1 Thursday, 29 August 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [Accused not present]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
6 courtroom. Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you and good morning, Your Honour. This is
8 case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. I put on the record first
10 that Mr. Mladic is not present in court. Second, that the Chamber has
11 received a form absence from court, it says due to illness but it is
12 clear that Mr. Mladic, as is written down by the principal officer, that
13 he doesn't come to court because of family visit and it's not due to
14 illness, and that he waives his right to attend trial today and, as I do
15 understand, most likely tomorrow as well.
16 MR. LUKIC: That's correct, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll proceed in the absence of the accused.
18 Since the accused is not there, the Chamber would prefer to have
19 the usual schedule, which is sitting for one hour and a half, taking half
20 an hour break, and then not -- one break less but longer breaks. If
21 there are no preliminaries, could the witness be escorted into the
23 [The witness entered court]
24 WITNESS: EMIR TURKUSIC [Resumed]
25 [The witness answered through interpreter]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Turkusic.
2 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, I'd like to remind you that
4 you're still bound by the solemn declaration you have given at the
5 beginning of your testimony and may also urge you to focus your answer on
6 the questions that are put to you.
7 Mr. Lukic, if you're ready, you may proceed.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
10 Q. Good morning, Mr. Turkusic.
11 A. Good morning.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could I have 65 ter 10407 in e-court,
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's P2043.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Q. We can see that this is the document we discussed yesterday.
17 Now, on page 5, there is a legend. Let's see that first. It would be
18 good if we could have page 5 on the left side of the screen, and on the
19 right side page 6 in B/C/S, because there is a sketch of the site on page
20 6. I know that this will be a bit difficult for those who don't
21 understand B/C/S to follow, that's why I will read out what it says on
22 the left-hand side.
23 "FT 1, fixed point 1. FT 2, fixed point 2. S, north. 1, part
24 of projectile. 2, place of impact. 3, water pump. 4, water containers.
25 5, blood traces. 6, tissue traces."
1 And then there is a square with lines coming out of it, and it
3 "From 1 to 6 places where photographs were taken from."
4 In this photograph, the arrow on the right-hand side, what does
5 it represent? Is this the trajectory of the projectile?
6 A. That's what this sketch suggests. I didn't make the sketch but
7 that's how I understand it, because in the same way, north is indicated,
8 and this can be understood that this type of symbol is supposed to --
9 supposed to mean -- indicate a direction.
10 Q. Our ballistics expert measured the angle between north and this
11 arrow, and the angle is exactly 320 degrees.
12 A. Yes, the report does say that the azimuth is 320, so this
13 measuring done by your experts is only a verification whether the
14 direction was indicated here in a correct way.
15 Q. All right. We'll go into that later. Now, this sketch, when you
16 lay this sketch over a map of Sarajevo.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And if I could ask for 1D1231 to be
18 displayed from e-court. That's the document I wasn't ready to discuss
19 yesterday. Can it be blown up a bit more? Some more, please. [In
20 English] If we can zoom in one, a bit more, bit more. That's it, thank
22 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour?
23 MS. HARBOUR: Yes. Just before any questions about this map are
24 put to the witness, would the Defence be so kind as to indicate all of
25 the markings that are on the sketch; in particular, which were not on the
1 original version of the sketch in case the witness may not remember all
2 of the markings that were on the original sketch. And in particular
3 I would note that the line attached to the arrow to the right of the
4 sketch was -- appears to have been added by the Defence.
5 MR. LUKIC: Yes, many things were added on this sketch, just for
6 better understanding, and I will go through all of them step by step.
7 Q. [Interpretation] This sketch has now been laid over a map of
8 Sarajevo, and it was explained to me that the city map is oriented
9 exactly toward geographical north, as can be -- which you can tell from
10 the thin lines. It was also explained to me that 207 degrees, just as
11 Judge Orie correctly understood yesterday, was a line, an oblique line,
12 that was drawn and only represents an extension of that school wall. The
13 vertical line going from north to south, that is the thin black line
14 going through this image, is the north-south axis and it cuts through the
15 Simon Bolivar school. The red line marked 1, which we also saw yesterday
16 on that other map of Sarajevo, when we discussed the position of the wall
17 of that school, represents the axis on which there is the school wall.
18 As the OTP requested, this line marked 2 is the trajectory of the shell
19 as entered in this sketch.
20 The number 3 marks another arrow, and is -- and points south. We
21 see that there is an angle of 63 degrees. That's the angle under which
22 the shell -- that is the angle between the trajectory of the shell and
23 the wall of the gym.
24 A. Who says so?
25 Q. That's what we measured. Of course, it wasn't me. I'm not an
1 expert. Our ballistics experts did that. According to our measurements,
2 if you add up 207 degrees, indicating the wall of the school, and 63
3 degrees, you get 270 degrees, which is pure west, whereas north, marked
4 by an arrow, is, in fact, rotated by 50 degrees in relation to true
5 north, which is marked here, you see that it says 50 degrees. Do you
6 agree that this sketch is correctly laid on the map of Sarajevo?
7 A. Yes, it is. But I think that the input is arbitrary because,
8 after so much time, and given the fact that the wall was renovated,
9 nobody can tell that the angle of descent was really 63 degrees. What
10 kind of measurement could have produced such a result?
11 Q. The measurement of the arrows on this sketch of the site about
12 which we agreed that the angle between geographical north and the arrow
13 indicating the impact was 320 degrees. Do you have any other
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour?
16 MS. HARBOUR: I object to the way this is being framed. The
17 witness didn't agree that -- to the angles as you put them regarding the
18 sketch. Witness agreed that he had assessed the azimuth as 320 degrees,
19 which corresponded with what you represented to be the angle on the
21 MR. LUKIC: The Prosecution has its own experts. They are
22 invited to check if this angle is 320 in between of those two arrows. We
23 claim it and we are certain in it.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Our problem is that you are testifying to what
25 your expert has done. You're not using your experts to tell us, and you
1 yourself have confessed not to be an expert.
2 MR. LUKIC: Yes, of course.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: So we just don't even understand, at times, your
4 reasoning as you go along. So -- and I'm just wondering --
5 MR. LUKIC: It's hard for me too --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm just wondering if you are actually allowed to
7 be testifying as you have been doing this morning.
8 MR. LUKIC: Ms. Harbour invited me to explain the markings on the
9 map and I just complied with their request.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
11 MR. LUKIC: And we will have of course our experts here to
12 explain these markings, of course, during the Defence case.
13 JUDGE ORIE: The key issue in the whole matter, Mr. Lukic, seems
14 to be, and until now, the material has not been clear on that, is whether
15 the wall, as it existed at the time, really is in the position as it is
16 put on this map. That's the key issue in the whole matter. Apart from
17 that, whether some angle is 63 degrees, take one simple thing and you can
18 verify it. I mean, it's basic school -- elementary school technique,
19 I would say, that at least what I learned that, not being an expert.
20 MR. LUKIC: We agree, Your Honour, yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: But the key issue is was the wall where, it is
22 suggested here it was at least the orientation of the wall, was it where
23 it is said here, that's one. And then second, of course, whether the
24 sketches made at the time are accurate, "yes" or "no." These are the
25 vital elements to draw any conclusions.
1 Ms. Harbour?
2 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honour, I agree with that. The issue of
3 whether it's a simple issue of measuring degrees with a protractor,
4 I would disagree that that's one of the key issues. In addition, I think
5 the premise --
6 JUDGE ORIE: No, no. I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying that
7 that's the easy part, not a vital part, but the simple part --
8 MS. HARBOUR: Okay.
9 JUDGE ORIE: -- because everyone can check that within a second.
10 The more -- the vital issues are: What is the orientation of the wall,
11 and is the sketch and the underlying measurements, are they accurate
12 "yes" or "no." That is in a nutshell what is important. And then every
13 expert further can tell us everything about it.
14 MR. LUKIC: If the Prosecution is claiming that those markings
15 are wrong, they should tell us.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I have not heard any such suggestion.
17 MR. LUKIC: Me neither.
18 JUDGE ORIE: No, but as I said, there are two vital elements.
19 The one is the orientation of the wall --
20 MR. LUKIC: If the orientation of the wall is wrong, then we lose
21 ground, of course.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. That's --
23 MR. LUKIC: We admit that.
24 JUDGE ORIE: That's the first -- that's the factual basis on
25 which experts then can tell us what their opinion is but that factual
1 basis should be there.
2 Ms. Harbour.
3 MS. HARBOUR: My only objection would be to suggesting to the
4 witness that he agreed to something which he didn't. As long as we are
5 sticking very closely to what the witness actually gave evidence about, I
6 have no objection to pursuing this theory or testing this issue with the
8 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record.
9 MR. LUKIC: As you could see, Your Honour, this is 65 ter number
10 and 65 ter document of the Prosecution. We used their document. We used
11 the markings made by somebody in Sarajevo.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Two questions. Accuracy of the sketch, which
13 is overlaid on this map, that's one. Second, whether it's accurately
14 following the orientation of the wall. These are the two basic issues.
15 If we have clear evidence on that, we can further ask evidence from
16 whatever experts.
17 MR. LUKIC: I asked the witness, and he responded as accurately
18 as he was able to. I think that I finished this topic and I would move
19 on to something -- some other issues. If you have any additional
20 questions --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I would have one additional question. In
22 those reports, and I tried to understand them all in full detail, not
23 much if anything is said about the origin of fire, as far as distance is
24 concerned. Is that well understood? Or is there agreement among the
25 parties? I mean, there was a suggestion that the direction is in the
1 Nedzarici direction. Now if you draw a line to the Nedzarici direction
2 between anything between 500 metres and 6 kilometres, you are on
3 Federation-held territory, you're on Serb-held territory, you're on
4 Federation-held territory, you're again on Serb-held territory, so if the
5 parties agree that in this report nothing is said about the length of the
6 trajectory then we can --
7 MR. LUKIC: That is the case, as we understand it.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 Ms. Harbour, do we agree that the distance on which the
10 projectile travelled is not described or calculated anywhere?
11 MS. HARBOUR: In these reports.
12 JUDGE ORIE: In these reports.
13 MS. HARBOUR: Right.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
15 MS. HARBOUR: Although other evidence --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's -- that's --
17 MS. HARBOUR: -- will be submitted. But in these reports we
18 agree with that.
19 JUDGE ORIE: That's a different matter.
20 MS. HARBOUR: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: So we entirely focus here on the direction from
22 which the fire came.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 Q. I'll skip some parts of your statement now, and we will move on
1 to the shelling of -- known as Markale 2. The relevant paragraphs in
2 your statement are 53 through?
3 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear the last paragraph
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the interpreters couldn't hear the last
6 number you mentioned, 53.
7 MR. LUKIC: 112.
8 JUDGE ORIE: To 112.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. How much time did you need, Mr. Turkusic, from the moment you
11 learned of the explosion until you arrived at the site?
12 A. I learned of the explosion when I was on my way between our base
13 and the explosion site. I was between these two points, and I saw cars
14 from which body parts were sticking out because they were transporting
15 the wounded and dead. We stayed there for a couple of minutes and it
16 took us another five to ten minutes to get there. These are all rough
17 estimates but given the length of time that elapsed, I believe that it's
18 precise enough. It may have taken some 15 minutes from the moment of the
19 explosion for the vehicles to be loaded with the wounded and dead and set
20 off to the hospital. That would be a rough chronology of the events.
21 Q. All right. That's what you said in your testimony in
22 General Milosevic's trial 7, 8 to 10 minutes, that's how long it lasted,
23 that's what you said, all of it?
24 A. What do you mean all of it?
25 Q. From the moments when you found out and then returned to the
1 scene, you said that 7, 8 or 10 minutes had elapsed. You said roughly.
2 A. Roughly. Nobody used a stop watch to measure the time.
3 Q. Very well. Very well. What about traffic? Was it moving
4 towards Bascarsija or towards Skenderija?
5 A. Towards the west.
6 Q. Okay. Is that the normal flow of traffic in that street?
7 A. Yes, precisely. And that is the shortest route to the clinical
8 centre, to the hospital.
9 Q. You remember that seriously wounded man who had a big hole in his
10 body, who was transferred from there?
11 A. I did not see that live. That photograph went all around the
12 world but I saw it only later, from the photographs that were accessible.
13 MR. LUKIC: Can we see, with the assistance of Ms. Stewart,
14 V0004749-1-A? We need a still at 1 minute 48 seconds, please.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour.
16 MS. HARBOUR: This will be up momentarily. Ms. Stewart was not
17 informed ahead of time, so it's just taking some moments to pull up the
19 MR. LUKIC: That's true.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Our patience and Ms. Stewart's skills will resolve
21 the problem.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] It's all right. We'll go back to
23 this, to give Ms. Stewart more time as well.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think she found it. Just be patient.
25 [Video-clip played]
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] 1:48.
2 [Video-clip played]
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. We know now who we are speaking about, right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do you see blood underneath this man?
7 A. Yes, underneath his right arm, you can see a pool of blood.
8 Q. In this photograph, could you please put a circle around the
9 place where you see blood?
10 JUDGE ORIE: We first have -- we are watching a still of a video
11 which -- we are watching a video and we have stopped it. So you need to
12 first produce a still from this video so that we have a picture, a
13 picture which can then be uploaded and can marked. But I'm afraid that
14 we can't do it from this.
15 MR. LUKIC: I will move on, thank you.
16 Q. [Interpretation] In your view, how was this man wounded, with
18 A. Well, we certainly see the same picture and below his right hand,
19 the right-hand of the victim, we see a red pool and vertically upwards we
20 can see this blood flowing across the shirt of that man, the sleeve of
21 the shirt. So that is to say that is how the wound was inflicted.
22 Q. I do apologise but are you saying that this wound was inflicted
23 by this explosion of the mortar shell?
24 A. Absolutely, because --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour?
1 MS. HARBOUR: The witness has already answered the question, but
2 if we could have a foundation laid for the witness's knowledge of how
3 wounds were inflicted?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, are you asking the opinion of a lay
5 person or are you -- what are you?
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I found in one place that the witness
7 explained that these wounds were inflicted by shrapnel from a mortar
8 shell, so I'm asking him whether that is his position today as well.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is a well known fact that
10 shrapnel because of their physical asymmetry during the impulse, during
11 which they fly, they rotate irregularly, and very quickly, say like a
12 helicopter propeller. If a rotating shrapnel the size of a cigarette
13 enters a body, under a particular angle, then that would suffice. Then
14 we see what we see now.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. In this picture was the explosion on the left, right, top or
18 A. It was behind the witness -- the victim's back.
19 Q. Do you know that this victim was not registered among the victims
20 of --
21 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not hear the end of the
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could we first seek clarification of the previous
24 answer? Behind the witness's back, what do you mean by that? Is that
25 from the angle of view from the photographer? Is that at the opposite
1 side of the road? Could you be a bit more precise and try to describe
2 where the explosion was in relation to the position of the body of this
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can. This photograph suggests
5 even 3D, so the place where the shell fell was to the left, behind the
6 back of the victim as we see the victim, and at a place that the picture
7 would have included had it gone a bit further left, we see in the upper
8 left-hand corner part of the building of the Markale Market and around
9 the middle of that building is the place where the shell fell, and that
10 cannot be seen because it is a bit outside the frame of this photograph.
11 That is to say on the other side of the street. But along the sidewalk
12 on this street.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, other side of the street next to the building
14 of which we still see a small part at the left upper part of the
15 photograph. Then I think your next question, Mr. Lukic, was whether this
16 person, the wounded person we see hanging over this rail, whether that
17 person was registered as a victim, and then the interpreters did not
18 catch the last part of your question.
19 MR. LUKIC: That was the gist of my question.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you know whether this person was registered
21 as one of the victims?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know about that.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we have the same
25 video now, from 3 minutes 52 seconds to 4 minutes, 2 seconds?
1 [Video-clip played]
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we go back to 3:52 again?
3 Q. Now we are going to see that first a soldier with a Kalashnikov
4 is entering and he does not have his hood out, and after that another
5 soldier appears without a Kalashnikov and without a hood pulled out of --
6 or with a hood. We can play the video now.
7 [Video-clip played]
8 MR. LUKIC: A bit further, just -- that's it.
9 Q. [Interpretation] In this door, entrance door, do you see -- do
10 you know whose headquarters were there, which BH Army unit?
11 A. To the best of my knowledge, none.
12 Q. All right. In paragraph 75 of your statement -- we are done with
13 the video now. First you say that the fuse which is usually made of
14 aluminium usually gets completely destroyed. The stabiliser at the other
15 end of the shell was important. We have a video that was brought by
16 Mr. Suljevic. You know who Mr. Suljevic is, don't you?
17 A. I do.
18 Q. In that video, we see two stabilisers registered and they're
19 marked with numbers 12 and 13. Do you have an explanation, how come two
20 stabilisers were there?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour?
22 MS. HARBOUR: This question is completely lacking in foundation.
23 There is a reference to a video brought by an individual and stabilisers
24 that are numbered.
25 MR. LUKIC: Your witness brought that video.
1 MS. HARBOUR: I understand that.
2 JUDGE ORIE: But it should be clearly put to the witness what the
3 factual basis of your question is, not to say in a video it is shown that
4 it was nice weather, can you tell us about the weather? Then either you
5 ask a separate question or if you refer to any evidence you have to put
6 that evidence to the witness in such a way that he's able to comment on
7 the content of it, and --
8 MR. LUKIC: First of all, I should ask him whether he knows
9 whether there were two tail fins found.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you can ask that without referring to
11 Mr. Suljevic.
12 MR. LUKIC: Yeah.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour?
14 MS. HARBOUR: And in addition if specific parts of the record
15 could be referenced for our benefit so that we can check this. If there
16 are references to the transcript of Mr. Suljevic who didn't testify about
17 Markale 2, particularly that would be helpful.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. I shall continue and ask you whether you know that on the scene
20 two stabilisers were found?
21 A. [No interpretation]
22 Q. The question was if you know that two stabilisers were found at
23 the site?
24 A. Your Honours, this is the fourth time I'm giving evidence about
25 this case, and I testified in much detail. This is the first time that
1 two stabilisers are being mentioned. I've never heard of two stabilisers
3 JUDGE ORIE: So the simple answer is no, you're not aware of two
4 stabilisers being found. Please proceed.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. We'll get there yet. You said that you were not aware of it. In
7 paragraph 79, you say:
8 "After the meeting of the investigation team, we checked with the
9 UN observers and they stated that there was no artillery activity from
10 the ABiH territory."
11 To the best of your knowledge, did the radars supposed to monitor
12 artillery fire function at the time? Were they in operation?
13 A. As far as I know, there was a radar controlling a certain area,
14 but this shell could have bypassed the radar. It all depends upon the
15 orientation of the radar.
16 JUDGE ORIE: That was not the question that was put to you. The
17 question was whether you are aware of a radar and whether it was
18 operational. That's the question. All the other questions will come
19 later. Was there a radar and was it operational at the time of this
20 shelling incident?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We only had unofficial information
22 about the radar. Nobody ever informed us whether it was on, whether it
23 was operational, and which area it covered. It was a secret to us
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. In paragraph 102 of your statement --
3 A. What was the number?
4 Q. 102. You say, "I heard there was a radar that arrived to
5 Sarajevo at the beginning of the war, but that it broke down very soon."
6 A. That was said on TV, our TV.
7 Q. So can you say now what you think, whether the radar was
8 operational or not?
9 A. My opinion is irrelevant.
10 JUDGE ORIE: You can ask for facts the witness knows but whether
11 in his opinion it did or not, the conclusions are there to be drawn by
12 the Chamber. So factual basis for which would enable the Chamber to draw
13 any conclusions from that.
14 MR. LUKIC: The factual basis for my question is page 16, line
15 13, and paragraph 102 of witness's statement. Today he was explaining
16 about the radar, it was operational, and in paragraph 102, he's claiming
17 that that radar was not operational.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic I think this is not correct.
19 JUDGE ORIE: You misread.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: He said:
21 "We only had unofficial about the radar. Nobody ever informed us
22 whether...," and so on.
23 Your question is already answered in that way.
24 MR. LUKIC: Then what is noted in paragraph 102 is not correct,
25 in his statement.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that is what he heard, no official
2 information, and I think the witness said that he heard this on
3 television which is not an official source of knowledge.
4 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
5 Q. [Interpretation] Do you know that on that day, UNPROFOR radars
6 were unable to observe fire from Serbian positions either?
7 A. I gave evidence about that in the previous case, and I gave
8 explanations that I can repeat now. That radar can --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, what we have is your statement. We have
10 not read your previous testimony so there is no need to refer to that.
11 The question was whether you are aware that radar systems were unable to
12 detect Serbian fire -- an UNPROFOR radar, I should say. Please tell us.
13 Apparently you have testified about it. Do it again.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We learned that the UNPROFOR report
15 states that on that day, there was no fire from the BH Army positions.
16 Whether or not radars detected fire from Serbian positions, I think that
17 they did not, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't any, because a
18 radar has a certain orientation in space, so it can detect or not detect
20 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Lukic.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. In paragraph 103, you say, it was generally known -- it was
23 common knowledge that the slopes of Mount Trebevic were occupied by the
24 Serbian occupation forces.
25 A. Correct.
1 Q. When you say "occupation forces," what do you understand that to
2 mean? What's an occupier?
3 A. When an army wages war in the territory of an internationally
4 recognised country against its government, killing civilians, that is --
5 can be defined or that is defined as occupation. Our flag had been
6 flying in front of the United Nations building in New York for four
8 Q. Do you agree that occupation presupposes a foreign armed force?
9 JUDGE ORIE: These are irrelevant questions to deal with with
10 this witness. It may be all relevant but what a police technician could
11 tell us about legal opinions about occupation is not relevant at this
12 moment. And apart from that, we all have heard many, many times that the
13 views on who was the legal force and who was not a legal force differed
14 quite a bit and it's not useful to deal with that with this or many of
15 other witnesses. Please proceed.
16 MR. LUKIC: I didn't want to enter the area of legal --
17 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed. You may proceed on questions of
18 fact, and this is a question of opinion and expression of opinion.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Is it correct that in your reports, you used terms such as
21 "occupier," Chetnik, aggressor and so on, to denote the opposing Serbian
23 A. Show me report where I used the term "Chetnik," please.
24 Q. Did you use the term "aggressor"?
25 A. Of course I did. That's a historical fact. It was proven before
1 the international court that --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, I'm going to stop you there. When you used
3 the word "occupying force," did you refer to the Serb forces?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Do you agree that at that time, it was common, at least on your
8 side, in military documents of the BH Army, to denote or to call the
9 Serbian side as Chetniks?
10 A. I didn't have the opportunity to see military reports, given my
11 duties and my position.
12 MR. LUKIC: I will move on.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. This on-site investigation on the 28th of August, 1995, you did
16 it in the presence of UNPROFOR personnel, right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What was your task on that occasion?
19 A. My task, and that of my colleagues who were there, was to
20 determine the azimuth as precisely as possible, the direction from which
21 the shell came, the angle of descent, and all other technical details, to
22 give an accurate description of the event. Especially when determining
23 the azimuth, on this occasion, as on any other, a number of us measured
24 it independently and then we compared our measurements in order to
25 eliminate subjective errors.
1 Q. When you arrived at the site, a BH television crew was already
2 there, right?
3 A. I cannot state that explicitly. There were a number of cameras
4 there. There were also foreigners. I don't know if there was the BH
5 television because they didn't wear -- wear anything as to say who they
6 were. Anyway, we had more important business to attend to.
7 Q. When you say "foreigners," are you trying to say that foreign
8 television crews were there with their cameras when you arrived?
9 A. I cannot state that with any certainty, but it was common in such
10 cases that -- to have cameras around, but nobody cared who they were
11 because it was the least important thing to us.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'll just try to have an image from
13 Google marked. 1D1209, please. Everything is there on the map.
14 Q. This is an image from Google Earth. Can you mark the position of
15 Markale Market here?
16 A. Could we please zoom in a bit more?
17 Q. But then we'll be unable to see all that we need to.
18 A. But just so that I can mark Markale Market.
19 Q. But once you mark it, we can no longer zoom out or zoom in.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it has to be saved, then. What I suggest is
21 that we first zoom in, that the witness not yet marks anything but
22 describes where it is. We'll then verify that. We can then zoom out
23 again and have that portion marked. So could we please zoom in?
24 Witness, without marking yet, do you see the Markale Market?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can see the street diverging.
1 The word "Markale" is derived from "marktplatz." There is a roofed-over
2 part and across the street there is an open-air part, but what confuses
3 me is this series of white dots. I don't know what they might represent,
4 especially given that this was taken off Google earth.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. You mean the little squares?
7 A. No, no squares. I mean round white dots around the building
8 I think is Markale. White round dots encircling a building.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I see that on --
10 MR. LUKIC: It's on the left-hand side.
11 JUDGE ORIE: If we take it from the centre and if we would use
12 clock numbering it would be approximately at 10.00, halfway from the
13 centre to the edge.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] According to me, this is the
15 National Bank of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Of course, I don't know if there
16 are any columns around that building. I guess you know that better than
18 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, are you able to find on this Google Earth
19 picture where the Markale Market, whether the open market or whether the
20 roofed market, can be found?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it is this part on the
22 left-hand side of the picture, but I'm confused by this because I have a
23 very exact nature, since I'm a doctor of science, so it is this belt of
24 white dots around this building, it seems unrealistic to me as far as
25 satellite imagery is concerned.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I think that doesn't -- Mr. Lukic, if you want to
2 proceed on the basis of this answer, please do so.
3 MR. LUKIC: I will leave this.
4 JUDGE ORIE: You will leave the topic, okay.
5 MR. LUKIC: I'll try with 1D1210.
6 Q. [Interpretation] On this map, Mr. Turkusic, although it is
7 already written there, could you just tell us for the record where
8 Markale is here? Can you mark Markale here as well as the Svjetlost
9 building? In the middle of this photograph.
10 A. In view of the orientation of the tram tracks where it says
11 Markale here, that is the open air market. Opposite the tracks, a bit to
12 the right, is the closed Markale Market which is actually Markale 2.
13 Q. Could you mark it with M1 and M2, then?
14 A. M1 would be the open air market, the marketplace, and it has to
15 do with the case of Markale 1, well known, a well-known incident.
16 Markale 2 drawn in this way would be approximately here.
17 Q. And then could you mark Svjetlost with the letter S?
18 A. [Marks]
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We would like to tender this
21 document, please.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sorry, this M2 should be moved to
23 the right because in terms of the geometry of this drawing over here
24 where it says "taxi," that could be the market.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Would you like us to delete this and would you like to do it
3 A. I think this is M2, as suggested by this drawing.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] At this moment, we would like to
6 tender this document into evidence.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour, no objections?
8 MS. HARBOUR: No objections, Your Honour. Again, if there is a
9 dispute about where the locations are, we are happy to agree with the
10 Defence where they were.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Including that building which apart from Markale 1
12 and 2 was marked by the witness?
13 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, we would be happy to look into that and agree
14 with the Defence on a location.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Meanwhile, Mr. Registrar, the number would be?
16 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit D350.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Do you know, Mr. Turkusic, and that's why we did this now, that
20 in the Svjetlost building, the Supreme Command of the Army of
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina was located?
22 A. The Supreme Command? No.
23 Q. Do you know where the Supreme Command was?
24 A. I don't know. Actually, that is only known in peacetime. It
25 would be absurd if one were to know in wartime where the Supreme Command
1 is. It's not a department store.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Turkusic, could you then explain how you could
3 tell us that it was not in the building Mr. Lukic referred to?
4 Ms. Harbour.
5 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, I hesitate to object to your question
6 but I believe the witness's response is that he did not know. In
7 response to your question do you know, he said he did not know.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, first of all, it's not common to object to
9 questions of the Judges. In our collegiality, we correct each other very
10 nicely during breaks. But let's then -- nevertheless, apart from whether
11 it's an objection or not, you draw my attention. The question was:
12 "Do you know, Mr. Turkusic, and that's why we did this now, that
13 in the Svjetlost building, the Supreme Command of the Army of Bosnia and
14 Herzegovina was located?"
15 And the witness answered:
16 "The Supreme Command? No."
17 I understood this and so did my colleagues as an affirmation that
18 it was not there. You may have understood the answer in a different way
19 and you could have asked questions in re-examination on this perhaps not
20 100 per cent clear answer.
21 Witness, could you now answer my question, how you would know
22 that it was not in the Svjetlost building?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In addition to the fact that it is
24 never stated where the Supreme Command is, in "couloirs" there is often
25 reference to where a Supreme Command is or not. However, people usually
1 keep this in the realm of guesswork. I was not interested, but I believe
2 that the Supreme Command was not precisely in that building.
3 But sorry, on the same topic, the soldiers that we saw in the
4 movie, I assert that that was no command where the soldiers went in and
5 out because that was where the marketplace was and --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is -- I asked you earlier to focus your
7 answers on the questions. Your belief is that the Supreme Command was
8 not in that building. Is there any fact known to you which supports that
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. That is just my belief.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 Q. Do you agree that it is possible to activate a mortar shell
14 statically and by throwing it, say, from the top of a building?
15 A. Theoretically, and practically, in terms of speculation, we can
16 assume anything.
17 Q. In the immediate vicinity of this location, incidents had
18 occurred earlier on in Markale, right, and in the street of Vase Miskina,
19 in the previous period?
20 A. Which incident do you mean in the Vase Miskina street?
21 Q. Do you know anything about the shelling in Vase Miskina street?
22 I don't want to testify now.
23 A. You're referring to a street and over a million shells fell in
24 Sarajevo and you're asking me imprecisely.
25 Q. Did you work on a case when only one shell fell and caused great
1 damage, killed a lot of people?
2 A. You mean the bread line?
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Both speakers are speaking
4 at the same time.
5 A. Yes, I know about that but I didn't work on that investigation.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. All right. Do you know that only one shell exploded then as
9 A. I think that that was the case.
10 Q. Did you deal with the possibility of, say, of static activation
11 of the shell at Markale 2 or not?
12 A. We abhor such speculation. We did not deal with that. I beg
13 your pardon, Your Honours, but this is insane, where the population is so
14 dense --
15 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not asking -- Mr. Lukic is not asking for your
16 views on whether it's insane or not. The simple question was whether you
17 have dealt with the possibility of static activation of the shell at the
18 Markale 2 incident. Have you considered that?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We did not because not a single
20 element indicated that possibility.
21 JUDGE ORIE: So you did consider it because you excluded it, if I
22 understand you well.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then I wasn't precise enough. It
24 never crossed our minds to do that because nothing indicated that that
25 was something that we should do.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 Q. When reaching conclusions, did you rely on forensic medical
4 findings after the victims were examined?
5 A. No. That was not our job.
6 Q. Do you know whether, as far as the fatalities in this incident
7 are concerned, whether a post-mortem had been carried out in terms of
8 post-mortem findings or not only a post-mortem examination?
9 A. We did not deal with that question.
10 Q. Then I'm not going to show you some photographs of the victims
11 because you did not deal with that.
12 Who determined the direction from which the projectile came?
13 A. I did, several times by measuring it. My colleagues who were
14 with me several times by measuring it. And then we compared our results
15 in order to eliminate any subjective error.
16 Q. Do you remember that 170 degrees plus/minus 5 degrees was what
17 you established?
18 A. Yes. I think it was 170 plus/minus 5, as is written here. The
19 plus/minus 5 is our subjective dissociation from possible error.
20 Q. That is customary?
21 A. No, it is not, because the English artilleryman just said 170,
22 without any deviation.
23 Q. I was a bit perplexed by this, when you say English. We heard a
24 Frenchman here who determined the azimuth, and the French interpreters in
25 this courtroom interpreted what he said. So which foreign force did this
1 Englishman belong to?
2 A. I know of the report of an English artillery man which is very
3 voluminous and highly based on mathematics. It had to do with the flight
4 of the shell and he precisely calculated that angle as being 170 degrees,
5 and that completely coincides with our findings, although we worked
6 independently of each other. Maybe Major Higgs, if I remember correctly.
7 Please don't take my word for it, but the Court is aware of this report.
8 Q. Thank you. Soon I will have the opportunity of speaking to
9 Mr. Higgs but I'm going to ask you whether you know that the French, who
10 were on the spot, did some measuring and what was read was 2.850
11 thousandths parts, mils, which would be about 175 degrees. Did you know
12 that that's what the French did on the spot?
13 A. No, I'm not aware of that, but I'm not perplexed by that at all.
14 I am certain of our measurements.
15 Q. Attached to your report, after the explosion, together with your
16 colleague, Nedim Bosnic you provided a map where you marked the possible
17 trajectory of the projectile, where it had come from.
18 A. Yes. We worked on this geometry in detail, all the possible and
19 necessary geometry. I don't know which map you refer to, so --
20 Q. It's time for our break, so we're going to take a look at that
21 after the break.
22 JUDGE ORIE: That's what we will do.
23 We -- could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.
24 [The witness stands down]
25 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at 11.30.
1 --- Recess taken at 11.00 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 11.35 a.m.
3 JUDGE ORIE: The witness will be brought into the courtroom.
4 Meanwhile, I'd like to briefly discuss the plans the Prosecution
5 has in calling Mr. Baraybar. Immediately after witness RM -- I think it
6 was 102 or 201? The last witness of this week. Is there a fair
7 expectation that we could conclude the testimony of that witness this
9 MR. WEBER: RM21 is the next witness and then we intend to call
10 Mr. Baraybar and then Mr. Butler. I think that with respect our
11 estimates, we'll be able to fit that in tomorrow. I don't know with
12 Mr. Lukic if he'll be able to complete that tomorrow.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, first of all, the present witness, how
14 long do you think you would still need?
15 MR. LUKIC: I think I'll try to finish by the end of this day,
16 and I really mean this.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You should. There is a lot to be said --
18 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers]
19 JUDGE ORIE: There is a lot to be said about the way in which you
20 conducted your cross-examination. We'll not do it at this moment. Would
21 Mr. Baraybar also be available, well, let's say Tuesday morning? Or --
22 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the information that I have available to
23 me right now is that Mr. Baraybar is available to give evidence next
24 Monday, 2nd of September, and then I would have to check actually based
25 on what I have currently available whether that would carry into Tuesday.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please do so also because we might have to
2 consider whether or not to have an extended session on Monday and that
3 needs to be organised and we have to check whether it's possible at all.
4 So therefore, give some further attention to your plans.
5 Mr. Lukic, the appearance of Mr. Baraybar one week after he was
6 originally scheduled may, I presume, cause no problems. You would have
7 been ready for him already?
8 MR. LUKIC: Mr. Stojanovic will cross-examine Mr. Baraybar, so he
9 is maybe more knowledgeable if there is any problems.
10 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honours.
11 We will be ready for Mr. Baraybar on Monday, and it is our plan to
12 examine him for 3 and a half hours approximately.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Mr. Lukic, are you ready to continue?
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Our apologies, Witness, that we dealt with a
16 practical matter when you entered the courtroom. We will now continue.
17 Mr. Lukic.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think that now we can see P498, in
19 the B/C/S version -- so it's document P498 we need, and it's page 18 in
20 English and page 21 in B/C/S. Court's indulgence. Actually, the map is
21 on page 23 in the B/C/S version and on pages 20 and 21 in the English
22 version. But I think that it's better to use only one because there is
23 no text anyway.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could this one be rotated so that it takes the
25 original position again?
1 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: There we are.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Can you mark the highest feature on this map? That's the summit
5 of Trebevic, it's south of Dobra Vode, and the altitude is 1698 metres,
6 if you can see it?
7 A. Could you help me with the name of the location?
8 Q. Dobra Vode?
9 A. Is that indicated on the map?
10 Q. Yes. It's to the right of these lines.
11 A. Yes, I found it. Should I circle it?
12 Q. Yes, please, to the south there is the altitude of 1628.
13 A. I can see 16 but the rest is a bit blurred.
14 Q. This is it. Since you're from Sarajevo, do you agree that the
15 terrain closer to the summit of Trebevic becomes increasingly more
16 difficult because it's ever steeper?
17 A. I can assume as much but I don't know the area that well.
18 Q. Could you draw a line under the angle of 160 degrees roughly on
19 this map?
20 A. Well, that's rather arbitrary.
21 Q. Yes, arbitrary.
22 A. From the place of the impact of the shell.
23 Q. Thank you. Could we please save this as the next Defence
25 A. But I don't stand by this because I followed your instructions.
1 Q. That's all right.
2 JUDGE ORIE: If we want the line at 160, why not agree on where
3 that line would be instead of asking a witness to guess approximately
4 where it is? I mean, let's be accurate on these matters. 160 degrees
5 is -- again --
6 MR. LUKIC: We just give direction. Of course, we are not
7 expecting that the witness --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Of course it's slightly to the right of 170 and 165.
9 I take it that 165 is the right of the three which are marked already, so
10 it's -- okay, but if you think that's helpful. I would say if you want
11 one at 160, put one on 160, then we know where we are, and not
12 approximately, because I take it, Mr. Lukic, that you will use that later
13 as an argument on -- from where the fire may have come. Why then not be
14 accurate? Be precise. I agree with it -- or with the Prosecution, what
15 exactly that line would be. Then you know where it would be and then
16 argument later would not be influenced by this kind of lack of precision.
17 There is no reason not to have it in evidence, I take it, but I invite
18 the parties to put the right 160 on this, on the photocopy of this map.
19 Mr. Registrar.
20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: The original is under seal, but I do not see many
22 reasons if only this page would be separated from the original exhibit,
23 that needs then to be done, and then to have this marking.
24 Ms. Harbour.
25 MS. HARBOUR: I was -- yes, there is no reason for it to be under
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is it uploaded as a separate or is it now part
3 of the totality? Yes. It will be saved as a separate exhibit and the
4 parties are invited to draw the proper 160 degrees line on this map.
5 Please proceed.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D351.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have 65 ter 10343
9 from the Prosecution list? This is the correct orientation.
10 Q. Mr. Turkusic, you remember that in the Milosevic case you
11 explained how you came up with this direction of 170 degrees?
12 A. Yes, I remember.
13 Q. Based on these traces, you established that the angle of the
14 explosion was 170 degrees in relation to the sidewalk?
15 A. No, that's not correct.
16 Q. Then I misunderstood. Please explain.
17 A. You see this line, the dotted line which ends before the letter
18 C. This line represents the average centre of gravity of the shell. The
19 azimuth is perpendicular to that line. That is the direction from which
20 the shell flew in, and this perpendicular line represents the azimuth,
21 whereas the angle of descent of the shell, if I remember correctly,
22 should be the angle Alpha, and in three dimensional reality, it's the
23 angle between the line ending with A and the wall. It is inclined, and
24 that's the angle Alpha. That's the angle of descent of the shell. These
25 two angles are different.
1 Q. Did you measure whether this dotted line is parallel to the
3 A. That is irrelevant. It's only important that this dotted line is
4 the --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat these technical
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please slowly repeat your answer? The
8 interpreters need some time to find the right interpretation for these
9 technical terms. So could you restart? You said it is irrelevant and
10 you said it is only important that the dotted line is, could you resume
11 from there?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 This dotted line in this photograph looks parallel to the
14 building but that is a result of chance. It doesn't matter. It
15 represents the line of the greatest density and the position of shrapnel
16 traces on the ground. General -- in general terms, in relation to the
17 impact of the shell, they have a -- they look like an arch or an eyebrow.
18 When this line substitutes a geometrical shape, you can determine the
19 azimuth by drawing a perpendicular line. You can see the indication that
20 it's an angle of 90 degrees. That's how you determine the azimuth. It's
21 a line perpendicular to line C, and the angle of descent of the shell is
22 marked Alpha. That's an angle that indicates the inclination of line A
23 in relation to the ground.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could I see, is the angle Alpha visible on this
25 drawing? And where do we find it then exactly?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this drawing, the angle Alpha is
2 a spatial angle. If we were to look at this in 3D, that's the angle of
3 descent of the shell, when it hit the ground, and its inclination in
4 relation to the building.
5 JUDGE ORIE: My question was whether the angle Alpha is visible
6 on this because this is not 3D, and therefore I take it that it's not
7 visible, or is it indicated somewhere?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In other sketches, that angle is
9 explicitly demonstrated, and the way it was calculated too. But it's
10 been a number of years. It was -- I had to draw an angle Alpha in a
11 hypothetical direction B which suggests an azimuth of 220 degrees. I
12 believe I was requested to draw that angle too. But I considered that
13 angle to be a hypothetical one. I don't stand by this because it isn't
14 backed up by any measurements. I'm referring to line B now, the angle of
15 that line is 220, as you see. That's a hypothetical azimuth that was
16 suggested, but it wasn't me who did so. I think it was a Defence that
17 suggested this angle.
18 JUDGE ORIE: So we should look for the real measured angle Alpha
19 we should look at other parts of the documentation?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly, the documentation is
21 very detailed and all our drawings are. They are geometrically very
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 Q. You determined the minimum angle of descent as being 67 degrees,
1 you remember?
2 A. Yes. That's certainly the minimum angle of descent because if
3 the shell had flown in under a smaller angle it would have hit the roof.
4 This is the minimum possible angle of descent.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please have in e-court
6 Prosecution Exhibit 10227? It would be advisable for Mr. Turkusic to
7 have the legend on the left-hand side in order to deal with my questions,
8 and that's on the second page, and also the sketch that is on the third
9 page. Actually, first we are going to look at the sketch.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour?
11 MS. HARBOUR: Just for clarity of the record [Microphone not
12 activated] --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 MS. HARBOUR: Oh, there we go. For clarity of the record, this
15 is in evidence as P498 and these are beginning at page 27.
16 MR. LUKIC: Should I use that document, since we have this
17 document separately introduced by the Prosecution? Whatever you would
19 JUDGE ORIE: I would prefer to have as little doubles as
21 MR. LUKIC: Okay. Then can we have P498, please?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Which is under seal.
23 MR. LUKIC: Okay. Not to be broadcast, then. [Interpretation]
24 Sketch of the scene is two pages after this first page. [In English] If
25 it's possible to have -- yes, thank you -- only one. And
1 counterclockwise for 90 degrees. Thank you.
2 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Turkusic, on this sketch, can you see number
3 1? And does that show the place where the 120-millimetre shell fell as
4 is stated in the legend?
5 A. If that's what the legend says, it looks like it.
6 Q. On this sketch, do you see that the distance is 1.95 metres?
7 A. That is what is written here.
8 Q. The 2.60 is the width of the sidewalk in front of the building,
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. When we add up A and B, then the distance to the wall of the
12 building is 4.55 metres. So 1.95 plus 2.60, that is a total of 4.55?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you agree?
15 A. That's what we see in front of us, yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could we zoom in? I have difficulties reading it
17 and usually I follow on my own screen where I can zoom in, but it only
18 gives the English version and not the B/C/S original sketch. Therefore,
19 could we zoom in and could we then restart. Number 1 is the street,
20 1.95, is that 95 or 1.25? Could we -- 1.95.
21 MR. LUKIC: 1.95.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, looks 1.95. And then we have the distance to
23 the building, that's 2.60 or 2.80. 2.60.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we move it a centimetre to the right? Yes.
25 Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, there we have 2.60 again. Yes.
2 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Now I don't know whether
4 that is also part of this large document because I used smaller
5 documents. I have 10233.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That's a 65 ter number?
7 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
8 Q. Since we don't have an answer, I would like to continue.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You didn't put a question.
10 MR. LUKIC: No, I asked my learned friend.
11 MS. HARBOUR: It took me a little while to find the page but this
12 is also in P498 and it's page 24 in the B/C/S version.
13 MR. LUKIC: Thank you for your help. Then can we have P498, page
14 24? Also it's under seal.
15 Q. [Interpretation] So it's the same photograph from the document
16 that we have already discussed. And you will see that here you can see
17 information to the effect that the distance from the top of the building
18 is 4 metres, 60 centimetres.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Is that 60 or 80? How do we have to read that?
20 Could we zoom in on -- it looks more of an 8 to me, Mr. Lukic.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And I think this indicates the distance between
22 the wall of the building and the location of the impact. And not the
23 height of the -- no, it's -- I think it indicates the length of that
24 arrow [overlapping speakers].
25 MR. LUKIC: Correct, only I -- there is some extension at the top
1 of the building, so it seems that it's marked as from that pillar. And
2 you are right, it's the length in between the wall and the place of
3 impact. So when Judge Orie said 280, now I'm looking at this number that
4 way as well, so --
5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Turkusic can you explain this to us, whether
6 it's 4.60 or 4.80?
7 A. I see 8 here because that number was written also in this
8 triangle on the left-hand side where it says 4.80, and 11.45 is the
10 Q. So how do you explain these differences? Over there, we saw on
11 the sketch of the scene, the previous one, that it was marked that this
12 was 4.55 metres from the wall and now here we have 4.80.
13 A. The sketch that we are looking at now on the left and right
14 sides, it's one and the same drawing, was made on the basis of my
15 measurements and the measurements made by the team that was from the KDZ,
16 from my unit. The previous sketch that we looked at was, I think, drawn
17 by the CSB. However, in order to have correct entry data, two of our
18 members climbed on to the top of the market and from the top to the
19 bottom mentioned the vertical line or rather the distance from the top of
20 the building downwards, which is 11.45. Then we also took into account
21 the roof that was expanded. It's like the top of a hat. It's a bit
22 wider than the building itself. That is important for the descent of the
23 shell because in a vertical projection, that is a point that has to be
24 covered by the shell, and then the distance of that point is relevant for
25 drawing this triangle. That is what I did and the team from the KDZ that
1 worked on all of these calculations; that is to say, of the smallest or
2 rather minimum possible angle and everything that would follow. I don't
3 want to pre-empt anything now.
4 Q. All right. Did you coordinate your views with the CSB?
5 A. There is a difference like the one I've noticed just now.
6 Obviously we did not. They made this sketch, this legend, a leg, an arm,
7 et cetera. We saw the legend, what it describes, and I wouldn't want to
8 go into all of these numbers because they are not the result of my
9 measurement or of the team of the KDZ that I belonged to.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please
11 be asked to speak slower again.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could I again ask you at the request of the
13 interpreters to slow down your speed of speech.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. The stabiliser you found on the scene, according to
16 documentation, was reported to have been ejected 28.9 metres away from
17 the place of explosion. Could the transcript also reflect that I said
19 A. What's the question?
20 Q. I just wanted to --
21 A. I apologise.
22 Q. Do you have an explanation as to how this could have happened,
23 namely that the stabiliser would be ejected laterally to that distance?
24 A. First of all, when we arrived, the stabiliser had already been
25 taken by the CSB team that arrived before us. Now, whether before they
1 arrived somebody had moved it, that is something I don't know. But it is
2 possible. However, it is also possible that it could be ejected that far
3 because this is what I talked about yesterday, this elastic clash. When
4 the stabiliser impacts a very hard surface, it literally bounces off like
5 a little ball.
6 Q. Is it usual that it would be ejected laterally?
7 A. There is nothing usual there. Every case is specific, and --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness repeat
9 the second part of his answer at a slower pace.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Witness --
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. The interpreters are asking to you repeat what you've been
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, at least the second part of the answer. You
15 said every case is specific. And what did you then say?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Every case, as far as shells are
17 concerned, is specific. It depends on the angle, the place of impact,
18 the firmness of the surface, the intensity of the explosion, the speed at
19 which the shell arrives, and in this case, like in many other similar
20 cases, it has to do with an elastic clash of the stabiliser with the hard
21 surface, and then literally it bounces off like a tennis ball. That is
22 characteristic of elastic clashes.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Now I'm going to try to play a video for you. That's the video
25 that we talked about today that we received from your colleague who
1 actually brought it to the Tribunal and handed it over to the Tribunal.
2 This will show two stabilisers marked during the on-site investigation by
3 either your colleagues or the policemen, marked with numbers 12 and 13.
4 So now I would like to ask that we start -- of course, we need
5 cooperation between our case manager and Mr. Ram, and we would like to
6 play it from 23:14.
20 Q. Before we move on to questions about this photograph, let me say
21 that I've just been informed that in this document,
22 P4298 [as interpreted], on page 4, it says that the explosion happened at
24 A. But the time shown by the camera can deviate by three hours
25 because the time is set up by the camera operator. So if the time was
1 not set exactly, then that information is not reliable. It may be
2 correct, but there is no guarantee for that.
3 Q. In your daily work, did you encounter such problems, where it was
4 the wrong date or the wrong time set on cameras? Was it usually correct
5 or wrong?
6 A. We never used cameras in practice, but I know that when you set
7 up the camera you set the time and date, and if that's correct, then the
8 time stamp of any recording, any shot, is correct. If not, then that's
9 unreliable information.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic, on line 6 in -- on page 44, I think
11 the number is wrong, the P number. I think you referred to P498.
12 MR. LUKIC: Yes, one 2 is inserted extra, you're right, Your
13 Honour. P498. Thank you.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thanks.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Turkusic, let us now focus on the document on the screen,
17 which is 1D1224. Let me tell you that these are two stabilisers, one
18 marked L1, the other L2. In the lower portion, we see the original
19 photographs. In the upper portion, we see the same stabilisers, only we
20 added a red mark where the firing pin hit the fuse so as to make it
21 better visible. Let me tell you what this is about. These are parallel
22 photographs of the stabilisers that are here in this Tribunal physically,
23 and the stabilisers from the photographic documentation. The photographs
24 are rotated, L2, in such a manner that the lines touching the tool-marks
25 of the basic charge are parallel. That is, the position of the marks on
1 the basic charge are unchanged. Let me immediately add that this has
2 nothing to do with you. We are only checking something else that
3 happened before this Tribunal. Do you agree that the imprint of the
4 firing pin in one case touches the line, and in the other case is almost
5 two millimetres away?
6 A. I cannot comment what somebody else did, nor can I comment on the
7 story about two stabilisers. I can't see any marks and don't know where
8 two came from. Even more so, since the one on the right is a very good,
9 sharp photograph, whereas on the left-hand side, the photograph is
10 technically rather poor. And any comments of mine about what you're
11 asking me could only amount to speculation, and I can only testify about
12 what I know and what I'm certain about.
13 Q. Of course, I only asked you to comment if you were in a position
14 to do so but thank you anyway.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, who did draw these lines on the
17 MR. LUKIC: Our experts, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And now, is this supposed, just for me to
19 understand, to demonstrate what, more or less? That the ones here in the
20 Tribunal are not the ones which were found?
21 MR. LUKIC: What's in the Tribunal and what's in the photo
22 documentation. We claim that it's not the same tail-fin.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and that -- that would be [overlapping
24 speakers] --
25 MR. LUKIC: Or maybe the real one is misplaced somewhere here.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm just trying to look at it in a bit more
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can I use the time to put one question to the
4 witness? I'm not so familiar with these technical details. Is it
5 possible, if you have such a thing in your hands, to turn the middle
6 round part of it to the right or to the left, while everything else
7 remains in the same position?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you for this question.
9 That's exactly what I wanted to comment upon. If I had a stabiliser in
10 my hands and wanted to make alterations with a tool that goes into these
11 two dimples, I could turn the central fuse which was marked red here and
12 return it under a different angle. Since it was activated already, and
13 it exploded, it can -- it can be taken out and returned or you can enter
14 or insert actually another fuse. So the one who has this -- this device
15 in his hand can manipulate it in a number of ways.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for that answer.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you another question in relation to
18 these photographs? Do I understand that the fins of the stabiliser are
19 changed in shape upon the impact and the forces exercised on these fins
20 after the impact?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What we see all around are the
22 fins, and they are strongly deformed. They are made of sheet metal and
23 welded on to the body. Depending on the surface the stabiliser hits, it
24 will deform in different ways. This shape of a stabiliser, with
25 flattened fins, as we see here, make me believe that this stabiliser was
1 run over by vehicles, possibly trucks, and that these vehicles flattened
2 it. In other words, these fins, just as stabilisers of missiles, and
3 these are these pieces of sheet metal that have a fan-like form,
4 stabilise the shell during its flight. In other words, the stabilisers
5 are these pieces of sheet metal around the body which are deformed. But
6 the entire piece is also called a stabiliser because that is its
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would the fins be regularly around the centre
9 upon firing, upon being produced?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. These fins make sure that the
11 shell flies regularly and prevents the shell from rotating. It doesn't
12 change direction so that these fins actually preserve the direction of
13 flight. They make sure that the head is in front and this tail is in the
14 year. Talking about air-bombs, they also have fins, but such fins as
15 keep the air-bomb in such a position that the head points to the ground
16 and the fins point up.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I wasn't asking about air-bombs. If you look
18 at these photographs, L1 on the top, and L1 at the bottom, do you see in
19 the deformation of these two stabiliser fins, the deformation of the
20 fins, do you see any significant differences in the way in which they are
21 deformed? Or would you consider them to be deformed in the same way?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To me, this suggests the same kind
23 of deformation, but I have strong reservations as to the provenance of
24 this second piece. The igniting fuse, that is the yellow part, can be
25 manipulated, it can be turned in any direction and change position as is
1 being suggested here.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I was not asking about that. I was asking
3 about the deformation of the fins. Could you do the same and refrain
4 from any further comment on the central part. The deformation of the
5 fins of the stabiliser L2, top and bottom, do you see resemblance or do
6 you see any significant difference in the way in which these stabiliser
7 fins are deformed?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we compare images L2, the upper
9 and the lower one, if that's the question, I can see that the stabilisers
10 are identical.
11 JUDGE ORIE: In its deformation of the fins, is that what you --
12 because that's what I asked?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that the deformations in
14 images L2 in the upper half and the lower half is exactly the same, as
15 far as I'm able to tell, by looking at it.
16 MR. LUKIC: If I may interrupt, for a second, I apologise. Those
17 are the same, L2 and L2, upper and lower are the same. The difference is
18 in between L1 and L2.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then we would have to -- and let me then see. L1,
20 upper photograph, is the photograph taken where?
21 MR. LUKIC: I think here in the Tribunal.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Here in the Tribunal. L1, lower photograph, is
23 taken where?
24 MR. LUKIC: Excuse me, L1? You asked about L1?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. LUKIC: It's from photo documentation.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Photo documentation.
3 MR. LUKIC: Taken at sometime in 1995 in Sarajevo, I guess.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. And now -- I'm trying to understand what we
5 are really looking at. You say L1 is taken from the photo documentation
6 so that's one of the pictures we will find in the exhibits, in the
7 reports, and to be even more precise, it looks as if it is taken from
8 photograph on page 29, hard copy, ERN number 00339229. If I'm looking at
9 it well. Okay. So we have L1, both at the top and the bottom, taken
10 from the -- because that seems to be the same. Now, L2 is taken where
11 and when?
12 MR. LUKIC: As I understood --
13 JUDGE ORIE: First, the upper one.
14 MR. LUKIC: Upper one was just the lower one with a red dot.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I'm asking you where was the photograph L2 taken,
16 under what circumstances, where and when and by whom?
17 MR. LUKIC: By our expert witnesses during the preparation for
18 Karadzic trial here in the Tribunal.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. LUKIC: And they were provided it -- with that, I'm not clear
21 now, whether with the Registry or the Prosecution.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the angle under which the photograph was
23 taken compared between L1 and L2, is that the same or is that different?
24 MR. LUKIC: I was told that they tried to make it the same.
25 That's why the picture is rotated. Obviously the picture was taken from
1 another angle and then they rotated the picture to have the same line
2 going through the centre.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If I'm talking about an angle, I'm talking not
4 how the camera rotates but how the camera is -- this is difficult to
5 explain on the transcript. A camera can rotate with still being in the
6 same surface, and you can rotate it in another way. I'm wondering
7 whether we have precise information about the rotation of the camera.
8 MR. LUKIC: What happened here, if I can explain, I cannot
9 testify but if I can explain.
10 JUDGE ORIE: No, you cannot testify but, yes.
11 MR. LUKIC: Those experts were presented with L2 as being L1, and
12 as the witness explained today, that was obviously what happened.
13 Somebody tampered with the evidence here, and it was different from this.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's see.
15 Ms. Harbour.
16 MR. LUKIC: He said it was easy if somebody has it in his hand to
17 tamper it -- with it --
18 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours --
19 MR. LUKIC: -- and that's the difference they noticed. That's
20 the difference they noticed in between the photo documentation and the
21 evidence here in the Tribunal. We want to point out to Your Honours
22 already now that there is something wrong with the evidence kept here in
23 the Tribunal.
24 MS. HARBOUR: I'd just like to put on the record that that's
25 certainly a mischaracterisation of the witness's evidence, but I'll leave
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Lukic, where did the witness say that?
3 I'm trying to just understand both your questions and the answers.
4 MR. LUKIC: He just said that if somebody has it in his hands, it
5 can be changed.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, no, no. What he said -- what he said was --
7 MR. LUKIC: But of course he does not know --
8 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, no. What he said is, that that's at least
9 how I understood it, that the central part can be moved, which is not the
10 same as tampering with. It apparently is a part which is -- can be
11 screwed in and out. Is that how I have to understand your testimony,
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll be even clearer. If you look
14 at these two dimples to the left and right of the centre part, these are
15 the places where a tool is applied and then you can rotate this inner
16 part which is made of brass. That's one possibility. The other is that
17 the primer that we see in the centre contains -- which contains the
18 fuse --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please start over?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please start again where you said that the
21 primer that we see in the centre contains -- as you said, which contains
22 the fuse, yes, could you resume from there?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. In the centre there is the
24 primer. It contains a kind of explosive which, when touched by the
25 firing pin, activates the charge, and this -- this is a part of the
1 missile. It can be taken out and put back again. Of course, once the
2 shell has exploded, it is not dangerous.
3 One more thing that I noticed by looking at these images is that
4 these two photographs were not taken under the same angle in relation to
5 the geometrical axis. That's the centre of the stabiliser, that's what
6 I mean by axis. And the right -- the right-hand photograph was
7 photographed from above that axis obliquely.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Lukic, just for me to understand, the
9 Defence's position is that the central part was taken out and then
10 replaced by another part? Is that it? Or is it the totality of the
11 stabiliser including the fins which is, in the position of the Defence,
12 not the same?
13 MR. LUKIC: As I understood, and I wasn't present during the
14 examination of these pieces, of these fin tails, our experts think that
15 it's either completely different fin tail or tampered, the original one,
16 because it was loose and when they checked it the first time it was firm.
17 Later on they were presented with a loose, this round shape.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see: Were your experts then provided with
19 these tail fins at several occasions?
20 MR. LUKIC: They were in the courtroom. They were provided with
21 it in the courtroom. It was presented. They asked for it to see it and
22 it was presented to them in the courtroom and they noticed that something
23 was wrong.
24 JUDGE ORIE: But they compared it with the previous occasion
25 where they --
1 MR. LUKIC: Previously they were examining it with the
2 Prosecution, Prosecutor present, just taking photos, I guess.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Now, at least I understand what it's
4 all about, what you say the stabiliser fin here in the Tribunal is either
5 a totally different one or at least one which has been changed and
6 perhaps the central part being changed. I can imagine that this is
7 relevant for any numbers found on that central part. At least now
8 I understand what the issue is, not yet what the answer to the issue is.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to clarify one matter. Mr. Lukic
10 you said L1 and L1 in the upper and the lower part of the screen are
11 identical except the line drawn --
12 MR. LUKIC: The red dot.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And the red dot in L1 in the upper part in the
14 middle of the fin.
15 MR. LUKIC: Yes, red dots.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The two red dots are added.
17 MR. LUKIC: Added.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: By the --
19 MR. LUKIC: Our experts.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The Defence experts. That's the only difference.
21 Otherwise the photographs --
22 MR. LUKIC: From the lower ones, yes, that's the only difference.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is what I wanted to establish for the
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And you said the red dots from the lower ones --
2 MR. LUKIC: No, no, red dots are on the top ones.
3 JUDGE ORIE: They are only on the top ones.
4 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And they are added to what?
6 MR. LUKIC: To see -- to be more clearly where that needle hit.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I take it that the ones the Prosecution
8 claims are the original ones are still available?
9 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Lukic. At least
11 it's clear what the issue is.
12 MS. HARBOUR: Before we do, if I could just make a few things
13 clear for the record. The photograph that's marked as L1 is from
14 Exhibit P499, page 29.
15 JUDGE ORIE: In hard copy? Yes.
16 MS. HARBOUR: B/C/S version. And the video that the Defence
17 discussed beginning at transcript, temporary transcript page 10 today,
18 which they gave the ERN as V00047491A, that is in evidence as P446 under
19 a different ERN, and we haven't received any ERN or other identifying
20 number for the video that was played beginning at temporary transcript
21 page 42. So perhaps if the Defence could provide that, that would be
22 helpful for the record.
23 MR. LUKIC: As I am informed, there is no ERN for this video but
24 the Prosecution received that video from Mr. Suljevic and you can find it
25 in your archives, I'm sure about that.
1 MS. HARBOUR: Will it be tendered or how will it be recognised as
2 part of the record?
3 MR. LUKIC: We will tender. We will -- actually, I forgot to ask
4 Your Honours for that portion to be tendered. And we'll cut that portion
5 from the original video, we'll provide the whole video to the
6 Prosecution, if they don't have it, and I'm sure they do, and if they
7 want to use any other parts, that's -- they would have it on their -- at
8 their disposal.
9 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, we would like an opportunity to review the
10 whole video and then perhaps agree to the portions to be tendered, and I
11 will discuss that with Mr. Lukic after court.
12 MR. LUKIC: Yes, that can be done.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then we will wait for the outcome of that.
14 MR. LUKIC: Can we MFI then this portion that we played today?
15 It's on the record.
16 JUDGE ORIE: It's on the record which portions were played, isn't
17 it, by minutes and seconds. Could we leave it to that or if you -- then
18 it should be uploaded separately and --
19 MR. LUKIC: We will upload it separately for sure.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Once that's done, you can -- we could already
21 reserve a number for it.
22 MR. LUKIC: That's what I wanted to ask for.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar could you reserve a number for the
24 still to be uploaded portion of the video that was played?
25 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, that will be Exhibit D352.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and once it's uploaded the Chamber would like
2 to be informed.
3 Mr. Lukic, one more question. The two photographs at the
4 right-hand side, the L2 ones, perhaps I asked it already but then I have
5 missed the answer, when exactly were these photographs taken? And by
7 MR. LUKIC: What I have in my handwriting, it says March 2010.
8 JUDGE ORIE: March 2010. Under what circumstances, in the
9 laboratories of your --
10 MR. LUKIC: No, no, no, no, here in the Tribunal.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Here in the Tribunal.
12 MR. LUKIC: It's 5th of March, I was just reminded.
13 JUDGE ORIE: 5th of March. In the presence of whom exactly?
14 MR. LUKIC: I don't know the name of the prosecutor. It's one of
15 the prosecutor from the Karadzic team.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So the striking issue seems to be that the
17 position of the central part was different in the original compared to
18 where it is now so it may have been screwed a bit out or a bit in, but
19 that's the real issue which is clearly visible on these photographs.
20 MR. LUKIC: As I was told, not only that.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Not only that. If there is more, we will learn but
22 that's what we focused on at this very moment.
23 MR. LUKIC: We have it recorded in the Karadzic transcript.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but that's not in evidence so I would be glad
25 to read it or if the parties could summarise it, what the issue was, I'm
1 quite happy, but at this moment, I can't look at it, at least I expect
2 that you would not wish me to go through other transcripts of other cases
3 and find evidence there, and I never do that.
4 MR. LUKIC: Of course I don't expect that, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Then please make it possible for me to
6 understand. Please proceed.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Turkusic, we excluded you here just now and you
9 are our central person here today. I do apologise. I will make a
10 correction, the film was not submitted by Mr. Suljevic. It was submitted
11 officially by the CSB Sarajevo, the video that we watched.
12 MS. HARBOUR: Since all Prosecution videos are processed and
13 labelled with ERNs and we don't have an ERN, we would need a copy of this
14 directly from the Defence.
15 MR. LUKIC: We will provide you with a copy, of course.
16 Q. [Interpretation] Now I would like us to move on to those four
17 projectiles that fell near Markale as marked before the Markale 2
18 incident of 28th of August, 1995, and that is paragraph 113 of your
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In e-court, we would now need P2009.
21 Q. I'm sorry, this is your statement.
22 JUDGE ORIE: What are you looking for, Mr. Lukic?
23 MR. LUKIC: I'm looking for one document. I have it in front of
24 me. I'm just -- I have one text cut out. I'm just checking whether it's
25 from the statement or from the --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Is it Markale 2?
2 MR. LUKIC: It's not Markale 2.
3 JUDGE ORIE: No? It's about Markale 2?
4 MR. LUKIC: No. It's about four projectiles fired. It's
5 paragraph 113 and further. It should be page 32 in English version.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The statement is on the screen.
7 MR. LUKIC: I found it. It's from the statement. And we need
8 paragraph 114.
9 Q. [Interpretation] You mention that in your statement, in paragraph
10 114, you speak about a CSB report, reporting that four 120-millimetre
11 rounds fell on the 28th of August, 1995, and that it was established that
12 these four projectiles were fired from the southwest direction, 240
13 degrees, plus/minus 5 degrees.
14 JUDGE ORIE: You talk about paragraph 114, Mr. Lukic?
15 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: The corresponding document would be P02010. If you
17 wanted to look at that.
18 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I had 65 ter numbers. Thank you for helping
20 Q. [Interpretation] My question: Would you agree, even if these
21 shells did fall on that day or any other day, is it correct that they did
22 not come from this direction that you established, that was the direction
23 of the shell that fell in Markale on the 28th of August, 1995?
24 A. I directly participated in this and I stand by that as for
25 Markale 2, the 28th of August. We continued the investigation, the CSB
1 that had arrived beforehand. They documented that and they sent us the
2 document, the report, or rather the findings that the azimuth was found
3 to be 240 plus/minus 5, and to give a direct answer to your question:
4 That angle is not the azimuth that was established in Markale 2.
5 Q. In accordance with that, we lawyers sometimes put questions that
6 seem illogical to experts in particular but for the record I have to ask
7 you the following: Is it correct that these four shells, in relation to
8 that one that was found in Markale, could not have been fired either from
9 the same place or by the same artillery piece?
10 A. That is very likely, because Sarajevo was surrounded by a great
11 deal of artillery fortifications.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Does that make it any more or less likely? I mean,
13 you can fire from one place, ten shells. You can also fire one shell
14 from ten different positions. What is the likelihood? I mean, where
15 does -- it's based on what?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Likelihood? The likelihood is very
17 low. It is very unlikely that the shells were fired from the same place,
18 from the same artillery piece, from the same fortification, in view of
19 the rather significant difference in azimuth, and that is about 70
20 degrees. I think that it was another fortification.
21 MR. LUKIC: Time for a break, if I'm correct.
22 JUDGE ORIE: It's time for a break so that we can think about the
24 Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 JUDGE ORIE: We will have a break and we will resume at 1.30.
2 Mr. Weber you're on your feet.
3 MR. WEBER: I want to report back about Mr. Baraybar. He's also
4 available next Tuesday.
5 JUDGE ORIE: That gives us some extra air to breathe. We resume
6 at 1.30.
7 --- Recess taken at 1.02 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 1.35 p.m.
9 JUDGE ORIE: The witness is escorted into the courtroom.
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we now get document
14 Q. Mr. Turkusic, while we are waiting for the document to appear,
15 you said that you went to the site where those four projectiles fell,
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. LUKIC: I'm not certain now about the number, although can we
19 see P2010, please. I forgot the guidance from Judge Orie, he told me
20 it's 2010. I forgot.
21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Turkusic, is this the document where these
22 four shells we discussed are dealt with? Can you confirm that this is
23 the document that deals with the four shells?
24 A. Yes. The Sarajevo Security Services Centre drafted this official
25 report. There is a team headed by judge Asim Kanlic and other people as
1 listed here.
2 Q. You are not mentioned as having taken part in the on-site
4 A. I was not on this team and did not go there in this manner, but
5 later on, we went to inspect the site of impact, determine the azimuth
6 and so on, but on that day, this had a lower priority as compared to
7 Markale 2.
8 Q. Is there a document saying that you actually went to the site and
9 inspected the four locations?
10 A. I believe so, because they forwarded the shell pieces to us for
11 analysis. This must have been documented.
12 Q. My question is whether there is a document that you went to the
14 A. I suppose so. There should be one.
15 Q. Is it part of the documentation that you reviewed when the OTP
16 prepared you for the testimony?
17 A. I think so. There are a great many documents so I cannot be
18 certain, but there should be. Paragraph 116 describes the case. I'm
19 referring to my statement.
20 Q. That's what I found in your statement, but the document about the
21 event doesn't mention you. That's why I'm drawing the comparison.
22 A. The document on our screen is about the team headed by the
23 investigative magistrate and the CSB, whereas paragraph 116 of my
24 statement says that there is a document signed by Ekrem Suljevic on my
25 behalf which means that I worked on that document and it contains my name
1 and my initials but a colleague signed it because I was probably busy
2 doing something else. So there must be a document of the unit to which
3 I belonged.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the document referred to in paragraph 115
5 and 116 is admitted as P2011. And perhaps one of the documents in there
6 says analysis conducted by, and then for Emir Turkusic, and the other one
7 says the same.
8 Witness, could I ask you: These reports are mainly stating that
9 that objects were sent for expert analysis. I could not immediately find
10 that you went on the spot, at least in these two reports.
11 Mr. Lukic, would you please proceed?
12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. [Interpretation] Could we
13 get 1D1221 in e-court?
14 Q. We made a table in which we tried to show that for some reason
15 there is an irregularity in registering events and documenting them in
16 relation to incidents. From one of your colleagues --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, is there an English version? I can't
18 read it clearly on the screen at this moment but it seems to be B/C/S to
19 me. There seems to be no English version of it.
20 MR. LUKIC: We received the translation this morning, so it's not
21 in the system yet.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could you try to have it uploaded as soon as
23 possible? Meanwhile, continue.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. In the left column we see the name of the document. In column 2,
1 the address of the -- where the incident happened. And in the third
2 column, the log number of the document. And there is another column on
3 the same document. Then there is a date. And another column which is
4 grey at the top, the log number of the CSB application. Another grey
5 column titled, "Date of CSB application." And the last column, where we
6 entered an irregularity. And the title of the column is "Regularity of
7 log entry."
8 We see that number 5, that on the 26th of May, 1995, the
9 application was made to enter an incident, which happened at Safeta Zajke
10 43. And in the KDZ log, it was attributed number 387, whereas, for
11 example, document number 4 was sent on the 24th of May, 1995, whereas in
12 the KDZ log, it was assigned number 401. There are more examples.
13 Do you have an explanation how it happened that documents and
14 applications sent later were assigned a smaller number?
15 A. For something to be irregular, we must first define what is
16 regular. Since this is the only example in the history of warfare that
17 such analyses have ever been made, and individual impacts have been
18 investigated into, in the hierarchy of the state MUP, of which I was
19 part, and the local MUPs which request us to do -- which submit requests
20 for services; that is, to analyse some parts or go to a site. In keeping
21 logs, assigning numbers, entering dates and so on, it would be very
22 surprising if there were -- if there were no incongruences, considering
23 the large number of cases that we processed parallelly, simultaneously,
24 or subsequently following requests by the Sarajevo CSB. However, the
25 documents that we kept, I believe, are very accurate and we tried to keep
1 as many or as much physical evidence as possible, and the greatest
2 mistake that we may have made is one that has to do with dates.
3 Q. Do you know who assigned which number and determined the sequence
4 of entering incidents?
5 A. Any document that was drafted was assigned a number higher than
6 the previous document by one. When the number of cases were analysed
7 simultaneously, it would have been strange if there hadn't been errors.
8 However, there was a war on, and we are now looking at documents as if
9 this had been peacetime and you had one case a week. It was the other
10 way around. We had seven cases per day.
11 Q. All right. Do you know how your documents were registered at the
13 A. They send us a request bearing a number. We attach our number,
14 depending on the sequence of cases. We forward that to them, and then
15 they enter that under a number of their own, depending on the system they
16 use for archiving.
17 Q. But you don't know what kind of system they used?
18 A. No, I don't. It's difficult to describe a wartime situation to
19 someone who wasn't in such a situation.
20 Q. In paragraph 117 of your statement and that is the first
21 paragraph in chapter 22, entitled, "Additional comments chart" --
22 A. That is correct.
23 Q. -- you comment on the document that is now 65 ter 10145. It also
24 has a P number, and that's 1100. You speak about Cobanija Street and the
25 18th of June, 1995, but we see that it's the 16th of June, we can tell
1 from the associated document, but I suppose that is a typographical
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] That is why I would like to see P933
4 from e-court. For the time being, I'm interested in the upper
6 Q. Do you recognise this place as being Cobanija?
7 A. It was a long time ago. There were many details, pictures,
8 sketches, so I'd have to refresh my memory along with some additional
9 information about what I see in this photograph now.
10 Q. All right.
11 A. There were thousands of similar cases.
12 Q. Let us briefly look at P1100, then. Do you recognise this
14 A. Yes. This is a typical document that we write, and we always
15 write the subject, that is to say what we are working in connection with,
16 and here we have a CSB document number 19/04, et cetera, et cetera. It
17 is described what we were asked to do, what was submitted to us.
18 Afterwards our analysis follows and our opinion.
19 Q. All right. Do you remember the Cobanija 7 case now?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. All right. We have this photo documentation accompanying it.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] P933 is what I'd like to return to
23 now, P933. [In English] And we need page 2 in B/C/S, since those are
24 pictures. We need the lower picture to be zoomed in.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Turkusic, in this photograph, it is evident
1 that this pipe down here and the one up there is not damaged, and it is
2 being claimed that an air-bomb had exploded. Could you please explain
3 that to us?
4 A. Could you please show me the second page of that document in
5 B/C/S that I looked at a moment ago? Actually, the first page and the
6 second page. And then we are going to look at the photograph.
7 MR. LUKIC: Could we please take a look at P1100?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour?
9 MS. HARBOUR: I was going to suggest I can provide a hard copy to
10 the witness if we want to leave the photograph on the screen.
11 MR. LUKIC: Then we can leave the photo on the screen.
12 Q. [Interpretation] So you saw the document. Now, is it correct?
13 A. I've seen it, yes.
14 Q. You stated that it was an air-bomb.
15 A. Where does it say that?
16 Q. So in the opinion, page 2, it says that it is Grad
17 122-millimetres, et cetera?
18 A. One rocket engine, Grad 122-millimetres, cannot in any way propel
19 an air-bomb, so it is not correct that what is written here is an
20 air-bomb. However, it can propel a smaller projectile, and this would be
21 an improvised device basically. So one rocket engine. Air-bombs were
22 made with four or five rocket engines.
23 Q. Here in the report from the scene, which is an attachment to this
24 document, it says --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We don't have the
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Cobanija number 7, on the 16th of June, 1995, 1710, a projectile
4 fell and exploded in Cobanija number 7. It was of highly destructive
5 power, and the heating room was fully destroyed, like -- as were five
6 privately owned cars and a garage.
7 So, in your view --
8 A. Go ahead.
9 Q. What was it that exploded?
10 A. Well, it's described here, first of all, when using a rocket
11 engine for propelling a projectile, it leaves one of its parts with the
12 fins that were not opened because its purpose is completely different.
13 And here, on the scene, a trace was found, or, rather, parts just of one
14 rocket engine. It had to be a smaller explosive bombshell, less
15 destructive and less explosive than an air-bomb that weighs several
16 hundred kilograms.
17 Q. All right. Now let us briefly look at P933, page 6 in e-court.
18 This is the damage that was established on the garages. Also, let us
19 look at page 4. Damage was established here as well, in the garages.
20 Now let us briefly take a look at a sketch, 1D1218.
21 A. Does it all pertain to the same case?
22 Q. Yes, yes. This sketch, would it correspond to -- actually, we
23 did this. Would it correspond to the scene where we see the heating
24 plant, the garage, the awning, and the walls and also the point of impact
25 on the heating plant?
1 A. I don't know on the basis of what you drew this sketch, because
2 the description would have to be very detailed in order to provide the
3 dimensions, whereas here we have several things drawn with ideal
4 geometric proportions.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, where does this come from? Is there an
6 English version of this sketch?
7 MR. LUKIC: No, we drew it just to try to summarise.
8 I anticipated I wouldn't have much time. I just wanted to ask the
9 witness which grenade could hit the pink building and destroy the yellow
10 garage, when we know that the grey area is ground.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour?
12 MS. HARBOUR: I object to that question particularly based on
13 this drawing which the Defence has drawn. As the witness noted, we have
14 no idea what the dimensions are, what the point of view was, or how this
15 corresponds to the underlying documents, what kind of a reconstruction it
16 was of the investigative file. We just simply don't have enough
17 information for a foundation for that kind of response from the witness,
18 in my submission.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, it's also for the Chamber rather
20 difficult to --
21 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- interpret or to understand any answer.
23 MR. LUKIC: I had many pictures from the photo documentation,
24 I don't have time now, I promised to finish today. I would just ask
25 something in relation to these rockets.
1 Q. [Interpretation] Would you agree, Mr. Turkusic, that on the 17th
2 of April, 1992, an attack was launched against the Pretis factory by the
3 TO of the BH and that on that occasion, several truck loads of rockets
4 were taken out, and that is why this date is commemorated as a
5 significant date in BH?
6 A. Of course. We took our own rockets. These are hand-held rocket
7 launchers, the calibre is a bit bigger and they are intended for the
8 destruction of tanks and APCs.
9 Q. In the photo documentation for this incident, we have
10 65 ter 10294. We need page 4.
11 THE REGISTRAR: It's a one-page document, Mr. Lukic.
12 MR. LUKIC: That's what I understood. Can we see P933, page 9?
13 Q. [Interpretation] We need the lower photograph. Do you know which
14 one of these parts was found in the garage?
15 A. I don't remember, but it looks like a rocket system, propulsion.
16 Q. According to the documentation, it was the part in the middle
17 that was supposed to have been found there.
18 A. What's the provenance of this photograph?
19 Q. Prosecution -- actually, this is a Prosecution exhibit, and this
20 is part of the photo documentation that they received from Sarajevo in
21 relation to this incident. However, we are coming to the end so I'm just
22 going to ask you the following: Grad 122-millimetres, that it is
23 assumed -- now I'm going to ask you whether you would agree that not a
24 single one of these parts belongs nor can it belong to a Grad
1 A. I would not agree. From the point of view of what we state in
2 our report, because we had many cases of analysing the remains of a Grad
3 rocket, and this is a part that is deformed to a relatively low degree,
4 and it can be recognised after an explosion. What is of larger calibre,
5 that is of a larger calibre than those used by hand-held rocket
6 launchers, if that is what you are getting at.
7 Q. That's not what I'm getting at. I just asked you whether any one
8 of these parts we see in the photograph can belong to the Grad
10 A. On the basis of what I remember, I cannot recognise any one of
11 these parts with full certainty, but I'm absolutely sure that when we
12 wrote the report and when we analysed the parts, we concluded that this
13 was one Grad rocket and that that is what propelled it. It was that
14 rocket. Or, rather, its engine.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I'm looking at the clock.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have concluded my examination of
17 this witness.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.
19 Ms. Harbour could you give us an indication as to how much time,
20 if any at all, you would need for re-examination?
21 MS. HARBOUR: I will try to keep it short, Your Honours, and
22 hopefully no more than ten minutes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: That is understood. Witness, we would like to see
24 you back tomorrow morning at 9.30 for further questions. It may not take
25 very long tomorrow.
1 I again instruct you that you should not speak or communicate
2 with whomever about your testimony, even not the small portion still to
3 be given tomorrow.
4 You may follow the usher.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Meanwhile Mr. Lukic, the Prosecution has informed
8 the Chamber, and you as well, that the complete investigation file for
9 the 18th of June incident, Simon Bolivar school was uploaded and requests
10 the completed file to replace the existing content of the document.
11 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour, since we introduced photo
12 documentation that was missing from the Prosecutor's file.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's P2043. Hereby, the evidence now in
14 P2043 may be replaced and the registry is accordingly instructed to
15 replace it by what is now doc ID 0033-4855 and a translation, same number
16 with the extension et.
17 Nothing else? Ms. Harbour?
18 MS. HARBOUR: We've requested, and we do request your leave as
19 well, to bring in the Markale 2 mortar stabiliser into the courtroom.
20 And that's artifact A001-3855. And it's 65 ter 22925 in our case.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And then we can have a look at it.
22 Nothing else? Then we adjourn for the day and we'll resume
23 tomorrow, Friday, the 30th of August, 9.30 in the morning in this same
24 courtroom, III.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.17 p.m.,
1 to be reconvened on Friday, the 30th day of August,
2 2013, at 9.30 a.m.