1 Monday, 11 February 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
6 courtroom. Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
8 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 No preliminaries, are there, Mr. Groome?
11 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just to note the Chamber might be
12 expecting an oral argument on exhibits related to two recent witnesses.
13 Mr. Lukic informed us this morning that he had filed written submissions
14 this morning, so rather than orally respond we'll do that in writing.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that seems to be a very practical approach to
16 the matter.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, are you ready to call your next witness?
19 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour. At this time the Prosecution will
20 call Ekrem Suljevic.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Could the witness be escorted into the
23 Meanwhile, I put on the record the following: On the 22nd of
24 November of last year, the Defence requested an extension of the response
25 time for the Rule 92 ter motion in relation to Witness Ekrem Suljevic.
1 On the 23rd of November, the Prosecution responded disagreeing with the
2 facts set out in the request but not opposing the brief extension. On
3 the 26th of November, the Chamber through an informal communication
4 granted an extension until the 30th of November. And that decision is
5 hereby, although rather late, put on the record.
6 I take it, Mr. Weber, that the Prosecution requests for leave to
7 amend the 65 ter list, add two new photographs, will be dealt with when
8 you come to those photographs, or would you --
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I was planning on addressing it when I
10 called up the photographs. And also the Prosecution sought leave to
11 amend 65 ter 19024 and we'll also address that when we come to that
12 exhibit, if it's okay with the Chamber.
13 JUDGE ORIE: That seems to be the best way to approach the
15 [The witness entered court]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Suljevic.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, I would like to invite you
19 to make a solemn declaration, the text of which is now handed out you to.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
21 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Suljevic. Please be seated.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 WITNESS: EKREM SULJEVIC
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Suljevic, you'll first be examined by Mr. Weber.
2 Mr. Weber is counsel for the Prosecution.
3 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
4 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.
5 Examination by Mr. Weber:
6 Q. Good morning. Could you please introduce yourself to the
7 Trial Chamber.
8 A. Good morning. My name is Ekrem Suljevic.
9 Q. Mr. Suljevic, have you previously testified before this Tribunal
10 on three earlier occasions in the Dragomir Milosevic, Perisic, and
11 Karadzic cases?
12 A. Yes, I have.
13 Q. Prior to your testimony in the Karadzic case, did you provide a
14 consolidated statement containing information from your previous
15 testimony and statements?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 28668.
18 Q. Do you recognise the document before you as the amalgamated
19 statement you provided on 9 February 2010?
20 A. 2010? Yes.
21 Q. Does your signature appear in the middle portion of this page?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. Did you have the opportunity to review this statement in the
24 Bosnian language prior to court today?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. During your testimony in the Karadzic case, did you make
2 corrections to this statement?
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, with the Chamber's leave, and I've also
5 discussed this matter with Mr. Lukic, the Prosecution would read the
6 previous corrections and ask the witness to confirm them.
7 JUDGE ORIE: If Mr. Lukic agrees, the Chamber does not object.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. WEBER:
10 Q. Mr. Suljevic, having reviewed this statement again for this case,
11 would you still make the following corrections: In paragraph 1, the
12 reference to Stanislav Galic should be replaced by Dragomir Milosevic?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. In paragraph 8, line 2, the words "Mirza Jamakovic" should come
15 after the words "the chief of our department," in the next sentence?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. In paragraph 17, line 5, the words "and the flight" should be
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In the same paragraph on line 7, the words "the location from
21 which the projectile had been fired" should be inserted after the word
22 "observed." It's in the last sentence.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. In paragraph 48, on two occasions the word "shell" appears. This
25 word should be changed to "primary charge."
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. In the heading before paragraph 49, the date should read "24th of
3 May" not "26th of May."
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. As a general point of clarification before we return to the
6 statement, when you refer to primary charge, what part of the mortar are
7 you discussing?
8 A. The primary charge --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, does it make sense to -- to work on a
10 redacted portion of the statement?
11 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I just was clarifying it since it was
12 part of the statement. I'm not intending to lead any evidence related to
13 those events on the 24th of May, 1995.
14 JUDGE ORIE: But this is how it looks. How could I -- it's a
15 redacted portion of the statement.
16 MR. WEBER: It was just the heading that I was seeking to
18 JUDGE ORIE: The heading. Let me just have a look.
19 MR. WEBER: Which I believe is still unredacted.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You're right. The heading is -- let me just
21 check. You said paragraph --
22 MR. WEBER: Above paragraph --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before paragraph 48. Yes. That should be?
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe the witness confirmed that it
25 should be the 24th of May, not the 26th of May.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So now we know what day everything happened,
2 which we do not know that happened.
3 MR. WEBER: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, it's certainly -- that's certainly
5 assisting. Please proceed.
6 MR. WEBER:
7 Q. Mr. Suljevic, I just wanted to -- since one of your
8 clarifications related to the use of the word "primary charge," I was
9 just asking you to indicate what part of the mortar you're discussing
10 when you say "primary charge."
11 A. This is primary charge and not a mortar but, rather, a projectile
12 for mortar. The primary charge is on the lower side of the stabiliser.
13 Q. Do you have any additional clarifications or corrections to this
15 A. I don't think there is any need to add anything. These were
16 simply technical modifications or mistranslations or other mistakes as
17 was the case with the change of using the name Galic instead of
18 Milosevic, which is another technical error.
19 MR. WEBER: Could we please have page 12 of the English version
20 and page 22 of the B/C/S translation.
21 Q. When this appears before you, Mr. Suljevic, could you please
22 review the last page of the statement and verify whether you signed this
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. If you were asked the same questions, would you provide the same
1 answers in substance as you did in this statement?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now that you've taken the solemn declaration in this case, do you
4 affirm the truthfulness and accuracy of your statement?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders
7 the 2010 statement uploaded under 65 ter 28668 into evidence as a public
9 MR. LUKIC: No objection.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28668 receives number P889,
12 Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: P889 is admitted. Please proceed.
14 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, the Prosecution has provided a list of
15 associated exhibits to the Chamber today. We've also provided a copy of
16 this list to the Defence and the Registry. With your leave today, the
17 Prosecution is respectfully requesting a departure from the Chamber's
18 guidance on the number of associated exhibits due to the witness's
19 authentication of documentation of the BiH MUP and comments in a comment
20 chart on a number of materials related to munitions used by the VRS.
21 In the list there are two sections. The first section
22 corresponds to the associated exhibits being tendered from the
23 amalgamated statement just admitted as P889. In total there were
24 24 associated exhibits to the statement. One exhibit has already been
25 admitted as part of P495. At this time, the Prosecution tenders 15 of
1 the remaining exhibits which are official BiH MUP reports related to
2 investigations of projectile impacts between May and July 1995. After
3 addressing these exhibits the Prosecution has additional questions for
4 the witness with respect to a second chart containing comments on the
5 remaining exhibits.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, do you want to respond at this moment?
7 MR. LUKIC: I think I can, that actually we do not object to
8 three documents from this list, and those are documents composed or
9 signed by the witness. Those are -- if you have the newest list from
10 Mr. Weber, that's documents under numbers 6, 9, and 12. On the first
12 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see the first page.
13 MR. LUKIC: The first page, documents 6, 9, and 12.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have the --
15 MR. LUKIC: 13, sorry -- no, no, 12. We do not have objections
16 to those three.
17 JUDGE ORIE: That is, just for me, 65 ter 10157.
18 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: 10162.
20 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: 14222.
22 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And 10206.
24 MR. LUKIC: No. No. The 13 is out, sorry.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thirteen is out.
1 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. No objections against those three, yes.
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And for the others?
5 MR. LUKIC: For the others we do object, Your Honour, since this
6 gentleman did not take part in either composing those documents and we
7 don't see that he took any part in the work preceding the composition of
8 those documents.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You say it is unrelated to the testimony of this
10 witness, because not being the author and not participating in itself may
11 not be a sufficient reason to object.
12 MR. LUKIC: Maybe he will -- yeah.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we first hear the testimony of the witness
14 and then --
15 MR. LUKIC: Yes, and then we can --
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- but at least --
17 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, we do believe that these are properly
18 admitted through this witness as associated exhibits. He did
19 authenticate them as being reports he recognised from the BiH MUP and
20 also provided his knowledge with respect to what's in there, and I'm
21 happy to discuss this further with Mr. Lukic and see what we can resolve
22 during the course of the testimony.
23 JUDGE ORIE: We'll first hear what the witness says about it,
24 although we can read, of course, part of it already in this statement.
25 That is the first portion. The second portion is of a different
1 nature --
2 MR. WEBER: Your Honour --
3 JUDGE ORIE: -- to Mr. Lukic, do you want to --
4 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I do have further questions for the
5 witness before I tender those documents.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Shall we, then, leave that also until when we have
7 heard the evidence of the witness?
8 MR. LUKIC: I would just want to inform the Chamber --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. LUKIC: -- that we do object to admission of all those
11 documents through this witness since he has no knowledge about the
12 documents at all.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although it seems that the Prosecution leaves
14 an admission from the bar table as an option.
15 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, that's different issue. Then we'll address it
16 when it's bar tabled.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Sometimes if documents are in a close
18 relationship with the testimony of a witness, we then deviate from our
19 practice that we would like to have all the bar table documents at a
20 later stage. So could you then also consider whether, in the present
21 circumstances, whether you would object against admission at this stage
22 of the proceedings. So apart from any objection as far as content is
23 concerned. We'll hear from you.
24 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
1 Mr. Weber.
2 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of
3 65 ter 28669. Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of 65 ter 28669.
4 Q. Mr. Suljevic, do you recognise the document before you as a chart
5 of comments you provided on 19 July 2010, prior to your testimony in the
6 Karadzic case?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. At the top of this page, you state that these documents concern
9 air bombs and other projectiles. There are then also cross-references to
10 paragraphs of your amalgamated statement which was just admitted. My
11 question for you: Are your comments on this chart based upon the
12 experience you acquired during investigations into the types of
13 projectiles used in shellings of Sarajevo, including modified air bombs,
14 mortars, and artillery?
15 A. Yes, based on experience and on the teamwork conducted during
16 investigations that were carried out at the request of all the traces
17 that were submitted for expert analysis after being collected in situ.
18 Q. In each of your comments on this chart, did you note the
19 equipment or munitions you are familiar with from your investigations of
20 traces of projectiles during the war?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did you again review this chart and the associated documents
23 prior to your testimony in this case?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Do you have any corrections or clarifications to your comments in
1 this chart?
2 A. Well, generally speaking there are no major observations.
3 Q. If you were asked questions about the documents listed in the
4 chart, would you make the same comments about these materials?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders
7 65 ter 28669, the chart of comments. The Prosecution also can address
8 the 39 non -- yet not admitted exhibits related to this chart. The
9 Prosecution recognises that the witness is not the author of any of these
10 documents and his comments in this chart are based on his knowledge as
11 he's indicate the just now. Based on that, we are tendering it pursuant
12 to Rule 89(C) from the bar table.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, would you like to respond now? Would you
14 prefer to take more time?
15 MR. LUKIC: I think that we should take more time, but in general
16 we do object to admission of this chart, because there's only reading the
17 document and saying, yes, that type of ammunition was used. So there is
18 three -- two, three types of ammunition used in that conflict in total,
19 so we are not gaining anything from having 39 documents to learn that
20 there is 82-millimetre mortar shell was used in that conflict.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Have you agreed on the use of 82-millimetre mortar
22 being used, because that's what you're suggesting.
23 MR. LUKIC: In the conflict, yes. It was used.
24 JUDGE ORIE: In the conflict.
25 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, these documents indicate much more than
1 that, and if I could give an example and there are things that are --
2 that the Prosecution recognises that are beyond the witness's direct
3 knowledge. The first document, 65 ter 8768, is a document from the
4 director of the Pretis holding company dated 10 May 1994 to the
5 Main Staff of the VRS personally to the accused, and this references
6 1.000 GRAD 122-millimetre rockets. It does have a nexus to the witness's
7 evidence in the context of the fact that on, as an example, page 9 of
8 P495, the witness authors a report concerning scheduled incident G13,
9 where the witness concludes the same type of rockets -- rocket engines
10 were used and found at the location of the projectile impact. The
11 witness further comments on this type of rocket engine in paragraph 53 of
12 his amalgamated statement. So we're offering it in that context.
13 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has decided that it will reserve
16 40 numbers for these 40 documents, that's the chart and the 39 underlying
17 documents, and invites the parties -- Mr. Lukic, there seems to be
18 disagreement as to what exactly the chart and the comment of the witness
19 brings us. Therefore, the parties are invited perhaps also in a chart
20 format to bring to the attention of the Chamber, you, Mr. Weber, what
21 favours admission, and you, Mr. Lukic, what does object admission.
22 And of course, for Mr. Weber, there's no need to repeat what is
23 already in the chart itself, and I think the simplest way would be that
24 the Defence first formulates its objections and that the Prosecution then
25 further specifies the reason why it seeks admission of those specific
2 Could the parties agree on a kind of a schedule for that?
3 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I'd be happy today to provide Mr. Lukic
4 with a Word version of a chart for him to provide comments on the
5 individual documents.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, would that be a practical way of --
7 MR. LUKIC: It is very, Your Honour, only I don't know if the
8 numbers in this chart are from Karadzic trial. So it can create
10 JUDGE ORIE: It says "Mladic 65 ter numbers," but is that --
11 MR. WEBER: On the chart -- on the chart distributed to the
12 Chamber and to the Defence today those are the Mladic 65 ter numbers.
13 I'm happy to include in the chart that I provide to Mr. Lukic today the
14 corresponding Karadzic numbers, just so when he reviews the comment chart
15 he can --
16 MR. LUKIC: Sorry, I was referring to this second statement from
17 the 19th of July, 2010. We have old numbers from Karadzic trial.
18 MR. WEBER: Mr. Lukic is correct that in the comment chart itself
19 those are -- that appear in the far left column, those are the Karadzic
20 65 ter numbers. We have attached a table of concordance and I can also
21 provide in the chart today, in the Word version, both the 65 ter numbers
22 so he can easily go through them one by one.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you would prepare a chart for Mr. Lukic so
24 that he always has the two numbers in two columns available to himself.
25 Mr. Lukic, rather than to change what seems to be a document
1 where the witness commented on certain matters, rather not change
2 anything in that and have the conversion chart for you available.
3 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll proceed.
5 Madam Registrar, the numbers to be reserved for these purposes
7 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
8 JUDGE ORIE: The numbers reserved exclusively deal with the chart
9 and the underlying documents of the chart. All the -- I would say the
10 section 1 associated exhibits is not covered by that yet.
11 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, may I proceed with the summary of the
12 witness's evidence?
13 JUDGE ORIE: One second. We'll first ask Madam Registrar to tell
14 us which numbers she reserved.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 40 numbers reserved are from number
16 P890 up to and including P929, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Those numbers are reserved.
18 Please proceed, Mr. Weber, and read the summary of the statement
19 of the witness and you have explained to the witness what the purpose of
20 it is.
21 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And for the public, we'll now read the summary
23 of the statement of the witness which is the core of the evidence the
24 witness has given although not viva voce today.
25 MR. WEBER: Mr. Ekrem Suljevic is a mechanical engineer and was
1 an investigator for the Counter Sabotage Protection Unit, or KDZ, of the
2 Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
3 Mr. Suljevic participated in 50 to 60 investigations of shelling
4 incidents at civilian locations during the siege of Sarajevo. One of the
5 first investigations the witness worked on was the Markale I shelling.
6 In his amalgamated statement, Mr. Suljevic discusses reports by the RBiH
7 MUP KDZ and the Sarajevo CSB related to shelling or modified air bomb
8 impacts in Sarajevo between May and July 1995.
9 The witness explains the methodology of the RBiH MUP when
10 investigating shelling incidents, including determining the direction of
11 fire and the collection and analysis of projectile fragments.
12 Mr. Suljevic further explains his familiarity with components and
13 manufacturer markings of various projectiles, including markings found on
14 mortar stabilisers which indicate the year in which they were
15 manufactured and the location of manufacture, which in many cases was the
16 Krusik factory in Valjevo, Serbia. Mr. Suljevic also discusses the
17 components of modified air bombs.
18 This completes the summary of the witness, and, Your Honours, may
19 I proceed with questioning?
20 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed.
21 MR. WEBER:
22 Q. Mr. Suljevic, in paragraph 7 of your amalgamated statement, P889,
23 you state:
24 "The kinds of projectiles whose craters we inspected were mortar
25 shells, artillery gun shells such as howitzer shells, and modified air
2 During the course of these inspections, did you personally become
3 familiar with the crater patterns caused by both mortar and artillery
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Is there a difference in the appearance of an impression or a
7 crater that would be left by a mortar shell as compared to an artillery
9 A. Well, there is a difference between a crater created by a mortar
10 shell and a crater caused by some other type of weaponry. There is also
11 a difference between a crater created by an air bomb which explodes.
12 Q. We'll discuss the differences at greater length in a second, but
13 before doing that, I'd like to ask you do you know why a mortar shell
14 leaves a distinguishable crater pattern from that of an artillery shell?
15 A. Let's put it very simply. There are several distinguishing
16 traits, starting with the shape of the shell, the way the shell flies,
17 and the way the projectile is stabilised, because mortar shells do not
18 rotate during flight. They are stabilised by stabiliser, whereas shells
19 from other artillery pieces such as cannons and howitzers rotate, and
20 their rotation provides them with the necessary flight stabilisation.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could I stop you for a second. Mr. Weber didn't ask
22 for all the differences between the two projectiles and how they are
23 functioning or flying but was specifically asking about the pattern on
24 the ground upon impact. May I invite you, unless it is necessary to
25 understand that, to start with that first. What do you see on the ground
1 upon impact?
2 Mr. Weber, that's what you asked, isn't it?
3 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you didn't, then rephrase your question.
5 MR. WEBER:
6 Q. Are the distinguishing traits that you've just mentioned in your
7 answer, do these affect the crater pattern that is left on the ground?
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, at this time I'd ask that the witness
10 be provided with a pen and a blank screen to draw upon.
11 JUDGE ORIE: To be -- Mr. Weber, my colleague just reminds me
12 that your question was not about what the differences are on the ground
13 but why they left that. So I misread your question. My apologies for
15 And the witness may be provided with a pen and a blank screen.
16 MR. WEBER:
17 Q. Mr. Suljevic, I'd first like to discuss mortars with you. On the
18 screen before you, could you please draw how a mortar impacts and
19 explodes on a horizontal surface such as the ground.
20 A. Yes. I'll try and do it from what I remember. [Marks].
21 Q. If -- before you continue with your drawing, could you please
22 explain to us what you have drawn. It appears to be a mortar, and you've
23 drawn a number of lines. If you could please explain these to us.
24 A. Yes, just briefly. The drawing depicts a mortar shell on impact
25 with a horizontal surface, and the lines represent actually from the
1 centre of explosion, and every part of the shell body, i.e., every
2 fragment moves in the direction of these lines. This is just a
3 simplified representation. Most of the shell fragments will hit the
4 surface on the side from which the shell was launched. On the other side
5 there will be less fragment impact, and those fragments will form a
6 rose-shaped pattern or a paw pattern as we used to call it.
7 Q. With respect to how mortars -- their angle of descent, does this
8 impact how the pattern is created at all?
9 A. It does. I will repeat that I did not carry out analysis and
10 calculations of angles of descent, but the angle of descent does define
11 the crater pattern, and later, based on calculations, you can also
12 calculate the angle of descent at the moment of impact.
13 Q. You began to draw a line in the middle of this page. I was
14 wondering if on the right of this line, if you could draw what you've
15 described to be the rose-shaped or paw pattern that is created by the
17 A. Yes. [Marks]. Generally speaking, that would be the shape. In
18 the centre is the crater centre, and around it are non-symmetrical shapes
19 elongated towards the opposite side from the side from which the shell
20 came. A more dense pattern on the surface, i.e., a smaller distance
21 between the rings can be seen on the side from which the projectile came.
22 Generally speaking, the pattern is symmetrical and once you
23 establish the axis of the pattern, you can continue analysing the crater
25 Q. You just mentioned the pattern being symmetrical and an axis, on
1 this drawing could you draw what the symmetry would be in the axis?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Just for my understanding, when you said symmetry
3 and when you're talking about axis, is it that the symmetry is around the
4 axis on the two sides of the axis and that you have already drawn the
5 axis which comes from the right upper part of this screen and that
6 therefore the symmetry is found on the -- to the left and to the right
7 of -- or at least to the two sides of that axis you've drawn already? Is
8 that well understood?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely, Your Honour. The
10 symmetry that I'm talking about is not a hundred per cent symmetry. We
11 cannot claim for a fact that there is the same number of fragments on
12 both sides, but they are more or less symmetrical.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
14 MR. WEBER:
15 Q. Mr. --
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you continue --
17 MR. WEBER: Sorry, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- may I put another question. Can we please
19 indicate by an arrow from which side the -- the shell landed or was
21 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps could the arrow indicate the --
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Direction.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- direction of the projectile at impact.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. In this particular case, the
25 projectile would have come from the right-hand side, and it would have
1 ascended at an angle which would depend on the angle at which it was
2 fired. The descent angle obviously depends on the firing angle. Based
3 on that we carry on all the analysis.
4 MR. WEBER:
5 Q. Mr. Suljevic, could you please mark an M, the letter M, at the
6 top of this drawing.
7 MR. WEBER: And after the witness marks, the Prosecution would
8 tender this as a public exhibit.
9 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
10 JUDGE ORIE: The M standing for "mortar," we assume, Mr. Weber.
11 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This impact of a mortar shell.
13 No objections?
14 MR. LUKIC: No objections, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Document created by the witness in court receives
17 number P930, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted. Please proceed.
19 MR. WEBER:
20 Q. Mr. Suljevic, I'd like to do the same exercise with you with
21 respect to an artillery shell.
22 MR. WEBER: If the witness could be again provided with a blank
24 Q. If you could please again --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, often -- but that's my understanding,
1 often a mortar is considered to be part of artillery. So an artillery
2 shell and mortar shell seems to confuse.
3 MR. WEBER: I understand, Your Honour.
4 Q. Mr. Suljevic, I'd like you to repeat this exercise with an
5 artillery projectile without a stabiliser such as one launched from a
6 cannon or a howitzer. If you could please first on the left-hand side of
7 the screen draw how such an artillery shell would impact and explode on a
8 horizontal surface.
9 A. Yes. [Marks]. This is a simplified representation. When it
10 comes to these shells, unlike with mortars, there are direct firing.
11 They fall under a very acute angle with respect to the surface. Most of
12 the fragments, therefore, can be found in the back behind the axis of the
13 flight. The others are dispersed in the air and they do not hit the
15 Q. If to the right of this drawing, if you could please draw how
16 that pattern would appear on the ground.
17 A. Yes. I will try to draw the crater pattern from memory.
18 [Marks]. In very simple terms, most of the fragments would hit behind
19 the crater. As far as I remember, it would be a funnel or a jet-shaped
20 pattern, whereas very small numbers of those fragments may be expected in
21 front of the crater.
22 Q. Could you please on this pattern draw an arrow that would
23 indicate the direction from which the artillery would arrive. Thank you.
24 A. [Marks]
25 Q. And if at the top of this drawing would you please write the
1 letter A. I'm just using it for "artillery."
2 A. Let's clarify once again. Mortars are also artillery pieces.
3 Maybe we can put the letters AR standing for "rotating artillery." Maybe
4 that would explain things better.
5 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Suljevic.
6 MR. WEBER: At this time --
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put another question. On the right side of
8 your drawing you put some lines, uninterrupted lines on the right side of
9 the right drawing. What do they represent?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, these are some lines that
11 represent the border lines for the density of the jet. They do not exist
12 on any crater. I just use it to delineate the zone where most of the
13 projectile fragments land.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That was very helpful. Thank you very much.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I also add my --
16 MR. WEBER: Of course, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: If this is rotating artillery, may I suggest we
18 call it RA instead of AR.
19 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour. The Prosecution at this time
20 tenders the drawing.
21 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
22 MR. LUKIC: We don't have any objections, if you want to hear
23 from us.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number to be assigned?
25 THE REGISTRAR: Document create by the witness in court receives
1 number P931, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: P931 is admitted.
3 MR. WEBER:
4 Q. Mr. Suljevic, as a general question, at what -- how would the
5 pattern be affected if the rotating artillery impacted upon a vertical
6 surface? Such as a wall.
7 A. If it were to hit a vertical surface, although I never analysed
8 any such craters, but I did have opportunities to see those on the walls.
9 There would be a higher degree of dispersion of the fragments from all
10 sides of the crater, because the projectile would ascend under a very
11 large angle with respect to the surface. In any case, there would be a
12 more prominent density on the side from which the projectile came, on the
13 side of the descent angle of the projectile.
14 Q. Could you please tell us how the damage caused by a modified air
15 bomb differs from the damage caused by a mortar or rotating artillery
17 A. Well, generally speaking, they are intended for different
18 purposes. Air bombs are destructive weapons. They destroyed facilities,
19 and they cause and create large craters on impact. There are fewer
20 fragments because they're not intended for individual impact but for
21 destruction, whether artillery -- whereas artillery projectiles have
22 individual impact. They create smaller craters, and they leave more
23 fragment traces on the surface.
24 Q. In addition to your participation in on-site investigations, did
25 you perform laboratory analysis of trace evidence recovered from the
1 scenes of explosions?
2 A. We performed laboratory analysis of traces, but not chemical
3 analysis of the materials which were found at explosion sites. We just
4 inspected visually. We measured, and we did comparative analysis with
5 the assets that we had in our department. Obviously, we relied on
6 professional literature when we did that.
7 Q. In paragraph 53 of your amalgamated statement, you comment upon a
8 report dated 19 June 1995, which was authored by yourself and
9 Mirza Jamakovic concerning the traces recovered during a shelling
10 incident on Safeta Hadzica Street on 26 May 1995. Did you participate in
11 the on-site investigation of this shelling?
12 A. No, I didn't. I didn't take part in the investigation on the
14 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P495,
15 page 11 of the B/C/S original and page 10 of the English translation.
16 Your Honours, I am about to go on to another document. I do note
17 the time. It is okay if I break at this point.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll take the break now.
19 Witness, we'll take a break of 20 minutes. You may follow the
21 [The witness stands down]
22 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break and we'll resume at 10 minutes to
24 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
2 Meanwhile, Mr. Lukic, just a very brief survey by the Chamber
3 revealed that at least for a number, I think we came to four now, of the
4 documents you said the witness did not author or had nothing to the
5 investigation, the witness himself says that he either drafted the report
6 or was involved in investigating. So would you please be very precise in
7 the formulation of your objections.
8 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I couldn't find that in the document.
9 Maybe he said "drafted," but I found --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if he says that in his statement --
11 MR. LUKIC: -- his name only on those three.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but if he -- if he states that he was drafting,
13 although not signing sometimes the report, that of course brings him very
14 close to those documents.
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, if I may assist. I'm going to lead a
16 little bit more evidence on this. The initials ES appear in the
17 documents which I'll believe is -- I'll lead some further evidence about
18 what that ES means.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And apart from that, Mr. Lukic, of course,
20 before objecting, we would have to look at both the statement and the
21 document and not just the one of the two.
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
24 MR. WEBER: Could we have page 11 of the B/C/S and 10 of the
25 English translation of Exhibit P495.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the document is under seal.
2 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Madam Registrar. If it could not be
3 broadcast to the public.
4 Q. Mr. Suljevic, I'd like to return to discussing the shelling on
5 Safeta Hadzica Street. I'd like to direct your attention to another
6 report dated 10 -- if we could please have -- I'd like to draw your
7 attention to another report dated 10 June 1995 concerning the same
8 incident but in relation to the analysis of traces of a projectile that
9 hit the wall of a building on Safeta Hadzica Street. Do you recognise
10 the document before you?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. WEBER: Could we please have the next page of both versions.
13 Q. On this next page we see the report was signed by the head of the
14 unit, Mirza Jamakovic. To the left of the signature and the stamp there
15 are the initials ES. Could you please verify if these are your initials
16 and tell us who drafted the analysis described in this report.
17 A. Yes. These are my initials. I drafted this report, and the head
18 of unit, Mirza Jamakovic, was the one who signed every report produced by
19 the unit. So I drafted the report, and I carried out the analysis with
20 assistance of my colleagues. I was not in charge of this case but I did
21 compile a report.
22 Q. I'd like to discuss your analysis in this report. On the same
23 page you found that the projectile was probably a high explosive
24 88-millimetre calibre shell. What kind of shell is this?
25 A. That's a projectile fired from an artillery piece, and it's a
1 rotating projectile. It was most probably fired from a gun.
2 Q. What do the remarks "4.5 mm klb (n)" represent?
3 A. That represents the marking of the projectile that led us to make
4 conclusions based on the analysis of the traces, and this is the way in
5 which projectiles were marked, which indicates that this specific
6 projectile was not produced in the former Yugoslavia, but I think most
7 probably it was made in Germany.
8 Q. How was it that you were able to determine that this was a
9 rotating artillery shell based on the recovered fragments from the
11 A. After analysing and measuring the fragments retrieved, although
12 we didn't get too many of them, and after analysing all these fragments,
13 we were led to believe that this was probably this specific projectile.
14 We were not 100 per cent sure that it was, in fact, this projectile.
15 However, by process of elimination of all the other known projectiles,
16 based on the measurements and the detailed analysis of the traces, we
17 were led to believe that this projectile is the one as specified in this
19 Q. Are there any measurements or observations that you made related
20 to the thickness of the materials recovered which indicated to you that
21 the projectile likely came from a rotating artillery shell as opposed to
22 a mortar?
23 A. Well, there are measurements. One measures the thickness, which
24 is a dimension which indicates the thickness of the wall or the body of
25 the projectile, and that is one of the elements that led us to believe
1 that this was an artillery projectile, because no other known projectile
2 could have been associated with these specific traces, and all the
3 samples of other projectiles we had on our premises, and we used them for
4 comparison and analysis.
5 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution is finished with this document. We'd
6 like to move on to a different date. Could the Prosecution please have
7 65 ter 10140, page 2 of the B/C/S version only.
8 Q. Mr. Suljevic, the Prosecution would now like to discuss with you
9 some photographs related to projectile impacts on 16 June 1995.
10 Appearing on the screen before you shortly will be photographs of items
11 found at the scene of a projectile impact near 10 Trg Medjunarodnog
12 Prijateljstva Square. Before we discuss these projectiles, do you know
13 where the square is located?
14 A. Yes, Trg Medjunarodnog Prijateljstva is in the part of town
15 called Alipasino Polje.
16 Q. Directing your attention to the top photo, could you please
17 describe the items depicted starting from the item on the far left and
18 continuing to the right. If needed, we can zoom in closer on the photo.
19 A. This photo depicts the remnants of rocket motors. On the
20 left-hand side is a piece with seven openings. That's the rear part of
21 the motor, the so-called jet part. During the combustion of fuel, it
22 produces gases which produce thrust for the projectile. In the middle
23 one can see two cylindrical parts. These are also rear parts of rocket
24 motors, and to the left is a piece of metal sheet probably coming from
25 the body of the motor which due to the explosion was deformed, which
1 means that the motor was destroyed and the metal sheet was deformed.
2 In these two middle cylindrical parts, one can see tail-fins of
3 stabilisers that each rocket has.
4 Q. Do you know what these rockets were used for during the conflict?
5 A. These rockets were used as a propelling part that consisted of
6 rocket mortars as a propelling device and --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the last part
8 of his answer. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat the last part of your
10 answer. You said "these rockets were used as a propelling part that
11 consisted of," and then repeat from there.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As a propelling part for modified
13 air bombs that consisted of the propelling device, i.e., rocket engines
14 that propelled the entire improvised device and an aerial bomb itself
15 which served as a warhead, i.e., as an explosive device which exploded on
16 impact and inflicted huge damage, destruction, and loss of life. These
17 two parts were technically welded to one another by an adaptor in the
18 shape of a plate in order to make it compact.
19 Q. The --
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: For the clarity of the record I will put one
21 question to the witness.
22 In one of your previous answers you said -- this is at least what
23 was translated to us:
24 "To the left is a piece of metal sheet probably coming from the
25 body of the motor."
1 Did you really say to the left or to the right? You explained
2 which because of the explosion was deformed.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's the piece on the far right of
4 irregular shape. It's a piece of metal sheet originating from the rocket
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for this correction of the record.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You also referred to the stabiliser part.
8 Could you tell us exactly where you find this stabilising part of the
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this photograph there are a few
11 fins of the stabiliser. To the left where you have this piece with jet
12 openings, you can see two fins which are not open. And you can also see
13 stabiliser fins each on the two central pieces, as far as I can see.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand that on the central pieces the --
15 the shapes for both of them to the right lower part, slightly bended, are
16 these the stabiliser elements attached to the -- to the rocket part.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then I have one final question on this. The fact
19 that there are stabilisers which apparently are movable, does that mean
20 that these projectiles do not rotate in the air but are supposed to fly
21 without rotation?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we speak about a rocket, a
23 rocket does not rotate and neither did this modified device made up of an
24 air bomb and rocket motors. Only I would like to add that probably these
25 fins never opened in this modified device. They were fixed, because
1 there was no need for them to stabilise the flight of this specific
2 projectile. I think that they were fixed, and therefore it was
3 impossible for them to open. I think that we discovered that they were
4 fixed in a way in order to prevent them from opening.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, could we zoom out again so that we have
6 this together with the other.
7 May I take it that what we see close to the number 1 on the
8 picture above is the same -- that is, the seven holes part of this -- the
9 part of the projectile with the seven holes, that that is the same as we
10 see on the lower part lying flat to the left of the two others?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I presume that is the case. I
12 didn't make the photograph. However, these jet parts are found in the
13 central pieces as well, only you cannot see them in this photo.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps if we zoom in on the lower photograph we
15 might see it, because it's taken from a different angle, and even a
16 smaller part -- yes. We see a similar seven holes at least in the middle
17 one as we saw earlier to the left. Thank you.
18 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
19 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution tenders 65 ter 10140
20 into evidence, the photos.
21 MR. LUKIC: No objections.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Document 10140 receives number P932,
24 Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
1 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 10394,
2 page 9 of the uploaded B/C/S version.
3 Q. Mr. Suljevic, in paragraphs 59 and 60 of your amalgamated
4 statement you authenticate a report concerning a projectile that landed
5 at Cobanija Street on the same date, 16 June 1995. Coming before you
6 will be some photos of items recovered at the location of this impact.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you repeat the numbers and the page of this
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, it's -- I have paragraphs 59 and 60 of
10 the amalgamated statement. It's related to the Cobanija Street.
11 Q. If we could start with the top photograph. If you could tell us
12 which items are depicted in this photo.
13 A. The top photo shows several pieces of damaged and distorted metal
14 sheet. These fragments are parts of rocket motor.
15 Q. And directing your attention to the bottom photo. Could you tell
16 us what are the items that we see.
17 A. This photo shows parts of the rear end of the rocket motor. The
18 one to the very left is the stabiliser axis, only there is no stabiliser
19 that can be seen on this particular piece because it probably fell off
20 during the explosion.
21 The other two parts came from the rear end of the rocket motor
22 where the jets are, only they are damaged and distorted.
23 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders
24 65 ter 10394 into evidence as a public exhibit.
25 MR. LUKIC: We would object to this one and maybe to MFI this,
1 and during the cross-examination we will show why we object to this
3 MR. WEBER: That's fine. I can -- depending on what happens, I
4 can re-tender in redirect.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Although usually objections are formulated and
6 reasoned when admission is sought, but it maybe very practical to deal
7 with it --
8 MR. LUKIC: I can say now, because maybe this gentleman should be
9 asked whether he composed the document or not and what's his knowledge
10 about that document.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's see what he exactly says about that so
12 that we are prepared --
13 MR. LUKIC: Because I find some other people's names on this
14 document, not his.
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, the -- if I could get to the -- the
16 reports are authored by a colleague of his. He indicates and
17 authenticates the signature related to the reports in this statement.
18 With respect to the witness's evidence, the witness has knowledge and has
19 been able to provide us with relevant knowledge concerning the items that
20 are in these photographs. This is the same date as scheduled incident
21 G15, so the impact of modified air bombs or rockets are directly relevant
22 to this case. We ask that the photos be admitted at this time. That's
23 the only basis.
24 MR. LUKIC: I'm sorry maybe there is a misunderstanding on my
25 part. If that's only the photos, we do not object, but I thought we are
1 talking about the whole paragraph, 59, and about the document inside. I
2 mentioned that paragraph.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I think that there may be two matters to be
4 distinguished. The first one, the authentication of the report and the
5 signature by this witness which is apart from the content of the report.
6 Now, each of these separate issues would already justify
7 admission into evidence although the probative value then to be discussed
8 as to what the witness could tell us about the content of the report,
9 therefore it seems to go rather to whether the content of the report also
10 provides probative value or whether it's primarily or exclusively the
11 authentication of the document and the signature.
12 MR. LUKIC: If it's that -- just the authentication, then
13 probably he can recognise that signatures of his colleagues, but about
14 the content --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but --
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But can we clarify --
18 JUDGE ORIE: We will have it MFI'd, I think, for whatever
19 purpose, if only for authentication purposes that might already justify
20 admission, but let's wait and see what you come up in cross-examination.
21 One second, please.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we have a clarification? The document
24 65 ter 10394, does that contain the report or only these two photographs
25 on the screen now?
1 MR. WEBER: Two separate materials, Your Honour. There's a
2 report and then there are the photographs I've shown the witness. So I'm
3 asking for the admission based on the testimony of this witness at this
4 stage right now of the photographs.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Of the photographs only.
6 MR. LUKIC: No objection.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be?
8 THE REGISTRAR: Document 10394 receives number P933,
9 Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
11 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, at this time, in our 92 ter motion for
12 the witness we sought leave to add photographs. We're requesting
13 permission to show these photographs to the witness at this stage of the
14 examination. They have been uploaded under 65 ter 28670.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I hear of no objections of the
16 photographs to be shown to the witness to start with.
17 MR. LUKIC: No objections at this moment for this.
18 JUDGE ORIE: That would also mean that you do not object against
19 adding them to the 65 ter list because they now become potential
21 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Leave is granted to add them to the 65 ter
23 list. You may show the photographs to the witness.
24 MR. WEBER: If the Prosecution could please have page 4 of
25 65 ter 28670.
1 Q. Mr. Suljevic, directing your attention to the bottom photo before
2 you. Do you recognise the location as depicted?
3 A. Yes. This is a factory -- or, rather, the Ilijas ironworks, and
4 Ilijas is a place near Sarajevo. Throughout the war, Ilijas was under
5 the control of the Army of Republika Srpska.
6 Q. Where -- where is the Ilijas ironworks factory in relation to the
7 centre of Sarajevo?
8 A. It is not in Sarajevo. Before the war Ilijas used to be one of
9 Sarajevo municipalities, but nowadays Ilijas is a small settlement some
10 20 to 30 kilometres away from Sarajevo. This means that Ilijas is
11 actually on the road towards Zenica. It is not part of the city of
12 Sarajevo at all.
13 Q. And when you say it's 30 kilometres away from Sarajevo, is it
14 30 kilometres to the north or is it 30 kilometres --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, the Chamber has maps.
16 MR. WEBER: I was just trying to clarify.
17 JUDGE ORIE: If it is Ilijas and the town or the -- of Ilijas,
18 then there should be no problem to find it apart from that you could
19 agree on where Ilijas is, but I don't think there is much dispute about
20 it. Please proceed.
21 MR. WEBER: Very well, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Unless the specific location of the factory is some
23 relevance. Then, of course, I'm not keeping you from exploring that,
24 but ...
25 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. Do you know when these photographs were taken, approximately?
2 A. I know when they were taken. They were taken after the signing
3 of the Dayton Accords. During the reintegration process of the
4 municipalities and the parts that had been under the control of the Army
5 of Republika Srpska, after the Dayton Accords they were given to the
6 Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Those parts were reintegrated and our
7 department was one of the first that entered those reintegrated areas in
8 order to make sure that other persons could enter, to make sure that
9 there were no explosions, that mines were cleared if they were found, as
10 well as to carry out inspections at requests by companies and individuals
11 if they suspected that explosives and explosive devices could be found at
12 certain places. At the time when those photos were taken I was not in
13 Ilijas myself, but one of the teams from my department were given the
14 task, and during the integration process and during the inspection of the
15 area they took those photos. Somebody from the team, I don't know if
16 that person was from my department, but in any case, those photos were
17 taken in early 1996 by a team member, who did not necessarily have to be
18 a member of my department.
19 Q. If I could direct your attention to the top photo now. Could you
20 please tell us what is depicted.
21 A. It depicts bombs as they are stored.
22 Q. Do you know what type of bombs these are?
23 A. I don't know. I don't know what type it is, but in any case,
24 they are air bombs.
25 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 6.
1 Q. Mr. Suljevic, directing your attention to the bottom photo, do
2 you know what is depicted?
3 A. The bottom photo depicts 200-litre barrels filled with
4 explosives. On the left-hand side is a barrel without any additions,
5 probably filled with explosives, which we can't see, but we can see
6 wheels belonging to cargo vehicles which were attached to the barrels
7 which in turn made the barrels for transport or for lowering them
8 downhill. Actually, that's how they were used to bomb settled areas.
9 Barrels would be rolled down the hill. The explosives would be activated
10 by slow fuses, and when the slow fuses burnt down completely, the
11 explosives would be activated and the barrel would explode.
12 During the war, that happened on the slopes above Sarajevo in the
13 settlement called Bistrik. I myself wasn't there, but I heard that
14 residential buildings and other facilities were destroyed in that manner.
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders
16 65 ter 28670 into evidence as a public exhibit.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28670 receives number P934,
19 Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
21 MR. WEBER:
22 Q. And if we could just clarify one thing with respect to these
23 photos. Does your signature appear at the bottom of each page of these
24 photographs and a date when you signed it?
25 A. Yes. I can see it on this page. I don't know whether my
1 signature is on all pages. In my previous testimonies, I offered those
2 photos because I had them at my disposal, and I did that on the date
3 depicted in the photo.
4 Q. I'd like to move on to a --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, before we do so, before I start being
6 puzzled about it, could you tell me what -- whether there's any
7 difference between the photograph on the first page of this document and
8 the lower photograph on the last page, that is page 6 of this document?
9 They seem so much the same to me --
10 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe that there's multiple photos
11 that depict --
12 JUDGE ORIE: The same photos.
13 MR. WEBER: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then if that's the case, I'll not try to --
15 MR. WEBER: There's also multiple photos of the -- what the
16 witness has described to be the aerial bombs.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. WEBER: There are slight differences in those, though, I
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
21 MR. WEBER:
22 Q. Mr. Suljevic, I'd like to turn to a different topic. During the
23 course of your investigations, did you become familiar with markings on
24 fragments of mortar shells?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. What type of markings would you find on the remaining fragments
2 of a mortar shell after the shelling?
3 A. A mitigating circumstance was when one found markings on a
4 fragment. However, when it came to mortar shells, whenever a stabiliser
5 was found, and it was found in most cases, on the lower end the primary
6 charged -- charge contained markings. According to professional
7 literature which dealt with the markings of artillery ammunition, things
8 were described in detail, and we used that. The markings consisted of
9 the designation of the producer, the year of production, the series in
10 that year when that device was manufactured. The letter markings
11 indicated the producer, the manufacturer. The former JNA -- or, rather,
12 its purpose industry had well-established markings for the companies that
13 produced explosives. For example, SRB denoted --
14 Q. Mr. Suljevic, sorry to cut you off. We will go through some
16 MR. WEBER: If the Prosecution at this time could please display
17 an amended version that we sought leave to amend in our 92 ter motion of
18 65 ter 19024. We have uploaded it as 19024A.
19 JUDGE ORIE: It is part of the motion. Mr. Lukic, no objection
20 against it being used at this point in time. Therefore, the amended
21 version is now part of your 65 ter list.
22 MR. WEBER: If the Prosecution could please have page 2 of
23 65 ter 19024A.
24 Q. Mr. Suljevic, in the previous answer that you just gave, you
25 stated that you used professional literature which dealt with markings of
1 artillery ammunition. Do you recognise the document before you as one of
2 those pieces of literature?
3 A. Yes. This was one of the basic books which dealt with markings.
4 This is a textbook which was used by the students of the military academy
5 in Zagreb. It was an institution of higher military learning in Zagreb.
6 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 4 of both
7 versions of this document.
8 Q. Mr. Suljevic, I'd like to direct your attention to the centre of
9 the page, the part entitled "Designation for an explosive-filled series
10 of projectiles."
11 Could you please explain to us what kind of projectiles does this
12 section relate to?
13 A. This relates to all projectiles filled with some explosive,
14 either gunpowder or something else, some other explosive agent. And this
15 could be either primary charge or the casings of artillery projectiles
16 including mortars, and that's when they were filled with explosives.
17 This is what is described here.
18 Q. There's reference to a table 11 in this section. I'd like to
19 take you to that table right now.
20 MR. WEBER: If the Prosecution could please go two pages forward
21 in both versions.
22 I'm sorry, Your Honour, did you have a question?
23 JUDGE ORIE: No. I see it already. Yes.
24 MR. WEBER: If we could actually go one page back. I'm sorry.
25 Q. In the far left column of this table is an explanation for the
1 designations for projectiles produced in the former Yugoslavia. I'd like
2 to draw your attention to the example provided for KB 5701. Could you
3 just take us through this example and explain what these markings mean.
4 A. As you can see, there are two parts of a designation, the letter
5 part and the numerical part. KB is in Cyrillic, and it stands for Krusik
6 Valjevo. It's actually not KB but KV, but in Cyrillic. Krusik Valjevo.
7 Fifty-seven, the first two digits in the numerical part,
8 represent the year when the projectile was filled with charge. The rest
9 of the numerical part designate the series in the year when that
10 projectile was filled with the charge, because explosives were filled in
11 batches, in series, and each of the batches, each of the series, bore its
12 own series number.
13 Q. Just to take you to another example, in paragraph 48 of your
14 amalgamated statement, you comment on a portion of a report related to a
15 120-millimetre mortar projectile that landed on Asikovac Street on the
16 date of 22 May 1995. You indicate that the marking KB 9502 is short for
17 Krusik Valjevo in Serbia and the year of manufacture is 1995 as part of
18 the second series.
19 Do I understand correctly that these markings indicate that the
20 mortar was manufactured in Serbia during the same year that it impacted
21 upon this location?
22 A. We're talking about the primary charge. This means that the
23 primary charge was manufactured and inserted in the casing in 1995.
24 Q. Just so we're clear --
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just want some clarification.
1 MR. WEBER: Yes.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: At lines 12 at page 42, starting from line 12, the
3 witness says:
4 "57, the first two digits in the numerical part, represent the
5 year when the projectile was filled with charge."
6 And then he says:
7 "The rest of the numerical part designate the series in the year
8 when that projectile was filled with the charge."
9 MR. WEBER: I understand.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not quite sure I understand the distinction
11 between those two.
12 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I think that it would be best to just
13 ask the witness to -- if he could further clarify that for us.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you could clarify that.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The numerical part -- or,
16 rather, the letter part indicates the manufacturer, i.e., the company
17 when all the works were done. The first part of the numerical part
18 designates the year of production. If it's 57, that means the year 1957.
19 In the year 1957, there were several series or several batches when
20 explosives were filled. It was not done continuously. There were
21 interruptions between the series, and each of the series in the year was
22 designated by a different number, a different serial number.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I would have one additional question in relation to
25 this. You said filling was the primary charge which was filled. Do I
1 understand that you are talking about the primary charge as the explosive
2 charge? So not a charge which served for propelling the projectile, but
3 the charge with explosives which were to explode upon impact? Is that
4 how I have to understand your primary charge, use of that term?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We're talking about the primary
6 propellant, the gunpowder which is inserted in the -- in the propellant
7 part. In this particular case, we did not find a fragment with the
8 designation that would indicate as to when the charge was filled in the
9 casing of the explosive device. Maybe the casing was manufactured in
10 1994 or perhaps even earlier.
11 JUDGE ORIE: So we are here talking about the propelling charge
12 only, and that is what these designations stand for, that is the --
13 where, what year, what batch, or am I -- let me just --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this case, yes, that would be
15 the case.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So all the numbers here, et cetera, we're
17 talking about are exclusively about the propelling charge of the
18 projectile, not the exploding part.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When we're talking about the
20 markings, this relates to the primary charge, and in general terms we're
21 talking about two different charges, the charge in the casing and the
22 propelling charge.
23 When you say "filling," it applies to both cases, the case of
24 filling the shell casing with explosive or the propellant charge, and the
25 designations are the same for both, but it all depended on the
1 manufacturers. The markings will not be identical for different
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So similar designation could be found on the
4 body of the shell and on the propelling part and would be interpreted in
5 a similar way but might be different.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. If a primary charge was
7 manufactured in one company, that does not necessarily mean that the
8 projectile, the casing itself, was made in the same factory. That may
9 well be the case, but it doesn't have to be. In any case, whatever
10 markings are found, they indicate the manufacturer.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
12 MR. WEBER:
13 Q. Mr. Suljevic, today at page 6, lines 11 and 12, after I asked you
14 to clarify what you meant by "primary charge," you stated:
15 "The primary charge is on the lower side of the stabiliser."
16 Is this the location where you would find the markings that
17 you've described?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In your amalgamated statement, you comment on a number of other
20 reports related to other shelling incidents in 1995. Six of these
21 reports note markings on 120-millimetre stabilisers as KB 9309, KB 9402,
22 two stabilisers recovered nine days apart had the markings KB 9501, and
23 two stabilisers recovered ten days apart had the markings KB 9503. From
24 these markings can you confirm that all of these primary charges were
25 manufactured in Serbia at Krusik between 1993 and 1995?
1 A. Yes. However, the letters should be KB in Cyrillic standing for
2 KV, not KD, at least that's what I heard in the interpretation. So KD is
3 wrong. It should be KB in Cyrillic standing for KV. In other words, all
4 of these primary charges were completed. They were manufactured and
5 completed in the Krusik Valjevo factory from 1993 to 1995. This is what
6 I can interpret from the markings.
7 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders
8 65 ter 10924A into evidence as a public exhibit. For the Chamber's
9 reference, there are diagrams that are also uploaded as part of this. If
10 you saw in the earlier paragraph, there was references to these images
11 and they are also attached.
12 If -- with Your Honours' leave, too, I can take the witness
13 through another report if the Chamber and Mr. Lukic would like, but I
14 would tender also -- 65 ter 15696A is another report authored by the
15 witness concerning the shelling on 2 July 1995 in Novi Grad where the
16 markings on the primary charge were found to be KB 9404. We are offering
17 this report to show a consistent pattern in the use of certain types of
18 projectiles during shellings on Sarajevo.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
20 MR. LUKIC: No objections.
21 JUDGE ORIE: No objection. Madam Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Document 19024A receives number P935,
23 Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then we also have 15696A.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number P936, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: P935 and P936 are admitted into evidence.
2 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders
3 the witness. No further questions at this time.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Mr. Lukic, perhaps the best would be to
5 take the break first before you start your cross-examination.
6 MR. LUKIC: I agree, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then we will take another break. Would you please
8 follow the usher, Witness.
9 [The witness stands down]
10 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break, and we resume at 10 minutes past
12 --- Recess taken at 11.49 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 12.12 p.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Suljevic, you'll now be cross-examined by
17 Mr. Lukic. Mr. Lukic is counsel for Mr. Mladic.
18 Mr. Lukic, please proceed.
19 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:
21 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Suljevic.
22 A. Good afternoon.
23 Q. I will start with the issue of fragments that my learned friend
24 Mr. Weber asked you about. You told us that you did not carry out any
25 chemical analysis, that you only did the visual inspection of the
1 material retrieved. Is it true that the core of the shell, particularly
2 a mortar shell, remains embedded into the ground?
3 A. Are you referring to the stabiliser?
4 Q. No. I'm referring to the core, the fuse. Does that become
5 embedded into the ground?
6 A. Well, it depends on the type of the surface that it hits.
7 Q. Thank you. There was mention today of documents that were
8 drafted by the KDZ. Did it ever happen in your department that, for
9 example, a person does something and then you were the one who signed it?
10 A. No. It never happened that somebody else did something and that
11 then I put my signature on it. I cannot confirm that.
12 Q. Is it also true --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could you make a short pause between answer and
14 question, and could I invite you, Mr. Suljevic, also to do the same.
15 Otherwise, the interpreters will not catch all the words spoken.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Are you receiving any interpretation, because I have been
18 notified that you're not receiving it.
19 A. No, I'm not.
20 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it the witness on channel 6, where
21 apparently translation is received.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Can you hear it now?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Is it also true that whenever you drafted something, somebody
1 else would sign it?
2 A. It is absolutely true.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 A. It was the head who signed all the documents.
5 Q. Yes, as the person who was in control.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now have Exhibit P934.
7 Q. I'm talking about the photographs taken in Ilijas that you have
8 already seen. What we are looking at is on page 6 -- or, actually, it's
9 not. Anyway, the photograph that you see before you, did you ever check
10 the content of the barrels, and I mean you personally?
11 A. I never visited the site where these barrels were, therefore I
12 never checked it. However, during the process of reintegration, we
13 destroyed all these devices that we discovered. On one occasion I had an
14 opportunity to see a barrel full of TNT, and I was present when it was
16 Q. Did you locate any barrels filled with concrete?
17 A. Not I. I didn't find any barrels or anything similar filled with
18 concrete. However, we did found a boiler bodies and also that was the --
19 the device that we destroyed during this integration, and these bodies
20 were filled with explosives as well.
21 Q. Did you know that devices similar to the ones in the photo were
22 used to break through a minefield?
23 A. No, I'm not aware of that.
24 Q. Thank you. You graduated from the faculty of mechanical
25 engineering. In your career did you have an opportunity to investigate
1 bipolar melting and welding of metals?
2 A. Well, that was part of the welding course in the first year of my
3 studies, and one of those aspects was the connection of metals as a
4 result of explosions. I never had any practical experience in that area.
5 However, I am familiar with it.
6 Q. In other words, can you tell me that the explosion causes the
7 melting and bipolar welding of metal parts of the shells and that these
8 parts remain in the ground provided the shell becomes embedded there?
9 A. Yes, it is quite possible. At any rate, even if the surface was
10 made of concrete, it did happen that certain parts remained embedded
11 under the concrete surface.
12 Q. Let us now focus on the military document which prescribes the
13 marks on shells and grenades, and you spoke about the markings that you
14 discovered on projectiles. Can you tell me on which specific part of the
15 shell did you find these markings where you said that, for example,
16 Cyrillic KV and then the year and the serial number? Which particular
17 part was it imprinted on?
18 A. Well, it all depended on the specific projectile. The textbook
19 that we saw provides detailed explanations for each and every projectile
20 indicating where the markings is made. So they are not all on the same
21 and identical places on a projectile. We analysed the markings, and if
22 we managed to find a fragment bearing the markings, preferably the full
23 markings, then we would use that textbook as a reference.
24 Q. For example, on an 82-millimetre shell, where would you find the
25 marking KV 5701? Or KB, if we pronounce it in the Latin alphabet.
1 A. Whenever I would start my work, before that I would check the
2 textbook, because in principle when we retrieve a fragment, it is not
3 very simple to establish from which particular part it came, whereas the
4 textbook has a clear indication of that. I think that it might be
5 somewhere close to the centering ring, but in any event, I would refer to
6 the literature in order to be sure which part we are talking about.
7 Q. And how was this marking made? Was it imprinted? Was it
9 A. Well, they were imprinted. At least on the projectiles made in
10 the former Yugoslavia. The markings were etched.
11 Q. Thank you. We'll come back to this question again when we speak
12 about specific incidents.
13 As we established, you are a mechanical engineer by profession.
14 Let me just ask you: Is it true that the mechanics is the basic study at
15 the faculty that you graduated from?
16 A. Yes. I am a mechanical engineer, and I finished the production
17 course. There were other courses as well.
18 Q. Thank you. You said you worked at the Zrak factory where you
19 were involved in the production of sighting devices, and before 1993 you
20 didn't have any specific knowledge of ballistics. Is that true?
21 A. Yes, it's true.
22 Q. Then you said that in 1993, you and another two colleagues of
23 yours were transferred to the MUP, to the Counter Sabotage Protection
24 Unit. Who were the two colleagues who were transferred alongside you?
25 A. One of them was an electrical engineer. He finished military
1 technical academy in Zagreb. And the other one was a mechanical
2 technician. He had been employed for many years at the Zrak company, and
3 he had some 10 years of experience more than I and this other colleague
5 Q. Can you tell us their names or do we have to move into private
7 A. Well, I would prefer a private session if that is not a problem.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please move to a private
10 JUDGE ORIE: We briefly move into private session.
11 [Private session]
25 [Open session]
1 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. In your statement, you stated that the KDZ of the RBiH MUP was a
5 unit for counter-intelligence protection. Its official task was to
6 protect individuals in places where they moved and protect them from
7 planted explosives. We find this in your statement under paragraph 4 in
8 both versions. Do you still believe that that was the main task of the
9 KDZ where you worked?
10 A. Yes. It is still KDZ's task. During the war, the scope of our
11 work was much bigger because of inspections, expert reports that we had
12 to draft about explosions and so on and so forth.
13 Q. And now I would like to reinstate that the protection was against
14 planting explosives. During the war did you have anything to do with
15 planting explosives?
16 A. In any case our work was preventative. When we carried out our
17 normal work, we prevented such cases. I don't remember a single case
18 when we found that something was planted before meetings when we
19 inspected routes that protected individuals use. There were no cases
20 indicating that explosives were used in order to put protected
21 individuals at risk.
22 Q. Thank you. You mentioned that the head of the KDZ was Mirza
23 Jamakovic. What was his profession? What is his profession?
24 A. He has a degree in chemistry. He is a chemistry engineer.
25 Q. All right. When the KDZ received a request from an investigating
1 judge to get involved in an investigation, who was it who decided on who
2 would be sent to the site?
3 A. In principle it would be the chief. The chief deployed the
4 personnel to various tasks and sites.
5 Q. Could you personally, for example, when you heard an explosion,
6 could you personally take the equipment and go to the place of the
7 explosion -- or, rather, did you have to wait for somebody to tell you to
8 go there together with the team? How did that function in practice?
9 A. Nobody could take the equipment of their own will and go to the
10 place of an explosion. There was a procedure in place. First we
11 received a call from the security services centre who were the first to
12 receive information from the spot. Police stations belonged to them, and
13 they were closely connected. Through them we received information and
14 calls to go to a certain place because they needed our assistance.
15 Q. The chief of your service, Mr. Jamakovic, was he also involved in
16 operations on the ground, or was he only in charge of managing the KDZ?
17 A. I was in KDZ from November 1993, and after that he was not
18 involved in operations on the ground. It is possible that from time to
19 time in certain cases he would join a team, and I'm not excluding the
20 possibility that he was also with us on a couple of occasions, but he was
21 not involved in operations. He was a manager. He managed the department
22 and deployed personnel more than anything else.
23 Q. Mr. Jamakovic lost his arm. Do you know how and when?
24 A. Mr. Jamakovic lost his right hand before I joined the KDZ. That
25 was before November 1993, in other words. According to what I learned
1 from my colleagues, he lost his hand when a hand grenade exploded in his
3 JUDGE ORIE: Before you continue, could I ask you when did that
4 happen? Did that happen during the armed conflict, at least as it was
5 told to you, or was it from before?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It did happen during the war. I
7 believe that that happened in early 1993.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Was that a hand grenade that was part of his own
9 equipment, armament, or was it during an investigation that he found a
10 hand grenade which then exploded?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, according to what
12 I know, he was involved -- involved in some testings, and that hand
13 grenade exploded in his hand. That's as much as I know. They did not
14 detect explosives. They were involved in either testing of some
15 equipment or filling the assets that would then be delivered to the units
16 on the ground, but I don't know.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Q. One of your tasks was to locate remains and establish what
20 projectile was involved. That's what you told us. You drafted official
21 reports about the results of your investigative work; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like to call up 1D743. I'm
24 interested in the first page of that document.
25 Q. I'm interested in the number, and you were already asked that at
1 previous trials. This is one of your reports. Do you recognise it? Or
2 perhaps you want us to look at the last page?
3 A. Yes, please. I want to be absolutely sure.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
5 MR. WEBER: Is there a translation for me to follow?
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, there is no translation.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I think that's what was -- Judge Moloto was seeking
8 as well, and the explanation, especially if it has been used in previous
10 MR. LUKIC: That's my understanding. We'll ask for this document
11 to be MFI'd and hopefully we'll solve the problem soon, and we'll just
12 need the gentleman to recognise his signature, and we'll discuss the
13 number and the first page. Nothing else for now.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Nevertheless, I would urge you to provide the
15 Prosecution with an English version, because what you're interested in
16 might not necessarily be the same as what the Prosecution is interested
17 in, but let's proceed for the time being.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Q. Mr. Suljevic, is this your signature at the bottom of this page?
20 A. Yes. It is.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we go back to the first page,
22 please. We saw a number, 00945615. The document was provided to us by
23 the Prosecution, and if they don't have a translation, we will make sure
24 that it is provided very soon.
25 We can see a number here at the top of the page. Could you
1 please zoom in on the number to make things easier for Mr. Suljevic.
2 The number is 02/4-233-648. The document was issued on the
3 17 July 1995.
4 Q. Let's first explain the last part of this number, 648. What is
5 it? What does the whole numerical designation consist of?
6 A. This is the protocol number of the document which was received by
7 the republican Ministry of the Interior. It was not received by the
8 department but in the MUP. 02/4 was the designation of our department,
9 and 233, I don't know what that is. That is the way numbers are
10 distributed. And last number is the last number in the log-book of our
11 protocol. We had nothing whatsoever to do in our department with this
12 number. This is the number that we were given when we received the
13 document, and when we issued a document related to this, we had to use
14 the same number.
15 Q. In other words, somebody else drafted this document, then you
16 received it and signed it. You were not the one who typed this document.
17 You said that you did not type this number 648.
18 A. No, no, no. When a request was received, it's an incoming
19 document with a cover sheet with this number. We continue working on it.
20 We use the same number. It's the case file number. Whatever is received
21 later on in respect of the same case has to be given the same number.
22 The only thing we add is perhaps the date, but we have to use the same
23 number that was on the incoming document.
24 Q. Now I understand. Thank you. In other words, somebody in the
25 MUP headquarters marked all the cases with numbers.
1 A. Yes. Every case was given a number. It could happen, for
2 example, that documents with bigger or higher numbers could be pre-dated.
3 Some cases lasted longer. They may have been received earlier, and they
4 were then dispatched later when the case was completed. So it is not
5 possible to collate the case number with the date when our report was
6 issued. They do not have to correspond. There doesn't have to be a
7 logical relationship between the two.
8 Q. But as far as I could understand you, you said that the last
9 number, 648, on this document was preassigned to the case at the moment
10 when the case was assigned to your unit, to you; right?
11 A. Yes, that's right. But let's clarify a little. Maybe it will be
12 somewhat clear.
13 That case, 648, may have been received on a certain date,
14 whereas, for example, the case 649 was received later but was less
15 complex and the results could have been dispatched before the results
16 of -- of the case 648. The two do not have to be interconnected in that
18 Q. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let's focus on what apparently is the issue. This
20 is administrative example of case numbers, and let's see where the
21 problem lies.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. In other words, your explanation for the mismatch between the
24 chronology or the chronological sequence in the numerical designation is
25 the fact that some cases were more complex and took longer to resolve.
1 However, do you know that there are huge discrepancies and differences
2 between documents when it comes to their numbers and dates?
3 A. I don't know what you're talking about. I don't know what you're
4 asking me. However, I was involved in investigations, and this date is
5 the date when the case was completed, and as for the number of the
6 protocol, that was received on the incoming document.
7 Q. I will no longer belabour that. We will finish with this.
8 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, just for the record, we did check the
9 ERN in our system. It's part of a 100-page ERN range and we do not
10 appear to have a translation for it. I see based on a general
11 description that might relate to a shelling that occurred on the
12 28th of June 1995, of the RTV building. We would still appreciate a
13 translation of the document.
14 JUDGE ORIE: What I do not fully understand, Mr. Lukic, is how it
15 could have been used in another case without translation.
16 MR. LUKIC: That is the information I got, and I was even more
17 surprised now today when we have those documents tendered by -- created
18 by VRS and not tender the document created by this witness. I would
19 expect that the Prosecution would tender the documents created by this
21 JUDGE ORIE: Which case was it?
22 MR. LUKIC: I was -- I thought it's from Karadzic case, but I
23 have to check really. I cannot --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. LUKIC: -- confirm that.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Because we cannot see -- without a translation, we
2 cannot even start thinking about possible contradictions between dates
3 and numbers and -- there's only one thing that -- but perhaps, Mr. Weber,
4 I'll first give you an opportunity to --
5 MR. WEBER: I think Your Honour is just noting this. We're
6 just -- we'd appreciate a translation. I will also try to seek
7 assistance of language assistant to -- without that we can't formulate
8 whether or not we would or would not object to the tendering of the
9 document. We understand it's [indiscernible].
10 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Witness, unless I misunderstood you. You said
11 the number had got something to do with completing that case, which
12 surprises me, because administratively, one usually gives a number to a
13 case at its beginning rather than at its end, because you wouldn't know
14 how to -- what number to mention in your reporting, correspondence,
15 communications. Could you explain how that happened that you only
16 assigned a number at the very end of an investigation or a case?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. The protocol
18 reference number was entered at the time of request for an investigation.
19 The only thing that we added was the date, and that was the date when the
20 case was completed.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And was that date added to the number or are you
22 referring to, for example, this document where we find a date mentioned
23 in the document after the word "Dana"? Or were you referring to another
24 date? I see in the document that it's the 8th of July with a different
25 protocol reference number preceding it.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I was referring to the date on
2 this document, 17th of July, and it indicates the date of the completion
3 of the assignment. And the number beneath that was the number of the
4 document sent by the CSB Sarajevo on the 8th of July requesting us to
5 carry out certain activities. So this number is totally unrelated to
6 anything that we did. It was the number from the CSB protocol, except
7 with a designation 233, which is identical because it was classified as
8 the case that belongs to the same group, group 233. Other activities had
9 other numbers, not 233.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
11 MR. LUKIC: Probably I had the wrong choice of a document, and we
12 will be discussing the documents during our cross-examination, so maybe
13 we can clarify this on another document that has translation. Maybe that
14 would be easier.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I hope so, because it took quite a while with no
16 great results until now.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Sir, you made a drawing today of the traces left by a mortar
19 shell on a surface as well as the traces left by a rotating projectile.
20 If that were to be plotted or transferred from the flat surface to a
21 wall, would we have the same traces with regard to the descent angle, for
22 example, of a shell?
23 A. Yes, definitely, because, as a rule, the density of the traces
24 from shrapnel were concentrated on the side from which the fire
25 originated, that is to say, from the direction where it came and upon the
1 impact with the surface. Let me just explain a little bit more. If
2 there was a ricochet, it is possible for the projectile to change its
3 trajectory and then this will not indicate a precise point of fire.
4 Q. Then in that case there will be no rose-shaped trace.
5 A. If the projectile hit it regularly, we have this paw-shaped
6 trace. For the projectile it is necessary for the fuse to be activated.
7 Q. Excuse me, you are talking about the end point of impact, and I
8 am talking about ricochet. There is no explosion in that event.
9 A. Yes, there can only be physical trace of where the projectile
10 impacted, but there would be no explosion.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I notice that there's quite some confusion in what
12 the questions is about and what the answer are about. If we are talking
13 about these kind of things, let's be clear. Let's use sketches. Let's
14 use whatever. But the angle of descent and the angle of impact on a wall
15 my not be exactly the same. Therefore, let's be very precise in our
16 terminology in this request. Just to say that the angle of descent could
17 be understood as the angle under which the projectile approaches the
18 earth surface, that's usually considered to be the angle of descent,
19 whereas the angle of impact, if it falls on a wall, could be the angle
20 between the direction in which the projectile hit that wall and the wall
22 Without clear visualisation, these matters are at risk to confuse
23 rather than to assist. Could everyone keep that in mind, and I'll do the
25 MR. LUKIC: Can I continue, Your Honour?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please, as long as you keep in mind what I
2 just said.
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
4 Q. [Interpretation] Did you have any information, now that you
5 mentioned it, about the conditions under which a projectile may ricochet,
6 and what do you know about that?
7 A. Yes. A projectile can ricochet if it comes under a very acute
8 angle with regard to the surface, which means that the tip of the fuse
9 does not touch the surface but it ricochets instead. Maybe I can make a
10 drawing of that for the benefit of the Chamber in order to clarify this
12 Q. If you could be so kind to do it briefly.
13 A. [Marks]. I hope I've managed to depict this properly. If a
14 projectile comes under angle alpha, which is very small, it makes a
15 ricochet. The projectile itself only damages the surface. The descent
16 angle is not nearly the same as the one when the surface was touched for
17 the first time. According to the theory and firing tables, this should
18 not have happened with this projectile. It shouldn't have exploded.
19 Q. Thank you. We shall discuss the issue of ricochets at later
21 Can you tell us what was the largest calibre of projectile that
22 you registered, and would you agree that that was 128-millimetre calibre,
23 the one that I found in your documents?
24 A. I cannot remember any reports dealing with higher calibres, but
25 we did have samples of 155-millimetres of projectiles fired at the city
1 of Sarajevo, and we still keep them in our department. So I'm talking
2 about the 155 howitzer. I'm not sure if I was personally involved in
3 these examinations, but we have a whole series of unexploded projectile
4 of that calibre.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, unless you wanted to have added something
6 to the sketch, I think that we should have it in evidence as an exhibit.
7 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. I have nothing to add.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Document created with the witness in court
10 receives number D200, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: D200 is admitted into evidence. And I suggest that
12 we use the angle alpha from now on as the angle of descent and the angle
13 beta as the angle of impact. That is the angle between the direction of
14 the projectile upon impact, the angle with the surface on which it
15 impacts. Please proceed.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 Q. In paragraph 34 in B/C/S, page 10, and in English page 6, you
18 said that you only made photographs of the location, did your own
19 measurements and calculated the direction from which the projectile
21 "UNPROFOR decided their own conclusions -- made their own
22 conclusions about the direction irrespective and independently of what we
23 did. After that we would compare our respective conclusions, and as
24 regards the direction, there were no inconsistencies between the two."
25 A. That is correct, but I have nothing on the screen.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. Could we please have
2 P889, page 10, and page 6 in the English version.
3 Q. I was reading part of paragraph 34 of your statement. Can you
4 see it now?
5 A. Yes, I can.
6 Q. Were you ever present while representatives of UNPROFOR claimed
7 that the shot had come from the territory controlled by the Army of BH?
8 A. No. At least I never heard of that. And I never discussed this
9 topic with any of them. I have no knowledge about that.
10 Q. This is in relation to incoming fire. Now, let me ask you about
11 the points of impact of the shell. You said that you never concluded
12 that the target was a military one. You also said that you never
13 participated in the investigations of incidents aimed against units of
14 the Army of BH.
15 A. Yes, that is correct.
16 Q. Let me just say -- very well. You gave me an answer. Did you
17 conduct investigations in part of the town that were close to the
18 separation line?
19 A. Yes, we did. A couple of hundred of metres. We knew that
20 civilians were being killed at 200 metres from the separation line.
21 Q. In the course of your work, did you come across a situation where
22 units of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina were billeted in those houses?
23 A. I have no information to that effect. In principle, civilians
24 outside buildings were the victims in most cases. Sometimes they were
25 killed inside the houses, but the majority of the incidents that I
1 investigated happened outdoors, whether on the ground or on some hard
3 Q. Let us now concentrate on the incident on Vrbovska, which
4 happened on the 2nd of July, 1995.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need 65 ter document 15696. It's
6 a long document, at least the version that we have. It has 436 pages,
7 and I see that we have an English translation on the screen, although we
8 couldn't locate one. This is the KDZ Department for Crime and Forensics.
9 Q. On page 1 it is stated in a report drafted on the 20th of August,
10 1995, that Ahmet Bijelac was killed. Could you see that? Ahmed Bijelac.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. On page 3 it is stated that Ahmet Bilejac was killed. And then
13 on page 15, in the post-mortem report the name is Ahmed Bjelak. In the
14 B/C/S version we can see a statement provided by his wife. It is stated
15 herein that he, meaning her husband, had set out to the barracks. An
16 aggressor shell fell in the playground at Vrbovska Street at the given
18 Do you know whether there are barracks close to that street?
19 A. Let me just explain. The first document I was shown was not
20 issued by our department. It was issued by the CSB. They had a
21 department for forensics and the KDZ. It's their report. I suppose that
22 the mistakes in the family names arise from the fact that those documents
23 were issued by different institutions, but I'm not familiar with this at
24 all. Vrbovska Street is in the annex. I don't know whether there are
25 any barracks nearby -- actually, there are the Viktor Bubanj Barracks
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber is already for a while on his feet.
3 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I was just standing to hopefully
4 provide some assistance as to what is before the Chamber. Uploaded is a
5 rather large file containing many reports, photographs, other types of
6 documentation, statements, medical records of the such. The translation
7 relates to this witness's report. We tendered that as a sub-exhibit
8 under the same 65 ter plus A during -- at the end of our direct
9 examination. I am checking in our system, and we do appear to have a
10 couple additional translations to this documentation, but I just want to
11 make the Chamber aware that there's additional B/C/S documents that do
12 not correspond to the English translation before the Chamber.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We have in e-court an original of 436 pages,
14 and we have an English version of 5 pages. And it appears that what we
15 have on the screen now is in the English and in the B/C/S not the same,
16 but --
17 MR. LUKIC: It's not.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, let's try to look all at this same page
19 of the same document. Perhaps, Mr. Lukic, that's best done after the
21 Witness, we take a break of 20 minutes. After that, we are
22 organised again. You may follow the usher.
23 [The witness stands down]
24 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at 25 minutes to 2.00.
25 --- Recess taken at 1.15 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 1.38 p.m.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
3 [The witness takes the stand]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 Q. Mr. Suljevic, may we proceed?
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now I'd like to call up 1D769. It's
9 a map depicting one part of Sarajevo.
10 JUDGE ORIE: By the way, Mr. Lukic, what we had on our screen
11 previously seems to be page 11 in B/C/S out of 436, and it was the first
12 of the five pages.
13 MR. LUKIC: Let me check.
14 JUDGE ORIE: That's what we had earlier on our screens.
15 MR. LUKIC: Okay. [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Q. Before us we have a map depicting one part of Sarajevo. You
17 mentioned just a while ago the Viktor Bubanj Barracks. Would you be able
18 to mark that? There is an inscription, "Annex." Would the barracks be
20 A. Yes. I'll try and mark the barracks from memory. It is now the
21 court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In these documents, I did not see a
22 reference made to the Viktor Bubanj Barracks, but in any case, I'll try.
23 [Marks]. This is the location of the barracks. This is couple of
24 hundred metres from the beginning of Vrbovska Street, which leads up to
25 Mojmilo Hill.
1 Q. Can you mark Vrbovska Street by a line, and can you put a letter
2 V next to that line.
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. Again, can you use this map and mark the street that was then
5 known as Ozrenska and today it is Novo Pazarska.
6 A. [Marks]
7 Q. Would you agree with me that to the right --
8 A. I don't know how far it stretches, but I believe that the street
9 goes to the right-hand side brink of the map.
10 Q. Can you do that?
11 A. [Marks]
12 Q. And would you tell us whether you know that the separation line
13 was there on the right-hand side of the map. Not in the direction of
14 Mojmilo Hill but to the right.
15 A. Yes. In the direction of Grbavica, the Grbavica stadium was
16 either between the two lines or somewhere along the separation line. The
17 separation line went in that direction and Mojmilo Hill is up there, and
18 Ozrenska Street, I suppose it was somewhere in the vicinity of the
19 separation line.
20 Q. The Judge wants to put a question to you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I did not but I wanted to clear up the record.
22 That is the double line east-west or west-east is where the witness
23 marked Ozrenska Street. The marking V stands for the north-south bended
24 line, whereas the circle is for the Viktor Bubanj Barracks.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Now it all disappeared. I don't know what -- oh,
3 well, the witness is apparently very good in manipulating -- yes. The V
4 now still stands next to the north-south single line, and all the rest I
5 said remains valid.
6 MR. LUKIC: We would just tender this evidence -- this into
8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, map marked by the witness.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Receives number D201, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Is admitted into evidence.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. And now would I like to ask you whether you know that in
13 Vrbovska Street there was the command of one of the units of the
14 101st Motorised Brigade of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
15 A. No, I didn't know that.
16 Q. Very well. Do you know that the stretch -- or, rather, the
17 conflict line between Raca and Dobrinja was one of the lines where the
18 gravest battles were waged throughout the war?
19 A. I know that the Sarajevo-Dobrinja road was cut off initially and
20 there were check-points controlled by the BH Army, and later on there
21 were skirmishes and fighting going on on all separation lines, on the
22 slopes of Trebevic and Zuc, and so on and so forth. So I would not
23 qualify things in that way.
24 Q. Would you agree with me that on the Vraca-Mojmilo line the
25 BH Army could have positions mostly in settled areas?
1 A. Or on the brinks. The area's settled almost to the top. I don't
2 know where the lines were exactly, but it is possible that the lines went
3 along the brinks of the settled areas there.
4 Q. Thank you. Since you didn't know where the lines held by the
5 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina were exactly positioned, can we also agree
6 that you didn't know either whether any of those facilities located there
7 were civilian or military ones?
8 A. I don't know which facilities were being used by the BH Army,
9 therefore, I cannot ascertain whether there were any facilities shared by
10 both civilians and the army. I don't know that.
11 Q. We can see Mojmilo Hill here at the bottom of the map. Do you
12 know that there was a water tank there and under whose control it was?
13 A. I know that there was a water tank. I don't know its exact
14 micro-location. If I remember correctly, at the beginning of the war, I
15 know that a tank was firing on Sarajevo and Dobrinja, but after that I
16 don't know if the line shifted. However, I'm not sure about this, and
17 therefore I wouldn't like to go into any details relating to something
18 that I'm not sure about.
19 Q. Of course we expect you to give us the answers only about what
20 you know for sure.
21 Do you know that at the foot of Mojmilo Hill, Dobrinja was
22 connected with the rest of Sarajevo?
23 A. At the foot of the hill, yes.
24 Q. Can we please move to the incident on Safeta Hadzica, but before
25 that, let's discuss the television building.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And for that we need document 1D768
2 [Realtime transcript read in error "1D786"]. Can we please enlarge the
3 monument or this memorial plaque so that we can see what's written on it.
4 Q. This memorial plaque was put up in honour of the man who was
5 securing the BH TV. He was killed on the 28th of June, 1995. And it
6 says on the plaque "Ibrahim Salaka shall be remembered. Severed youth
7 and severed camaraderie. Members of the 3rd Company." You know that the
8 TV building had a military security detail around it?
9 A. I think that the TV was secured by the police. That is as far as
10 I know.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, just to correct the record, the record
12 mentions 1D678 -- 786, whereas we are looking at 1D768. I think you gave
13 the right number and we are looking at the document you would like to
14 see. So we are looking at 68 rather than 86. Please proceed.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Q. In the course of your work, did you see that artillery of Army of
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina was firing from the vicinity of the TV building? And
18 I'm referring particularly to multiple-rocket launchers.
19 A. No, I didn't see that, but if we can go back to this memorial
20 plaque. I knew the deceased personally. His name was Salaka, and his
21 nickname was Majo. I think he was a police officer when he was killed.
22 Before that, before the war, he was probably in the army, and it is
23 possible that this plaque was put up by his fellow combatants. This is
24 the first time that I'm seeing it.
25 But I never saw any fire being opened from within or without the
1 compound of the TV building, nor did I see any artillery pieces deployed
2 in that area. Of course, I didn't go there on a daily basis. Sometimes
3 months would pass by before I went there, but as I say, I never noticed
4 anything of that sort.
5 Q. You are talking about the period between May and September 1995,
6 because in UNPROFOR reports it was said that Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina
7 was opening fire from that area, but since you said that you didn't visit
8 that location every day, let us move on.
9 Let's now move to Dositejeva, numbers 2 and 4. First of all, let
10 us establish that this address is in the vicinity of the Presidency of
11 BH. Is that correct?
12 A. Yes, that's correct.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have in e-court exhibit
14 of the Prosecution 65 ter 10153.
15 Q. You can see that this document was produced by your department.
16 I'm going to show you your signature on the last page. Do you recognise
17 this document?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please go to the last page of
20 the document. Actually, in e-court we need page 5. Can we please have
21 page 5 in B/C/S so that we can look at Mr. Suljevic's signature. Can we
22 zoom in into the bottom part of the page so that we can read the
24 Q. Mr. Suljevic, is this your signature on page 5?
25 A. Yes, it is.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We can go back to page 1 in both
3 Q. In the second paragraph we can see that this document deals with
4 the request mentioned in the previous paragraph, and it says that at
5 around 11.05, on 16th of June, 1995, a projectile fell on
6 Dositejeva Street. So this is the document that deals with the
7 Dositejeva Street incident; is that correct?
8 A. Yes, it is.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now have 1D722 in
10 e-court. It's a map.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
12 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, is the Defence tendering the previous
13 document, 65 ter 10153?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Are we done with it already, or --
15 MR. LUKIC: I'm not done yet.
16 JUDGE ORIE: No.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I am sorry, but apparently it seems
18 that the map has been rotated counter-clockwise in the e-court, so if we
19 can rotate it back clockwise. Can we save it as it is?
20 [In English] After the witness draws his sketches on the map, can
21 then it be saved?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that makes sense. Otherwise, we have another
23 map of the same. Please guide the witness what he's supposed to mark.
24 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I will. Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, obviously this is a more serious problem
1 than we originally thought. I'll have to go back to this, because
2 obviously one part of the map disappeared in e-court -- actually,
3 portions of the map on all four sides, and these are exactly the portions
4 that we need.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Is there anyway you get the whole map on the screen?
6 If not, then we'll wait for a later moment.
7 MR. LUKIC: Yes. We have to upload the map again with all its
9 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We'll -- we'll wait for that to be done. In
10 general, Mr. Lukic, if you upload maps, could you always take care that
11 at least there is either a clear grid reference so that we know what
12 distances we are looking at, or that there's a clear scale on the map.
13 That's one.
14 Second, preferably maps should be used which indicate street
15 names as they were in the period 1991-1995, rather than the present maps.
16 Roads may have been changed, names likely will have changed. Therefore,
17 it better assists to use the old maps with clear grid references.
18 MR. LUKIC: But sometimes we are not able to get old maps,
19 Your Honour. We are -- we brought the map probably from this time, but
20 if there is any discrepancy, we would mention it, and I did it with this
21 gentleman today.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You did it relation to Ozrenska Street. You
23 could consider to look at the Prosecution's maps, who are often referring
24 to the names of the streets as they were at the time.
25 MR. LUKIC: We did, but we couldn't use for these purposes. We
1 tried to use their maps, but we couldn't.
2 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Thank you. We'll have to leave this topic, but we'll get back to
6 it. Let us now focus on the incident of 28th June 1995 relating to the
7 TV building. It is crucial in order to connect it to the incident on
8 Safeta Hadzica Street, number 52.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need Prosecution Exhibit 10167.
10 Q. We can see that this is a document produced by the Sarajevo CSB
11 on the 28th of June, 1995, and under number 9 in the list we can see your
12 name, indicating that you took part in the on-site investigation of this
14 Do you recall visiting the site on this occasion?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have document 10166 in
17 e-court. This is a sketch of the scene, and we need page 3 in both
19 Q. In this sketch, and you remember we talked about ricocheting, can
20 you explain to us where was the point of impact of the bomb, how it
21 ricochetted and where it actually exploded?
22 A. Yes, only I would like to say that during the on-site
23 investigation at the place of explosion, we did not find any trace
24 evidence of rocket motors. I heard from my colleagues that those motors
25 had later been discovered in the river Miljacka, but we didn't find them
1 during our on-site investigation, and we did not mention them.
2 On the roof of this building an impression was discovered --
3 Q. Can you please put numbers and tell us exactly what you're
4 talking about.
5 A. First I'll draw an arrow to show the direction from which the
6 projectile came. [Marks]. I'll put number 1 next to the imprint on the
7 roof, which was made as a result of the projectile flight. This is the
8 elliptical part here. And then I'll put number 2 next to the crater and
9 the place where the projectile exploded.
10 Q. Did it have to ricochet once again in order to hit the wall on
11 the left-hand side?
12 A. Yes. In order to hit the wall of the adjacent building, i.e.,
13 the adjacent wall of the Radio-Television building. If I'm not mistaken,
14 if there are no other obstacles that should be the wall. I've marked it
15 by number 3.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted, please? I'm
18 afraid we will have to continue tomorrow because we are close to the end
19 of our working day.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
21 MR. WEBER: No objection to the marked exhibit, but the
22 Prosecution would just place on the record now that there's three
23 exhibits that have been shown to the witness that have not yet been
24 tendered. I do have record of them if the Chamber would like. We
25 believe that they should be tendered because they were shown to the
1 witness and the witness provided comments.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I must say that - let's first start with the
3 last one - I'm lost. I do not know what is a roof. I do not know what
4 is an open space. I've got no idea. A wall --
5 MR. LUKIC: We will go through pictures as well.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then, could this be already --
7 Madam Registrar, could a number be assigned to what we have at this
8 moment on our screen, which is the sketch.
9 THE REGISTRAR: The document as marked by the witness receives
10 number D202, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: D202 is admitted into evidence.
12 Mr. Lukic, any --
13 MR. LUKIC: I know I missed to tender 10167.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now, I have a bit of a problem with that one
15 before you tender it. In the original version I see long lists of names
16 on page 3 and 4, which are not found in the English translation, if I'm
17 not mistaken, which is a three-page document. So it seems that 10167,
18 that the English version does not correspond with the -- therefore, I
19 would rather have 10167 be marked for identification and that you verify,
20 Mr. Lukic and/or Mr. Weber, because it's a 65 ter document, to see
21 whether the English and the B/C/S correspond. The first page is still
22 okay, but the further we go. For example, if you look at the last page.
23 Last page in the original. I see a lot of names before the last series
24 starting with Tokalija, which I don't see in the English version. Oh,
25 the list of the wounded follows. It's not included in the -- well,
1 apparently in the original there is a list of wounded, whereas in English
2 there's not. I would like to have that clarified before we decide on the
4 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe in the third page of the
5 English translation, the translator just put in a notation under the
6 third paragraph in brackets, "The list of the wounded follows."
7 JUDGE ORIE: And then we're supposed to wait before we have a --
8 until when, Mr. Weber?
9 MR. WEBER: I just believe that --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Do you want us to admit it as it is now?
11 MR. WEBER: It is fine with the Prosecution to admit it as is. I
12 believe the translator just did not transcribe the names from the B/C/S
13 version into the translation.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I do not know whether there is any
15 description of the type of wounding. I've got no idea. Whatever the
16 case may be, could the parties either agree on what is left out or that
17 we'll receive a full translation.
18 Then 10167 to be marked for identification will receive number?
19 THE REGISTRAR: D203, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: D203 is MFI'd. Is there any other --
21 MR. LUKIC: And for the rest we'll have to revisit it tomorrow
22 since I had to leave that area.
23 JUDGE ORIE: We'll revisit all the rest tomorrow.
24 Mr. Suljevic, I would like to instruct you that you should not
25 speak or communicate in any other way with whomever about your testimony,
1 whether that is testimony you've given today or testimony still to be
2 given. If that is clear to you, I would -- we would like to see you back
3 tomorrow morning at 9.30 in this same courtroom. You may follow the
5 [The witness stands down]
6 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day, and we resume tomorrow,
7 Tuesday, the 12th of February at 9.30 in the morning in this same
8 Courtroom I.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.19 p.m.,
10 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 12th day
11 of February, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.