1 Friday, 13 February 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. Now, we have submissions,
6 Mr. Petrovic.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please.
8 Your Honour, yesterday I asked your leave to address you on two
9 points. The first point is the medical report, or rather, the addendum to
10 the medical report, as ordered by Your Honours on the 4th of February this
11 year. Yesterday we submitted the annex to the medical report, and in the
12 view of the Defence all the issues that were raised have been addressed in
13 this report, according to Your Honours' decision. I will not, of course,
14 go into the content of this report because I do not feel competent to make
15 any judgements about it. Of course this is up to you, Your Honours, and
16 others whose job it will be to judge the content of that report. However,
17 in our view the report establishes the necessary link which was perhaps
18 not sufficiently evident in the original report, that is, the link between
19 the diagnosis, the symptoms, and the influence of these on the key aspects
20 of the ability of the accused to stand trial, that is, to follow the
21 proceedings, to understand the proceedings, to give instructions to his
22 counsel, to possibly testify before the Bench, and to understand all the
23 consequences of what is happening before this Tribunal.
24 In our view, this link is now completely clear and the material is
25 now complete and that it forms a sufficient basis for a decision. We will
1 not burden you any further. We hold that the report is now complete. We
2 also abide by what we said previously on this issue, and that is the
3 readiness and openness of our side and our client to have the content of
4 this report verified. As Your Honours ordered last Wednesday, we
5 submitted the written consent of our client and our written consent to
6 allow access to our learned friends to all the documents now in the
7 Detention Unit. Last Thursday we delivered to them, or rather, we
8 delivered to the Detention Unit our written consent.
9 I would also like to mention that most of the documents, in
10 addition to the clinical analysis and the tests carried out by the expert,
11 all the other documents that Mr. Strugar brought with him on the 12th of
12 December are now in the Detention Unit. They have been handed over to the
13 medical service of the Detention Unit. Unfortunately, I have to say that
14 my learned friends from the Prosecution took steps to gain access to these
15 documents only yesterday, so that yesterday there was very lively
16 activity. In order to implement all this, there is a certain delay, but
17 we hope that my learned friends will have all these documents in their
18 possession today, or at the latest on Monday. We wish to reiterate that
19 as soon as Your Honours so ordered, we did submit our written consent and
20 our client's written consent. And if my learned friends still feel that
21 there is need for additional information in addition to the report of
22 Mrs. Tusevski, we hope that this matter will then proceed further, that
23 all the necessary tests will be carried out. And, Your Honours, I'm
24 willing to answer any questions you may have or any question my learned
25 friend, Ms. Somers, may have.
1 Thank you, Your Honour. By your leave, Your Honour, I will
2 address the second point I wish to raise when we have concluded discussing
3 the first topic.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Petrovic. The Chamber
5 takes it from all you have said that the two reports now that you have
6 obtained from Dr. Lecic, together with the earlier medical reports and
7 papers that have been brought across with your client provide the
8 foundation for the Defence's submission that the Chamber should terminate
9 the trial.
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the situation is as
11 follows: The report of Dr. Lecic of the 2nd of February and the
12 additional report that was submitted to you yesterday is the basis for
13 this. Why? Because none of the previous medical reports dealt
14 specifically with the ability of the accused to stand trial. The doctors
15 who examined him previously treated various aspects of his ailments, but
16 there was no synthesis made of this and no assessment by a court expert.
17 This is the only synthetic evaluation covering all the aspects of the
18 psychological and somatic status of the accused. This is, therefore, the
19 basis. Because none of the previous documents was all-encompassing. None
20 of them contained an overall analysis. They contained the case history,
21 which was then amplified by the clinical evaluation of the doctor and the
22 battery of tests that were carried out in order to assess the
23 psychological status of the accused.
24 We submit, therefore, that the basis for our motion is the report
25 and the addendum to the report, while all the other documents comprise the
1 case history, the medical history, which of course goes to support the
2 final report.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Petrovic.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Somers.
6 MS. SOMERS: Good morning, Your Honour. Thank you very much.
7 Addressing firstly the addendum. The Prosecution wishes to inform the
8 Chamber that upon the initial arising of this question, it made its
9 initial inquiries of various professionals as to the testing. The
10 decision on documents is based on the fact that what the Prosecution needs
11 first and foremost is films. We need the actual MRI, virtually every
12 professional we have spoken to has insisted on a current MRI, not a
13 two-year-old MRI from Podgorica, Montenegro. The inherent reliability of
14 the report based on a two-year-old MRI is obvious.
15 Accordingly one of the first things we will have to seek from the
16 Chamber is an order that an MRI be performed by a highly professional
17 institution under -- in the Netherlands under the most efficient
18 laboratory conditions available. And we will make the appropriate
19 requests in writing as we progress. But I do want to emphasise that that
20 is a critical first starting point. And it is my understand that the
21 films are not here from Montenegro, that we have nothing but reports.
22 Perhaps counsel can inform us at a later time, but that is my
24 JUDGE PARKER: From what you say whether the earlier MRI results
25 were available or not, those you have consulted would want a new test?
1 MS. SOMERS: Absolutely, Your Honour. The importance of having
2 the MRIs is for comparative bases, perhaps no different than traditional
3 testing that is done in any comparative study and also, of course, to
4 ensure that the subject is the subject.
5 Secondly, I note that the addendum appears more to be an apology,
6 as it were, in defence of comments made on the record as -- not an apology
7 in an excuse me apology, but a defensive apology of the psychiatrist as
8 opposed to addressing, really, how in whatever consultations were made,
9 the criteria that the Prosecution set forth preliminarily were met. There
10 is --
11 JUDGE PARKER: Well, Ms. Somers, can I say from the Chamber's
12 point of view the two reports that are now before us of Dr. Lecic form the
13 basis of the application for the Defence. As the Chamber has indicated,
14 we regard the first report on its own as sufficient to validly raise the
15 issue of the competence of the accused to stand trial. The further report
16 is in support of that, so that I don't think it's really helpful today to
17 put submissions as to the merit and quality of those reports. We're
18 really concerned with what is the Prosecution's position now and what it
19 needs to do and wishes to do about any examination before the Chamber
20 considers how to determine this application.
21 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour. I do understand that. The
22 Prosecution will undertake its own expert evaluation. It is in the
23 process of doing so. We are consulting with preeminent neuropsychiatrists
24 from both the United Kingdom and the United States at this point and we
25 are -- that has not been the parameters of the search. We are looking
1 really for the top people in the field.
2 We also understand that timing, because good people will not be
3 available on a day's notice, that timing is going to be an issue, and we
4 are -- once the preliminary issues of accepting the terms of employment
5 with the United Nations -- I -- have been dealt with -- we are providing
6 the relevant information as we get it. We will seek the current MRI. We
7 will have a -- we will seek to have a neuroradiologist interpret the MRI.
8 We will seek to have a neuropsychologist if possible, administer the
9 appropriate cognisant tests which are not discussed in the reports on
10 which the Defence is placing its case and a neuropsychiatrist to review
11 the findings and to do a clinical analysis, in other words to meet with
12 the accused and to perform the testing.
13 That is the plan, and this has been consistent with the
14 conversations with the professionals with whom we have dealt, that this is
15 the best way to go. We -- for purposes of proceeding further, if the
16 Chamber would want us to direct our submissions now to the motion that was
17 filed, and I'll wait for guidance on that.
18 JUDGE PARKER: No. What we need to know clearly and I think we
19 understand it from what you've said already, that you do propose to seek
20 to have examined the accused with a view to gaining your own opinions on
21 the competence of the accused to stand trial. And I think that's what
22 needs to be addressed today and that we need it from you an indication of
23 the timetable which you see. Because it is of grave concern to the
24 Chamber that this matter needs to be dealt with as quickly as possible.
25 MS. SOMERS: Yes, it is also obviously for us the same concern,
1 Your Honour. I appreciate that. The timing would be -- at least to get
2 the preliminaries within the next two weeks, based on the availability of
3 the particular doctors with whom we are speaking. We would need a Court
4 order, a Chamber order, for an MRI to be done directed to Registry. In
5 order to have the appropriate prescription, as it were, for the MRI, MRI
6 of, we would ask for enough time to have the examining or the lead doctor
7 give us that so we can put it in an appropriate order, lest there be any
8 misunderstanding and the tests are tests that require both timing to -- or
9 time to have ordered and have expense involved. So that would be the
10 first request. And we will undertake to try to have some answer I would
11 say within about seven to ten days. One person with whom we're very
12 interested in working is away. And if this person does undertake the
13 assignment, then we would need to allow sufficient time for his return to
14 his home base.
15 Again --
16 JUDGE PARKER: I'm sorry. It's not terribly clear to me about
17 what you are saying about the time that you need to be in a position to
18 have the reports you want to put before the Chamber in answer to the
19 reports of Dr. Lecic.
20 MS. SOMERS: For the final reports, Your Honour, I would not
21 envision earlier than after an MRI, after an MRI has been done and
22 interpreted. I would imagine we're probably looking at three to four
23 weeks because of the testing and the ability in the system to actually
24 have a filed, assessed report. Now, if we have to change the area of
25 search based on a timetable that is different here - and we appreciate
1 that the trial is not a long trial - but the timing also of the motion
2 puts us all in a difficult position. Had it been raised at a different
3 time, we might have been able to have jumped it more early. But I don't
4 want to put something before the Court that I could not deliver. If the
5 Chamber instructs that we narrow the search and try to move with a more
6 readily available -- I mean, the people we are trying to get are very,
7 very good people. This is my honest assessment. I would not foresee it
8 earlier than perhaps three weeks. We have to get the person in, we have
9 to get the examination done, and we have to have the MRI.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, thank you for waiting. You have been
12 on your feet. Yes.
13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I must
14 comment on what my learned friend has said. The plan that my learned
15 friend envisages of three to four weeks and then four to five weeks, this
16 in fact means that this trial will be over for the most part and that we
17 at present have only one report which indicates that the accused is not
18 competent and unable to follow the trial. The circumstances demand,
19 Your Honours, that this be dealt with extremely expeditiously. Needless
20 to say, we are now in a highly civilised country, and I am sure that any
21 urgent medical examination can be done very, very soon. This is the
22 experience of all of us here at this Tribunal. Therefore, I cannot
23 believe that it would take four weeks to have something done that can be
24 done tomorrow morning. I ask for your understanding, Your Honours. An
25 MRI can also be done in the Bronovo Hospital, which is 2 kilometres away
1 from this institution. It's not necessary for an expert to come in from
2 the U.S.A. I'm sure that a Dutch expert in the Westeinde Hospital or in
3 the Bronovo Hospital is just as highly qualified as somebody who might
4 come in from the U.S.A. We don't have to wait for somebody to travel
5 across the ocean when it could be done by somebody in our neighbourhood.
6 If we look at this way, Your Honours, then our request gains in strength.
7 Otherwise, if it is really necessary to have experts come in from the
8 U.S.A, I ask that the proceedings be interrupted and that there be a delay
9 until this is done. We believe that it is not necessary to wait so long,
10 and we ask for your intervention.
11 Secondly, Your Honours, of course the Defence does not object to
12 an MRI of the accused's head. On the contrary, we fully support this
13 proposal. This is something that was done in Podgorica. The image is in
14 the Detention Unit. This is something that is exact and not subject to
15 various interpretations, but we do not challenge the right of the
16 Prosecution to have this done. We, as laymen, have sought information on
17 the nature of this illness, and this is an irreversible process. It's a
18 process of multiple strokes in the brain, and it is something that can
19 only get worse, that cannot get better. But of course this will be
20 subject to the expert assessment of the Prosecution's expert.
21 What I have not heard in my learned friend's submissions is the
22 following: The MRI is only one aspect of the three psychiatric diagnosis
23 in this report. This is something that has to do with vascular dementia.
24 However, there are two other diagnoses and there is the overall synthesis.
25 The issue of Depression and the issue of PTSD. Depression and PTSD are
1 not something that can be diagnosed through an MRI; this is something that
2 has to be diagnosed by a psychiatrist. We fully support this first
3 submission that has to do with vascular dementia. But if the Prosecutor
4 doubts the entire report she should also work very fast on finding a
5 psychiatrist to evaluate the other two diagnoses and the overall
6 diagnosis. I refer to the jurisprudence prudence of this Tribunal. In
7 almost every case where a psychiatric evaluation was done, a psychiatric
8 evaluation that has to do with the psychological status irrespective of
9 the MRI or the CT or any other test. In all the cases I am familiar with
10 are at least in the vast majority of cases, this was done by somebody who
11 speaks the language of the accused. To do a psychological evaluation, a
12 psychiatric evaluation, through an interpreter, this is something where a
13 lot can get lost. Only direct contact can enable the psychiatrist to
14 carry out an assessment.
15 What I am trying to say is that this psychiatrist should be
16 somebody from Belgrade or Podgorica. Your Honours, you know that people
17 from many other countries in the western Balkans speak similar languages,
18 so the expert can also be from Sarajevo or from Zagreb or any other part
19 of the former Yugoslavia where languages are spoken that the accused
20 understands. The expert can also be from the U.S. if he understands the
21 language of the accused. But to carry out a psychiatric evaluation
22 through an interpreter would mean losing a vast amount of necessary
23 information. So please bear this in mind, Your Honours. This has been
24 the practice in the vast majority of the cases known to this Defence team
25 before this Tribunal.
1 Therefore, Your Honours, I ask you -- well, first of all, I fully
2 support what Ms. Somers has said about the MRI of the brain, and I ask
3 that this be done as soon as possible. And also I would ask Your Honours
4 to establish a very strict and limited timetable, one measured in days not
5 in months, Your Honour. What my learned friend is suggesting would take
6 months, and months would take us to an appeal, possibly. Therefore, I ask
7 Your Honours to act promptly in this case. Should this not be possible, I
8 ask that the proceedings be interrupted until my learned friend can get
9 all the information she needs. I don't think this is in the interest of
10 any of us, however. Thank you, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Petrovic. There's some
12 very valid observations there. But I understand from what you said
13 earlier, Ms. Somers, that you not only are contemplating the need, as a
14 first step, for an MRI examination and its interpretation by a
15 neuroradiologist. And you were also looking at a neuropsychologist and a
17 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, that's correct. We're looking at --
18 it's clearly a multidisciplinary endeavour. And Thank you for letting me
19 continue my submissions. I wasn't contemplating the --
20 JUDGE PARKER: I thought you had finished. I do beg your pardon.
21 MS. SOMERS: No, it's okay. I appreciate -- I wanted to make sure
22 that a couple of points were made. First of all, we were -- we did not --
23 I don't see that five weeks was part of our submission. We are trying to
24 be very realistic. This is, really, the first -- this would become the
25 first fitness hearing probably in -- I may not speak for all Tribunals,
1 but certainly in this Tribunal, and we are mindful of the importance of
2 making sure that it is done in the most appropriate manner.
3 JUDGE PARKER: And from the Chamber's point of view, relevant and
4 significant in that is time.
5 MS. SOMERS: Yes, we understand that. And the issue of -- I
6 believe Defence counsel has not understood that we are not suggesting that
7 an MRI specialist come over from any other place. But the Dutch system is
8 fine and Bronovo hospital would be a very appropriate place to have it
9 done. It is certainly a superb institution.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Can we cut to the core then. The Chamber would
11 look to receive from you today, if it were feasible, the order that you
12 would propose for the MRI. There is no objection to such a test as long
13 as it is framed with the medical detail that we would need our assistance
14 on. You can expect that the Chamber would grant that order. And in view
15 of all that you've said and the need for urgency in the case and what
16 Mr. Petrovic has said, we would take the view that it ought to be feasible
17 to -- for the Prosecution to be in a position to have its report before
18 the Chamber in three weeks from now. And that is what we would see as the
19 timetable. It's not the months that Mr. Petrovic feared, nor is it quite
20 the days that I think he had hoped for, but it is in view of all that has
21 to be done and what you have put, we think an adequate time.
22 Now, we leave it entirely to your judgement who and how you
23 achieve the result. And the fact is relevant and that will include the
24 need to be in a position to put the necessary report or reports before us
25 within three weeks.
1 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour. May I inquire on one point.
2 Mr. Petrovic presupposed that the MRI was only of the brain. In fact, the
3 report discusses a number of other organic issues and I suspect it will
4 not be limited just to one particular area and that a full and cooperative
5 examination by the accused will be, I'm sure, sought by the examining
6 physicians. And we are also -- when we told the Chamber what we had hoped
7 to be able to line up, this is the hope. If the time frame changes any
8 aspect of the multidisciplinary team, then of course we will proceed as
9 time and resources permit, still with the idea of giving the Chamber the
10 most helpful possible report.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. Well, I certainly understand from
12 Mr. Petrovic that the relevance of the other physical conditions is seen
13 to be a relevant and significant aspect. And a full examination by MRI of
14 any of those possible symptoms would seem to be sensible. Would that not
15 be the case Mr. Petrovic? You're getting instructions.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise, I was not
17 in a position to hear exactly what you just told me. I apologise on
18 behalf of my colleagues and my client. I again must apologise to
19 Your Honours.
20 [Defence counsel confers]
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do apologise for
22 this inconvenience that we have just caused the Chamber. We were trying
23 to consult our client in this matter. His hearing seems to be a further
24 problem. What Mr. Rodic has just found out from our client is that the
25 MRI scan of the lower half of the body was done just before our client
1 arrived here. So it is not certain that -- at any rate, the doctors will
2 see. Once he arrived in the Detention Unit, the scan was done. So the
3 lower half of his body was done -- was scanned here. It has been
4 available since the 12th of December, so there's no need to go through
5 that again. As for the other thing that my colleague has talked about,
6 this is true, this was done two years ago, and there is no problem for
7 that to be done again.
8 But I would ask again for the Chamber to take into consideration
9 the fact that part of this team at least, which needs -- must be an
10 interdisciplinary team must be from the former Yugoslavia, those who will
11 conduct the clinical examination of the accused must be someone who shares
12 the same language, because the very validity of their report rests on
13 that. It is not possible to have this done through an interpreter; that's
14 what experience teaches us. This may as well be someone from Zagreb or,
15 perhaps even to push it to an extreme, somebody from Dubrovnik. The
16 important thing is that the expert speaks the language of the accused.
17 This is our submission, Your Honour. Thank you.
18 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, we will look into the availability of
19 any recent films on the accused. And I would like simply to make a record
20 comment that those of us from multicultural jurisdictions who have worked
21 through interpretation for a long time find that the proposition that
22 through -- working through translation is an inefficient tool; that simply
23 is not the case. And whether we select to have someone who is from the
24 former Yugoslavia or someone who simply is a translator who can work well
25 with a skilled professional will be within the -- certainly within the
1 discretion of the Prosecution. And that we would -- our experience in
2 interviewing very eminent professionals is that because they come from
3 jurisdictions where not everyone is speaking the same language, they have
4 to work quite a bit through interpretation, which is not a new phenomenon.
5 And accordingly we will certainly make sure that it is clear that language
6 has to be very much factored in. But this is not something that I is
7 within the sound province of the Defence to settle. Thank you very much.
8 And we will report back. If there is any issue next week, we will submit.
9 We can preliminarily request the prescription for a description of the MRI
10 so we can get it to the Chamber. If the professional is not able to get
11 it because of a time change today, is Monday satisfactory for the Chamber?
12 JUDGE PARKER: I can't imagine that you will get any full MRI done
13 over the weekend if it's not an emergency. So Monday will meet that.
14 MS. SOMERS: Thank you.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Something further, Mr. Petrovic?
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my apologies for
17 taking up too much time this morning. In view of what my learned friend
18 and colleague has just said, she knows full well, and so do I, in many
19 cases that she, too, was part of and that I was part of. How the issue of
20 psychiatric expert opinion was dealt with, in terms of the language being
21 spoken. We can go back into private session to enumerate the cases in
22 which psychiatrists from the same language area as the accused conducted
23 such examinations. This has been the case in most instances. My learned
24 friend has been part of these cases and so has the Defence team. There is
25 no need to point out who the Prosecution enlisted for this job or the
1 Trial Chamber or the representative Defence teams. One of these -- one of
2 the members of these teams invariably was someone who understands and
3 shares the language of the accused. If you have an interpreter, you can
4 see for yourselves, Your Honours, how many problems we encounter in our
5 daily work here in terms of interpretation. We fully respect the degree
6 of difficulty involved in their work, but there are problems on a daily
7 basis. You are perfectly able to imagine how difficult it must be when we
8 are talking about a psychiatric evaluation of someone who has a mental
10 Nuances of translation become highly important. It is very
11 important to see all the nuances of meaning once the report is drawn up.
12 This is of the utmost importance. And this has been the established
13 practice in the jurisprudence of this Tribunal. Obviously, experts all
14 over the world are welcome to contribute their expertise to this
15 institution. However, in this specific case I don't think we can replace
16 experts from the former Yugoslavia when we talk about psychiatric
17 evaluations of the accused. This is specific to the case in hand, and I
18 believe this should be taken into account by the Chamber. Thank you very
19 much, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE PARKER: We are of the view that given the difficulties that
23 have faced with finding people with appropriate qualification and
24 experience in the limited time that we feel this issue must be dealt with,
25 that it would be wrong to give any direction that people of a particular
1 language skill should be chosen. But we are very sympathetic to the
2 common sense of what has been put to us by Mr. Petrovic, and we would
3 indicate that it is likely to be a factor which we will take into account.
4 Should there be a difference of opinion emerge between the psychiatrists
5 and others consulted by the Prosecution and the reports we already have
6 from Dr. Lecic, we will see it as relevant and will take into account,
7 should the examination and assessment by a psychiatrist be -- and a
8 psychologist be one that is undertaken through an interpreter rather than
9 by a medical expert who shares the language and culture of the accused.
10 Now, we have there, Ms. Somers, gone out of our way, perhaps, not
11 to tie your hands too much, but I am sure you will take into account the
12 value for this type of examination and assessment of choosing people who
13 do not have to work through an interpreter. The Chamber will therefore
14 leave the matter on this basis. Either today or Monday, we will receive
15 from the Prosecution the order which they seek for an MRI examination of
16 the brain at least. Whether there is need for it to be of the body will
17 depend upon inquiries, I am sure that will be made, whether there is, as
18 has been indicated, a current MRI scan available of the other relevant
19 parts of the body of the accused. And we will look for the report or
20 reports within three weeks of the MRI scan being made.
21 Now, Mr. Petrovic, the second matter you wish to raise.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my apologies for
23 taking up so much of our time this morning, but we believe that these were
24 important issues to be raised and that ultimately this will contribute to
25 expedite proceedings.
1 The other thing I wanted to bring up on behalf of Mr. Strugar's
2 defence, if the Chamber could possibly take into account the following:
3 To have a brief pause in these proceedings. Why is it that we are
4 requesting this? I will try to be brief.
5 First of all, I wish to say that I have brought this up before
6 with my learned friends from the OTP, and I wish to point out - they will
7 no doubt correct me if I'm wrong - that they have shown a great deal of
8 understanding for problems that we have presented. They will not take up
9 any particular position on this; they will leave it to the Chamber, to the
10 Chamber's discretion, to decide. The reasons are as follows: I would like
11 to, please, briefly go into private session for the first reason I am
12 about to bring up. I would not like it to be made public.
13 JUDGE PARKER: The reason for that, Mr. Petrovic?
14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the reason is personal
15 and it pertains to a request in relation to the accused.
16 JUDGE PARKER: You're asking me and the Chamber to be just a
17 little -- resting a little lightly on the Rules which stipulate particular
18 reasons why we should go into private. If you will be quick, we will go
19 into private.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will try
21 to oblige. You won't believe how brief I can be.
22 JUDGE PARKER: I look forward to it.
23 [Private session]
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I hope, Your Honours, that I have
3 complied with your instructions in terms of brevity. This was the first
4 thing I wish to raise. There is another reason, too, which I would like
5 to speak about now. There are two further reasons that the Defence team
6 wishes to address.
7 As you know, Your Honours, we have been here on the ground for
8 over a month now. We have people back home conducting investigations on
9 our behalf. However, since more than a month we have been in touch by
10 telephone with these people working for us; however, some things just
11 cannot be discussed on the phone and must be dealt with directly. It's
12 about gathering evidence, and some issues are simply too sensitive to be
13 dealt with, like this, over the phone. There is a need to get in direct
14 contact with these people, at least for a brief period of time. Some of
15 the instructions can be forwarded over the telephone, but some can't.
16 As we have been informed that there are a number of witnesses that
17 these people have contacted and that may be potentially important
18 witnesses for us and for our case; however, even with full respect for the
19 work of our people on the ground, these witnesses are adamant that they
20 want to speak to one of the people directly involved in the trial, meaning
21 myself or my colleague, Mr. Rodic.
22 The third reason relates to the expert witness reports that we --
23 that have finally been disclosed to us in English and B/C/S last
24 Wednesday, if I'm not mistaken. Now we get to the issue of our own
25 experts who have to provide their own opinion. We are talking to our
1 experts on the phone, however the sheer scope of the problem is such that
2 part of it can be dealt with over the phone, but some of it needs to be
3 gone through in the physical presence of these people who provide us with
4 their expertise. Your Honours, this is only possible if we are actually
5 physically in their presence and in direct touch with them. We are well
6 aware that time is a major concern for this Trial Chamber, but we have
7 brought up these three different groups of reasons. And I believe it
8 would be in the interests of justice for you to perhaps allow us to pause
9 in the first week of March. I spoke to Ms. Somers about this, and as far
10 as I understand there has not been any prearrangement that has been for
11 the witnesses in that particular week; therefore, we would not be
12 disrupting the -- an already existing schedule.
13 By your leave, even Ms. Somers would be able to comply with that
14 schedule, should the Trial Chamber allow to have a week's interruption in
15 the proceedings in the first week of March. This is our request. Thank
16 you very much, Your Honours, and we believe that we will have your
17 understanding in these matters.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, two issues. Firstly, you feel a week
19 at about that time would accommodate both the anxiety of the accused, to
20 be able to spend some time with his wife. And secondly, the needs of the
21 Defence to pursue certain detailed preparation of your case, interviewing
22 witnesses and consulting experts. A week will deal with all of these
23 issues; is that what you're saying?
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, that's what I'm
25 saying. All these things could be done in the course of that week. We
1 will make sure to make arrangements to meet all these requirements. It is
2 our assumption that key issues in connection with this case will be raised
3 in the month of March. I am referring to experts whose expert opinions
4 you have had occasion to read, as well as some of the key witnesses which
5 are material to this case. We believe that these key testimonies could be
6 shifted by your decision. This is the minimum of time that we need in
7 order to arrange these things. Thank you very much, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Somers.
9 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, Your Honour. Actually, when Mr. Petrovic
10 raised this to me, his comment was: We need a few days. It was not a
11 week. The only comment that the Prosecution could make was that we have
12 witnesses scheduled through the end of February, and we are hopeful that
13 if it moves along with due speed, that these witnesses will be able to
14 arrive and testify and go home. Our -- as the Chamber knows, VWU, we
15 don't want to bring people here, having returned not testified. So as it
16 stands the schedule is made with arrivals scheduled for, I think it's up
17 to 27th, 28th February. So literally the end of the month.
18 If the Chamber feels -- and I'd want to make it a matter of
19 record, we do not want to see the accused deprived of family visits. This
20 is never something that we think should be the case in normal
21 circumstances. If the Chamber is persuaded that the Defence has made out
22 cause, then we leave it certainly in the Chamber's hands, but we were
23 talking about a few days as opposed to a week. We are mindful that some
24 of the heaviest witnesses will be coming in the month of March, and it is
25 going to be a very - for lack of a better word - brutal trial schedule
1 with heavy examination, including former co-accused, experts, significant
2 political. So we are working at the same difficult pace that the Chamber
3 and the Defence and the accused are working at. If the Chamber
4 nonetheless sees that there is a place for the request, then again, we had
5 looked at it as a few days, but we leave it -- we understand that there
6 could be a time consequence if it went beyond that.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Somers, looking ahead and without seeking any
8 binding commitment or observation from you, if according to the present
9 pace we reach the end of February with the witnesses, can you give some
10 indication to the Chamber when the expert witnesses on which you are
11 relying are likely to be called in March. Will they be early in the
12 month, middle of the month or late in the month?
13 MS. SOMERS: They would be late in the month, Your Honour. They
14 would be toward the end. Strategically placed and also by virtue of the
15 time limits that are required by the Rules unless there is any waiver of
16 such, which I would not anticipate. But toward the end of the month. And
17 again, the list of witnesses is heavy. I would anticipate significant
18 cross-examination of these witnesses as well.
19 JUDGE PARKER: But -- yes, very well. I was going to make a light
20 comment then, but I've changed my mind.
21 MS. SOMERS: But does that answer your question, though, generally
22 about the placement of them, toward the end of the month. Certainly the
23 initial time frame that everyone contemplated a different pace of
24 examination. That has not materialised. I think we have all had to work
25 accordingly. But given the situation in the courtroom, it would appear
1 that -- end of March.
2 JUDGE PARKER: And how do you see the time which we will needed
3 for the Prosecution case at present?
4 MS. SOMERS: Because they are coming at the end of March,
5 depending on cross-examination, I suppose literally end of March or first
6 week or weeks into April I would say that finishing. Realistically.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Does that take into account the need for a week?
8 Or if there were a week, would that need to be added on to your estimate?
9 MS. SOMERS: I think that would be adding on to it, and
10 additionally depending on the medical issues, that will not be -- that's a
11 hearing that I assume would be taking several days. And that's an
12 additional expert realm of testimony that neither -- well, certainly the
13 Prosecution did not contemplate when it set out its schedule. So I think
14 that would be my response. We're looking at additional to -- plus
15 anything that comes out of the medical.
16 JUDGE PARKER: So if we were to grant this application, we would
17 be extending the trial by that time and with the need also to consider
18 medical, we could well be to the mid of April before we finish the
19 Prosecution case on present indications.
20 MS. SOMERS: I think that is entirely realistic, Your Honour.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE PARKER: We've taken up nearly an hour and ten minutes of
23 the session. The Chamber would propose to have the morning break now and
24 to give consideration to this application and resume again at half past
25 for two longer sessions.
1 --- Recess taken at 10.07 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 10.36 a.m.
3 JUDGE PARKER: With regard to the matter raised just before the
4 adjournment, we've been persuaded that some break in the proceedings is
5 justified. But given the total programme of the trial and the other
6 commitments that have to be considered, the first week in March is not one
7 that is terribly convenient. What we have in mind is that there should be
8 a break commencing with Thursday the 11th of March, which is toward the
9 end of the second week of March, with a resumption then on Thursday the
10 18th of March. That will allow not only a full week but a weekend, and it
11 will fit in, we think, a little better with the progress of the trial. It
12 will be before the experts come to give evidence for the Prosecution. It
13 will fit better with the timetable for the medical review of the health of
14 the accused.
15 And we therefore propose that in your planning of evidence,
16 Ms. Somers, you should be sure that a witness finishes on the 10th or else
17 is a witness who can readily return.
18 Will that be adequate for your needs, Mr. Petrovic?
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you
20 on behalf of the Defence.
21 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, can I just ask one more bit in aid of
22 the medical aspect. We are anticipating full cooperation from the
23 Detention Unit based on the consent of General Strugar to have access to
24 his records. Should there be any need for further order for copying, for
25 example, of any type of film or record, if I may simply submit a copy
1 through the normal channels to the Chamber. Thank you very much,
2 Your Honour.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Now, we may be able to turn to
4 Mr. Kaufman's witness.
5 [The witness entered court]
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning, Mr. Kaiser. I'm sorry that we were
7 delayed this morning on other issues. Could I remind you of the
8 affirmation you took when your evidence commenced, which is still
10 Yes, Mr. Kaufman.
11 MR. KAUFMAN: If it pleases Your Honours.
12 WITNESS: COLIN KAISER [Resumed]
13 Examined by Mr. Kaufman: [Continued]
14 Q. Good morning, Mr. Kaiser, thank you very much for returning.
15 MR. KAUFMAN: I wonder, Mr. Usher, before you sit down if the
16 bundles that we had open yesterday could be placed once again in front of
17 the witness, that is the bundles containing the witness's exhibits.
18 Your Honours, whilst the bundles are being placed in front of Dr.
19 Kaiser, perhaps it would be appropriate to say that the Prosecution will
20 adopt the same procedure that has been adopted in matters of other bundles
21 which have been placed in front of witnesses such that if there are
22 documents which are not referred to by the witness during his testimony,
23 then of course, those documents will be removed form the bundles. I
24 should like to add furthermore that there will be perhaps a couple of
25 documents in these bundles which would better be addressed by a witness
1 who is scheduled to appear not next week but the week after, Mr. Janicot
2 who is also a UNESCO official. I should add furthermore that there are a
3 number of legal documents which I would submit are matters of judicial
4 notice, and in any event contained in these bundles. In this matter, I
5 indicate that there are two conventions at least contained in the bundle,
6 and those are for Your Honours' convenience.
7 JUDGE PARKER: That's very helpful. Thank you, Mr. Kaufman. And
8 if as we progress through the bundles you can indicate the documents which
9 are better addressed by the witness to come, it will facilitate our grasp
10 of that matter. Thank you.
11 MR. KAUFMAN: Indeed, Your Honours. That is what I, in fact,
12 propose to do, first of all, with the witness.
13 Q. If we may start. Dr. Kaiser, you now have the bundles in front of
14 you. Could you perhaps open up the first bundle to tab 1.
15 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, this witness will not refer to tab 1.
16 This will be a matter better dealt with by, as I said, Mr. Janicot.
17 Q. But Dr. Kaiser, document number 2 -- tab 2. I believe you have
18 the wrong bundle open in front of you. Is that tab 2, sir? I believe you
19 have the wrong bundle. It's the larger of the two.
20 A. Excuse me, I don't recall seeing any tabs in this document.
21 Q. Oh. I apologise. No, you have -- I believe the wrong bundles
22 have been placed in front of the witness. I do apologise.
23 MR. KAUFMAN: Mr. Usher, if you could be of assistance. I wonder
24 whether, Your Honours, this would be an appropriate time for the bundles
25 to be assigned at least a number, to avoid future confusion.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, they will be received.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit P63.
3 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you.
4 Q. Now, Dr. Kaiser, document number 2 --
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
6 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Bearing in mind the discussion we
8 had when we addressed this topic the last time, with respect to the report
9 on the damage, at the end of the cross-examination of the witness, I ask
10 that everything be marked for identification only. And then at the end of
11 the examination, we shall be able to see what is and what is not an
12 exhibit. The same profile of documents is before you in this case as in
13 the previous case, which is why I request that the formal admission of the
14 documents be delayed until the end of the examination, and that they be
15 marked for identification purposes only.
16 JUDGE PARKER: I was acting on the basis that had been indicated
17 by Mr. Kaufman, that while a number has been allocated only those
18 documents actually referred to and identified by the witness would remain
19 in the bundle. But my instincts are with you, Mr. Petrovic, and we will
20 have this marked for identification as 63 for the moment. And if there is
21 any issue at the end of the evidence of the witness, it can be considered.
22 But no doubt some of the bundle, if not all of it, will become Exhibit
23 P63. But for the moment, marked for identification, P63.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
25 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you, Your Honour, as well.
1 Q. Dr. Kaiser, tab 2. Are you familiar with this document? You
2 mentioned yesterday that you were familiar with Dubrovnik's UNESCO status.
3 Perhaps you could enlighten to us what this is.
4 A. This is the nomination submitted by the Socialist Federal Republic
5 of Yugoslavia for submission of the Old Town of Dubrovnik on the World
6 Heritage List.
7 Q. So are you able to expand upon the nature of the World Heritage
8 List, or would you rather that that be left to Mr. Janicot?
9 A. I worked with the questions related to the World Heritage List
10 when I was the director of international council of monuments and sites.
11 Because ICOMOS was an institutional partner which was asked for its
12 opinion about the nominations. And ICOMOS would ask a consultant to
13 examine the nomination according to the different criteria. I have not
14 worked with criteria and these documents for a very long time. I could
15 answer some questions about Dubrovnik. But I wouldn't feel comfortable to
16 deal with this very sort of old matter.
17 Q. Well, sir, the documents are self-explanatory and I would submit
18 that they will be the subject of legal discussion at a later date in any
20 But are you aware of the dates upon which, or the year at any rate
21 on which the Old Town Dubrovnik was inscribed on the World Heritage List?
22 A. 1979.
23 Q. Now, moving on to the next document at tab 3 and tab 4, at some
24 stage I believe there was an expansion of the Old Town of Dubrovnik.
25 Perhaps you could enlighten us as to that. This concerns documents 3 and
2 A. What I can say about this is first of all it gives me a certain
3 amount of pleasure that see that in 1993 there was an extension of the
4 World Heritage Site, because in our mission report for the mission of
5 November/December 1991, in annex 16 of that report, we drew attention to
6 certain, let's say, inconsistencies in the nomination, the argument being
7 that the nomination did not fully cover the traditional urban system of
8 the Old Town of Dubrovnik. And I was very pleased to discover very
9 recently that in fact the Republic of Croatia had made such a demand too
10 for the extension of the site.
11 Q. Well, I don't want to tax you too much with perhaps details that
12 you're not familiar with offhand, because as I say it's all contained in
13 the document at any rate. But are you familiar in what way the Old Town
14 of Dubrovnik was expanded for the purposes of an amendment, addition
15 inclusion on the World Heritage List?
16 A. I think that the original nomination gave us the limits of the
17 nomination site, the walls of the Old Town and the ditches. But there
18 were other features. It wasn't clear to us, for example, if the Old Port
19 was included because it was just outside the walls. It wasn't on the
20 other side of a ditch. There was a question of the breakwater, the kasa
21 [phoen] which was very old which -- mediaeval structure. There were
22 quarantine buildings which were east of Dubrovnik, which was very, very
23 important because this was where the merchandise was brought and kept for
24 a certain period of time. We also raised -- drew attention to the site of
25 the lazareto which is where people would be if they are suspected of being
1 ill they would be kept. And that was all part of the urban economy and
2 the management of the city. I think maybe we mentioned Revelin which was
3 an outer work on the east side of Dubrovnik. And then there was the
4 fortress Lovrijenac which was to the west, which struck us as being part
5 of what we -- a defence system of the Old Town of Dubrovnik.
6 Q. Thank you, sir. Moving on to tab 5 we see the letter that was to
7 you yesterday. That being, as you explained in your evidence yesterday,
8 your mandate, as it were. After that letter there is a document, a rather
9 substantial document, which will form the large part of your evidence
10 today. Could you briefly in a few words explain what that was. We'll go
11 into a detail -- in detail at a later stage.
12 A. Well, this is the mission report that was done by Mr. Carnez and
13 myself, following our mission to Dubrovnik in November and December 1991.
14 I can go into great detail about different components of it and different
15 objectives, purposes, of the report if the Court so wishes.
16 Q. Well, we will do that in due course, Dr. Kaiser. For the time
17 being we're just going through the bundle so the Court is aware of what
18 are contained in these bundles for future reference. So perhaps if we
19 could now move on to the second bundle. And tab 6. I think this is
20 fairly self-explanatory, but this is a UNESCO document entitled
21 "Properties Inscribed on the World Heritage List." Yes, that's the
22 document. What do we have here?
23 A. This simply appears to be a list of properties that were parts
24 of -- were listed properties on the World Heritage List as of July 2002.
25 Q. And on page 3, the Old City of Dubrovnik is inscribed, along with
1 a number of other sites in Croatia.
2 Tab 7, please, sir.
3 MR. KAUFMAN: I believe that a confusion has arisen as to the
4 tabs, because I'm informed by Ms. McCreath that we have tabs that are
5 numbered 8 and tabs that are numbered 7 for this particular document. The
6 document I am referring to is a document -- the second document in the
7 second bundle. And the document is entitled "Establishment of the World
8 Heritage List." Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. General principles, Dr. Kaiser, are you able to enlighten us on
10 these, what this is?
11 A. Well, this is kind of a framework document for deciding what the
12 World Heritage List will be about. But as I said earlier, this is the
13 type of material I have been away from for a very, very long. This is
14 kind of a guidebook, a framework for the principles, probably criteria.
15 Q. Okay. Moving on. The next document is a document written in
16 French and in English. Translation is supplied. It's entitled "1991-1992
17 Biens culturels endommages lors des bombardements", "cultural properties
18 damaged by shelling, 1991 to 1992." This is a UNESCO report as well, is
20 A. Well, in fact this is the UNESCO programme for the restoration of
21 cultural properties which had been damaged in the bombardments in 1991 and
22 1992. This was prepared by UNESCO in cooperation with the Institute for
23 the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Dubrovnik.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, the documents that remain in the
1 bundles are legal documents, two conventions, which are the subject -- one
2 of which at any rate is the subject matter of this -- the indictment,
3 counts 4 to 6, and ratification documents. But I shan't trouble the
4 witness with these documents. As I say they are purely legal documents
5 and will be addressed, no doubt, in submissions to the Court at a later
6 stage. Thank you.
7 Q. Thank you, Dr. Kaiser, for your assistance in that matter.
8 Now, if we can turn back to where we left off yesterday, as it
9 were the narrative. But before we do that, I have one clarification
10 question. You mentioned a meeting with a colonel by the name of
11 Stamenkovic. Just so it's clear for the record, Stamenkovic was
12 associated with which organisation, which body?
13 A. He was the liaison officer with the 5th Military District,
14 therefore in contact with various organisations, international community
16 Q. Okay. So yesterday you talked about implementing the plan for
17 verifying the damage that had been done in the months of October and
18 November 1991. Now, please remind us, your role there was as a
19 consultant. What would you do to verify that damage? What administrative
20 aids would you use for that purpose?
21 A. Normally there should be some sort of reporting format that exists
22 for damage. There of course are reporting formats all over the world,
23 administrations, companies, et cetera, et cetera. The question here was
24 that this was a matter of war damage. There did not seem to be any
25 particular available reporting format. There would be reporting formats
1 later on in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, which were basically adaptations
2 of damage surveys, adapted to war damage. And -- but in Dubrovnik we
3 found that there was no particular available reporting format that seemed
4 to be adequate. When I went back through my report, I found that there
5 was an allusion to a reporting format for the earthquake of 1979 which
6 apparently -- I can't remember the reasons why we thought that was not
7 adequate. So it was very, very important to establish a methodology and a
8 form which would help to guarantee consistency in our reports. And I
9 think that after the first one or two sites that we happened to see I sat
10 down and I drew up a reporting format.
11 Q. In that matter, may I ask you to look at your monitor. Perhaps if
12 you could press the button entitled "video," we will show you an image,
13 "video evidence," please. Do you have a document displayed on your
15 A. Yes, I can see it quite clearly.
16 Q. Perhaps if you could enlighten us to that particular document.
17 What is that?
18 A. This is the particular form that I drew up. It's in French
19 because it was a bilingual mission. My partner in the mission was a
20 Francophone. So this was a French language form.
21 Q. So kindly take us through this fiche and translate it for the
22 benefit of those of us who are not familiar with the French language.
23 A. "Degats de guerre a Dubrovnik", that's war damage in Dubrovnik.
24 "Fiche", that's the form, that was for the number of the form. "Numero de
25 l'Institut", this was a reference to the number that the institute itself
1 had put on their preliminary damage assessment. "Date et heure de
2 releve", that is the date, the time that the survey was made.
3 "Localisation", this is the address of the structure of the building,
4 whatever it was. This "Structure" was the what -- whether it was a house,
5 whether it was a fountain, whether it was a church. "Date presume des
6 degats", this is the presumed date of the damage. "Projectile", that of
7 course is the projectile. It was very important that we find the
8 projectile. After all, We are supposed to be looking at war damage.
9 "Description des degats", description of the damage, which is simply what
10 was the condition of the particular structure, or part of the structure
11 when we saw it. "Appreciation des desgats", this was sort of a -- an
12 evaluation of the damage in terms of its importance. "Divers",
13 miscellaneous. "Comparison avec appreciation de l'Institut", this is
14 simply a comparison with the comments that had been made by the institute
15 in their preliminary assessment.
16 Q. Now, in the evidence of a previous witness, we discussed what
17 would become known as categories of damage. Had that system of
18 classification been introduced when you were doing your examinations in
19 the months -- concerning the months of October and November?
20 A. No. I had not introduced that -- this sort of notation or damage
21 in the earlier assessment.
22 Q. Could you tell the Trial Chamber what happened on your first foray
23 into the Old Town in pursuance of this mission?
24 A. The first foray was in the Stradun and the first building that we
25 visited was a house on Boskoviceva Street where there had been a number of
2 Q. Do you know what -- on what date those impacts were caused?
3 A. I think in the annex 3 of the report I mention some dates. I
4 think that those dates for that particular house, I think it had been
5 struck on the 23rd of October in the shellings in November from the 10th
6 to 12th of November.
7 Q. Did you meet the occupant of that particular address?
8 A. Yes, I met the -- I met an older woman who was cleaning her house
10 Q. What did she tell you?
11 A. Well, she laughed and said, They always hit us here, in this
13 Q. Now, please, sir, describe the damage that you encountered on
14 Boskoviceva Street on your first foray into the Old town, from that
15 building to the surrounding buildings.
16 A. Well, this particular building which was on the corner,
17 Boskoviceva Street and the Stradun, had been hit in the roof, so it
18 presented roof damage. It appears -- the roof tiles had gone out. Part
19 of the roof was open to the sky. It was -- at the top of the building I
20 had actually pulled out a projectile. This was the first projectile I had
21 seen in fact in situ. There was also another -- a direct impact on the
22 east facade of that house, not at street level but quite high up. And as
23 for the surrounding houses, the surrounding houses, of course, presented
24 some damage which came from shrapnel -- well, which is to say it could
25 have come from roof tiles blown off the roof, or in the case of this big
1 impact which was on the wall, it could come from the fragments of the
2 shell or from the stone that was damaged. A lot of windows were blown
3 out. I can't remember in great detail what each of those houses opposite
4 the house on -- the damaged house -- exactly what the damage was, but it's
5 in my report.
6 Q. And as you mentioned, that is contained in annex 3 to your report,
7 which is to be found at tab 5 of the bundles we've placed in front of
8 Their Honours. Now, sir, you --
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] My apologies for interrupting my
10 learned friend and the witness, Your Honour. Unfortunately I'm not able
11 to find annex 3 in my copy of the document. I've looked at both English
12 and French version of the text and I seem unable to locate annex 3 at tab
13 6. Perhaps --
14 MR. KAUFMAN: If I may assist Mr. Petrovic in this matter.
15 This, Mr. Petrovic, was the document that was passed to you at the
16 beginning of the week.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Is it not in the bundle?
18 MR. KAUFMAN: I believe it is in Your Honours' bundles. It might
19 not necessarily be in Mr. Petrovic's bundle because we gave him advanced
20 copies of these exhibits so he could prepare himself as appropriate for
21 the hearing.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] My apologies. If this is indeed
23 the case. My apologies to both my learned friend and the Trial Chamber.
24 I don't have it here right now, but I will have a look in my files.
25 JUDGE PARKER: I'm still finding it.
1 MR. KAUFMAN: Sorry. Yes, Your Honours, it does not have a cover
2 sheet marked "annex 3," it is actually marked annex 3 on the document
3 itself, in -- the body of the document in French.
4 JUDGE PARKER: I have found it. It's page 607 of the last
5 numerals. Thank you.
6 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you, sir.
7 Q. Now, I would like to clarify your last answer, Dr. Kaiser. You
8 mentioned that you pulled a projectile out of that particular building.
9 What did you actually pull out. Could you be more specific.
10 A. It was a metal cylinder about this length. And at the end of the
11 metal cylinder, there were a lot of little aluminum tails, like little
13 JUDGE PARKER: For the record, I think by your hand you indicated
14 something like 10 centimetres, did you?
15 THE WITNESS: About that, yes.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
17 MR. KAUFMAN: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. I have never been very
18 good at assessing distances.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Don't rely on me, Mr. Kaufman, but we have the
20 witness's concurrence.
21 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Do you remember the address, sir? I will ask you to draw it on
23 the map that we had put in front of you yesterday.
24 MR. KAUFMAN: Perhaps if that could be placed in front of the
25 witness once again. With the blue felt tip, if you could perhaps mark the
1 position of the house. Please draw a box.
2 THE WITNESS: [Witness complies]
3 MR. KAUFMAN:
4 Q. Do you remember the number of that house?
5 A. Number 1.
6 Q. And the damage to the surrounding houses, perhaps if you could put
7 a few dots on the -- without drawing any circles or anything, just a few
8 dots where the damage was incurred to surrounding houses.
9 A. [Witness complies]
10 Q. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
11 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you, Mr. Usher.
12 Q. So I take it, sir, that you continued in this activity until the
13 6th of December, 1991?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. Please tell the Court where you were on the 6th of December, 1991.
16 A. Well, I was in the institute, because the institute is where we
17 were lodged. I was in my bed early in the morning.
18 Q. And how were you woken up?
19 A. I was woken up by a great deal of racket, explosions.
20 Q. Do you remember at what time this was?
21 A. It was 5.48 in the morning.
22 Q. How can you be so sure? 5.48 is a fairly accurate time, if I may
23 say. One is normally -- may say ten to 6.00, or quarter to 6.00. But you
24 say 5.48? How do you know 5.48?
25 A. Maybe my watch was wrong, but that's what was on my watch.
1 Q. Now, you say "racket," what type of racket?
2 A. There were a lot of explosions that I could hear, a large number
3 of explosions.
4 Q. And judging by the acoustics, do you know where those explosions
5 where coming from in relation to where you were positioned?
6 A. Those explosions seemed to be coming from up on the ridge north of
7 Dubrovnik, Srdj, the Srdj area. It's a general area which I'm referring
8 to. It's not possible to say exactly what point on the ridge, but they
9 were coming from -- to the left of where I was standing, and they seemed
10 to be up on the hill.
11 Q. Did those explosions, acoustics which you're describing remain
12 statically positioned or did they change at any point in time?
13 A. There was an extremely strange aural effect after about 10 or 20
14 minutes after I had been -- I was standing there in the workroom listening
15 to this. And about 10 to 20 minutes afterwards all of a sudden there was,
16 like -- it all shifted. And the explosions were very, very close and they
17 seemed more to be around us.
18 Q. Well, you were in the Old Town, so to where had the acoustics
19 shifted geographically?
20 A. It seemed to me that there was shooting on the Old Town.
21 Q. So you mentioned the word "shooting," please -- is that the word?
22 A. What I heard in fact were explosions and explosions and
24 Q. So what did you do because of that?
25 A. Well, I think to -- after I got over the initial surprise, it
1 became quite apparent that this was dangerous. So we -- there were three
2 other people. There was Mr. Carnez and then there was a cafe owner who
3 had come to see how we were and there was Mr. Franic who crossed town,
4 because as he said what were these two international people going to do
5 under these conditions. There were four of us. We went down to the
6 toilets which were not a whole level down but sort of a mezzanine at the
7 rear of the building and we took shelter in the toilets.
8 Q. Had the sun risen at that stage, sir? Was it light of day or was
9 it still dark?
10 A. Well, the shutters of the buildings were always closed at night
11 and we had left the shutters closed. So there was no light at that point
12 except when we got into the toilets. I cannot remember exactly the
13 light -- the light was there, but it was morning.
14 Q. You mean by that, light of day, do you, sir?
15 A. Light of day, yes.
16 Q. How long were you in the toilets seeking refuge?
17 A. We weren't there very long.
18 Q. Why was that?
19 A. Well, I was right opposite the window. The toilets had a window.
20 And all of a sudden there was a big flash, an orange flash, on the wall of
21 a house just behind the institute. And it of course occurred to me it was
22 an extremely dangerous place because we might be hit by shrapnel and
23 something like that. And I simply pushed everybody out of the toilets.
24 And we went down to the ground floor level.
25 Q. You mention orange flash. Was there any sound accompanying that
1 orange flash?
2 A. I think I was -- there were lots and lots of noises at that time.
3 I remember, above all, the big orange flash. I don't remember the noise
4 from that particular impact.
5 Q. So you sought alternate refuge. Where was that?
6 A. This was in the entrance of the institute, as I said, on the
7 ground floor.
8 Q. So how long did you remain there?
9 A. Not very long. Ten minutes, something like that. There were
10 glass windows, of course, at the entrance, and there was of course a
11 physical -- there is a very particular type of physical feeling when there
12 is so much noise going on. And one of great, let's say, fragility. I
13 remember feeling very much afraid of something coming through the window
14 and the window coming with it, and the glass coming with it. So we left.
15 Q. And where did you go?
16 A. We went up in the Dominican Monastery which was just on the other
17 side running around the cloister. And entering -- so we were in the north
18 wing, and we were, not at ground level, but there was a level below the
19 ground level, which is where I spent most of the rest of the day.
20 Q. Now, you've talked about explosions and acoustics that you heard
21 of those explosions. For how long did those explosions continue, the
22 explosions that you heard in the early hours of the morning?
23 A. There was a lot of shooting it seemed, a lot of explosions, for a
24 couple of hours. It's a little -- I wasn't watching my watch throughout
25 that period. But there was -- there were a lot of explosions and it went
1 on for several hours in that way.
2 Q. Perhaps you could estimate a time, if possible.
3 A. I would say about two and a half hours to three hours, starting
4 from the beginning of this bombardment, I think.
5 Q. Well, was that intensity of shelling maintained throughout the
7 A. No, it wasn't, it wasn't maintained throughout the day.
8 Q. Please tell the Chamber when the intensity of the shelling
10 A. Well, there was this initial of what seemed to be very long period
11 of intense shelling. And then that began to die down later in the morning
12 with more interspersed kinds of shelling, but less in intensity. And
13 around 11.00, 11.30, there was a really rapid decrease in shelling to very
14 little, in fact.
15 Q. At what time did you notice that the shelling had stopped in toto,
16 if it may be said?
17 A. That was later on because there was periodic shells that were
18 falling. And 3.00, 3.30, something like that time, there was no more
19 shelling at all. It was completely quiet, totally silent.
20 Q. And just so it's clear for the record, are we talking about
21 matters that you conclude on the basis of hearing or on the basis of
23 A. This is really on the basis of hearing, not seeing.
24 Q. Now, what was Mr. Carnez doing at this moment in time throughout
25 the day?
1 A. Well, basically we were all together huddled with the -- a certain
2 number of the inhabitants of the monastery. Mr. Carnez was, however, able
3 to get through to Paris on a telephone that the monastery had which was
4 functioning. And he was able to speak with the -- Mr. Janicot,
5 Mr. Vogric, and of course with the director general of UNESCO, Mr. Mayor
7 Q. By "Paris," you mean UNESCO headquarters?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. When did you come out of your shelter on that day?
10 A. Although I came out to see the church in the early afternoon, I
11 came out of the Dominican Monastery when night had fallen. There was a
12 question that there was a great deal of wind. We knew that there had been
13 damage because Mr. Carnez and Mr. Franic had gone out about the same time
14 that as I went to visit the church, and there was concern that the wind
15 the Bora would in fact spread the fire from building to building. So I
16 went out with Mr. Franic to see what the -- what was going on, in fact.
17 Q. You mentioned the wind and you gave it a name, the Bora. Perhaps
18 you could enlighten us as to this term. Which type of wind does it refer
20 A. It's a cold mountain wind that blows along the Neretva. There are
21 a couple of winds in the area, there is the Sirocco and then there is also
22 the Bora. They are very strong winds.
23 Q. Did you survey the Old Town that night, the night of the 6th?
24 A. Well, of course it was dark. What I was able -- what we were able
25 to do is approach those buildings that were still burning and there were a
1 number of them that were still burning. And in fact the fire department
2 was fighting the fire on one -- in one of the buildings which was in the
3 Sirocco. I also went into a house - it was in fact Mr. Vetma's house in
4 the town - and was able to see the inter-university centre which was
5 burning at that time. I saw the house called Zarokom. It's not a palace,
6 not a great house, but I saw the house in flames with its owner standing
7 in front of it. I could see the fires -- some fire - we didn't get very
8 close - of other buildings that were on Od Puca Street and then we went
9 back. There were a lot of things coming off the roofs too. It was very
11 Q. This was all in the Old Town?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Let's turn to the following day, the 7th of December. Tell us
14 what you did on the morning of the 7th of December.
15 A. Well, on the morning of the 7th of December we, like everybody
16 else, went out to see what the town looked like. So we were in the
17 morning simply walking around, getting a first visual impression of what
18 Dubrovnik was like.
19 Q. Did you see any evidence of human injury that morning?
20 A. I didn't see any evidence of human injury, physical human injury,
21 that morning.
22 Q. Now, from information already before the Trial Chamber, we know
23 that a detailed survey of the damage to the Old Town was conducted.
24 MR. KAUFMAN: That's -- for the benefit of Trial Chamber is P51
1 Q. Now, could you tell us how it came about that that detailed survey
2 was instituted.
3 A. When we went out on the 7th of December in the morning, it was
4 very, very clear, just visually, that there had been a lot of damage done.
5 It didn't bear any resemblance to what I had -- we had seen in terms of
6 damage that was done in October and November a great deal. The
7 director-general wanted to know quickly what the extent of that damage
8 was, and it was something that we would have to report on to him. And
9 it's not something that one team can do beginning in the afternoon of the
10 7th and also on the 8th, we would -- we had two small teams. There was
11 Mr. Carnez who went with Mr. Vetma in the north half of the town and I
12 went with Mr. Franic in the south half of the town. And we had to send
13 information quickly back to the director-general, so we did what I would
14 call a spot survey. And the map of this survey is in fact -- is contained
15 in our report. And that developed a sense of the extent of damage in the
16 town, and of course convinced me that all of -- our mission was to be
17 there another two weeks. It was absolutely impossible for us to get a
18 real grasp of the damage by ourselves. It was imperative -- because we
19 believed that UNESCO would make a commitment to the restoration of the
20 town, it was imperative to try to organise the information on the damage
21 to the town which would help to direct UNESCO and teams of experts who
22 would come afterwards to deal with the restoration.
23 Q. Just for the benefit of the transcript and the Trial Chamber.
24 That spot assessment which you carried out on the 7th, that is contained,
25 as you say, in the annex to your report at tab 5. It is annex 4A, I
1 believe. Is that not correct?
2 A. Yes, I believe it is. Yes.
3 Q. Now, a perusal of that map will show a basic, if I may say,
4 methodology. Did you refine your methodology at any stage?
5 A. There were some refinements carried out if you look at this map
6 and if you look at later maps of -- well, that's presentations, in fact.
7 Presentation changed a little bit from that particular map to maps that
8 were carried out and drawn up later on. At that time there was the
9 question of trying -- because we realised we were -- as I mentioned
10 before, we realised we were in the face of danger, that damage that was
11 really very extensive damage. So we were looking for scales of helping to
12 draw the attention of the teams to things and we thought would be a
13 priority matter in a way that would help them get to the heart of the
14 matter. So this is where the question of the so-called scale of damage
15 emerged. It was right around this time that we began thinking about some
16 sort of scale or different categories of damage.
17 Q. Now, as we will later see, you settled on four categories of
18 damage classification, and also there was devised a system of identifying
19 types of damage as opposed to assessment of damage. Now, before we move
20 on you mentioned that you split up the Old Town in your first forays into
21 the Old Town after the 6th of December into north and south. What was the
22 dividing line?
23 A. The dividing line was simply the Stradun for that first,
24 preliminary survey.
25 Q. Now, let us move on to the categories of damage. Categories 1, 2,
1 3, and 4 which appear in the preliminary report prepared by the Institute
2 for the Protection of Monuments in Dubrovnik. Who devised these
3 categories of damage: One, two, three, and four?
4 A. I devised that categorisation.
5 Q. Would you like to expand upon that, on what basis you devised
7 A. Well, as I explained earlier, we were looking for something which
8 would help to focus the interest and the work of later teams. There were
9 four categories or types of damage. And it's important to realise that
10 these are types of damage more than real assessment of degree of damage.
11 It was a little bit mixed. Category 1 was simply the buildings that had
12 been burned out. Category 2 was structures that had been hit on the roof
13 and also on the facades. Category 3 was structures which had been hit on
14 the roof or the facades. And category 4 was very, very light damage,
15 which is basically damage from shrapnel.
16 Q. Now, sir, in the preliminary report there are also a number of
17 symbols. We have black triangles, we have black dots, white triangles, as
18 it were. Could you explain those symbols and who devised them.
19 A. Well, the black dot was inspired simply because of the very first
20 preliminary survey which the locals had done, they used black dots for
21 everything. A black dot was an impact on a stone facade, a stone surface,
22 such as the Stradun, the pavement. So that was a black dot.
23 A black triangle was a direct impact upon a roof. Then there was
24 a white triangle which was simply the fragments, the secondary damage,
25 which would be done on a roof from fragments.
1 There was also fully filled-in black square which was a building,
2 which followed the contours of the building. Then there was sort of --
3 not really a double line, but a thicker line for buildings that had been
4 partially burned out.
5 Then there were also dots that we used along the fronts of
6 buildings to indicate that this was an area in fact which had been damaged
7 by fragments. I think that's an exhaustive description of the different
8 symbols that we used.
9 Q. Were these symbols unique or have you come across them in your
10 prior experience as a UNESCO or ICOMOS employee?
11 A. I've never seen symbols like this and I did see them -- I saw them
12 later on. I remember seeing some reports of damage from the city of
13 Sarajevo in 1992, which in fact had adopted at least part of the -- some
14 of the symbols.
15 Q. To your knowledge, has this methodology ever been adopted in the
16 past or is it likely to be adopted in the future?
17 A. This methodology is an improvisation. It served -- it was a
18 certain purpose that it had to serve. As I said, it was not an assessment
19 of the degree of damage. It was a way of providing information and
20 guidance for the future. I have no idea what has been done in the --
21 after that in particular circumstances. I was in other places during the
22 wars, I was in Croatia and then I was in Bosnia-Herzegovina. And for
23 example in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in Mostar at the end of 1992. A very
24 capable institute. The people in fact were starting to use a damage
25 classification analysis system which was being used, in fact, in Zagreb,
1 but which I think had been taken simply as common throughout the former
2 Yugoslavia. But dots and squares and triangles of buildings following
3 bombardments, I don't think I have seen this since.
4 Q. You distinguished between direct impacts and what you call
5 secondary damage in one of your previous answers. How would you go about
6 doing that?
7 A. Well, a direct impact creates a crater of some size, of some
8 width, and some depth, and will vary with the type of ordinance that's
9 being used. And where you see traces where there is this crater, and it's
10 usually some sort of circular or variant form, that is a direct impact.
11 Q. If you didn't see the circular form that you described, then you
12 would register it, I assume, as an indirect impact?
13 A. Well, there's another question about the roofs, because it's a
14 little bit more complicated. A crater on a stone facade or on the stone
15 pavement is pretty clear. The question of a direct impact on a roof is
16 something different. You have to judge it partly because of what you
17 find, if you find the traces of the projectile very close to the main
18 damage, and also the extent of the damage to the roof. That kind of
19 damage -- there is no crater on the roof, because whenever it hits it, it
20 usually goes through.
21 The indirect damage is different. It's simply the result of --
22 either of a blast effect against windows, against walls as well. Or as a
23 question simply shrapnel which has been scattered around and which can
24 break up tiles very easily and can break windows and can put holes in
25 walls, holes in doors, and scratches on stone walls. And that's -- this
1 is indirect damage -- indirect impact, no indirect damage.
2 Q. You mention that there were approximately four of you who set out
3 to do a preliminary survey of the damage caused by the shelling of the 6th
4 of December. And you split yourselves up between the north part of the
5 town and the southern part of the town. Did the number of people working
6 on this project increase at any stage?
7 A. Of course it increased very considerably. We could not -- we had
8 to list as much of the -- well, in fact we listed all of the institute
9 members for the survey and there were even some volunteer architects from
10 some other institutes or from private practice who even joined the teams.
11 The methodology was the same, but the organisation of the survey was
12 rather different. I mean, we had -- there was a division into districts
13 of the Old Town of Dubrovnik. I believe that this division had actually
14 been used in looking at the 1979 earthquake damage, and so a team would be
15 assigned to a district and they would go with the form -- of course, we
16 explained everything to them. But there were a lot more people involved
17 in the full survey than in the little surveys that we were carrying out.
18 Q. This division into subdistricts, would that be the insulae?
19 A. Yes, it would be insulae.
20 Q. You say you would explain to them what to do. Now I take it you
21 were the person who did the explaining and Carnez by -- or you said the
23 A. I think I did most of the explaining because I carried -- I had
24 actually carried out mainly the surveys in October and November. And so I
25 explained the and I developed the form. So I did most of the explaining.
1 And because these people of course had not worked -- there were only two
2 people who worked with us on the early survey, so they had to be informed
3 about how to do it. They also had to be informed also about such
4 questions as projectiles. There were a couple of explaining sessions, I
5 remember, and then also as the work went on, we would come in at the end
6 of the day. So there was some sort of guidance that continued for the two
7 weeks that we were there until our return to Paris.
8 Q. You mentioned the word "guidance." Would it therefore be correct
9 to state that you had guidance over this project?
10 A. I think guidance is the best way to describe it. It wasn't that
11 every single -- we were -- it was guidance, because in the two weeks after
12 the bombardment we were so solicited by headquarters for other matters
13 about Dubrovnik, preliminary estimates of damage -- preliminary -- trying
14 to put figures together, how much money, things like that; drawing up the
15 priorities for intervention; and then we had delegation after delegation
16 of journalists. It was really quite a -- it was quite a circus. I
17 shouldn't say that, but it was very, very, very demanding. So we gave
18 guidance. We didn't verify everything that was going on because we simply
19 didn't have the time.
20 Q. Annex 7 to your report which you prepared -- we will discuss when
21 you submitted your report at a later stage. But annex 7 shows some
22 statistics which seem to have been submitted by the Institute for the
23 Protection of Monuments in Dubrovnik. Do you accept those statistics by
24 virtue of their incorporation into your report?
25 A. Yes, I accept those statistics. The only slight qualification is
1 that it was still ongoing work. But they were very, very good statistics.
2 I was very -- in fact I was very -- I later on saw, I was pretty proud of
3 the work that they had done and I accept those statistics, but I qualify
4 them that they would change a little bit after that for sure.
5 Q. So by virtue of the fact that you say there was still ongoing
6 work, you accept that these statistics were the result of the preliminary
7 survey, the preliminary report, which is marked P51 MFI?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Thank you, sir.
10 Now, on the 7th of December, did you have occasion to meet Matko
12 A. Yes, of course I had occasion to meet Matko Vetma on the 7th of
14 Q. Did any of you have any contacts with JNA officials that day?
15 A. Well, Mr. Vetma in fact did meet a delegation that came from the
16 federal army.
17 Q. Enlighten the Trial Chamber please, sir, as to what you know about
18 that particular meeting and Mr. Vetma's reaction thereto.
19 A. We had returned to the institute in the early part of the
20 afternoon, and Mr. Vetma was not there. And he joined us later. And he
21 was rather white -- he was white-faced. I think he was upset and he said:
22 They came to see the town. And I said, What do you mean they came to see
23 the town? He said: The federal army came to see the town and I guided
24 them around it.
25 Q. Whilst we're on the subject of JNA officials and/or soldiers, did
1 you have occasion to witness any JNA officials or soldiers whilst you were
2 in Dubrovnik?
3 A. Well, during one of the trips up to the Hotel Argentina, which is
4 where the UNICEF offices were and the ECMM were also based there, on one
5 occasion I saw soldiers walking from Zarkovica towards Mount Srdj. There
6 were four of them. They were walking in an Indian file. I don't know how
7 many metres they were apart from each other. That's the only time I saw
8 any soldiers whom I thought were from the federal forces.
9 Q. Sir, there are a number of maps in your report, and your report
10 deals with damage that occurred in October and November, by virtue of
11 annex 3. How can you give us an indication of filtering out damage that
12 occurred in October and November from damage that occurred in December? I
13 ask you this question because the matter has arisen that during the
14 preparation of the survey, damage which was incurred in November might
15 have been confused with damage which was caused in December. So if you
16 could, assist us in that filtering process.
17 A. In the big damage survey which was carried out, they -- you will
18 find mentions made of damage, the dates the damage was carried out. So
19 the person who filled out the form was aware that there was a layering of
20 damage, in fact. That should be kept in mind.
21 The second point to be kept in mind is that in fact sometime --
22 sometime after our own report was prepared, that elements of it were
23 sent -- were given to the people on the ground. So they had seen the
24 damage, they had recorded what they had seen, including when -- of course
25 when it had happened; and they also had other means of checking -- when
1 the damage -- what was the cause, when it was, et cetera. It wasn't so
2 difficult to separate this damage out.
3 Q. And your annex 3, that listed damage incurred in what month?
4 A. The annex 3 listed damage done in October and November 1991.
5 Q. Was that report before the Institute for the Protection of
6 Monuments at any stage, before the officials there?
7 A. Well, you remember -- I am a consultant. I worked on the report.
8 I submitted my report, and then I didn't work anymore on Dubrovnik. And
9 then UNESCO was charged with transmitting those documents -- or what parts
10 of those documents that they wanted to do. There were parts of the
11 report, notably -- the conclusions were for the director-general. I don't
12 know if those conclusions were transmitted, but many things were
13 transmitted. For example, I mentioned earlier the annex 16 was also
14 transmitted and it gave rise to the extension of the World Heritage Site.
15 Colleagues from UNESCO transmitted the necessary information to the
17 Q. Sorry, I should have been more clear in my question. Annex 3 to
18 your report, the annex which you state has a description of the damage
19 which you noticed having occurred in October and November, was that before
20 the institute when they prepared their preliminary report?
21 A. No, because when they were preparing their preliminary report,
22 they were preparing it in December and January, which is -- the reports
23 are being prepared at the same time. My report would have been available
24 to them after.
25 Q. My last question on annex 3. Annex 3 was prepared on the basis of
1 information you had received. What information was that?
2 A. Annex 3 was prepared on the basis of my own survey carried out in
3 October and November. There was a preliminary report that they had done
4 for these little shellings, and they had used that as a guide. But my
5 report was a separate thing. My report was the verification of the damage
6 on the ground.
7 Q. Okay. Thank you.
8 Now, I'd like to look at some of the projectiles listed in your
9 preliminary report -- sorry, in the preliminary report, being projectiles
10 I would assume that you found as well. This is to be found in P51 marked
11 for identification. But for convenience's sake I have marked the relevant
13 MR. KAUFMAN: Perhaps if Mr. Usher could distribute this. This
14 item is to be found in bundle 1 of P51 MFI. Its number is ERN 01069068.
15 Q. Sir, could you take us through these items.
16 A. Well, this thing at the top is a 62-millimetre mortar. I never
17 saw one of these in situ in Dubrovnik, although some of them had been
18 picked up, but where I don't know. This is a small mortar. It's an
19 82-millimetre mortar. There were a lot of these on the 6th of December,
20 and there were none before that I was able to pick up. These were picked
21 up in situ.
22 Q. Item number 3.
23 A. This is something that we called a rocket. I'm not an expert,
24 but -- and it's not exactly the one that we picked up in Dubrovnik. What
25 was similar is the cylinder, although this is a cylinder that has bars --
1 rings around it, and ours didn't really have that. However, this little
2 tail is very, very, very close to the tail that we found on the similar
3 projectiles in Dubrovnik, 82-millimetre --
4 Q. Calibre --
5 A. Projectile, calibre.
6 Q. The next one down, item 4.
7 A. This one particularly is a 120-millimetre mortar.
8 Q. And did you find items like that in Dubrovnik in the conduct of
9 the survey?
10 A. Yes. In the survey before -- that is tails. This is the part
11 that would come off here and sometimes fragments. This we encountered few
12 in the shellings that had taken place before the 6th of December and a lot
13 on the 6th of December.
14 Q. And finally, number 5. Yes, the last item on that page.
15 A. It's a Malyutka.
16 Q. What's a Malyutka?
17 A. It's a wire-guided rocket. This is -- I can show you the wire
18 here at the end. What we saw in Dubrovnik from this was basically the
19 tail end which consisted of the mechanism, the engines that are the
20 driving the thing, also a great deal of wire coiled around.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 Sir, now I would like to take you to the ramparts of the Old Town
23 of Dubrovnik. This, once again, is contained in the first bundle of P51
24 MFI, but for the sake of convenience I have reproduced it in a single-page
25 format. Here we see the Old Town of Dubrovnik on a map. Could you
1 enlighten to us what you see with respect to the ramparts in this map.
2 A. Well, you can see these dots and the dots represent the impacts
3 upon the ramparts. And you can see that there is a certain number of dots
4 which are on the Fort St. John down here on the kasa here, the breakwater.
5 Along the front here of the Old Port. And then there is a series of
6 impacts along the north wall here. Some of those are in fact -- well, you
7 can see quite clearly that there seem to be a lot which are inside the
8 ramparts and here on the west wall down to Pile gate, a similar situation.
9 And along the sea wall front, there is virtually nothing.
10 Q. Just for demonstration purpose, if you could point to the
11 direction of Zarkovica on that map. Just put your pointer on the map, if
12 you could, and show us where Zarkovica would be.
13 A. It's this way.
14 Q. Thank you, sir.
15 Now, you had an opportunity to tour the ramparts?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. Did you tour the ramparts after the 6th of December?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And would that map, to the best of my knowledge, accurately
20 reflect what you saw on the ramparts?
21 A. Yes, it does.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you, Mr. Usher.
24 Q. We've now talked about walls and we've talked about the tail fins
25 of projectiles. Did you have occasion to see the tail fin -- tail fins of
1 projectiles in situ?
2 A. Yes, I did. There were -- there was a certain number of tail fins
3 which were in situ, in walls.
4 Q. Can you remember any particular instances of tail fins of
5 projectiles which you found embedded in walls?
6 A. From the earlier shellings I remember a tail fin which was in the
7 Sponza Palace, the east wall. I remember a tail fin which was on St. John
8 Bastion facing eastward, which was on the rear windows, and it was
9 embedded on a wall. In a house which is behind -- that is, to the west of
10 the Dominican Monastery, again this is shelling before the 6th of
11 December, I remember a tail fin in a wall, because I remember a Macedonian
12 soldier who was a member of the Croatian defence forces, I remember him
13 pulling it out of the wall. Cause I had gone in to see what -- if it had
14 gone through, and of course it had actually gone -- it has pushed the
15 mortar through. I remember a tail fin in the west wall of the city but
16 the inner wall behind the old -- the old folks' home, and that was in the
17 wall blow the parapet.
18 Q. You said the old folks' home. What do you mean by that?
19 A. Dom Staraca. It was it was in fact the hospice, it was for
20 citizens in the third age.
21 Q. I interrupted you. I do apologise. That was in the wall below
22 the parapet?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. Now, before I ask you a question about those tail fins embedded in
25 walls, perhaps it would be a good opportunity to show you something, to
1 show you a photograph. This is to be found in P51 MFI. In the B/C/S
2 version which is the one which contains the photographs, 01069130.
3 MR. KAUFMAN: I am afraid I do not have a single copy of this to
4 hand out, because I fear if I were to photocopy it then the quality would
5 be even less than it is at present. But perhaps if that bundle can be
6 placed in front of the witness, and I would request that the witness
7 comment on it.
8 Q. It should be marked 01069130 at the top.
9 Sir, do you recognise that?
10 A. Well, here is the tail fin.
11 Q. And where is that?
12 A. It's in the little port near the jetty. That's after the 6th of
14 Q. And that is a tail fin, is it, embedded in the wall as you
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, bear that tail fin in mind and the other tail fins that
18 you've described that you saw in the aftermath of the 6th of December.
19 Trace a line back, perpendicularly if you can, from the tail fin. In
20 which direction would that be? Where would that be coming from?
21 A. This would be coming from an easterly direction.
22 Q. Would there be any particular geographical feature in that
23 easterly direction?
24 A. Well, Zarkovica is in an easterly direction.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you, Mr. Usher.
2 Now, this time we do have the benefit of modern technology in
3 order to display a colour photograph to the Trial Chamber.
4 Q. Sir, please, if you could have a look at your monitor now. Press
5 the button "video evidence." Now, what do we see in that photograph?
6 A. Well, we see a shop on the Stradun, which has been damaged by
7 shelling. And we see shrapnel damage, and we also see an
8 orangish-brownish-reddish stain on the wall.
9 Q. What can you tell us about that orange-brown stain on the wall?
10 A. Well, we thought that this came from a marking mortar.
11 Q. Why do you say "we thought"? On what do you base this?
12 A. Well, we had had a -- there was a certain number of conversations
13 we had about shells. Sometimes people like the French military from the
14 hospital ship -- sometimes there were local people. And the -- in some
15 conversations, some discussion, the fact that marking mortars could be
16 used came up. And there were a certain number of impacts in which this
17 kind of stain was evident after the 6th of December. There was even one
19 Q. What do you understand by the term, sir, "marking mortar"?
20 A. What I understand by the term "marking mortar" is a shell that is
21 put in to make a great deal of smoke in order to indicate to other
22 artillery where they should fire. It can be used for hiding things as
23 well. But marking is especially, I think, for this purpose.
24 Q. Do you know what the chemical composition is of the material that
25 causes the staining on the wall?
1 A. I don't know what the chemical composition is.
2 Q. Well, maybe we better leave that to someone else.
3 How many instances of such staining did you observe in your tour
4 of the Old Town?
5 A. Well, I remember at least half a dozen. I remember specific
6 sites. There was on the Stradun. I remember seeing this. I remember
7 seeing -- one of the houses that had been partially burned out. The stop
8 storey and roof were gone, and there was a wall behind the house, and
9 there was this red stain came up along the wall. I remember specifically
10 also in the -- there was an outdoor cinema. In the outdoor cinema we
11 found a tail of 120-millimetre mortar, and on a wall we found also the
12 traces of this kind of stain.
13 Q. Could you give us perhaps more of a general idea as to where this
14 staining was concentrated, if at all?
15 A. I'm sorry, that's really very hard to say. The two examples that
16 I gave you would have been in the -- well, no. In the, they're both south
17 of the Stradun, but one of them is further towards the west wall. And I
18 think the other case is just south of the Stradun, but not very far. Maybe
19 in the middle town area.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kaufman, we need to break now because of the
21 tapes. So we will have the second morning break at this point.
22 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, that is possible. I believe I am very
23 near the end of the examination-in-chief, just so Your Honours are aware.
24 JUDGE PARKER: If you can do it in one minute, you can finish, but
25 otherwise perhaps you might prefer to finish after the break.
1 MR. KAUFMAN: Indeed.
2 --- Recess taken at 12.07 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 12.35 p.m.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kaufman.
5 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you, Your Honour. Before we proceed, I
6 formally wish to tender into evidence two exhibits which currently do not
7 have any means of identification. The first one being the photograph
8 which was tendered showing the staining. I would respectfully request
9 that that be assigned an exhibit number. And furthermore, the map,
10 formerly P13, but pursuant to procedure to date it should be assigned a
11 new exhibit number as well. The map of the old town which Dr. Kaiser drew
12 upon to signify various buildings and edifices.
13 JUDGE PARKER: They will be received.
14 THE REGISTRAR: The next exhibit number for the photograph will be
15 P64 and the exhibit number for the map will be P65.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
17 MR. KAUFMAN:
18 Q. Dr. Kaiser, in order to enable us to formally tender your report,
19 which is to be found at tab 5 in the bundle of exhibits which were
20 submitted today, could you tell us when you prepared that report.
21 A. The report was prepared in the first couple weeks of the month of
22 January 1992.
23 Q. I see it's jointly authored, you and Mr. Carnez.
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. You are both familiar, I take it, with the contents of that
2 A. Yes, we are.
3 Q. And the annexes and the photographs appended thereto?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Once again, annex 7 is a table of statistics.
6 MR. KAUFMAN: I do apologise to Your Honours. It's not very
7 clear. We will deal with the matter of the quality of the appendices in a
8 few moments. I will address that matter.
9 Q. But appendix 7 shows evidence which as you've already mentioned in
10 your evidence was supplied to you by the Institute for Protection of
11 Monuments in Dubrovnik. When was that table actually supplied to you, on
12 what occasion?
13 A. I was asked to go to accompany a high UNESCO official to the New
14 Year's concert which was organised by minister Kouchner and UNESCO. And
15 so I was in Dubrovnik very briefly on the afternoon/evening of the 31st of
16 December for New Year's.
17 Q. Yes. You went to a concert.
18 A. Yes, this was given to me upon -- at that time.
19 Q. Do you remember who gave it to you?
20 A. It was given to me by members of the institute.
21 Q. Perusal of your report, though, the main body of your report,
22 allows us to note that you incorporated this annex 7 into your findings.
23 Is that correct?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. When did you leave Dubrovnik, sir, for the first time?
1 A. The first time was the 22nd of December.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 Now, briefly --
4 JUDGE PARKER: Now, before you move on. Is there any concern
5 about the receipt of that document now, Mr. Petrovic?
6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I abide by the position that I put
8 forward this morning when the testimony of this witness began. As there
9 are substantial amounts of overlap between this report at tab 6 as far as
10 I know and not tab 5, as my colleague has repeatedly said. And the
11 exhibit which has been marked as 51, I believe it would be meaningful to
12 draw a distinction as to who did what and when and who signed what. And
13 then you could have our position. Very frequently during this
14 examination-in-chief, I personally was not clear as to which specific
15 documents were being referred to, specifically as relates to tab 6. Once
16 this distinction is drawn, I believe we shall have further clarification
17 from Mr. Kaiser, and I don't think we shall then be facing any further
18 problems as to the authorship of these respective reports.
19 MR. KAUFMAN: May I -- sorry.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, this is being tendered now on the
21 basis that it was a report co-authored by Dr. Kaiser. Contains work
22 undertaken by others under his guidance as well as his own, but work which
23 were -- according to a system which he established and the result is one
24 which he has accepted and adopted as his own. In those circumstances, my
25 inclination is to suggest that there is a sufficient adoption and
1 identification and authentication of the document to make it admissible in
2 whole. The weight that might be attached to work done by others if there
3 was a factual dispute about a particular piece of damage and the report of
4 Dr. Kaiser indicates that the assessment of that damage was done by
5 somebody other than himself. That would appear to be a matter of weight
6 to be assessed by the Chamber, rather than admissibility.
7 Now, would you want to put anything further about that view of the
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. The Defence
10 shares your view; however, during our cross-examination we will challenge
11 all these issues in view of the fact that even this last document that my
12 colleague has referred to is, as has been said after all, merely an
13 abstract from a different document. Therefore, we are certain to
14 challenge to accuracy of all these conclusions on cross-examination. Your
15 view of that, of course, is final and we have no intention of making
16 further objections to that. Thank you very much, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
18 If it's not contrary to your wish, Mr. Kaufman, with you standing
19 there I'm about to admit the document on the basis indicated.
20 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honour, just before you do that, I would just
21 like to clarify, because I understand maybe from Mr. Petrovic's earlier
22 submission that he might be slightly confused as to the documents to which
23 we have been referring to during the evidence today. Just so that
24 Mr. Petrovic's mind is set at rest and I do thank Your Honour for your
25 suggestion as well.
1 We are talking about two reports: The reports which Your Honour
2 is proposing to admit and to which Mr. Petrovic agrees, and I also am
3 grateful for Your Honour admitting it in that manner, is P51 MFI. That's
4 the document which I had attempted to introduce through the witness,
5 Lucianja Peko. There is one further report, and that was the substance of
6 the last question which was put to the witness. That's the report which
7 was co-authored by Dr. Kaiser and Mr. Bruno Carnez and that's to be found
8 in the new bundles that were placed before Your Honours this morning.
9 That is entitled "Rapport sur l'etat du patrimoine culturel". I won't
10 continue in French. But its English translation is: Report on the Status
11 of the Cultural Heritage in the Old Town of Dubrovnik following the
12 Bombardments of October, November, and December, 1991. That is Dr.
13 Kaiser's report as opposed to the institute's -- for the protection of
14 monuments in Dubrovnik reports which is currently marked P51 MFI.
15 So I will now sit down and respectfully request once again that
16 P51 MFI be admitted into evidence as a formal exhibit.
17 JUDGE PARKER: And not the report of Dr. Kaiser.
18 MR. KAUFMAN: And the report of Dr. Kaiser, of course, but with a
19 separate exhibit number.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps I am too
22 confused to understand what my colleague is saying, but my understanding
23 is: He is bringing up the issue of what is actually inside tab 6. We
24 have spoken about that. That's what I was discussing. This morning I
25 made a request and my understanding was he shared my view, as regards
1 exhibit 51. That was something that was left for later on. And now if I
2 understand Mr. Kaufman correctly, he wants both admitted right now.
3 JUDGE PARKER: That seems to be the position. I must say, I too
4 was under a false understanding, Mr. Petrovic. I thought Mr. Kaufman was
5 moving for the admission only of the report which is at tab 6. But we
6 both now understand it is that Mr. Kaufman seeks to have admitted that
7 report at tab 6 and also the report of the institute which is at the
8 moment marked for identification as P51. Now, you want to speak about
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Of course. What
11 I said applies to the report at tab 6. As for exhibit 51 and the report
12 therein, we spoke about it at length last week, and it was the Chamber's
13 conclusion that the modality of admission of this exhibit into evidence
14 would depend on this witness's testimony, and we did say that again this
15 morning. Suddenly I realise again now that before I even had occasion to
16 question this witness my colleague is trying to push both these exhibits
17 into evidence.
18 Mr. Kaiser's report at tab 6 cannot be challenged at all.
19 However, I fail to see why we must try to now what may or may not be the
20 Chamber's decision following Mr. Kaiser's testimony and after the Defence
21 team has been given an opportunity to question the witness on Exhibit 51,
22 among other things, which now has only been marked for identification even
23 in relation to Exhibit 51, the witness has not even been shown this
24 exhibit. The witness was not made to go through this exhibit, and yet an
25 admission is being requested for this document.
1 Your Honours, may we please leave Exhibit 51 for later following
2 this witness's testimony. As for tab 6, we are fully agreed on that.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Are you content, Mr. Kaufman, for the question of
4 the admissibility of P51 MFI to await your re-examination?
5 MR. KAUFMAN: Indeed, Your Honour. I would submit that I have
6 prepared the ground for the admission of P51 by virtue of the questions
7 that I have asked the witness today. And I am prepared to make legal
8 submissions on that matter; I could do it now, I could do it later. So
9 perhaps in order to avoid -- to save time, I think it's better that we do
10 it later.
11 JUDGE PARKER: I think we should move on. And in re-examination
12 if you would move the admission, if the Chamber wants legal submission, it
13 will ask you for it.
14 The report which Dr. Kaiser co-authored which is at tab 6 will now
15 be received.
16 MR. KAUFMAN: Perhaps at this point in time I could ask for the
17 full bundle to be received, as it as -- rather, two bundles as it were,
18 formally, because they have only been marked for identification presently,
19 Your Honour.
20 JUDGE PARKER: The bundles that are presently marked for
21 identification as P63, including tab 6, will be received and will become
22 Exhibit 63.
23 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you.
24 Q. Now, to conclude your evidence in-chief, Dr. Kaiser, I would
25 request the assistance of Mr. Usher, and we will place a number of
1 photographs on the ELMO.
2 MR. KAUFMAN: Now, these are to be found in the annexes, tab 6, to
3 Dr. Kaiser's report. I do apologise for the quality of the photographs.
4 This is an appropriate opportunity for me to perhaps make a suggestion.
5 The photographs which are going to be presented on the ELMO are better
6 photocopies than the photographs which are contained in Your Honours'
7 bundles. The reason why the photographs are of such a poor quality is
8 that they have been through -- not just this trial, but another trial
9 which is currently being conducted in this institution. So therefore, as
10 in the evidence of a previous witness, we have photocopies of photocopies.
11 But the copies currently in Dr. Kaiser's possession are better photocopy
12 versions. What I would suggest and request is that Dr. Kaiser's
13 photographs be submitted to the Trial Chamber and kept by the Trial
14 Chamber until judgement, whereupon they may be returned to Dr. Kaiser.
15 We -- in the meantime, by we, I mean the Office of the Prosecutor, will
16 endeavour to obtain the colour originals from UNESCO archive headquarters,
17 and hopefully and by the time Mr. Janicot gives evidence in the following
18 weeks we will have the colour photographs which I believe are currently in
19 the archives of UNESCO.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Dr. Kaiser, are you happy to relinquish the copies
21 you presently have?
22 THE WITNESS: I'm not happy to relinquish them, but I will.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Your reluctance is well understood. We thank you.
24 They will be taken into the custody of the Chamber. We're going to see
25 them first, are we?
1 MR. KAUFMAN: We are indeed, Your Honours. They are premarked so
2 to aid Mr. Usher in his duties.
3 Q. The first photograph, if we could perhaps turn to that,
4 Dr. Kaiser, tell us the symbol we see in this photograph?
5 A. The symbol you see on this protection work is the symbol of
6 The Hague convention.
7 Q. Okay. Let's move to the next photograph. It's photograph number
8 7. Now, earlier, sir, you took us through a number of projectiles.
9 Perhaps you could tell us what this is.
10 A. Well, this is the variant of the winged projectile which we saw on
11 the drawing. It's clear there's a tail structure. Little wings here and
12 this is the cylinder I mentioned, which doesn't have any ribbing around
13 it. It is smashed at the top, which I believe comes simply because it
14 struck something which was stone. The stone of Dubrovnik is kind of
15 limestone. It's extremely hard.
16 Q. Perhaps we might be able to see a better example of that in the
17 next photograph, number 8, the limestone. Perhaps you could take us
18 through that assortment of items. Tell us where they were, what they are.
19 A. Well, here, here, and here you see the same projectile as the one
20 in the preceding photograph. What you see here is, in fact, probably
21 plaster, which means that the projectile has gone into a wall somewhere.
22 And the plaster or pour cement which is what that looks like. This is a
23 mortar tail here.
24 Q. And the fins, can you point that out?
25 A. The fins of the mortar tail here.
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. This is the bigger mortar; this is not the small one.
3 Q. Just for the -- sorry, sir. Just for the sake of clarity, from
4 where were these items collected?
5 A. Okay. I should -- these were items that we found in the institute
6 when we came there on the 27th of November. These had been collected in
7 the town but I'm not 100 per cent certain everything came from within the
8 town. We did have the occasion to see other ordnance which -- we did not
9 see anything in the town that seemed to indicate the damage that had
10 actually been done by that.
11 Q. Would these items be characteristic of the types of items that you
12 would have found in the Old Town after the 6th of December, 1991?
13 A. Yes, they would be, basically except for these little ones down
15 Q. Thank you. Let's move on, shall we. Photograph number 9. You
16 see a hand. What's that hand pointing to or positioned by?
17 A. This is on the walls of Fort St. John. The hand is there to give
18 the dimension of the crater, and this is a crater we believe caused by one
19 of these winged projectiles.
20 Q. Of what calibre?
21 A. 82-millimetre.
22 Q. Thank you. Next photograph, please, number 12. Just for the sake
23 of example, what would we see here?
24 A. This is a picture taken from the damage of the earlier period and
25 this is damage to a roof on the small port, presumably from one of
1 these -- the winged projectiles.
2 Q. And once again because it's from an earlier instant, would this be
3 characteristic of the type of damage you would have observed after the 6th
4 of December, 1991?
5 A. There was damage -- yes, there was damage like this.
6 Q. And the last photograph, please. Yes, a further example.
7 A. Well, this is the Dominican Monastery, and this is damage done on
8 the 6th of December. You can see three shots that are sort of roughly
9 equidistant. And this was done by the-- that winged projectile, the
10 82-millimetre. I should just say that we called - we called it - "the
11 rocket," and if I use that word you will at least which projectile to
12 which I'm referring.
13 Q. Yes. Just so it's clear, Dr. Kaiser, on the image presented on
14 the screen in front of us it said paragraph 12 and the rocket impact went
15 to 20 -- 82-millimetre during the bombardments of November. But the
16 photograph below, you said, shows the Dominican Monastery and what the
17 "petit arsenal," which I believe is the small arsenal. So could you
18 perhaps just clarify: The photograph underneath photograph 13 refers to
19 the Dominican monastery?
20 A. That's right, it's photograph 13.
21 MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Usher.
22 Q. And the last photograph, please, photograph number 18. What is
23 that item?
24 A. This is the tail end of a Malyutka rocket. And you can see quite
25 clearly that the coiled -- the wire around the mechanism.
1 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you, Mr. Usher, for your assistance in this
3 Perhaps if that bundle could be submitted to the Bench.
4 Q. Dr. Kaiser, we will ensure that you get a copy for safe keeping.
5 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, in this bundle as well as the
6 photographs will be the appendices as well, because I am aware, of course,
7 that the appendices are not of the best quality. Once again, I do
8 apologise. We will endeavour to produce the best possible copy at the end
9 of the day.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Now, are you proposing that these have a separate
11 exhibit number or simply be in the custody of the Chamber?
12 MR. KAUFMAN: I suggest that they be in the custody of the Trial
13 Chamber, Your Honours, with the caveat that I mentioned earlier that upon
14 receipt of better evidence they be returned to Dr. Kaiser since they are
15 his personal belongings. I would of course request that my learned friend
16 Mr. Petrovic, who has just risen to his feet, have full access to those
17 copies because I am aware that the copies that he has are of the same
18 nature and quality that the Trial Chamber has currently in their
20 JUDGE PARKER: Now they are copies of -- can you give me the
21 exhibit number.
22 MR. KAUFMAN: It would be P63, Your Honour, as admitted today.
23 It's the appendix -- the last appendix to tab number 6. In fact, it's all
24 the appendices plus the photographs.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
1 Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may, all I want
3 to ask is: From a practical aspect, how shall we familiarise ourselves
4 with these photographs, the copies that we have here are of poor quality
5 and the ones that Mr. Kaiser has brought are much better. That's one
6 thing I want to know. And since I am on my feet I would also seize this
7 opportunity to ask about the other documents in this report that are not
8 perfectly legible, all the tables and the sketches. I believe that my
9 colleague will include these in his efforts to obtain the originals,
10 because these copies are quite poor and it is very to discern anything in
11 these tables, sketches, and drawings, providing graphic representation of
12 the impacts in the area under discussion. I believe an effort will be
13 made to obtain clearer copies of these, because based on these copies we
14 have now it will prove difficult to ask specific questions.
15 MR. KAUFMAN: If I may address that issue, in fact the reason why
16 I ask for all the appendices to be submitted is because the ones in
17 Dr. Kaiser's personal report, copy of the report which has just been
18 submitted to the Trial Chamber are of a very good quality. It's just that
19 the photographs are not of a good quality.
20 JUDGE PARKER: With respect to the photograph, Mr. Petrovic, can I
21 suggest you liaise with the Court officer once we have risen, and you will
22 be able, I'm sure, to make arrangements to view the photographs before we
23 continue on Monday. And better quality of the other annexes to Dr.
24 Kaiser's report are going to be provided.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Kaufman.
2 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
3 Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. Last questions. You mentioned JNA officials and officers and
5 troops that you might have seen and saw. What about Croatians? Croatian
6 military presence in the Old Town, did you see any?
7 A. On a few occasions we saw individual soldiers who were in the Old
8 Town. A small number of soldiers is not unusual. I mean, we know that
9 there were soldiers who lived in the city, so -- but there were very, very
10 small numbers of people we saw.
11 Q. I've already asked you a question when I was asking questions
12 about the ramparts, whether or not you saw mortars on the ramparts, as was
13 alleged by certain JNA officials in the meetings that you had with them.
14 Did you ever see any military hardware in the Old Town of Dubrovnik?
15 A. I saw a few long weapons that were carried by soldiers, and that
16 was all.
17 Q. Could you be more specific, long weapons.
18 A. It would be automatic weapons. I assume these were the weapons
19 the soldiers were carrying with them.
20 Q. Dr. Kaiser, you were in Dubrovnik for three months -- sorry, for
21 the month of November and part of the month of December.
22 A. About three weeks finally.
23 Q. Three weeks finally. I do apologise. You witnessed the damage of
24 the 6th of December, 1991. In a few words, how would you encapsulate that
25 damage to a World Heritage Site?
1 A. Very few words. It was really extensive damage for a morning's
3 Q. Dr. Kaiser, I thank you very much. If you could wait there, there
4 will be some more questions from Mr. Petrovic.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Before you sit, Mr. Kaufman, did you mean to tender
6 the two documents that were identified by Dr. Kaiser and developed in his
7 evidence or not?
8 MR. KAUFMAN: If I could be reminded as to --
9 JUDGE PARKER: One was the weapons. They're each part of 51, but
10 do you want them separately tendered or just left as part of 51?
11 MR. KAUFMAN: I don't think there's any need to burden the Court
12 with extra exhibits in this matter. I am conscious of the fact that I
13 didn't ask for a separate exhibit number to be assigned to these
14 particular items because they are already in fact contained in P51 which
15 is currently marked for identification. Hopefully I will succeed in
16 convincing Your Honours that this exhibit should be tendered in its
17 entirety. Should I not succeed, which I hope not be the case, then I will
18 have to request that Your Honours accept those items in their individual
19 form. Thank you.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
21 Mr. Petrovic.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
23 May I ask the usher -- we shall probably be fortunate enough to
24 have two lecterns by the end of the trial; that will save some time.
25 Cross-examined by Mr. Petrovic:
1 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Kaiser, I am Vladimir Petrovic, an
2 attorney at law. On behalf of the defence of Pavle Strugar, I will put a
3 few questions to you about your testimony, if you agree.
4 I would like to go back briefly to your education, your formal
5 education. Is it correct that you are a historian by formal education?
6 A. Yes, sir, it is.
7 Q. Is it correct that you have a Ph.D.?
8 A. A D.Phil., which is the same thing.
9 Q. Can you tell me what the topic of your D.Phil. dissertation was?
10 A. The title of my dissertation is: The Masters of Request, an
11 Extraordinary Judicial Company in a Period of Centralisation, 1590 to
13 Q. Tell me, before 1991, did you ever work for UNESCO?
14 A. I worked for the International Council on Monuments and Sites,
15 which is a nongovernmental organisation, which works closely in
16 conjunction with UNESCO.
17 Q. When you concluded a contract with UNESCO, were you given any
18 formal training by UNESCO?
19 A. No, sir, I wasn't.
20 Q. To the best of your recollection, how did UNESCO first learn about
21 what was happening in Dubrovnik? I'm referring to October and November
22 1991. On the basis of what did they get this information?
23 A. They were receiving faxes directly from Dubrovnik. That I
25 Q. Was there any other source of information?
1 A. I'm not sure what other sources of information there were.
2 Q. Before your arrival in Dubrovnik, did you know what sort of
3 conflict this was and who the warring sides were?
4 A. I think I did, yes.
5 Q. Can you tell me what you knew and how you came by this knowledge.
6 A. Well, sir, I do read the newspapers and I do follow the events. I
7 have been given to understand from my reading of the medias that the
8 Former Socialist Republic of Croatia had seceded from the federal
9 republic -- Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
10 Q. And what kind of conflict was this, between whom, and what exactly
11 was happening in the Dubrovnik area?
12 A. The conflict was between the federal forces, that is the army of
13 the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Croatian defence forces.
14 Q. Did you know this when you set out on your mission?
15 A. I knew this, yes.
16 Q. Tell me please: Who were the members of your mission in
18 A. There were in fact two observers, two representatives. The
19 director-general -- I was one of the people, and the other person was
20 Mr. Bruno Carnez, a UNESCO functionary.
21 Q. Is it correct that Mr. Carnez was the chief of your mission?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. What were the responsibilities of the chief of the mission and
24 what were your responsibilities as a member of the mission?
25 A. The chief of the mission was responsible for all the political
1 contacts that would be -- that would take place. I was responsible for
2 my -- for the work of dealing with the damage survey and making the
3 recommendations about restoration of cultural heritage. I was a
4 consultant. That's a different thing.
5 Q. Was Mr. Carnez also an expert on evaluating the extent of the
6 damage and the kind of damage?
7 A. Is he -- was he also an expert, if I understand the question
9 Q. Yes, yes.
10 A. No, he wasn't the expert.
11 Q. What was his profile?
12 A. Well, as a -- you mean what is his background?
13 Q. What I mean is: What was his job within UNESCO?
14 A. Sir, I'm trying to remember exactly what Mr. Carnez did at that
15 time. He was attached to the bureau of external relations in UNESCO.
16 Q. I'm interested in the UNESCO memorandum about the mission within
17 the framework of the convention on the protection of cultural heritage.
18 Do you know of such a document?
19 A. I believe you're referring to the letter which was written to me
20 by the director-general of UNESCO.
21 Q. Does this letter define your task?
22 A. Yes, it does.
23 Q. Was there a plan to visit other cultural historical monuments that
24 were part of the World Heritage List, apart from Dubrovnik?
25 A. There was certainly an attention on the part of UNESCO to visit
1 other sites that were on the world -- that were on the World Heritage
2 List, such as the Plivice lakes. Our mission was targeted on Dubrovnik,
3 but there had been some vague discussion that eventually we would go -- we
4 could go on to see the Plivice lakes, but there was no time, there was no
5 possibility to do that.
6 Q. Did you see any of the faxes arriving in the UNESCO headquarters
7 from Dubrovnik and do you know what their content was?
8 A. I saw some of the faxes before the mission. I wasn't there when
9 the faxes came in. I don't remember them very well, I'm afraid.
10 Q. Tell me: Why did you go to Belgrade first?
11 A. The Belgrade -- the Belgrade step of the mission took place with
12 Mr. Janicot, Mr. Vogric, Mr. Carnez, and myself. The objective was to
13 discuss the route that the mission would take in order to go to Dubrovnik.
14 There was a discussion about the -- I think the desire was to confirm the
15 engagements of the federal authorities vis-a-vis the World Heritage Site.
16 Q. Why to Belgrade? Why didn't you do this in Zagreb?
17 A. The federal authorities whom we -- these were state-level
18 authorities of the federal republic. It was normal that UNESCO would go
19 to Belgrade.
20 Q. UNESCO then applied to their authorities that were their
21 counterparts in negotiations?
22 A. That is correct.
23 Q. Do you know or do you recollect whether at that time the UNESCO
24 representative in Paris was still accredited by the federal state at the
25 time under discussion?
1 A. I think that's correct, sir.
2 Q. At that time was all the correspondence and cooperation between
3 your organisation and Yugoslavia, did it go through that channel of
4 communication, if you know?
5 A. Sir, I can't really answer that because I was new to UNESCO and I
6 was only a consultant. Those are internal relations in the organisation.
7 Q. Can you tell me whether you had any talks in Belgrade in the
8 federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, if so, how many such meetings
9 there were. And at what level these meetings were held, if you can, were
10 held, if you can recollect that?
11 A. I think it was in the building of the ministry of foreign affairs
12 and I can only remember one big meeting. And I remember, because I
13 mentioned that General Pujic was there. I do not remember who the other
14 officials and other officers were.
15 Q. Were these separate meetings -- were there separate meetings in
16 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the general staff, or was it all one
18 A. It was one meeting.
19 Q. And that meeting was attended by representatives of the army as
20 well as the representatives of the government?
21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. Was the main item on the agenda at these meetings the protection
23 of the world heritage, that is of the city of Dubrovnik?
24 A. That was a major part of the discussions, sir.
25 Q. Did it appear to you that all these people were familiar with what
1 was happening in Dubrovnik?
2 A. Yes, it did appear so.
3 Q. Did you ask these questions about the shellings you had probably
4 learned about from the faxes sent by the Croatian side in October and
5 November? Did you ask them what had happened, under what circumstances,
6 how? Did you raise the issue?
7 A. Well, as a junior member of this mission and as a consultant, I
8 didn't raise any questions at this meeting. The actual discussion about
9 damage, I don't think it was raised by our side.
10 Q. When I say "you," I don't mean you personally, but your entire
11 delegation. Tell me: Why was such a disturbing issue not raised on your
13 A. The issue of the protection of the town was of course raised.
14 Q. I wanted to ask something else. The alleged attack on a world
15 heritage site was a very important issue. How is it possible that it was
16 not raised before higher-ranking civilian and military authorities in
17 Belgrade, and if this was not raised, why wasn't it?
18 A. It was explained to the authorities there by Mr. Janicot and what
19 the roles of the people in the mission were, and it was explained that I
20 was going as the expert and I would be looking at war damage and make some
21 proposals for restoration. In other words, the question of damage was
22 diplomatically and indirectly raised.
23 Q. But the threat of damage was very serious. Didn't you express
24 your serious concern?
25 A. If the director of the cabinet of the director-general was there
1 to introduce a mission to go to Dubrovnik, I think the seriousness of the
2 situation was, in fact, fully underlined.
3 Q. Very well. I won't insist on this.
4 Were you interested in whether there had been any investigation
5 into the event of October and November in Dubrovnik?
6 A. I'm sorry. By "investigation," you mean?
7 Q. Were you interested in whether the federal authorities had
8 conducted an investigation into the events of October and November, which
9 was the occasion of your arrival? Did you ask about that?
10 A. We did not ask any questions about such an investigation. The
11 subject was not raised.
12 Q. Did your organisation formally request an investigation - I don't
13 mean your delegation, but the institution to which you belonged?
14 A. I can't properly answer that because I was not privy to
15 correspondence, I was not privy to other contacts that had been made by
16 the organisation with the federal authorities before I arrived on the
18 Q. When you were in Paris preparing for your trip, did you receive
19 any briefing?
20 A. I remember one meeting with the director-general, Mr. Janicot,
21 Mr. Vogric, and Mr. Carnez, and it was a meeting to explain to us what we
22 were supposed to do. But I don't remember all of that particular
24 Q. Were you perhaps told what side was causing the damage, if any?
25 A. Well, the documents that had come through seemed to be indicating
1 that the side that was causing the damage was the -- were the federal
3 Q. The only documents you had at the time were the documents arriving
4 from the Croatian side. Is this correct?
5 A. As far as I remember, in considering what I was able to see at the
6 time briefly.
7 Q. Can you try to remember, please, General Pujic, the person you
8 talked to. Can you remember anything about that person, his rank perhaps,
9 his official position, or anything at all about him, where the meeting
10 took place, anything at all about this meeting.
11 A. I believe it took place in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It
12 didn't take place on the ground floor; it was several floors up. I
13 remember an array of officers from the federal army, a certain number of
14 diplomats. I was not informed -- maybe we were not informed of the names
15 of all the people around the table. I don't retain a very good -- very,
16 very vague sense of the individuals. It was not such a long meeting; we
17 saw them only once.
18 Q. Did General Pujic tell you about what the task of the JNA was in
19 the Dubrovnik area?
20 A. The general talked -- he talked generally about the situation in
21 Croatia and he referred to the situation as an "armed riot". He gave some
22 indications about foreign mercenaries, Croatian paramilitaries who would
23 be functioning in the Dubrovnik area. He made some indications, I
24 believe, about the number of cease-fires that had taken place and which --
25 there may have been 13, and 12 of them had not been respected by the
1 Croatian side.
2 Q. What was your view on what he told you at the meeting? Did you
3 believe that, as you had previously believed faxes from the Croatian side?
4 Or did you perhaps have doubts? And if so, why?
5 A. Well, you remember perhaps UNESCO is perhaps a little bit
6 circumspect on some things. Certain questions and not asking, because
7 perhaps the only information at the time was written on faxes. After all,
8 the reason I was sent there was to ascertain if there was war damage.
9 Now, later on I believe that you could see easily in the media, there was
10 a certain number of reportage about what was going on in Dubrovnik. But
11 the whole intention of the organisation was to treat the matter in as fair
12 and impartial way as possible. Mr. Janicot did not hurl any accusations
13 across the table at the federal authorities, military or political
15 Q. At that point in time did you recognise as true the information
16 that mortars were placed along the bottom of the walls, because you were
17 told exactly that by a high state official in Belgrade, or were you
18 inclined to doubt that bit of information also? You did not have your own
19 people on the ground, so all you know is what the two parties are telling
21 A. That's the whole point, I mean to say that they are -- there's
22 shelling damage in the town and then to say there are mortars at the foot
23 of the walls. I mean all these things are things that have to be
24 demonstrated. You listen to them, you note them down, but you cannot
25 possibly make a judgement upon them because you have not been there to see
1 for yourself.
2 Q. Were you also told in Belgrade how exactly you could travel to
4 A. Yes, we were told. I can't remember the exact itinerary but
5 basically it would have been down the territory, Republic of Serbia,
6 Republic of Montenegro, and across -- we would go across to Cavtat, and
7 then take a federal boat from Cavtat to Dubrovnik. This would have been
8 the itinerary. This was the itinerary that was outlined by the federal
10 Q. In your statement that you gave to the Prosecutor in 2001 to the
11 investigators of this Tribunal. You said that Mr. Janicot had said the
12 following: That you needed a partner to talk to on the JNA side. He
13 received the answer that he should speak to the secretariat and the
14 secretariat should inform those that were in charge of Dubrovnik. Do you
15 remember that specific sentence?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. Which secretariat is being referred to here, in as far as you can
19 A. It would be the secretariat of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
20 Q. And who were the people who would then have been in charge of
22 A. I believe's he's talking about those who were in charge of
23 Dubrovnik -- of the Dubrovnik sector, and those would be federal
25 Q. Did they specify who?
1 A. I can't -- I'm sorry, sir, I can't remember.
2 Q. Further in your statement, Mr. Janicot pointed out that members of
3 the UNESCO mission should be accommodated in the Old Town, that this had
4 been organised by the mayor of Dubrovnik, and that you would inform the
5 Federal Government as soon as you arrived. Is that an accurate reflection
6 of your statement, sir?
7 A. I think it is, sir.
8 Q. Tell me, please: Did you, in fact, ever inform the Federal
9 Government about what was going on in Dubrovnik, first of all the fact
10 that you arrived and also what was going on?
11 A. Well, we -- we didn't have a direct means of informing the Federal
12 Government. Our headquarters knew that we had arrived.
13 Q. Did you ever try to get in touch with the Federal Government?
14 A. I myself did not try to get in touch with the Federal Government.
15 Q. Did it perhaps under the circumstances strike you as necessary,
16 given what you found upon your arrival in Dubrovnik?
17 A. I should point out that Mr. Carnez travelled to Cavtat on one
18 occasion. I do not know who he met in Cavtat.
19 Q. Did any Federal Government officials, any of those you talked to
20 in Belgrade, perhaps make a request that a federal team should join you in
21 Dubrovnik and carry out an on-site investigation in cooperation with you?
22 A. The discussion -- there was a discussion about the possibility - I
23 think it was suggested by the federal side - of experts being attached to
24 a mission. It was felt that -- on the UNESCO side that the best and the
25 most impartial way to carry out a mission would be only with the UNESCO
1 functionaries. This I think is the logic of the UNESCO position.
2 Q. So you turned down this proposal by the federal authorities to
3 have a team sent down there and join you in your investigation on the
5 A. Yes. This idea was put to one side for the time being by UNESCO.
6 Q. Did General Pujic perhaps request on behalf of the JNA for
7 representatives of the federal conservation institute to be sent down to
8 Dubrovnik, along with your team?
9 A. I'm not quite sure who made the suggestion from the federal side.
10 It could perhaps have been General Pujic.
11 Q. In your statement you refer to General Pujic requesting that a
12 federal delegation be sent as well as representatives from the Ministry of
13 Foreign Affairs making the same request. Is that correct?
14 A. I made the statement a few years ago. And I stand by what I made
15 in that statement.
16 Q. I could read exactly what it says here. "The federal Minister of
17 foreign affairs confirmed that we were allowed to carry out our mission
18 and requested that we take steps immediately, saying also that he would
19 like to send JNA experts on the way to provide assistance should any
20 damage be ascertained." Do you still stand by this portion of your
22 A. Are you saying the federal minister of foreign affairs confirmed.
23 I remember this statement. I'm not -- I stand by this.
24 Q. Tell me, please, did you keep any notes during your stay in
1 A. Well, I took specific notes for the damage survey of October and
3 Q. What happened to those notes?
4 A. Well, I still have those notes.
5 Q. Did you hand over a copy of those notes to the OTP when you gave
6 your statement?
7 A. No, I didn't. I was not asked to.
8 Q. Did you hand over notes from your meetings in Belgrade to the OTP?
9 Did they perhaps make inquiries about those and perhaps asked you to hand
10 those over to them?
11 A. I did not hand over my notes to the investigators.
12 Q. Why was it that the Croatian side opposed your arrival in
13 Dubrovnik on a federal forces ship? Do you know anything about that?
14 A. It's clear, they definitely opposed that we come in to the Old
15 Town on a federal ship. They even warned us that there might be trouble
16 if we did come in on a federal ship. I think they wanted to make certain
17 that this trip started in Croatian territory.
18 Q. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you even viewed the Croatian
19 position on that as a threat at the time?
20 A. That's true.
21 Q. The result of that particular threat was the fact that you
22 travelled to Dubrovnik -- that your travel to Dubrovnik was organised by
23 the general staff and the Croatian military?
24 A. Well, they had to give some guarantees -- had to give security
25 guarantees for the travel, which took place through waters very, very
1 close to the Croatian coast. We also had to take a land transport down to
2 Rijeka to do this, so they needed guarantees for that as well.
3 Q. At the general staff of the Croatian army, you were also told that
4 they would notify officers in Dubrovnik of your arrival, and then those
5 officers would in some way be put in charge of you. What did that mean?
6 What sort of escort did those officers provide?
7 A. Well, in fact there was -- we did not have an escort from the
8 Croatian military. The Krila Dubrovnika, which was the boat we took down,
9 there was no Croatian military on that boat.
10 Q. What exactly were you told? Who was the commander of the Croatian
11 forces in Dubrovnik? Was there something you were told at the general
13 A. The name of General Marinovic came up.
14 Q. What specifically were you told about that?
15 A. I think he was the -- he was commanding the Croatian forces in the
16 territory of Dubrovnik.
17 Q. Did you ask any questions, general questions - I don't mean
18 detailed questions - about the exact number and deployment of those
19 forces? Did you perhaps express your concern back in Zagreb about the way
20 that General Marinovic's forces were positioned?
21 A. I don't recall asking any questions about the Croatian forces in
23 Q. Did you perhaps warn the Croatian side at the Zagreb meeting that
24 it was not allowed to misuse a World Cultural Heritage Site?
25 A. Excuse me. I'm trying to refresh my memory about this. I don't
1 have a -- any memories about this specifically.
2 Q. Since you can't remember, in view of your role, would it not have
3 been natural for you to draw their attention to the fact that they were to
4 fully and strictly comply with the provisions of the relevant convention?
5 A. We explained the mission to them. We explained the -- there -- it
6 was a question of the World Heritage Site, which was Dubrovnik. There was
7 also the question of The Hague Convention. I don't remember -- obviously
8 in The Hague Convention of 1954, if you misuse a cultural site, then there
9 are great risks. I don't recall talking about this particular aspect of
10 The Hague Convention with the Croatian authorities.
11 Q. Once you set out and were on your way, did you realise immediately
12 what the problem could be, what sort of a problem you might be facing once
13 you arrived? On the one hand there is an attack against a protected
14 heritage site, and on the other hand you have someone using this world
15 heritage site to fire back. Did you perhaps think about it in these
17 A. Well, just to put it this way, is that I really understood where I
18 was going and what kinds of risks existed when I sat down and watched some
19 of the most recent media reports on -- that had been taped and were shown
20 to us by ECMM. And it was clearly a dangerous place and there could be a
21 lot of shooting. And we saw some things on those reports which -- we saw
22 boats which were supposed to be federal boats. We saw fires burning boats
23 and things like that. I can answer you best by saying we knew it was
24 going to be a dangerous place. All the details of who were shooting at
25 what was not something I was aware of in the detail.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, is that a convenient time?
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] That's how it seems, Your Honour.
3 Thank you.
4 JUDGE PARKER: I must ask you to return on Monday, Dr. Kaiser.
5 Thank you.
6 We will adjourn for the weekend.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
8 at 1.46 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,
9 the 16th day of February, 2004, at 2.15 p.m.