came from? Is there anything
14 like that in the report?
15 A. Well, this is an official report. It's not a record or a
16 transcript. The transcript or the report would be written by the
17 investigative judge present at the investigation. But the officials, my
18 colleagues, the person mentioned next to number 2, was -- we would not
19 have been able to determine something like that because that is not what
20 we were trained to do.
21 Q. So, based on the report, you could not conclude where the burst
22 of fire came from.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: There's a lot of noise in
24 our headphones.
25 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
1 JUDGE ORIE: For the interpreters, I do not hear any noise so I'm
2 unable to assist in tracing the source of the ...
3 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honours, we're having a lot of noise in
4 our headphones. We're unable to hear what's going on in the courtroom.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Moloto just tells me that he moved from --
7 socket of the earphones from the usual place to the ones which are often
8 used for voice distortion. I don't know whether that helps.
9 What I do hear, I hear some noise of breathing in the -- in the
10 earphones which often means that the speaker is nearby. But ... but that
11 could be the witness himself, as a matter of fact. That -- perhaps could
12 the microphone a little bit either lower or higher.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, the noise is gone now.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently the problem is resolved. The problem is
15 resolved, Mr. Usher. Could you -- is it still okay? Could you speak a
16 few words, Witness.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can repeat what I said earlier so
18 that can you check the microphone, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes. Could I hear from the booth whether
20 it's okay.
21 THE INTERPRETER: It's fine now. And we probably -- we believe
22 this has nothing to do with the microphones of the witness, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. It's fine now, so let's proceed.
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 Q. I think that your last answer was not recorded in the transcript
1 so I would kindly ask you to repeat the answer. I will put the question
2 to you again.
3 Is it correct that you, meaning the investigation team, could not
4 determine where the fire that was impacting tram 206 came from?
5 A. As I said before, people listed next to 2 and 3 could not have
6 established something like that so it's not in the report. The report
7 only refers to the statement by the driver who said that the fire came
8 from such and such a direction and from such and such a building.
9 Q. Thank you. And the task of the officials who drafted the
10 official report, would that include, among other things, establishing the
11 damage to the trams if it was caused by a burst of fire?
12 A. Well, this damage was noted in the report. Traces of blood were
13 found, as well as shards of glass, as well as four entry holes from the
15 Q. Thank you. Well, that is the gist of the question. This
16 determination that you have just mentioned, does that refer to tram 206
17 or tram 236?
18 A. Well, it says in the report that it was tram 236 where the traces
19 of blood were found, as well as shards of glass.
20 Q. And the four entry holes; right?
21 A. Yes, that is correct.
22 Q. But I'm asking you this: Is there anything there about the
23 damage to tram 206 in the same way that this damage was established for
24 tram 236? Could you please look at the report and assist us on that
1 A. Well, can I look at the second page? I don't find it here.
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please show the witness
3 page 2 of the document because my next question has something to do with
4 what is on page 2.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I don't see anything
6 like it. But, as I said, I did not draft the document and I really don't
7 remember. I cannot remember all the particulars after so much time has
9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Thank you. If I were to tell you that after reading the report
11 several times I established that the described damage was to tram 236 and
12 that there was nothing on 206, would you agree with me, once you also
13 read the official report?
14 A. Well, I don't know. I've re-read the report now, and your
15 understanding of the report is your understanding. I don't see why I
16 should be saying whether I agree with it or not, or whether you're right
17 or not with whatever you may have concluded.
18 Q. Thank you. Let me ask you this then: Does the official report
19 that you have in front of you establish anything at all about the
20 direction of fire in respect of tram 236?
21 A. We will go back again to what the tram driver stated which is
22 contained in the official report. So we have to go back to his statement
23 about the direction of fire.
24 Q. Did the driver of tram 236, which -- who is named in this report
25 tell you or any other member of the on-site investigation team what he
1 believed the direction of fire was and this somehow did not find its way
2 into the ultimate report?
3 A. Well, whatever he said was recorded in the report. I don't
4 recall that there was anything else.
5 Q. Please look at the record and tell me whether it states anywhere
6 what the direction of fire was that struck tram 236?
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have page 1 of the B/C/S
8 version and the English version. Can we blow up the bottom part of
9 page 1 where the name of the driver of tram 236 is contained.
10 Q. Once you've read it, I'll ask you to answer this question: Does
11 this record state anywhere what the tram driver may have said about the
12 direction of that burst of fire?
13 A. The driver of the second tram did not specify the direction of
14 fire, at least not on the basis of this record.
15 Q. Thank you. And am I right in saying that the on-site
16 investigation team did not establish anything other than damage to
17 tram 236? Am I right?
18 A. I don't know. If I were to have all the other supporting
19 documentation in front of me, i.e., the report made by the crime-scene
20 investigator, the sketch that they made of the crime scene, et cetera, I
21 would perhaps be able to tell you something. Without this documentation
22 and only on the basis of this report which is but an element of the
23 entire forensic file, I cannot. I would have to look into the record
24 made by the investigating judge, as well as the report produced by
25 crime-scene examiners who were at the scene. Then I would be able to see
1 if they established the direction of fire or not.
2 Q. Thank you. Unfortunately, we don't have that document.
3 Is it fair to say that reports of this sort, as a rule - and this
4 something we will be able to see in the future documents as well - would
5 always define the direction of fire, whether it was gun-fire, bursts of
6 fire, or artillery fire?
7 A. Well, you see, this sort of report did not necessarily have to
8 contain all the information as the record did. This was just a
9 preliminary report. A final report would be produced only after all the
10 various specialists conducted their various expert examinations.
11 Q. Did this official report have to contain the path or the
12 trajectory of the entry and exit holes in the metal paneling of the tram?
13 A. No. Such details would normally be contained in the diagrams or
14 sketches drawn of the crime scene by the on-site investigation members.
15 Here, it would only be noted that they -- that some sort of damage was
16 observed, whereas, the angle of descent or whatnot had to be defined by
17 forensic examiners in their reports.
18 Q. Since we don't have those reports, I will have to ask you if you
19 do remember, and you did talk about there having been situations that
20 were also described in official reports where the team attending the
21 scene would check the incoming fire or the angle of descent by judging
22 the positionings of the entry and exit holes and that this was the basis
23 on which they determined the direction of fire?
24 Was this the method applied in work?
25 A. Well, there were such situations because, you see, as far as I
1 remember, none of the trams ever stopped in their tracks as soon as they
2 were struck, because for security reasons, they had to proceed on their
3 journey for some time still. If the security situation was good enough
4 to allow for such sort of examination, of course, this sort of damage
5 close to holes was carefully examined. Some sort of straw, as it were,
6 would be threaded through the holes in order to establish what the angle
7 was. I can't speak about these methods in greater detail than this. I
8 only know that there were attempts at establishing the direction of fire.
9 Q. Since we don't have this documentation, we only have the official
10 report, I am trying to see how far you remember about this.
11 Do you recall how high above ground were these four holes as
12 described on tram 236?
13 A. I can't remember.
14 Q. Do you recall if they were level with the internal and external
15 paneling of the tram, or were they at different heights? Were they level
16 one with another or were they at different heights?
17 A. I can't remember that.
18 Q. Let's look at page 2 of the report in both versions. I think
19 it's page 2 in English as well.
20 This record states, among other things, that's the beginning of
21 paragraph 2 on page 2, which states that the scene was photographed and
22 videoed. Do you see this?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you know, are those photographs available, as was the case
25 with the previous instance? Can this footage be obtained? Where would
1 they physically be located?
2 A. With the crime-scene investigation department. That's where it
3 should be. I don't know whether it is there. It should be stored in the
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at P3 in
7 e-court; page 24.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness's microphones be lifted a
9 little bit, please, thank you. Now they are too low.
10 Microphone, please.
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Let us look at the photograph, if it can be blown up a bit. Do
13 you recognise the photograph and the area it depicts?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Can you identify the location where the trams were struck on this
17 A. Yes. The street leading to the building marked with the red
18 rectangle and the yellow building.
19 Q. Can I have the usher's assistance in handing the witness the pen
20 to mark the area.
21 Sir, to the best of your recollection, mark the approximate
22 location of the trams that were struck in 1994 on this occasion with two
24 A. I can't give you the exact location. They were both struck in
25 this area, on this street, one after the other, close to this building
1 that was marked with number 3, I believe. I'm not sure.
2 Q. Please place the letter T next to that circle; T, standing for
4 A. [Marks]
5 Q. Now tell us this: Do you know where the Metalka building is
7 A. Yes. In the neighbourhood called Grbavica.
8 Q. Can you identify this building called Metalka on this photograph?
9 A. I think it's precisely this building marked with a red rectangle.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, of course, that's what the
11 photograph already says. So unless there's any dispute about whether
12 Metalka building is the -- ask the witness to point at it, where it's
13 already indicated in the agenda.
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] There is no dispute, I don't
16 think, Your Honour. I only wanted for the sake of this photograph being
17 complete in itself. I would merely like to ask the witness to mark the
18 Metalka building with the letter M.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Which he has done by now.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
22 Q. Can I now ask you to mark the direction in which both trams were
23 heading, to the best of your recollection, with an arrow?
24 A. [Marks]
25 Q. Would you please now mark the spot where, to the best of your
1 recollection, the UNPROFOR vehicle and UNPROFOR patrol were located.
2 A. Roughly at this intersection here, where the letter -- the letter
3 T, for tram, is drawn. How shall I put it? But it's obscured by this
4 building here. It can't be seen.
5 Q. Would the location of the UNPROFOR patrol be exposed to fire
6 coming from the Metalka building, to the best of your recollection?
7 A. At the spot where I frequently saw them, they weren't that
8 exposed. There was no optic visibility unless they were moving. If they
9 were stationary, I don't think so. I'm telling you this on the basis of
10 what I remember of where they were located.
11 Q. Do you know if UNPROFOR troops fired back in this particular
12 instance or in other instances where they came under fire?
13 A. Well, in this particular case, there was no return fire. They
14 didn't take any action. Did they normally return fire? I wouldn't be
15 able to tell you because I never witnessed any such event.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, just for my understanding,
17 apparently you're asking questions to the witness which suggest a certain
18 scenario. It's pretty unclear to me what scenario you're suggesting to
19 the witness. Is it that the UNPROFOR was fired at and then would have
20 returned fire; or was it that the -- it's -- it's unclear to me,
21 especially the first question: Would the location of the UNPROFOR patrol
22 be exposed to fire?
23 Is there a suggestion that they were fired at, or possibly? And
24 that it was stray bullets, rather, that hit the tram? Is that what you
25 are exploring?
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, in view of
2 this witness's evidence, and you have it before you, you will see that
3 this witness, too, spoke about situations regarding the return fire by
4 UNPROFOR troops; also in answer to some of my questions. But I will move
5 on. And, with your leave, I would like to tender into evidence the
6 photograph thus marked.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Page 22 of document P3, as marked by witness in
9 court, becomes Exhibit D96 [Realtime transcript read in error "D94"],
10 Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
12 Yes, it -- P3, page 24, was asked -- Madam Registrar, you are
13 talking about page 22 being marked or did I make a mistake? I'm looking
14 at -- let me, again, check it.
15 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] 24, by your leave, Your Honour.
16 THE REGISTRAR: I apologise, Your Honours, [indiscernible] 22.
17 It was page 24 of document P3, as marked by witness that becomes
18 Exhibit D96.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And not as "D94" as recorded on line 11 of
21 page 59. But D96.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could you confirm that it.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Number assigned to this document is D96,
24 Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. And it was page 24 marked by the
2 Please proceed.
3 Could you please --
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm going to finish with these
5 questions that have to do with this event.
6 Q. I just have to ask you one thing. If I understand this record
7 correctly - and you tell me whether I'm right or not - you did not know
8 which weapon was used to fire on that occasion. You just have the
9 statement of the tram driver 206; is that right?
10 A. I think that I've already said earlier on that the documents of
11 the crime-scene technicians could contain the trajectory. Now I cannot
12 recall anything else but what is stated in the official report. That is
13 to say, that we were guided only by the statement of the driver.
14 Q. Thank you. And I'm not going to ask you anything else about this
15 event because that was my understanding of it. Please allow me now to go
16 through the official procedure that has to do with what has been called
17 Markale II.
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave,
19 perhaps the next few questions should be put in private session.
20 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
21 [Private session]
11 Pages 4956-4970 redacted. Private session.
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Questioned by the Court:
11 JUDGE ORIE: I would have one or two questions for you, Witness.
12 You remember that you testified about the series of projectiles
13 that landed in the same area where the modified air bomb landed.
14 You remember that incident?
15 A. I don't know which incident you mean. There were several
16 locations where I worked.
17 JUDGE ORIE: You -- you testified, you remember that you have
18 marked a photograph with where the radio and television station was,
19 where the police station was, where a number of projectiles had fallen,
20 and one modified aerial bomb, I think, landed on a roof. Is that clear
21 enough for you to orient yourself to my question? Could you tell us, the
22 projectile nearest to the police station, how far would that have
23 approximately been to that police station, if you are able to tell us?
24 A. I'm sorry. I cannot say anything about these measurements. We
25 didn't even measure these distances at the time; for instance, the
1 distance between the police station and the point of impact of the
2 closest projectile. I don't remember us measuring that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: No. But even if you don't measure you know more or
4 less whether it's the length of one football field or it's the length of
5 five football fields, one being approximately close to 100 metres, the
6 other one being close to 500 metres.
7 Could you give us any -- if not, then no problem. But if you
8 could give us any indication.
9 A. Not with full certainty. But I think around 100 metres, perhaps
10 even less. Of course, I don't know the exact distance. That would have
11 been the distance of the closest projectile.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the police station itself was not hit?
13 A. No, it wasn't.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And radio and television station was not hit at that
16 A. As far as I know, that building was not hit on this occasion.
17 All the projectiles that I worked on that day were at this location.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, one final question. The distance of the
19 shell landing closest to the radio and television station, you gave us an
20 estimate on the distance on the basis of that photograph. Was there any
21 shell which was closer to the RTV building then the one you marked on
22 this photograph that had landed on a roof?
23 A. No, there wasn't -- there wasn't one that would have been closer
24 to the radio and television. They were all at the location where I
25 worked. The lie of the land is such that this is at the top of the
1 elevation which then goes downhill in the direction of the RTV building.
2 So it's very difficult to tell on the basis of a photograph.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers. I have no further
4 questions for you.
5 Mr. Stojanovic, have the questions of the Bench triggered any
6 need for further questions?
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Witness RM110, this concludes your evidence.
9 I'd like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague and for answering
10 all the questions either put to you by the parties or the Bench, and I
11 wish you a safe return home again.
12 Could the curtains --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome --
15 The witness is excused.
16 [The witness withdrew]
17 JUDGE ORIE: The procedural matter you would like to raise was?
18 And we have limit the time as you see on the clock.
19 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, last week I made mention of a lexicon.
20 Defence and I have agreed that, although it's not complete, that it would
21 be useful for the Chamber to have a draft. I've provided copies to the
22 Registrar, which she is prepared to distribute in preparation for a
23 witness later this week.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. GROOME: And then the other matter, Your Honour, if I could
1 deal with in private session before the witness comes in tomorrow, that
2 might be -- it's a simple matter but I think an important one.
3 JUDGE ORIE: We'll hear from you tomorrow.
4 We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow, Tuesday, the
5 13th of November, at 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, III.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.16 p.m.,
7 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 13th day of
8 November, 2012, at 9.30 a.m.