1 Tuesday, 22 January 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.31 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: If -- 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 If there are no preliminaries - there are not - we turn for a
11 very short moment into closed session for the witness to enter the
13 [Closed session]
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
4 Good morning, Witness RM055. I would like to remind you that --
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- you're still bound by the solemn declaration that
7 you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
8 Mr. Lukic will now continue his cross-examination.
9 Mr. Lukic.
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 WITNESS: RM055 [Resumed]
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
14 Q. [Interpretation] And, good morning, sir.
15 We're going to continue dealing with a document that you are
16 probably familiar with.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] So we need the following in e-court:
18 65 ter 10971.
19 THE REGISTRAR: This is Exhibit P594, Your Honours.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need the English version, and the
21 French version; page 1 in both versions. Perhaps it doesn't exist in
22 French. So then let's have the B/C/S version and the English version.
23 We need the bottom part of the page.
24 Q. I think can you see it. You can see that this is a document
25 dated the 15th of September, 1994. You were not in Sarajevo then; right.
2 JUDGE ORIE: [Interpretation] Could you confirm, sir, that you
3 understand English?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I do understand
5 it and I can follow.
6 JUDGE ORIE: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need paragraph 3.
8 Q. You see that. There it sayings underneath the heading:
9 "Principles proposed to both wearing parties authorities:" And then, 31:
10 "Activation of a Joint Command post settled in a neutral area.
11 This command post is composed of three adjacent rooms. One for BiH
12 representatives; one for BSA representatives; one for UNPROFOR operations
14 Have you ever found out whether this actually came into practice,
15 what is written down here?
16 A. I will answer that while I was in Sarajevo, I asked if the
17 structure was in place, and the answer that I was given, and what I saw
18 myself, is that the -- the said structure, if it were to be in existence,
19 was not functioning anymore.
20 Q. Thank you. Do you have your statement in French? Do you have a
21 copy with you today?
22 A. On the screen, no.
23 Q. Do you have a hard copy? Perhaps it would be easier if you had a
24 paper copy.
25 A. [Previous translation continues]... mistake. Yes, indeed, yes.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 15 in French. In
2 English, page 11. Paragraph 4 in French. Page 15 in English, the bottom
3 of the page. In B/C/S, it's page 21, the first paragraph.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic, this is P749.
5 MR. LUKIC: Yes. Yes, Your Honour. P749, yes. Thank you.
6 Q. [Interpretation] In the first sentence of your response you say:
7 "In the French army, every company has elite sharpshooters, specially
9 This is what I'd like to ask you: Who do they answer to or who
10 do they report to, these elite sharpshooters?
11 A. They report usually to the commander of their unit.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could we briefly turn into private session.
20 [Private session]
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Just briefly, could we have the following in e-court, 10036.
16 This document is dated the 21st of September, 1994. This
17 document also dates back to time when you were not in Sarajevo; right?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. What do you know about developments in that period of time? Did
20 anyone inform you at the time about what happened in 1994? Or did you
21 first see this document during your proofing with the Prosecutor?
22 A. Clearly, this document was not brought to my knowledge at the
23 time of the facts in September 1994. I saw it later.
24 Q. Thank you. Again, we need your statement, P749.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In the French version, we need page
1 16, paragraph 2; and, in English, page 12, the middle of the page; in
2 B/C/S, page 22, the first paragraph.
3 Q. You speak of that document here, and you say yourself that it was
4 written up before you had arrived in Sarajevo. And you say -- is it
5 correct that no measure, passive or active, is 100 per cent effective
6 against sniping?
7 A. The document is right, but I do not see it in the report that you
8 have shown me on the screen.
9 Q. That was my question, actually. Did you - and, if so, in which
10 way - hinder the activity of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, or, rather, its
12 A. Fine. Yes, besides all the means, as I already explained
13 yesterday, we attempted to protect as much as feasible the civilian
14 population. Indeed, no protection measure, passive protection measure,
15 is reliable 100 per cent, faced with a shooter that wants to choose a
16 victim, a rogue shooter.
17 So how did we proceed? We had a system for monitoring and
18 counter-shooting system that was set up on the higher points, so these
19 were sharpshooters that we just talked about, and we added to that
20 another system that was on the ground with armoured vehicles, with heavy
21 weapons, heavy guns, that were, first of all, to be mobile screens, in
22 order to enable the civilians that were walking to go through the most
23 dangerous places and being protected by the armoured vehicle.
24 And, on the other side, we would react with weapon shots when
25 shots were pin-pointed on these dangerous places.
1 And, thirdly, we had set up fixed obstacles. Most of the time
2 they were containers, metal containers on some sites.
3 I should remind you that it was with setting up this type of
4 containers in a street on the side of the science university that the
5 head corporal in one of our units, in April 1995, when myself, I was in
6 Sarajevo on a recon, was shot down by the snipers whose position was very
7 certainly, as far as I can see, in the Bosnian Serb area.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now briefly just go into
9 private session, please.
10 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
11 [Private session]
11 Pages 7130-7131 redacted. Private session.
15 [Open session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. "I hate to interrupt you, but my question is really quite
20 specific, which is: Your teams were tasked with the job of pin-pointing
21 and monitoring the Bosnian Serb snipers and not the other side; correct?"
22 Your answer:
23 "That's correct."
24 First of all, do you stand by the answer you gave earlier on?
25 A. Yes. But my answer was I would like to clarify this, and I
1 explained that my assignment, overall, was an impartial assignment, and
2 that one of the parties was setting more obstacles on the way than the
3 other party.
4 Q. But that was not the question. The question was whether the task
5 that you were given was of such a nature as required you to pin-point the
6 Bosnian Serb snipers and not the snipers on the other side. And you were
7 asked whether this was correct, and your answer was: correct.
8 A. [Previous translation continues] ... repeat that what I said in
9 my answer, that this applied to the French units that were on the Bosnian
10 Muslim side. This assignment was an impartial one, and, as regards the
11 people on the other side of the confrontation line, their assignment was
12 the same for the opposing party. I think this is pretty clear.
13 Q. I'd like us to look at the French version, page 17, paragraph 3
14 of your statement; page 13, the middle of the page, in English; and
15 page 24, paragraph 1, in B/C/S.
16 Here, you explained how snipers' positions were being detected.
17 You say here, in essence, that they would reveal themselves by opening
18 fire from a certain position. We were able to monitor that with the
19 detection and surveillance resources we had, and we could see that
20 evidently there were victims among the civilian.
21 So what was the way, really, that you detected sniper positions?
22 Was it in this first way or in this second way, as explained here?
23 A. This is a technical question. It so happens that in 1995, which
24 is a long time ago now, nonetheless, a time when the snipers of the
25 French Battalions had optronic observation means, which means it's much
1 easier to detect and record the shots in a much more precise fashion than
2 the human eye. These specialists already had this technical equipment.
3 They, therefore, were able to observe the shots being fired, while
4 bearing in mind the fact that the Bosnian Serb snipers were well
5 positioned, well concealed, and difficult to detect.
6 On the opposite side, the equivalent specialists in the Russian
7 battalion did not have the same modern, technical equipment. From a
8 technical point of view, therefore, it was more difficult for them to
9 make the same observations, in so far as they were carrying out their
11 Q. The latter way of detecting positions was, as you stated, by
12 observing victims among the civilian population. Now, would you agree
13 with me, in line with what you said yesterday, that the snipers used the
14 same sort of ammunitions -- ammunition as others did, and that,
15 therefore, it was impossible to find whether a person was wounded from a
16 sniper rifle or normal weapons simply on the basis of observing the
18 A. As far as the medical observation of the lesion is concerned,
19 yes, of course. Other things come into play: The position, the angle of
20 fire, and other observations of this nature.
21 Q. Did you receive any medical documentation from the Muslim side
22 for that purpose?
23 A. There are two remarks I would like to make here. The first is
24 that the observer teams went on-site every time an accident -- an
25 incident occur, when it was possible, because it wasn't always possible.
1 And these people inquired about the incident; i.e., the position, the
2 angle of fire, and this kind of information. And the nature of the wound
3 as well. These people also went to the hospitals to assess the situation
4 as regarded those people that had been injured, in order to collect
5 medical data. That is the first point.
6 The second is that we noticed, from a statistical standpoint,
7 that during the period I was occupying the position I mentioned
8 previously in Sarajevo, the number of civilian casualties increased
9 dramatically. These civilian victims were all Bosnian Muslims.
10 These are the two remarks I wish to convey to you.
11 Q. How were you able to distinguish between civilians and soldiers
12 in Sarajevo? And is it true that quite a few members of the Army of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina had weapons but not uniforms?
14 A. As regards your first question, it is extremely rare, even in
15 this kind of situation, to find women, elderly women, men, some elderly
16 men, or children, wearing weapons -- bearing weapons. Generally these
17 people are not soldiers or at least I would hope so.
18 Now, as regards your second question, which has nothing to do
19 with the first one, there were people, of course, who were wearing plain
20 clothes and who, at other times, could put their uniform on and join
21 their units.
22 As you know, this is a legacy from the recruitment process of the
23 Territorial Defence, which stemmed from the former Yugoslavia, and the
24 warring parties behaved in this fashion at that time and at other times
1 Q. Very well. Can we now move to page 18 of the French version of
2 your statement; page 14 in English, paragraph 4; and, in B/C/S, page 25,
3 paragraph 2.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Before we further continue, Witness, you -- you made
5 an observation from a statistical point of view, and the last observation
6 in that respect was that these civilian victims were all Bosnian Muslims.
7 Now, apart from the question how you could distinguish between
8 civilians and non-civilians, is your reference to the Bosnian Muslims, in
9 your view, relevant, because, if the victims were Bosnian Muslims, the
10 perpetrators must have been Bosnian Serbs?
11 Is that the gist of that part of your answer?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To a certain extent, yes,
13 Your Honour. I understand what you're saying.
14 All the victims, the identity of which we recorded, lived in
15 Sector Sarajevo, which was controlled by the Bosnian Muslims. Among
16 these victims, there might have been Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Croats who
17 were living in Sarajevo.
18 Let me repeat: All the victims that were identified during this
19 period concerned people who lived inside Sarajevo. I have never had any
20 information on victims who had been hospitalised, civilian victims that
21 had been hospitalised in sectors which were not controlled by the
22 1st Corps of the Bosnian forces.
23 This is what I wanted to say.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. A few follow-up questions.
25 Serbs were still living in Sarajevo? Within the town, within the
1 part controlled by the 1st Corps?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course. There were Serbs
3 who had remained inside Sarajevo.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, if you say they were all Bosnian Muslims,
5 that puzzles me. Because if I'm a sniper, how could I possibly see from
6 a distance of 700 metres when some Serb is crossing the street or whether
7 when some Muslim is crossing the street? And I'm seeking your comment on
8 this observation, if you have any.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I tried to
10 explain this in my previous answer. I shall withdraw the term "Bosnian
11 Muslim victim."
12 In my mind, of course, this pertained to the inhabitants living
13 in the Bosnian Muslim part of Sarajevo.
14 JUDGE ORIE: This, having been clarified, one of the underlying
15 issues, which is implied in the questions and -- is that the Defence's
16 position is that the Bosnian Muslims may well have sniped at their own
18 Any comment to that?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not feel that the Defence was
20 putting this question directly. It is clear, however, that this argument
21 has often been put forward. I heard about this from the liaison officers
22 or with the contacts I had with the Bosnian Muslim side at the time.
23 During the period in which I was on duty, I never asked myself
24 this question, i.e., regarding the snipers. It was clear that the shots
25 came from the other side. It seemed clear to me, at any rate, that the
1 snipers were from the other side, pertaining to the losses of civilians
2 in the area under the control of the 1st Corps of the Bosnian Muslim
4 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you refer to the high-tech equipment which
5 would, far better than the naked eye, be able to identify the source of
6 long-distance fire, if I could call it like that.
7 Using this equipment, was there ever any indication that the
8 shots that hit victims within the city may have come from within the
9 1st Corps-controlled area; or did the equipment, when used, always
10 indicate that the shots came from Serb-controlled areas?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All the reports we received on this
12 kind of observation confirmed that the shots came from buildings
13 controlled by the SRK staff.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And you're now referring to reports on incidents
15 where this high-tech equipment was used to determine the source of fire.
16 Is that well understood?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course. The reports which comes
18 through the standard channels, the radio for instance, yes, the reports
19 we received, which were recorded on an ongoing basis at -- at the command
21 JUDGE ORIE: There may be some misunderstanding in this respect.
22 I tried to make a clear distinction between what was reported on
23 the basis of what was observed by the naked eye and what was reported as
24 a result of the use of these high-tech equipment.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I should clarify my question.
2 The source of fire is established either by the old-fashioned
3 way, that is, where did it come from, et cetera, and sometimes it was
4 established, as you said, through these high-tech equipment, the better
5 equipment than the Russian battalion had -- the Russian battalion not
6 having similar equipment.
7 I'm mainly interested in whether, when using this high-tech
8 equipment, whether it was ever reported that the source of fire may have
9 been anything else than coming from the Bosnian Serb side.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Precisely. These reports we
11 received all demonstrated that the firing was coming from the Bosnian
12 Serb side. This equipment, which is individual equipment, sniper rifles,
13 these were -- telescopic sights mounted on the weapons themselves at the
14 time, enabled the soldier to identify the shot, and these specialists
15 could react or responded by firing on these well-identified snipers. The
16 reports were then forwarded through the normal channels, and the radio.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
18 Please proceed, Mr. -- well, yes, we have another five minutes
19 before the break.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Sir, in such situations as indicated in Judge Orie's question,
22 did you monitor the snipers' activity of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
23 and did you rule out the possibility that they were involved, or did you
24 not monitor them at all?
25 A. It was extremely difficult to monitor them. I admit to this
1 readily, because this warring party was setting up obstacles also. I
2 never received a single report stating, in a reliable and specific way,
3 that a Bosnian Muslim sniper had fired against the opposing party. I
4 never received such reports because these activities were well-protected,
5 I believe, by this particular warring party.
6 I just mentioned that I personally saw, on two occasions I
7 believe, Bosnian Muslim snipers coming out from the command post of the
8 1st Corps of the Bosnian Muslim forces. They came out fully equipped,
9 and I observed that they had modern and highly performing equipment,
10 which confirms that the 1st Corps of the Bosnian Muslims did have snipers
11 and used these also. But I never saw them in action, and I never
12 received a single report confirming that they were out there.
13 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I think that we should go to the break.
14 JUDGE ORIE: To the break.
15 We'll take a break, but we first go into closed session for the
16 witness to be able to leave the courtroom.
17 [Closed session]
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
8 Before we -- you continue, Mr. Lukic, I have one question for
9 you, Witness.
10 You referred several times, and I did after that as well, to the
11 technical equipment which was available to observe the source of fire of
12 the Bosnian Serbs. Technical equipment which was not available for the
13 Russian battalion on the other side of the confrontation line.
14 At later moments, when asked about this technical equipment, you
15 seemed to refer to optical sights mounted on the rifles of the
16 anti-sniping unit.
17 Could you clarify for me: Were you referring only to those
18 optical sights when you talked about the technical equipment, or was
19 there any other technical equipment which allowed to observe the shots
20 being fired?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It is equipment which in some
22 models looks like optical sights but are not optical sights but
23 optronics. So equipment that would allow the night-vision, for instance.
24 At the time it was relatively new. Now -- nowadays it is equipment that
25 is more frequent, lighter also. At the time it was a new thing. So the
1 specialists in the French Battalions had, on one hand, these optronic
2 sights which use -- was adapted to the specific situation. And, on the
3 other hand, they also had periscopes that had the same function as
4 optronics. They looked like a periscope that would enable the observer
5 to be behind a screen. So these were the two types of optronics that
6 were used by the sharpshooters of the French Battalion.
7 And, as far as I know, I do not think, or I did not know, that
8 their Russian counterparts might have had the same equipment.
9 JUDGE ORIE: A follow-up question would be this. Both type of
10 equipment seemed to require that you are already looking into the
11 direction of where the fire came from with a rather limited angle of
13 First of all, could you confirm that?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Would that also mean that there was a fair chance
16 that you would miss the origin of fire if it came from any position which
17 was not yet covered by that electronical, optical sight mounted on either
18 the rifle or on this periscope?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Theoretically that could be,
20 indeed. But I have said that these sharpshooters were always working in
21 twos, so two people, two individuals, one would do a general monitoring
22 and the other one a specific monitoring.
23 On the other hand, the corridors in which shooters that were
24 located on the other side of the front line might see and shoot were not
25 numerous, so you had the avenues that were going to -- in the direction
1 of the north that would give enough view or perspective, so it was rather
2 easy to determine from the possible areas of the incoming shots to
3 determine the -- where they came from, what are the areas that they came
4 from. These were monitored as a priority.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
6 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 Q. Sir, I would now kindly ask you to try to give us answers that
9 are as brief as possible so that we would finish as soon as possible. If
10 we need something that is contained in your statements, we are going to
11 refer to that ourselves. I will do that, and then the Prosecutor in
12 re-direct, if necessary, so there's no need to repeat anything. We
13 have -- already have your statement on our screens. It's page 14,
14 paragraph 4 in English; and, in French, it is page 18.
15 You see here that the Judge put a question to you. I'm not quite
16 sure I understood your answer, especially how this is an answer to my
18 "It is not necessary to go to the Bosna-Serbian side to see that
19 it was a BH sniper that fired and that there is a Muslim sniper nest."
20 And then your answer:
21 "Mr. President, I would like to say that in the period that we
22 spoke of, snipers were operating all the time. Incessantly. This is a
23 period in which the forces of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina tried to
24 unlock the grip around Sarajevo with a great number of attacks around the
25 city. In these attacks, the Bosnian Serb side responded with fire from
1 heavy weapons or by counter-attacks of limited range. In this
2 complicated situation, it was very difficult to observe what the result
3 would have been of possible sniper fire coming from the BH side."
4 My question: Were these same difficulties there when you were
5 trying to determine what the sniper fire was that came from the Serb
7 A. The answer is yes. And, briefly, I would like to make the
8 distinction between the areas where you had combat between the warring
9 parties. Indeed, it was very difficult to determine the incoming and the
10 outgoing, and the neighbourhoods or the areas that were calmer where you
11 had no attacks and where the assignment of anti-sniping was keeping on.
12 I would like to insist on the fact that one should make the distinction
13 between the areas that were in military activity from other sectors.
14 Q. Is it correct when you speak about the areas where there was
15 fighting, that attacks of the Muslim forces were launched on all four
16 sides of Sarajevo: The south, north, west, and east?
17 A. No, sir. During the time where I was on duty and in charge, the
18 attacks from the 1st Corps, the Bosnian Muslim Corps, were directed on
19 two axes, specific axes, from Stup to Ilidza in the west, and in the area
20 of Debelo Brdo to Lukavica to the south. The other sectors were kept as
21 were in the regular activity level.
22 Q. Thank you. We'll go back to that topic. I thought that we could
23 link this up, but I could not find it in the questions.
24 Anyway, is it correct that UNPROFOR was deployed in Sarajevo in
25 such a way that, on the side that was under the control of the Muslim
1 forces, there were five battalions, namely, the 2nd French Battalion, the
2 5th French Battalion, the 4th French Battalion, the Egyptian Battalion,
3 and the Ukrainian Battalion; whereas, on the Serb side, there was only
4 the Russian Battalion?
5 A. That's right, sir. With one more point. In Sarajevo proper, the
6 city, were deployed only two battalions: The 2nd and the 4th French
7 Battalion. The 5th Battalion was, as you may know, in Mount Igman
8 sector. On the other hand, there was also an Egyptian Battalion, and as
9 to the Ukrainian Battalion, it was reduced to one command unit. The rest
10 of the unit was deployed in the Zepa pocket.
11 And, of course - I'm sorry - on the -- the SRK side, there was
12 the Russian Battalion that you mentioned.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now I would like to ask for 65 ter
14 15746 in e-court, please.
15 This is a document that was tendered by the Prosecution through
16 you. It is a document from 1994, when you were not in Sarajevo, and
17 obviously you're not familiar with this particular incident.
18 You say that this is the usual type of form. However, I'd like
19 to ask you something. This is the usual form with regard to sniper
20 activity; right?
21 A. That's correct.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 5 of this document.
23 THE REGISTRAR: There is no page 5 in this document.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from that, Mr. Lukic, you say it is tendered
25 by the Prosecution. I think it's the shaded part of the associated
1 exhibits which will not be tendered, if I'm ...
2 MS. HOCHHAUSER: That's correct, Your Honour. It is an
3 associated exhibit that we weren't planning on tendering, but it's on the
4 list, yeah.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. But if it sheds any light on the statement of
6 the witness, then, of course, the Defence can use it.
7 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I have no objection to its admission, Judge.
8 MR. LUKIC: If it's not tendered, I will move on. And there is
9 some technical problems anyways.
10 Now I would like to move to the subject of Markale.
11 [Interpretation] We need the following document in e-court: P749.
12 That's the witness's statement. And we need the French version, page 21;
13 and page 28 in B/C/S.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Which page in English?
15 MR. LUKIC: We are trying to locate that.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It should be page 16, I think.
17 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
18 Q. [Interpretation] We'll dwell on this particular subject a bit
20 In your statement itself, on page 28 that we have before us now,
21 you say the following. You say that there were several shells fired on
22 that day at that moment and that this could be heard. However, yet
23 again, we are going to dwell on page 51 of the B/C/S version. Actually,
24 page 52.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have the B/C/S version on our screen,
1 together with the English version, and the witness has the French version
2 available to himself, so that everyone is able to follow the proceedings.
3 [Defence counsel confer]
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] At the same time, we will need page
5 52 in B/C/S; and page 28, paragraph 5, in English. That's the French
6 version, but we need the English version. Page 28, paragraph 5.
7 Q. You say:
8 "I no longer know whether there was one shell or two."
9 "[In English] I no longer remember whether there was one shell or
10 two, but as far as I remember, the shelling [sic] came from the
12 [Interpretation] You say that you're not an expert in explosives;
14 A. Certainly.
15 Q. You say that you relied on the findings of the French sappers.
16 Through their findings, or in some other way, did you find out that 75
17 witnesses that were heard in respect of this incident who were on the
18 spot heard only one single explosion?
19 A. I do not know what other witnesses said.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now see 65 ter ... actually,
21 we won't need the photograph.
22 Q. I'm just going to ask you whether you know that
23 Military Observers of the UN at Mali Hum -- just a moment, please.
24 Do you know where OP-1 is? You do know where Observation Post 1
25 is, don't you?
1 A. What do you call the P1, please?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, are you referring to Observation Post 1
3 of the UNMOs, United Nations Military Observers?
4 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic asks you whether know where observation
6 Post 1 of the United Nations Military Observers was.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Because Sector Sarajevo had no
8 observers on Mount Hum. This being said, I do not know the position that
9 had the UNMOs at the time that were not under the command of the sector.
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. So you do know or you do not know that observers from Observation
12 Post 1 heard just one explosion?
13 A. No, I didn't know.
14 Q. Thank you. Do you know how many radars were operating at the
16 A. We had two Cymbeline radars that were in operation in the area,
17 in the sector.
18 Q. At the time, in addition to these two radars, was there also a
19 French radar and a Dutch radar?
20 A. Both radars, both Cymbeline radars that I talked about, were
22 Q. My apologies. In that case, was there a Dutch and English radar
23 active as well?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Where were the two French radars positioned?
1 A. The active radar that monitored the south of Sarajevo was located
2 in the southern part of Sarajevo airport.
3 Q. And the other, please.
4 A. The other one was towards Rajlovac.
5 Q. Was there, at the time, a -- a system for sound detection placed
6 at Trebevic, to your knowledge?
7 A. Trebevic was outside our area. We had no sound detection system.
8 Q. In your yesterday's evidence, you said that you were certain, or
9 believed, that the shell which landed at Markale had the first-degree
10 charge; is that right?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. You do know that the angle of descent of a shell, the minimum
13 angle of descent of a shell is 60 degrees. You do know that, do you? If
14 the angle were any smaller, then the shell would hit the building?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, apparently you are talking about a very
16 specific situation, not of a shell but apparently of a shell landing at
17 the place where it impacted.
18 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And then, I think, it would be fair to say that the
20 minimum angle of descent would be an angle of descent taking into
21 consideration a certain origin, direction, or origin of fire. These are
22 all relevant matters to be included in your question, if you want to --
23 the witness to say anything about it, apart from whether he's able to say
24 anything about it. But -- you would agree with that.
25 MR. LUKIC: Absolutely, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then phrase the question in such a way that
2 the necessary elements are there and that you also are talking about a
3 specific shell landing at that moment near the entrance of the
4 Markale market because that -- apparently you're referring to.
5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Sir, you heard the guidance given by Judge Orie. Can you confirm
9 for me, please, if it is correct, that, according to the azimuth as
10 measured and according to the direction of fire in respect of the point
11 of impact of the shell which killed and injured civilians, the minimum
12 angle of descent possible was 60 -- 60 degrees?
13 THE INTERPRETER: 67 per cent, interpreter's correction.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Do you know that? 67 degrees.
16 A. The angle of descent, the angle of impact observed by the
17 specialists from the French engineering unit is, indeed, 67 degrees.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, in your first question, you referred to
19 the first charge used. Could you give me the exact page of yesterday's
20 transcript? Because I find three references to the word "charge," and
21 none of them seem to be the one you're referring to.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Since I don't have the references
23 with me, can I put that question to you again, sir.
24 Q. In your view, what sort of charge was contained in the shell that
25 killed and wounded individuals at Markale?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, here again, your question, you said "a
2 charge contained in the shell."
3 May I assume that you want to refer to the charge with which the
4 shell was fired. Is that what you want to refer to?
5 MR. LUKIC: I think it was lost in the translation. The charge
6 would use -- the shell was fired.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because -- but please correct me when I
8 misunderstand this technical aspect - I understand that a projectile has
9 a charge with which -- is within the projectile and explodes upon impact
10 and there is a charge with which the projectile is propelled.
11 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Which does not fly with the projectile but just
13 gives the propelling power.
14 MR. LUKIC: Yeah.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Now, you were talking about a charge that was
16 contained in the shell --
17 MR. LUKIC: No. The propelling charge.
18 JUDGE ORIE: The propelling charge.
19 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then it may be a misinterpretation, I do not know.
21 But then the question was whether you have knowledge of the propelling
22 charge that was used for the projectile that landed near the entrance of
23 the Markale market.
24 Would you agree with that question, then, Mr. Lukic? Yes.
25 Could you answer that question, please.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
2 The angle of impact enables specialists who are familiar with the
3 firing tables of this piece of artillery to determine that they are in
4 the presence either of a maximum charge, charge 6, six packets of
5 propelling powder placed under the projectile of propellant, or a charge
6 1, one packet of powder, placed -- propellant placed under the shell.
7 There are -- only these two cases are possibly, and only -- it's either a
8 minimum charge 1 or a maximum charge 6 which provides a proper
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you consider yourself to have specialist
11 knowledge on these matters, or are you referring to specialists other
12 than you, you being unable to verify whether it's accurate what they told
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have basic knowledge on mortar
15 firing, like any officer. But firing tables were used by true
16 specialists, i.e., the team of investigators of the engineering unit, and
17 this is what they specified in their reports.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 Can I have the assistance of Ms. Stewart in this. I'd like us to
21 view the video we saw yesterday. It's P446. From 5 minutes to 5
22 minutes, 48 seconds. We will need the audio recording as well. We would
23 first play it without interpretation so that the witness may hear what
24 number the French soldier mentioned, and then we would have it
25 interpreted for the second time.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. For the witness: For very technical reasons,
2 we play videos with text twice. First, without interpretation, so don't
3 worry about that. The second time you receive interpretation.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, we don't have the
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the interpreters say that they have not
7 received the transcript.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could you activate your microphone.
10 MR. LUKIC: Yes. All we are interested is one number that was
11 pronounced by the soldier, the French soldier, at the end.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Let's see whether we can hear that.
13 We first play it with sound, and you're interested only in the
14 number mentioned?
15 MR. LUKIC: Yes, yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Let's listen to it first --
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- and look at it.
19 [Video-clip played]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps we could first ask the interpreter
21 whether they -- I take it you want to listen to the very end --
22 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- where the soldier is holding a little instrument
24 and then, at the very end of the -- says something.
25 Were the interpreters able to hear what this soldier said at the
1 very end? We could then play it again and ask for interpretation.
2 I -- perhaps I should switch to the French channel to hear an
3 answer, but ...
4 Yes. The French booth has confirmed that they can hear what is
5 said at the very end.
6 Could we play it again, and could we receive translation of the
7 number mentioned at the very end.
8 [Video-clip played]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could we hear from the French booth what number was
10 mentioned at the very end of this clip?
11 THE INTERPRETER: 2.800 mils.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And that is in English? Let me just check because I
13 can't listen to two channels at the same time.
14 Yes. We have now in French and in English 2.800 mils.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Sir, have you heard the number as well?
17 A. Yes, perfectly.
18 Q. Have you also heard the number 2.800?
19 A. I did hear that figure, 2.800, mentioned.
20 Q. The French soldier used the NATO scale, did he not, where the
21 circle is divided into 6.400?
22 A. This is not a NATO scale but a scale which is commonly used by
23 western armies because it is more accurate than a degree scale.
24 Q. The Warsaw Pact used a different scale, as did the JNA, and that
25 one was divided into 6.000 degrees; is that right? If you know.
1 A. I don't know that.
2 Q. Thank you. Let us look briefly now at 65 ter 14118.
3 Sir, this is Prosecutor's evidence, and we can see it says:
4 "OP-1," Observation Post 1, "Sarajevo, 1995."
5 Were you aware of the existence of this observation post in 1995?
6 A. I have never seen this photograph before. I'm just trying to
7 find my bearings on it.
8 Q. Can you observe, on the basis of -- of this photo, that you can
9 see Markale from it? Or not.
10 A. I must admit that I cannot see it.
11 Q. Thank you. I'm sorry to have taken up your time showing this
12 photograph, but let's move on.
13 In your statement, you say that you don't know what the intervals
14 were between the explosions. Let me first ask you this: As you sit here
15 today, would you say that there was only one explosion at the time or
16 that there were several?
17 A. I can confirm that from where I was in the French embassy, I
18 heard several explosions.
19 Q. Let me go back to my previous question then.
20 Is it correct that you don't know how far apart these explosions
21 took place?
22 A. No. The explosions came shortly, one after the other. I would
23 find it very difficult to give you the exact interval between the
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could we -- your question was translated to us,
1 Mr. Lukic, as:
2 "Is it correct that you don't know how far apart these explosions
3 took place?"
4 Now, explosions can take a distance apart and in time. Which of
5 the two were you referring to?
6 MR. LUKIC: Time, Your Honour. It was correct answer. It was
7 regarding time.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, correct answer. If the question is not
9 clear, every answer is good. The other answer would have been good as
10 well, if you have not put a precise question to the witness.
11 But you intended to ask what the distance in time was and that
12 question has been answered by the witness.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 Q. Do you know where these other shells that you mention landed?
16 A. From what I could hear, they landed in the same area, close to
17 one another.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at 1D565, an image.
19 Q. You said that you didn't believe that anything had been staged in
20 this incident at Markale. You see this man with an enormous gapping
21 wound in his chest. You will have noticed that there is almost no blood
22 beneath him; right?
23 A. If you like, yes, I can see a stain of blood on the ground.
24 Q. Would you be surprised if I told you that this man was not
25 registered among those killed at Markale on that day?
1 A. I have no information entitling me to say whether it was recorded
2 or not.
3 Q. Thank you. When you came, were all the bodies already taken
4 away, or were some of the bodies there and still being -- in the process
5 of being taken away?
6 A. When I arrived, the last bodies were being evacuated, and people
7 had started cleaning up the street. I can tell you that when I arrived
8 and in front of a store which I believe is a chemist's, in front of the
9 market, I inadvertently stepped on the severed hand of a woman.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you've shown a photograph to the witness,
11 but it's not just a photograph. There's text on that picture as well.
12 The Chamber has no idea what the text says because there's no translation
13 into English in e-court. And the Chamber has no idea, especially since
14 you are suggesting that there may have been some manipulation, the
15 Chamber, of course, would like to know where this picture comes from. Is
16 it staged? Or is the photograph manipulated? Where does it come from?
17 What is the source of your suggestion in your question that this person
18 has not been registered? Do we know who it is?
19 It raises more questions at this moment than it answers. But the
20 first one is: What is the text? And where does the photograph come
22 As you may remember, the Chamber has -- no. Please -- please --
23 MR. LUKIC: Yeah. Since, I think we cannot introduce this
24 picture through this witness, and we will be showing this picture more in
25 the future. So I --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Also then the Chamber, of course, would like to
2 know -- we have had an experience of a likely manipulated video in the
3 past. Therefore, if you come with sources unknown to us, we'd have to
4 find out where it comes from. Last time it was from a web site where it
5 looked as if there had been manipulation with sound and pictures.
6 Therefore, even if you'd use it with another witness in the
7 future, please make sure that we always know exactly where it comes from;
8 and if there are any suggestions about registration, make sure that we
9 have clear information about that.
10 MR. LUKIC: All I can see from here is that it's coming from some
11 Sarajevo newspapers, obviously. But [Overlapping speakers] ...
12 JUDGE ORIE: Sarajevo is a divided town to some extent.
13 MR. LUKIC: We will --
14 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
15 MR. LUKIC: -- produce more information in the future.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I might ask a question to the witness before we
20 Witness RM055, you were asked a question by Mr. Lukic a few
21 minutes ago. That's at page 35, just above line 8, as to how -- how many
22 or where these shells landed.
23 Your answered, you said:
24 "From what I could hear, they landed in the same area, close to
25 one another."
1 Now, you did finally go to the scene. My question to you is:
2 From what you could see, where did they land, and how many were they?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Once again, as far as I remember,
4 and as far as my impressions were right, I heard five impacts.
5 When I arrived on the scene, I reviewed the impact which was
6 located a little way beyond the entrance to the market. That was the
7 first deadly impact. I did not spend any time on the other impacts.
8 From a visual point of view, my impression was --
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I -- may I interrupt you.
10 My question was very simple: How -- how many were they that you
11 found, and where were they located? When you -- that you saw with your
12 eyes. Not heard.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I shall repeat.
14 I heard --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Don't repeat. Give me the answer to the question.
16 How many did you find when -- when you looked, and how far were they
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I saw the first impact in the
19 street, in front of the market. It seems that I saw the other impacts in
20 the perpendicular street, about 200 metres from the junction from afar.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: How many, sir.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't go on the spot,
23 Your Honour. I saw impacts in the perpendicular street at about 200
24 metres. I didn't go to the spot. There were other things more important
25 at the time in the -- where the first impact was.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I know you didn't go up the street. I'm just
2 asking you how many did you see.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could I try to -- to intervene.
4 Is -- when you said, "They were at a distance of approximately
5 200 metres in a perpendicular street," does that mean that you cannot
6 tell us the number of impacts at that distance?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, Your Honour. Yes, at
8 that distance, no. One couldn't see. I would have had to go on the
9 spot, which I didn't do.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Before we take a break, Mr. Lukic, I -- I have been
12 looking at the photograph, which you did not tender, which you'll not
13 further use with this witness. Nevertheless, I noticed that in the text
14 the Markale market is mentioned in the context of February 1994. At
15 least that is what I figure out from the text that appears in the frame
16 on the photograph. And, also, reference is apparently made to
17 General Milosevic.
18 Now, as far as I understand the evidence we have received until
19 now, the February 1994 Markale incident did not take place during the
20 period when General Milosevic was in charge.
21 So, therefore, I'm a bit confused about finding a reference to
22 February 1994, and, at the same time, to General Dragomir Milosevic.
23 MR. LUKIC: My understanding was, and is, that this picture
24 depicts 1995. But -- [Overlapping speakers] ...
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But what does the text say? Because I
1 can't -- there's no translation. You have shown it to the witness.
2 MR. LUKIC: Yeah. It is connecting General Milosevic with 1994,
3 February 1994, at Markale.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, which comes as a surprise, would you
5 agree with me?
6 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Mr. Lukic, you're a native-speaking person.
8 You have selected this photograph. Why is it that I have to find this
9 out by closely looking for approximately one minute to this photograph,
10 and why haven't you done it yourself?
11 We take a break and will resume, after the witness has left the
12 courtroom in closed session, and we'll, after that, resume at a quarter
13 past 12.00.
14 [Closed session]
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
2 Mr. Lukic, please proceed.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 First, I shall address you in relation to the photograph that was
5 discussed at the end of the last session. I would like to tell you that
6 I'm deeply surprised that you believe that I fabricated something here.
7 In relation to the photograph itself, I will tell you --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let me immediately interrupt you, Mr. Lukic.
9 I do not believe that you fabricated anything, at all. What I
10 said is this. This Chamber, at a previous occasion, found material
11 which, I take it by others, may have been manipulated and where you may
12 have not noticed that, that's at least what we start thinking. There's
13 no suggestion of any intentional fabrication or manipulation on your
14 part. The Chamber, nevertheless, urges everyone in this courtroom,
15 including itself, to very critically look at all the evidence that comes
16 to us.
17 You may proceed. I interrupted you. You would tell me what?
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] This photograph that is before us,
19 indeed, the text does pertain to 1994, to February.
20 However, as you noticed yourself, this has to do with
21 General Milosevic, who assumed his duties only in September 1994.
22 This photograph was taken out of the video that we watched today,
23 P446. It pertains to the incident of Markale II.
24 So the text is wrong. The photograph is not. I think that the
25 Prosecution can stipulate at this moment that this photograph is from the
1 video that we watched today.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think that the Chamber, having had a bit
3 more time, already thought that it was a still from the video. And,
4 therefore, we do not understand why you take a -- a photograph with text
5 which we cannot read, which is not translated, if the video is available.
6 That is -- comes as a surprise to us, especially if the text is then
7 confusing. But I think that one of my colleagues even seemed to have
8 remembered to have seen this as part of moving picture in the video. If
9 you would -- it would certain assist if I would know exactly the P number
10 of the movie but.
11 THE REGISTRAR: It was P446, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: P446. Thank you, Madam Registrar.
13 And, Mr. Lukic, do not lightheartedly accuse the Chamber of
14 accusing you that you fabricated anything. That's not what I meant to
15 say, and I think it's not what I said either.
16 MR. LUKIC: I'm glad that's the case, and I apologise if I
17 understood wrongly.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MR. LUKIC: Thank you why I used this explanation is because I
20 don't know how to take stills from the movies, and my colleague was busy
21 who knows how to do that, and I couldn't ask him to do it for me, so
22 that's why I used this picture with the wrong text, and I apologise for
23 that as well.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Everyone is willing to help you. I think even
25 Ms. Stewart would play it and stop at the right time.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 Now I would kindly ask that we have 1D567 in e-court.
4 Q. Sir, in this photograph, we see the corpse of Vehid Komar, and he
5 was registered among the dead from the Markale market on the 28th of
6 August, 1995. We see the date and hour when this was registered at the
7 mortuary. Two wounds were found on his body, and there are red circles
8 around them here. Would you consider these wounds to have been inflicted
9 by mortar fire?
10 A. Personally -- personally I don't really see clearly what you're
11 aiming at with the question, but I will answer it.
12 The corpse of person that we see here on the picture was hit with
13 projectiles with a weapon that would be a gun, and it doesn't look like
14 mortar fire wounds.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, one question for the witness.
17 Could you tell us whether you are able and, if so, on what
18 grounds, to distinguish between wounds inflicted by very small pieces of
19 shrapnel and wounds inflicted by small-calibre bullet, for example?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A -- a shrapnel of a shell will
21 tear, whether it be artillery or mortar. A projectile that is shot by a
22 regular rifle will go through the impact -- the initial impact is very
23 small, and it will open a bigger wound when exiting, but the impact at
24 the entry is a small hole.
25 So I should repeat: A shrapnel of a shell or a grenade, as a
1 matter of fact, would tear.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Irrespective of the size of the fragment?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Whatever the size of the
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 Q. You were on the scene itself, and you say that you supervised the
9 investigation; is that correct?
10 A. I found -- I found myself on the spot at the end of the cleaning
11 up -- well, let me go back.
12 I found myself on the -- at the location a short while after the
13 impact as the -- the last bodies were taken away and cleaning up had
14 started in my duties, after which I supervised the technical
15 investigation and took away the conclusions.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you have told us what the picture
17 depicts, the person. We see a date and an hour; that's true. I do not
18 see any face -- could you tell us when this picture was taken? By whom?
19 Whether it's attached to any medical report? And could we have a bit of
20 a context of this photograph so as to better able to understand your
22 MR. LUKIC: In the future I will be dealing with this picture and
23 other pictures a lot and that's the picture of Komar, Vehid.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's what you say.
25 MR. LUKIC: And this picture is taken in a morgue when those
1 bodies were processed.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is there any medical documentation attached to
3 it or linked to it?
4 MR. LUKIC: There is. But I don't have it with me now.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please allow us to already have a
6 look at it, since you're using part of it, and make it available to the
7 Chamber so that we could ask relevant questions on the matter, if -- if
8 the context would -- would trigger such questions.
9 When do you think you could provide it? Or can the Prosecution
10 assist in any way?
11 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honour, we can't assist with this
12 photograph. I don't have any knowledge about this photograph or its
13 derivation. I do see on the left-hand upper corner that there's
14 something in writing that I would take to mean that this something off of
15 a video still that was part of a videotape, but I would also object to
16 the admission of this without additional information.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not talking about admission at this moment. I'm
18 just focussing on -- it says paying. Do we have to pay for it, Mr. --
19 MR. LUKIC: I don't know. We didn't.
20 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I think it says playing.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Playing. Yes, it says "playing." Yes.
22 MS. HOCHHAUSER: As in a video.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you, nevertheless, try to assist? You have
24 got the name now by Mr. Lukic. Could you perhaps make a small search on
25 whether have you any medical documentation on it?
1 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Oh, in terms of looking for that victim's name,
2 yes, we can assist in that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and possible medical documentation.
4 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Sure.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Witness RM055, while you were on the scene, what
8 did you notice? How many stabilizers were found on the spot; and did you
9 see the film that was taken by the police in Sarajevo, where two
10 stabilisers can be seen on the spot?
11 A. When I arrived on the site, I shall repeat. The last bodies and
12 victims were being evacuated, and, simultaneously, the clean-up of the
13 street, of the sidewalk, was being started, and also the roofs were being
14 cleaned. I didn't see any stabilisers, and I didn't -- it was not my job
15 to go and see what kind of stabiliser there were and the technical
16 details. All these were left to specialists. And concerning the movie
17 taken by the police in Sarajevo, I didn't see it at the time. I saw it
18 much, much later.
19 Q. As you reviewed the material, did you notice that these two
20 stabiliser were marked as 12 and 13 in reports, as exhibits 12 and 13?
21 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I would just ask, I'm sorry, for a little bit of
22 clarity about which two stabiliser and which reports are -- are being
23 referred to. This is a very general question -- or very generally
24 phrased for a very technical question.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, your previous question was, among others,
1 whether the witness had seen the film. That question was not answered.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I now see that. Yes. No, I see it's answered.
4 Could we -- then, Witness, do you have any recollection of seeing
5 any stabilisers and numbers attached to it?
6 If not, then perhaps, Mr. Lukic, we should, if it's important for
7 you, we should show it to the witness so that we can refresh his
9 Unless you recently have reviewed that film.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I did see the film
11 taken by the police recently. But I didn't see on the spot. I didn't
12 notice one or more stabiliser, and, even less so, the numbers for these
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic. I'm not trying to stop
15 you, but I'm trying to get organised.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] As for these stabilisers, we will
17 certainly be discussing them a great deal in the future, so I just wanted
18 to check whether this gentleman remembered too, and whether he observed
19 that, because he said he had been on the scene. I'm not going to go into
20 an in-depth discussion with him on the matter.
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 Q. Is it correct that 2.800 corresponds to 160 degrees in
25 measurements? Can you confirm that; and do you know that at all?
1 A. Yes. 2800 mils do match about 160 degrees.
2 Q. When you read the report that you said that you read, is it
3 correct that the investigators could not explain the deviation and that
4 they claimed that the shell had hit a building before it fell?
5 A. Well, sir, I never read that the investigators, the technical
6 investigators, from the French engineering --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry, correction of the interpreters: of the
8 engineering team.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- would say that the -- this shell
10 had hit another building before landing. If it were the case, the
11 detonators are very sensitive and would have launched the explosion at
12 the time of the first contact and would not have exploded later.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Thank you. Do you remember, with regard to this remainder,
15 whether it had been marked or not? What did your French investigators
17 A. I do not know what you mean to ask, as to what was marked or not.
18 Regarding the second question, the investigating team did observe
19 the impact, the characteristics of the crater, and identified the
20 stabiliser, got it, and recorded the number that was on the stabiliser.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you're referring to reports and what
22 explanations? Is that a report which is in evidence at this moment?
23 Then please provide us with the number so that we're better able to
24 follow your questions and the answers. If not, could you then assist us
25 in getting access to any report.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We can take a look at it. In
2 e-court, 65 ter 10243.
3 Now, the witness should be able to see weather this is the report
4 that he had looked at or whether it was something different. So perhaps
5 we can leaf through this in e-court, if you will. We can look at the
6 report page by page.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can confirm that this is the
8 technical report that was drafted after the investigation conducted by
9 the team of the -- of investigators, the French engineering unit.
10 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear the name of the
11 person heading the team.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat the name of the person who
13 was heading the team.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. This was
15 Lieutenant-Colonel Mougey, M-o-u-g-e-y, the head of the investigating
16 team. O-u-g-e-y.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now I would like to ask that we have
18 10239 in e-court.
19 Q. This is a patrol report, UNMO patrol report, dated the 29th of
20 August, 1995. Five mortars, mortar shells, that had to do with the 28th
21 of August, 1995.
22 And then, on the next page, we have number 4.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] So could we please move onto the next
24 page. Number 1, it says the aim of the meeting was to compare the
25 reports made by UNMO and the rest of the investigation team.
1 And then in parentheses it says:
2 "(Representatives of various Bosnian authorities)."
3 When it says various Bosnian authorities here, what is meant is
4 the representatives of the Muslim authorities in Bosnia. Representatives
5 of the Serb and Croat authorities did not take part; is that right.
6 A. Yes, that's correct.
7 Q. Thank you. A2, or rather 2A, says:
8 "In the time-frame of the five impacts, UNMO and ICZ team" -- its
9 illegible, "working on observations posts saw or heard no outgoing mortar
10 rounds, neither from Bosnian army territory nor from Bosnian Serb army
12 You aware of the fact that not a single round was registered to
13 have come from any side at that moment; right?
14 A. I read on this document that the UNMOs who are mentioned did not
15 hear any shells being fired. This means that one is able to check that
16 there was OP-1, which was an observation post, which you have mentioned
17 previously, that this was not placed under the command of the sector
18 which was directly subordinated to the BH Command. And, therefore,
19 these people heard nothing at all.
20 If you'll allow me to make an observation. Given the location
21 you indicated at this observation post, it is not surprising, given the
23 Q. Is it your testimony today that it is only normal that these
24 observers would not have heard that these five 120-millimetre mines --
25 shells were fired?
1 A. [Previous translation continues] ... that it is not surprising
2 that they did not hear this, given the fact that on the 28th of
3 May [as interpreted] other events were taking place elsewhere, also.
4 Q. You meant the 28th of August, I suppose, because we have 28th of
5 May in the transcript.
6 A. Yes, of course, 28th of August.
7 Q. Thank you. Further on, under (b) it reads:
8 "The maximum angle of impact of the mortar projectile which hit
9 near the market-place was" -- and the value here is illegible. Can you
10 tell us, what does it read here?
11 A. Listen, I can read that this angle is a 70-degree angle.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Is 7-degree [sic] angle.
13 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I'm sorry, can we be specific about --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Subparagraph (b).
15 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Thank you.
16 I'm sorry.
17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, I said 67, 6-7 degree
19 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I would just point out that at least the way the
20 transcript reads, Mr. Lukic's question was -- it reads "the maximum angle
21 of impact...," and I believe when we zoomed in on (b), which is where the
22 witness went to, that reads the minimum angle of impact.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I think in the translation it says "the maximum."
24 There may be a translation issue there. Could we have a closer look at
25 the original handwritten version on paragraph (b).
1 Mr. Lukic, it -- it looks as if there is a -- as if there is a
2 translation error. In the original, it says the minimum angle of, and
3 I'm not a B/C/S-speaking person, but it very much looks as if it says
5 Now, usually, the angle of impact, taking into account the
6 surrounding buildings, results in a minimum rather than in a maximum.
7 However, of course, there's also still the pattern of the impact on the
8 ground, which may shed some light on the -- on the angle of descent as
9 well, although with less precision usually.
10 Is it sufficiently corrected here? I, nevertheless, would like
11 to have a better translation in B/C/S, not because the Chamber will rely
12 on it but to have a complete and accurate record.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 Q. Sir, is it correct that at an angle of 67 degrees, as an angle of
15 descent of a shell, and with charge 1, when the shell is fired, the
16 distance between the point from which the shell was fired and the point
17 of impact is 1.000 metres or less?
18 Do you have knowledge that would enable you to either confirm or
19 deny this?
20 A. No. I deny this statement. The specialists who are familiar
21 with the firing tables used by artillery men with this type of equipment
22 indicate that for a minimum charge, the minimum range is 1.300 metres, if
23 I remember correctly.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Did you say 300 metres?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1.300 metres.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. And what is the maximum range? What did they tell you?
3 A. The maximum range of -- for this type of weapon would be 8 to 9
4 kilometres. Let me specify, with the maximum propelling charge, i.e.,
5 charge 6.
6 Q. Perhaps I wasn't precise enough again. We are talking about
7 military issues, after all. What would the maximum range be for a shell
8 propelled with charge 1 and considering that the angle of descent is 67
10 A. I must tell you that my technical knowledge does not go that far.
11 Q. Thank you anyway. Mine would be even less than that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one additional question in this
14 I take it that you need the tables to interpret the range of --
15 or at least the trajectory, to establish them.
16 Would you agree with that?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, one should be able to
18 read the corresponding firing tables and, of course, it would be useful
19 for somebody accustomed to reading these firing tables to do so.
20 JUDGE ORIE: From the place from where the projectile was fired
21 and where it landed, would that have an impact on the distance such a
22 projectile travels?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, certainly, Your Honour. Not
24 on the characteristics of the trajectory itself but on the distance, yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
1 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Sir, I will conclude this topic soon, but let me ask you this:
4 Is it true that you and General Smith decided to advance a theory whereby
5 the charge used was charge 1 as that would have justified a NATO strike?
6 A. This is an interpretation which only you can commit to and I do
7 not share this interpretation, and I can explain to you why. Even if
8 contrary to what you've asked me to do, I would provide you with a rather
9 lengthy answer. The conclusions I presented to General Smith,
10 conclusions which he endorsed, was that the projectile, the deadly
11 projectile, could have only have been fired with a propelling charge 1
12 because the angle of impact was consistent with the firing tables which
13 our specialists had given us, that's the first point.
14 And second point, the trajectory radar, Cymbeline, which was
15 located to the south of the airport, which you have mentioned, detected
16 no trajectory whatsoever. Therefore, the projectile flew below the
17 monitoring range of the equipment. If the projectile had been fired with
18 a propelling -- with a maximum propelling charge, it would have, in its
19 ascending period, and descending period, it would have crossed the
20 radar -- the range of the radar, the purpose of which is to detect
21 artillery fire. The radar provided no information whatsoever. The
22 projectile, therefore, flew below the range of the radar.
23 So it was, indeed, the minimum -- minimum charge 1 which was
25 That said, we did have questions on the consequences of this
1 statement and as part of the military/political context at the end of the
2 month of August. We knew that these conclusions would have dire
3 consequences. We did think about it and weigh up our conclusions and
4 we -- I personally felt, and this was shared by General Smith, that this
5 had to be put down on paper and signed, and we did this in full
6 responsibility and not lightheartedly at all, I can assure you.
7 Q. In your view, how far away was the confrontation line in Sarajevo
8 when you draw a line to the point where possibly the shell was fired
10 A. In relation to the entrance of the Markale market on the azimuth
11 line, the confrontation line was between 800 and 1.000 metres from the
12 point of impact at the entrance of the Markale market. Between 800 and
13 1.000 metres. In other words, if fired with a minimum charge, charge 1,
14 the artillery piece could have been at a bare minimum from -- landed from
15 300 to 500 metres from the confrontation line.
16 Q. Thank you. In the reports you looked at, was there any mention
17 of the position of one or both stabilisers in relation to the explosion
18 itself? And was that position usual in respect of the place where the
19 explosion took place?
20 A. I'm not in a position to tell you where the stabiliser was found.
21 The stabiliser or these stabilisers.
22 All I can say is that one stabiliser was found. It was analysed.
23 The registration numbers were -- was recorded, and the specialists put
24 that down on paper. I have no other information about this.
25 Q. Thank you. We have finished with Markale. Let's move on.
1 Can we have page 23 of your statement in the French version; page
2 17 in English; and page 31 in the B/C/S. Here you speak of the protests.
3 In connection with this part of your statement, a document is
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we call up 65 ter 11193.
6 Q. This document is dated the 28th of June, 1995.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We should move into private session.
8 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
9 [Private session]
11 Page 7178 redacted. Private session.
5 [Closed session]
17 [Open session]
18 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
20 Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Could we now please have ERN 01176 in e-court.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: You're asking for an ERN number.
25 MR. LUKIC: It's not, sorry. It's 65 ter.
1 JUDGE ORIE: 65 ter, yes.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, this is a video, is it?
3 MS. HOCHHAUSER: There's a document on the list, pardon me.
4 That's 10176. Perhaps that's what you mean.
5 MR. LUKIC: Yeah.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's on the Prosecution's list.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 MR. LUKIC: That's it.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, we have a document before us that deals
10 with this event of the 28th of June. It was compiled on the 29th of
11 June. It's the UNMO/UNPROFOR HQ that is sending it.
12 In the first paragraph, below the heading, it says:
13 "At the 28th of June, a UN Military Observer coming into the PTT
14 building, parking his car on the lower parking place, observed the
15 following: Heard and saw an outgoing projectile across the parking place
16 and road, from grid," and then there's a numerical reference, "(the place
17 is on BiH territory, approximately 1.800 metres from the nearest CFL)."
18 My first question is the following. On that day, did only one
19 such projectile explode, or were there more of them?
20 A. That day, on the 28th of June, 1995, there was, as far as I know,
21 two shots of this type of homemade projectiles. One that hit the TV
22 building, and the other one that fell on the street, in the street.
23 Q. The third bullet point in this document says:
24 "The projectile was following a low trajectory, travelling
25 directly from firing point to target, and hit the TV building on the
1 northern side, facing the British Cymbeline building."
2 First of all, let me ask you the following: You have already
3 been asked about this. Do you doubt the reports of the Military Observer
4 who claims, in this report, that that projectile came from the territory
5 that was under the control of the Muslim forces?
6 A. This is a report that -- that commits only the author thereof.
7 That's what I said already.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the Chamber would be greatly assisted if
9 we would know where approximately grid BP 866587 would be, because that's
10 what the witness says and that allows us to better assess what the
11 witness could see and hear from the PTT building where he was parking his
13 Could you assist or could the witness assist? I take it that the
14 parties would not disagree on a -- yes, I see that the witness is raising
15 his hand. Could you please assist us?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
17 Your Honour, it would be easy to check that the co-ordinates that
18 were specified by the observer were those of the parking lot of the PTT
20 JUDGE ORIE: So the grid reference is to the place where he was
21 at the time, as far as you are concerned?
22 That's clear.
23 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 Q. My next question, sir. In this paragraph, there is also a
1 reference to another radar for monitoring mortar fire. In addition to
2 the two French ones that you mentioned, there's a reference here to the
3 British radar; is that correct?
4 A. Once again, no, sir. If it were about the second French radar
5 that was deployed in the Rajlovac sector, these Cymbeline radars, the
6 first generation thereof for trajectories were built by the British, so
7 this what brings about some confusion in your mind.
8 Q. If anything brings me into confusion at all, it is this reference
9 to a building here right next to the TV building. And it says here that
10 this projectile hit the northern side of the TV building, facing the
11 building where the British Cymbeline was.
12 Which building faces the northern side of the TV building?
13 A. Well, the text in English seems quite clear to me. The
14 projectile hit the TV building on its north face, which is facing the
15 building where the radar, British Cymbeline radar was set up. The
16 Norwegian Captain Hansen probably mistook the British manufacturer of
17 this item and the French user thereof.
18 Q. Very well. Thank you. Now I'd like to dwell on this date, the
19 28th, a bit more.
20 Is it correct that at that time a major Muslim offensive was
21 launched and forces from Sarajevo were involved, as well as forces from
22 Zenica, and forces from Tuzla? The objective was for the Army of
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina to get to the Drina. Were you aware of this
24 operation, or were you only familiar with what was going on in Sarajevo?
25 A. I was aware of the whole of the operations that were launched by
1 the Bosnian Muslim forces, since the 15th of May, in the region. I had
2 general knowledge of the operations outside of Sarajevo which was not
3 within our area of responsibility but which was for information only, and
4 I was aware for action of the events that were taking place in Sarajevo,
5 within that sector, and so I can confirm that with -- jointly with the
6 actions that were led outside, the forces of the 1st Corps that were
7 within Sarajevo attempted to break the lines of their adversaries in both
8 sectors that were mentioned, one in the south, in the direction of
9 Lukavica and Debelo Brdo, and the other one within the direction of Stup
10 and Ilidza, to make it simple.
11 Q. And that operation was part of this broader operation, wasn't it?
12 A. I think that I could agree with you on that.
13 Q. Thank you. Now, in relation to your statement, we need page 32,
14 paragraph 2 in French; page 23, second paragraph of the English version;
15 and page 43, fourth paragraph of the B/C/S version.
16 JUDGE ORIE: When this is found, could I ask a few questions.
17 Could you tell us, Witness, what is approximately the distance
18 between the PTT building and the TV building?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The -- the approximate distance is
20 about 800 metres.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could you assist me in better understanding the
22 report we had on our screens, where one UNMO reports that he saw an
23 outgoing projectile across the parking place, and you said that was at
24 the PTT building where he saw that; and further down it reads:
25 "Another UNMO was on the parking place at the same time and he
1 reported the following: He heard the sound of an approaching rocket
2 motor. The round was fairly close and that he took cover."
3 And then, on the next page:
4 "He heard the impact but no detonation."
6 "The UNMO stood up, and after a few seconds, there was a
7 tremendous explosion at the base of the TV building."
8 It -- it seems to be contradicting, the one saying I saw a
9 projectile being fired from where I was, and the other one saying there
10 was an incoming projectile, same time, same place, apparently. Then he
11 hears the impact. I take it that if it doesn't explode, that it's not
12 easy to hear an impact at a distance of 800 metres, and he, nevertheless,
13 says that there was a tremendous explosion at the TV building after a
14 couple of seconds.
15 I'm totally lost as to how to understand this information, which
16 seems to be partially presenting an outgoing round from the PTT building
17 and a kind of a mixed report on an incoming projectile, which then later
18 explodes at a great distance from there.
19 That's my confusion. If you can help me out, please do so.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will try and do so, Your Honour.
21 There was, indeed -- there were two projectiles that were fired.
22 One around 9.30 a.m. One hit directly one of the sides of the TV
23 building, while the detonation was rather significant and the destruction
24 also, I checked that myself afterwards, the other -- the other impact is
25 the one that I was specifying, that did -- hit the road and made a crater
1 there. And the author says that the explosion was not heard, which is
2 surprising. The impact was true, real, and the crater is also concrete.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for this explanation.
4 Mr. Lukic.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you for having taken us back to
6 this document I've forgotten. You know that that I rarely seek admission
7 into evidence but I would like to tender this document.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
9 THE REGISTRAR: May I just verify that this is document 10176?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think it is.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you. Then document 10176 receives number
12 D134, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: D134 is admitted into evidence.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now, we should go back to the
15 statement again, P749. I've already said that in the French version, we
16 need page 32, the second paragraph; in the English version, we need
17 page 23, second paragraph from the bottom of the page; and, in the B/C/S
18 version, page 43, fourth paragraph.
19 Q. In the paragraph above they ask you to look at a document. It's
20 a protest dated the 8th of June, 1995, that General Gobillard sent to
21 General Milosevic.
22 You say, in your response:
23 "This letter concerns events which took place in the southern
24 part of the city in the sector of the Jewish cemetery and in Debelo Brdo
25 between the 15th of May and 15th of June. Units of the Bosniak army
1 1st Corps attacked the crest line which overlooks Sarajevo in that
2 sector. They moved closer to the UNPROFOR post in the sector located in
3 Debelo Brdo. The Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, which was defending that
4 position, retaliated with artillery fire and tanks and launched several
5 well-targeted counter-attacks. The problem was that the SRK response was
6 disproportionate to the attack and the SRK disregarded any possible
7 collateral damage ..."
8 Again, we are in this period of fierce fighting initiated by the
9 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that right?
10 A. The Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the 1st Corps, was, indeed, at
11 the origin of these -- of this fighting, and I should remind you, a
12 number of operations, pre-operations, for their adversaries.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could I ask one additional question.
14 The last portion of what was read to you reads as following, and
15 I'll do it in French:
16 "[Interpretation] The SRK bombed the city and responded to the
17 attacks by the Bosnian side. This is at least the way the SRK perceived
18 the situation."
19 What was preceding, that is, the description of the military
20 operations, and the counter-attack? Was that an example of what you said
21 in the last line, meaning that it also attacked the town?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This comment, when I read it again,
23 is, in my mind, the example I provided for the lack of moral fiber and
24 this disproportionate attack. The random shelling on the town was
25 reported by the SRK correspondents who said that this was in retaliation
1 to other attacks.
2 General Gobillard and other people reminded our contact people
3 that these actions could not be perceived as proportionate retaliatory
5 As regards what happened between 15th May and the 15th of June,
6 I'm talking now from a professional standpoint, if the offensives
7 launched by the 1st Corps of the Muslim forces could have been better
8 organised, well, the reaction of their opponents of the SRK could have
9 been more measured and would have had the same effect.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. These attacks in your area of responsibility launched by the
13 Muslim forces always came out of the part of the town that was considered
14 to be a protected area; right?
15 A. In my area of responsibility, yes.
16 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Is it also correct that the number of the members of the
19 1st Corps was disproportionately high compared to the membership of the
20 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Was the number of the attacks by the BH army on the positions of
23 the SRK disproportionately higher than the attack launched by the other
25 A. Well, certainly when these attacks were launched. However, you
1 seem to omit the conditions under which the population and the units were
2 living, subjected to constant random shellings, subjected to a blockade.
3 Under these conditions, it is not surprising, is it, that this party felt
4 aggressed and wanted to release the strangle-hold it was caught in?
5 Q. You know what? There's one thing that I don't understand. I
6 can't understand that an officer of the NATO pact would be speaking of
7 disproportionate use of force when we know that Tomahawk rockets were
8 used to target the inhabited or built areas of town without the opposite
9 side having any possibility to return fire. Isn't that what you would
10 call disproportionate use of force? If there's no possibility of
11 response whatsoever.
12 A. I would like you to tell me when between May and October 1995
13 Tomahawk missiles were used in the area of Sarajevo. I like to hear
14 about this.
15 Q. I'm talking about the principle involved. Since you testify here
16 as an officer of the NATO pact about the disproportionate use of force --
17 JUDGE ORIE: This witness testifies as a witness of the truth and
18 not in a specific capacity. Your previous question was introduced by a
19 desperate cry-out of not understanding something, is which comment rather
20 than question. You may put questions to the witness, Mr. Lukic.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: No consultations in the courtroom. Write it down on
23 a note and give Mr. Mladic, if he needs, a pen and a piece of paper.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 Q. When bombing the Serb positions in the surrounding area of
2 Sarajevo, when NATO was bombing these positions, was there a
3 disproportionate use of force at that time?
4 A. Listen, I can state that the force used was artillery fire, on
5 the one hand, and air-strikes on the other. (redacted)
8 since from the beginning of July onwards when the first artillery pieces
9 started arriving, the use of this force was always extremely measured,
10 extremely cautious, and a great deal of attention was paid to do all we
11 could to avoid casualties.
12 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 Q. Were you aware of the fact that Pale -- the Pale hospital was hit
16 by the Mirage. Did that amount to a disproportionate use of force?
17 A. May I know what the date of the incident, please, Your Honour?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There are two questions first, whether you're
19 aware of the Pale hospital being hit. Are you aware of that?
20 And if Mr. Lukic has a date, that might assist.
21 Do you know of any such hit?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am aware of fire hitting Pale,
23 not the hospital in particular, but I believe the date is important.
24 JUDGE ORIE: But it is about the hospital. If you do not know
25 anything about the hospital being hit, then, of course, we can move on.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I cannot confirm that
2 the hospital was hit. I don't believe so. I'm wondering whether there
3 isn't a confusion on a previous attack against Pale.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Notes. No consultations. Mr. Mladic.
5 Well, the witness may have knowledge about Mirages firing at the
6 Pale area, but seems not to be familiar with the hospital being hit,
7 which makes the next question superfluous, it looks, Mr. Lukic.
8 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. I understand that.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I'm also I'm looking at the clock at this moment.
10 Yes, could you give us an indication as to how much time you
11 would still need tomorrow.
12 MR. LUKIC: I think one hour, one and a half hours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: One and a half hour.
14 Ms. Hochhauser, could you give already an indication, as matters
15 stand now, how much time you would need for re-examination?
16 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I -- as matters stand now, Your Honour, I would
17 estimate about half an hour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: About half an hour.
19 All the estimates for the witness -- the other witness to come
20 this week, are still solid?
21 MR. GROOME: From the Prosecution's point of view, Your Honour,
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, any reason to believe that you'd need
24 more than you asked for, for the next witness?
25 MR. LUKIC: I think that my colleague Ivetic will fit it in the
1 time he asked.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because we try to avoid any surprises at the
3 end of this week.
4 Then ...
5 [Interpretation] I would like to ask you not to communicate in
6 any way about your testimony with anyone. We expect to see you in this
7 courtroom at 9.30 tomorrow. We shall finish your testimony tomorrow.
8 Thank you.
9 [In English] We turn into closed session.
10 [Closed session]
11 Pages 7192-7193 redacted. Closed session.
10 [Open session]
11 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
13 I'm not going to wait until we see an empty public gallery.
14 We adjourn for the day, and we will resume tomorrow, Wednesday,
15 the 23rd of January, at 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, III.
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.20 p.m.,
17 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 23rd of January,
18 2013, at 9.30 a.m.