1 Tuesday, 17 February 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.31 p.m.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon. We must apologise that an urgent

6 matter caused a delay and we have kept you waiting.

7 Could the witness be brought in.

8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, before the witness

11 is brought in, can I ask you very briefly for your indulgence to inform

12 you in two minutes in connection with your recommendation at the end of

13 our session yesterday.

14 The defence of General Strugar is totally open for all

15 conversation along the lines that you suggested, and the suggestion that

16 you recommended. As far as I could understand, my learned colleague Mr.

17 Kaufman, the opposite side, is at this time not ready to give up the

18 concept and the manner of presentation of their evidence at this point of

19 time so that unfortunately, despite the best of will on our part, I have

20 to proceed in the same way as I did yesterday and will have to do so in

21 the case of some future witnesses. Otherwise, it is always to discuss

22 this matter in the way that you suggested. And I would also be so free

23 to suggest that perhaps we could organise a sort of a 65 ter conference.

24 And with your assistance and help, perhaps we could discuss this in

25 detail so you could see what it is that we are suggesting and what

1 argumentation we wish to present along those lines. Perhaps in a

2 different setting this would be more convenient, of course, if there is a

3 similar wish on the other side. Thank you, Your Honours.

4 JUDGE PARKER: I'm grateful for your indication, Mr. Petrovic.

5 Thank you. Mr. Kaufman.

6 MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. If I just make comment, Your Honours. It is

7 correct that there is an open channel of communication. It is also

8 correct that at the conclusion of yesterday's hearing that Mr. Petrovic

9 and I did have a conversation on how best to deal with the matters that

10 were raised by Your Honours at the end of the last hearing.

11 I am mindful of Your Honours' direction, and I am not precluding

12 at this point in time that at a later date we might in any event reach an

13 agreement as to the extent of the damage. However, at this moment in

14 time, the Prosecution is not able to relinquish Annex 2 to the

15 indictment.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Does that carry with it the view that some

17 meeting, as suggested by Mr. Petrovic, would not be productive?

18 MR. KAUFMAN: I believe that a meeting would be productive. I

19 believe, furthermore, as Ms. Somers herself has stated in a previous

20 hearing that a suggested 65 ter conference would be acceptable to the

21 Prosecution as well, of course. So if the Trial Chamber is minded to

22 hold such a conference at a later date, I'm sure it will enable both

23 sides to reach agreements.

24 JUDGE PARKER: How much later would that later date be, Mr.

25 Kaufman?

1 MR. KAUFMAN: Obviously it would not be possible today, and

2 obviously it would be advisable that the Senior Trial Attorney would be

3 present at such a 65 ter conference.

4 JUDGE PARKER: The answer then is? Next week.

5 MR. KAUFMAN: If Your Honours are minded to hold such a

6 conference next week, of course the Prosecution would be willing to hold

7 such a conference at such a date.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Kaufman. We'll leave the matter at

9 that point, then, and we'll give some consideration to it at a later

10 time.

11 [The witness entered court]

12 JUDGE PARKER: I see that Dr. Kaiser has come into the Court and

13 has presumed his seat. May we apologise to you as well that an urgent

14 matter caused a delay in the starting time and has kept you waiting, and

15 I'm afraid, as you've probably picked up, you must experience more of the

16 process that was under way yesterday today.

17 Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

18 If I could remind you of the affirmation you took at the

19 beginning.

20 WITNESS: COLIN KAISER [Resumed]

21 Cross-examined by Mr. Petrovic: [Continued]

22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

23 Cross-examined by Mr. Petrovic:

24 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Kaiser.

25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can at the beginning all these

1 documents be presented to the witness, all these relevant documents, E51

2 and B62, that is.

3 Q. Mr. Kaiser, will you first of all, please, look at the document

4 which constitutes the preliminary report, which is P51, the first page of

5 the first binder. This is the document L0061411 in the English

6 translation. Do you have that document before you, Mr. Kaiser?

7 A. Yes. Yes, I have it.

8 Q. Do you agree with me that the title of this report is the

9 preliminary report on the damage inflicted on the old core of the city of

10 Dubrovnik in October, November, and December, 1991?

11 A. Yes, I do.

12 Q. Will you now please look at page -- in the English version is the

13 L0061412. That is the next page in the English version, the same

14 document. On the top of the page we again have the title of the report;

15 right?

16 A. Yes, I see the title.

17 Q. Then the authors of the report are indicated; is that correct?

18 A. That is correct.

19 Q. The authors are Marko Vetma, Franic Popic, and Vukovic; right?

20 A. That's correct.

21 Q. Thank you. Would you kindly now move on to page L0061414 in the

22 English translation. Do you see this page?

23 A. Yes, I do.

24 Q. Is this the -- are these the introductory remarks to the

25 preliminary report?

1 A. They appear to be.

2 Q. Is it correct, then, that on the next page you can see the

3 signature? Please take a look. Is it correct that the date which the

4 report bears is the 6th of January, 1992? Is that correct?

5 A. That's what's written down.

6 Q. And also, is it correct that the introduction to the preliminary

7 report is signed by the director of the institute, i.e., the Institute

8 for the Protection of Monuments of Culture and Nature, Mrs. Dorotea

9 Valjalo?

10 A. Yes, I see her name written down there.

11 Q. Please take a look at the next page. This page describes the

12 methods which were employed. Please pay attention to the second

13 paragraph on that page. Is it written there -- is there a reference

14 there, rather, to the time when the Old Town of Dubrovnik was bombarded

15 and an indication of the dates of the 24th and the 25th of November and

16 the 6th of December and a number of dates in October?

17 A. Yes, I see the dates written down.

18 Q. Are these the dates to which this preliminary report refers?

19 A. Those are the dates of which it purports to refer to, yes.

20 Q. Please take a look at the part of the preliminary report which

21 deals with damage to the ramparts. The mark is Z21. And that is, Your

22 Honours, in translation L0061443.

23 Have you found it, Mr. Kaiser?

24 A. I've found Z21.

25 Q. Is it correct that the 24th of November, 1991, is the date which

1 is the date which is indicated as the impact?

2 A. The date indicated there is indeed the 24th of November, 1991.

3 Q. Thank you. Take a look at Z43 now, please. This is, Your

4 Honours, L0061465.

5 Have you found it?

6 A. Yes, I have.

7 Q. So take a look at the date of the impact, of the alleged impact.

8 A. Yes, the dates are clear, the 12th of November and the 6th of

9 December.

10 Q. Thank you. Just one minute, please. Take a look at what is at

11 insula 548. The number is 600 -- L0048498. Insula 548.

12 A. Yes, I've found this.

13 Q. Please take a look at the date of the impact.

14 A. The 12th of November, 1991.

15 Q. Thank you. Now take a look at, for instance -- take a look at,

16 for instance, mark 9-3. It is L0059946 in the English translation. I

17 assume it's in book number two. Have you found -- is it correct that the

18 date of 13 December 1991 is indicated there as the date of the impact?

19 A. It is. The 13th of December, 1991, is written down here.

20 Q. Now please take a look at -- just bear with me for a second,

21 please.

22 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, I rise to my feet at this point in

23 time because, although I am conscious of what is written with respect to

24 the last site, in the English translation I have asked my colleague

25 Ms. Matacic to analyse the B/C/S version of the same site, and there it

1 would appear that the date is 13.X1.1991 as the date of the hit, which

2 would mean it was November. So I would beg Mr. Petrovic to be very

3 careful when he's putting these questions to the witness that he is

4 citing the date as it is in the B/C/S version, and he's not putting to

5 the witness something which is in fact a mistake in the translation which

6 has been provided by the Office of the Prosecutor.

7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I base myself on this

8 translation as it is much easier for me to look at the B/C/S version and

9 proceed in this way. If you wish me to change that, I can do that, but

10 I'm doing it in this way in the interests of the Chamber. But in my

11 learned colleague so wishes, I will gladly deal with that.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, from the point of the view of the

13 Chamber, as you have indicated the English-language translation is far

14 more useful. If there is some deficiency in the English-language

15 translation, I would ask Mr. Kaufman to point it out as we go along.

16 Thank you.

17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

18 Q. Please take a look at -- just one minute. I've lost it now.

19 For instance, 13-2, which in the English version is L0048569.

20 Have you found it? Does it indicate the 10th of November, 1991, as the

21 date of the shelling, of the impact?

22 A. Yes, it does.

23 Q. Please, also immediately following, 13-4. Does it indicate the

24 27th of November, 1991, as the date of the impact?

25 A. Yes, it indicates the 27th of November.

1 Q. So I am not going to take any more of your time or the Chamber's

2 time. So I've chosen several of these indications from the beginning,

3 the middle, and the end of this preliminary report which are example

4 which exemplify that this preliminary report should contain, should refer

5 to damage inflicted in October, November, and December.

6 So in this context, I should like to ask you the question whether

7 you still stick to your statement which you rendered here yesterday,

8 which is the that the preliminary report only refers to damages inflicted

9 on the 6th of December, or do you accept that you made a mistake in so

10 stating yesterday?

11 A. We asked that they do a damage survey of the bombardment damage

12 which was done on the 6th of December, and the reasons this was asked was

13 because there existed -- although in notes at that time -- there was a

14 report which I was preparing which was about the earlier damage.

15 Q. Please reply to my question. Is this a report which refers to

16 October, November, and December; and is it correct in that context what

17 you said yesterday, that the report contains only damage which was

18 inflicted on the 6th of December, not what you asked them about or for

19 but what the report contains, to the best of your knowledge?

20 A. I know that this report contains damage on the earlier period,

21 but what I've said to you about the 6th of December and what the

22 intention -- our intention was remains, remains so.

23 Q. What can you then say to me today about this report? Is this a

24 report -- is, first of all, the title of this report correct at all?

25 A. You can see from the title of the report and you can see from the

1 content that there is damage from October, November, and December in

2 their report, yes.

3 Q. So there is a correlation between the title of the report which

4 is adequate to the content of the report, which is damage in October,

5 November, and December. Is that not so?

6 A. As you know, I have not examined this report from cover to cover,

7 and I have not made any comparisons. The report says October, November,

8 and December. I cannot assure you that all the damage of October and

9 November would be in this report.

10 Q. Please take a look at your own report. Let's go back to Annex 3

11 of your report, which unfortunately, Your Honours, I still do not have in

12 any of the languages which is usable by the Defence. I don't have it in

13 either English or the B/C/S version.

14 Please find Annex 3 to your report. Can you please give me the

15 answer to this question: In your report which covers October and

16 November damage, does it say under item 20, Dropceva Street number 2?

17 A. No translation. I'm sorry.

18 THE INTERPRETER: Well, the translator translated. Can you hear

19 me now?

20 THE WITNESS: Yes, I can.

21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. So under item 20, do you have Dropceva Street, number 2, in your

23 report for October and November?

24 A. Yes, I do.

25 Q. Now take a look at the preliminary report, book 6-9. The first

1 volume, the first book.

2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] This, Your Honours, is L0061064.

3 THE WITNESS: I believe I've found it, sir.

4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Is the date indicated there the date of impact, that is, is it

6 the 6th of December, 1991?

7 A. Yes, it is.

8 Q. Thank you. Will you now look in your report under item 21,

9 Annex 3 to your report for October, November. So under item 21, please

10 take a look at Zamanjina Street, number 1. Is it indicated in your

11 report for October and November under item 23, Zamanjina Street, number

12 23 -- No, 21, sorry -- item 21 of your report for October and November?

13 A. Yes, 21 is there.

14 Q. Now, please look at the report of the institute, 6-1, L0061074.

15 Have you found it?

16 A. I've found it, yes.

17 Q. Is 6th of December, 1991, indicated there as the date of impact?

18 A. Yes, it is.

19 Q. Now, please take a look at item 22 of your report. That is

20 Antuninska Street number 1, hit in October or November 1991; right?

21 A. That's correct.

22 Q. Now look at the report of the institute, 7- -- sorry, just one

23 minute. So it's 7-14, 0061092 in the English version.

24 A. Yes, I found this.

25 Q. Is the 6th of December, 1991, indicated there as the date of

1 impact?

2 A. Yes, it is.

3 Q. Thank you. Look now at your report, item 23. The street is

4 called Izmedju Polaca 21, your report for October and November. Is it

5 true the damage is in October, November, Izmedju Polaca street, number

6 24?

7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Number 24.

8 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.

9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Thank you. Will you now have a look at the institute's report,

11 8-38. In the English translation it's 0059915.

12 A. Yes, I've found this.

13 Q. Does it say that the date of the hit is the 6th of December,

14 1991?

15 A. Yes, it does.

16 Q. Thank you. Look at item 25 of your report for October and

17 November. Siroka Street number 8. Have you found it?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Can you find in the preliminary report the damage you found in

20 this report for October and November, 1991?

21 A. Can you help me?

22 Q. I'm asking you if you are able to find it yourself. If not, I'll

23 tell I what the situation is.

24 A. I don't know which insula it was contained in.

25 Q. Is my assertion that in the preliminary report there is no

1 information whatsoever on Siroka Street number 8. Do you accept my

2 assertion?

3 A. Sir, I believe you if you say you can't find it in the report.

4 Q. Thank you. Look at item 26 of your report. Siroka Street number

5 5, damage inflicted in October and November 1991. Have you found it?

6 A. Yes, I have.

7 Q. Look at the preliminary report now. Insula 9-36.

8 A. I'm sorry. This seems to end at 9-25.

9 Q. My apologies. It's my mistake. Not 9-36. It's 11-36. I'm

10 sorry. So it's 0061533.

11 A. Yes, I've found it, sir.

12 Q. Does is say the 6th of December, 1991, is the date of the hit?

13 A. Yes, it does.

14 Q. Thank you. Will you now look at item 27. Which building is

15 that, item 27 of your report?

16 A. This is the senior citizens' home.

17 Q. Can you find this building in the preliminary report of the

18 institute for October, November, December 1991?

19 A. I'm sorry. It would be helpful if you would indicate the insula

20 and eventually the report form number.

21 Q. I'm sorry, I can't help you because it is not there in the report

22 of the institute for October, November, December.

23 Will you now look at item 30 of your report for October and

24 November. Have you found it?

25 A. Yes, I have.

1 Q. Now have a look at insula 13, building number 5. In the English

2 translation it's 0048572.

3 A. Yes, I've found it.

4 Q. Is that building that you referenced in item 30 the St. Mary's

5 Convent?

6 A. Yes, it's referenced.

7 Q. Is it true that in the preliminary report the date of the hit is

8 indicated as the 6th of December, 1991?

9 A. Yes, the date is the 6th of December. It indicates other kinds

10 of damage, though.

11 Q. Please look at item 32 of your report.

12 A. Yes, I've found it.

13 Q. Does it say Gucetica Street?

14 A. Yes, it does.

15 Q. Damage indicated is October, November, 1991.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Now look at insula 11-1. In English it's 0061497. 11-1, that

18 is, 1A.

19 A. Okay. I've found that.

20 Q. The date of the hit is the 6th of December, 1991; isn't it?

21 A. Yes, it is.

22 Q. Thank you. Look at item 33 in your report. Your report on

23 damage for October, November 1991, is there an indication of

24 Strossmayerova Street number 5?

25 A. Yes, my report it is.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. In the report of the institute for October, November, and

2 December, can you find this Strossmayerova Street, referencing damage in

3 October, November, December?

4 A. No, sir. I'd like to ask you to help me again to find it by

5 indicating which --

6 Q. I'm sorry. It's not there. No such damage is recorded in the

7 report for the institute for October, November, December.

8 Look at item 4 of your report. Sigurata Monastery. Sigurata

9 Monastery. Have you located it in your report? You're looking at your

10 report; right?

11 A. You've got the wrong item, sir.

12 Q. Item 34 of your report, Annex 3.

13 A. Okay. Yes, I've found it.

14 Q. October, November, the Od Sigurata Monastery. Can you please go

15 back to the first book of the preliminary report and find insula 2.

16 Insula 2, building 13. Is the date of the hit 6 December 1991, 1330

17 hours?

18 A. Yes, it is.

19 Q. Look at item 35 of your report. October, November, the

20 Franciscan Monastery. Is that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Look at now -- look at the report of the institute now. That's

23 insula 1.

24 A. One.

25 Q. Just a minute. Insula 1-1. I thank my learned friend. In

1 English it's 0060284.

2 A. Yes, I've found it.

3 Q. The date of the hit is the 6th of December, isn't it?

4 A. Yes, it is.

5 Q. Thank you. Now please look at your report for October November,

6 Antuninska Street number 11. Can you see it in your report for October

7 and November, Antuninska Street number 11? It's item 36.

8 A. Yes, I can.

9 Q. Thank you. Now kindly look at item 37 of your report. Does it

10 indicate also 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, all buildings in Antuninska Street?

11 A. Yes, it does.

12 Q. Is that correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Thank you. Now, please have a look at insula 3, institute report

15 for October, November, December. Number 14. It's, in English, 0060378.

16 The date of the hit is 6 December 1991, isn't it?

17 A. Yes, it is.

18 Q. Now look at the page before that, one page before that, 0060377.

19 It refers to Antuninska Street, number 24. Is the date of impact again

20 the 6th of December, 1991?

21 A. Yes, it is.

22 Q. Thank you. I would now kindly ask you -- I don't know if you

23 have the B/C/S version of the preliminary report before you. I don't

24 think you do.

25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] With the assistance of the usher,

1 I would like the witness to have the B/C/S version, book 1, for the map

2 which is only in the B/C/S version. Book 1. It's P51.

3 Q. I should like you to have a look at the page which is marked

4 01069230. It's a map of insula number 3. 230 are the last digits. Will

5 you please find it in the B/C/S version. 230.

6 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous translation continues]... Version the

7 pages ending 229 and 230 are missing. We have two pages ending 228.

8 They're the same.

9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe my learned

10 friend can be of assistance, or maybe I should give you my copy, but then

11 I will be left without anything to work with. That's my only copy. I'm

12 sorry, do you have a copy by any chance?

13 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous translation continues]... Mr. Petrovic.

14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Would you please put this on the

15 ELMO.

16 JUDGE PARKER: We also find that pages 231 and 232 are identical,

17 so something appears to have gone wrong. I am in error there. There's a

18 different note at the bottom.

19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we proceed in

20 this way? Is this convenient?

21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.

22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

23 Q. I should like you to look at -- first of all, tell me, are you

24 familiar with this type of maps from your work with the preliminary

25 report? Do you know how to look at these maps?

1 A. I was familiar with these kinds of maps, yes.

2 Q. All right, then. Please look at the building which is indicated

3 here with number 12, insula 3, building 12. Can you see it?

4 A. Yes. Yes, I can.

5 Q. Now, in the preliminary report itself, look at insula 3, building

6 12. Look at what building that is and then please tell the Chamber,

7 which building is that, 3-12? Is it the building in Antuninska Street

8 number 14? Insula 3-12, is it Antuninska 14?

9 A. That's what's written on the form, sir, yes.

10 Q. Thank you. Now, on the same side of the street with even

11 numbers, do you see building number 13? The same street. Can you locate

12 it on the map?

13 A. Yes, I can.

14 Q. Now, please look at the preliminary report of the institute.

15 That's insula 3-13. And tell me, is it Antuninska Street number 24?

16 A. The form number for Antuninska Street is number 4 -- 24.

17 Q. Can you see that between building 12 and building 13, according

18 to the preliminary report of the institute, there is no damaged building

19 in the period October, November, December 1991?

20 A. According to the map, that would seem to be correct.

21 Q. Does that mean that three buildings that you allegedly found in

22 your report from October, November, 18, 20, and 22, are not referenced

23 here?

24 A. Well, I wish that they actually had the street numbers on them.

25 If those are indeed the buildings, though, I would say there was a

1 reference. They're little dots on the facade of one of those buildings,

2 and that would indicate damage to facade. But on the others there is no

3 indication.

4 Q. Which dots? Can you show us which dots? I can't see them.

5 A. Okay. I think we're looking at different maps.

6 Q. No. Please let us do it this way: First look at the map on the

7 ELMO. Is there any indication on that map?

8 A. There is no indication of any damage on that map.

9 Q. No.

10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, do you have the

11 following map ending with digits 231?

12 Q. Now, you, Mr. Kaiser, look at the following map, map 231.

13 Between buildings 12 and 13, can you see any dots indicated on the

14 building which graphically reflects damage? Do you see any dots or any

15 other marks?

16 A. Yes. I mentioned that I saw some dots that are on the street

17 facade. The second building down, possibly the first building as well.

18 Q. Where, please? Could you place that page on the ELMO and show us

19 so that we can see the dots too.

20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can I have the page 231 on the

21 ELMO, please.

22 Q. Now, show me on the building which corresponds to buildings 12

23 and 13. Where are the dots that indicate damage? That's building 13

24 that you are showing now, and the building down with two black triangles

25 marked as 12. Where do you see black dots between 12 and 13?

1 A. May I -- may I answer, please? If you see the street side here

2 where the pointer is, it doesn't seem to come out very well on the

3 viewer, but I can see them very, very clearly, and I can see them on the

4 map. There is a series of one, two, three, four -- five, dots. There

5 you see them. That would be damage to facades. You can -- I'm sorry.

6 Q. In that case, what does this big round dot indicate, and what

7 does it mean in the legend? Where are these little dots indicated in the

8 legend that you claim are damage on the facade?

9 A. Second line.

10 Q. Tell me, please, if you look at the insula as a whole, look at

11 building from 12 onwards, and tell me why that does not feature in the

12 preliminary report, why none of these buildings have been identified in

13 the preliminary report?

14 A. I haven't read the entries in the preliminary report, but if you

15 say that none of this damage is described as facade damage, then I assume

16 you're saying the truth, sir.

17 Q. Is it true, then, that any building is indicated as damaged on

18 the even side of the street between 12 and 14, in the street we are

19 talking about? Sorry, between 14 and 24. In the records in the

20 preliminary report, is there any trace of that, any trace of such damage?

21 A. Okay. These would be numbers -- which numbers exactly? Because

22 the numbers that they had -- they're different numbers on the maps and

23 for houses here, which makes it a little bit confusing to follow. Okay.

24 Which house numbers are these, sir?

25 Q. Yes, that's true. Eighteen, 20, and 22 are the house numbers.

1 A. Well, there's no 18 here. I wish I could -- I'm sorry, could you

2 repeat the numbers, sir, because I can't see the transcription.

3 Q. The house numbers are 18, 20, and 22.

4 A. Okay. Eighteen, 20, and 22; there are no forms here in this

5 damage survey.

6 Q. Thank you. I would like to have my own copy of the map back.

7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Just a second, Your Honours. If

8 you will bear with me for just a minute, please.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Now, please take your own report for October and November and

12 look at item 13. Is it the Dedbelj [phoen] fortress?

13 A. Yes, it is, sir.

14 Q. Let us recall, is that the fortress where the observation point

15 of the Croatian army was located, observation post?

16 A. Yes. That's where the observation post that I saw was located.

17 MR. KAUFMAN: I'd just like to ask if the "observation point of

18 the Croatian army" was the phraseology of my learned friend. I don't

19 think that came up in cross-examination at any point.

20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I accept this.

21 Q. So that's the building; right?

22 A. That's the structure, yes.

23 Q. And you established that it was hit in October, November?

24 A. Yes, I did, sir.

25 Q. In book 1 of the institute's report. Look at reference Z30.

1 It's 0061452. The date of the hit, is it the 6th of December, 1991?

2 A. It's the 6th of December.

3 Q. Thank you. Now kindly look at Annex 2 of your report for

4 October, November. Sorry, Annex 1. It's a map. It's a map where, at

5 least at the top, it says the graphic depiction of damage inflicted

6 during the shelling of the town in October, November, and December. So

7 it's Prosecution Exhibit P62, tab 6, Annex 1.

8 A. It's for the month of October, November on my map.

9 Q. Correct. Would you mind putting that map on the ELMO, please.

10 Tell me first of all: Who drew up this map?

11 A. This was drawn up by the members of the institute who did this

12 particular survey.

13 Q. Did you make this map a part of your report as an integral part

14 of it?

15 A. I included this map for information to the report.

16 Q. Does this map correctly reflect what is contained in Annex 3 to

17 your report?

18 A. No, it does not entirely correctly reflect what's in Annex 3.

19 Q. Where are the differences between Annex 3 and the map which you

20 included in your report as Annex 1?

21 A. Okay. We understand that this is the map they presented in Annex

22 3 is a different document which is based on the checking of the

23 information that they gave us, including these locations that are on this

24 map. There are some things which were unverifiable because they are dots

25 in the water, and for us, dots in the water are not verifiable impacts.

1 There are one or two that are perhaps missing, for example, down here.

2 There would be one missing on the senior citizens' home. There are

3 problems -- you can't see this very well, but in -- this is a bad

4 reproduction of the map, but down here is the church of the Jesuits.

5 There is a big bar, unfortunately, that comes down through there, and

6 there were three dots on the church of the Jesuits.

7 Now, the church of the Jesuits, as far as we could ascertain, was

8 hit once, so there was a mixture between some fragments and direct

9 impacts. They were all counted as one sort, the damage.

10 Q. Anything else?

11 A. There are a few things we didn't check in detail because we

12 didn't have the time to check in detail, and these were basically along

13 this part of the port.

14 Q. Tell me, why did you include in your report which was prepared

15 over a year after the events that we are discussing a map which is

16 incorrect, which contains all these mistakes?

17 A. This report wasn't prepared a year after the events. It was

18 prepared at the beginning of January, a few weeks later. It was put in

19 for information. It was very important to put in my annex, which

20 unfortunately I didn't myself do a map. But the annex was stand for

21 itself.

22 Q. Please be so kind as to help me with this matter related to your

23 report and the actual date when it was made. Perhaps I didn't see the

24 date; I allow this as a possibility, as a mistake on my part. But please

25 look at Exhibit 62, tab 6. Will you please be so kind as to find for me

1 the date of your report. The only thing I can see about this report is

2 this cover letter, 14th October 1993. Of course I allow for that being a

3 possibility of that being an oversight on my part.

4 A. Well, there's no date on it, but I can assure you that it was

5 finished in early January 1992 and submitted.

6 Q. Can you then tell me how come that an integral part of this

7 report is also your letter, your introductory letter, which is dated 14th

8 of October, 1993, if as you say you submitted the report in January 1992?

9 A. I'm sorry, I really don't know what you're speaking about, sir.

10 This may appear with other documents and there may be some confusion from

11 that reason.

12 Q. No, sir. I am referring to Prosecution Exhibit P62, tab 6, page

13 2 and 3 of the report, which is a letter. First, do you have the title

14 page, the cover page, the title? Then follows this letter.

15 A. If I understand, sir, this is document which is taken from the

16 report on the battle of Dubrovnik and the law for done by the commission

17 of experts in 1993. So you have a version of my report which has another

18 document incorporated into it.

19 Q. Please be so kind as to explain this for my benefit in great

20 detail and very slowly, please, sir. What is contained in tab 6? That

21 is your report; right? Is that correct?

22 A. What --

23 Q. This is the report which you prepared after returning from

24 Dubrovnik, as you say; is that correct?

25 A. Yes, in early January 1991.

1 Q. All right. Now, please explain to me: What is the link between

2 the introductory letter in that report, and what connection can this

3 introductory letter have with your report to the commission of experts?

4 A. This -- this is a letter that has been put into a copy of my

5 report for the commission of experts. Dominik McAlea was the leader of

6 the commission of experts team that was working in Dubrovnik, and all you

7 have here is somebody has put in this particular letter regarding it as

8 relevant to the work of the commission. I haven't seen this letter in a

9 long time. I hope I can take a copy of it away. It has observations on

10 my report. And it's dated 14th of October, 1993. And the mission of

11 this particular team to Dubrovnik was at that time, sir, and I was part

12 of that.

13 Q. But, sir, look at the content of that letter. Please tell me

14 whether this letter makes a single reference to the report of the

15 commission of experts by a single word. What it refers to is a report of

16 the UNESCO monitors, observers. Perhaps I didn't read something properly

17 in this mass of documents, but if I didn't, please be so kind as to

18 indicate it for me.

19 A. I've already explained to you this is a letter written to, sent

20 to the team leader, and it contains remarks on the report which I had

21 made earlier.

22 Q. A while ago, you told me that this letter had been written as

23 part of the process of preparing the report of the commission of experts.

24 What in this letter shows, demonstrates that letter is a part of that

25 process?

1 A. This contains -- I haven't read this in a long time, sir, but it

2 contains my remarks about the original report of early January 1991, when

3 I am sure that the commission was interested in knowing if I had any

4 particular remarks to make about the earlier report that -- that could be

5 useful for their work.

6 Q. If -- then --

7 A. By the way, if I may interrupt you, it also indicates

8 bombardments of May, June, 1992. I didn't write any reports about that.

9 Q. True; that is exactly why I'm asking you this. That is exactly

10 why I'm asking you. How come that something which happened in May and

11 June 1992 could have been incorporated into this whole story? And

12 please, while we're at it, when you look at tab number 6, please explain

13 to me this incorporation of it in this document. It is even labelled

14 with ERN numbers 373, 374, 375, 376.

15 A. Well, I didn't label it. I don't really understand these kinds

16 of questions. This is -- it would be very nice to have a complete copy

17 of that report which is called the "Battle of Dubrovnik," I think, "and

18 the Law of War," and to see how the whole document is laid out. This is

19 not an introduction. This is an additional information for the use of

20 the team of experts.

21 Q. Well, I can regale you by telling you that we will be coming to

22 that particular document during my questioning, although to my great

23 amazement and surprise, this document was not at all included in this

24 batch of documents which has been presented to you here.

25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is a report

1 which this witness submitted to the United Nations Security Council, a

2 very detailed report which has to do with events around Dubrovnik and

3 which report in no way was mentioned here or given to you as part of the

4 documents that have been presented here. So that the selective

5 presentation of documents is something which has been repeated here.

6 This is a key document. This is a report of a commission of experts

7 which was actually the basis for the founding of this international

8 tribunal. This witness who is before you was an active participant in

9 this process, but until now you have been deprived of the possibility of

10 seeing that report. I will seek to see to it that you are presented that

11 report in -- as I continue my interrogation in the course of this day.

12 And if the time is appropriate now, perhaps I could move that we take a

13 break now, if you feel that that is convenient. Thank you.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic. We'll have a 20-minute

15 break.

16 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.

17 --- On resuming at 4.12 p.m.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic -- I'm sorry. Mr. Kaufman.

19 MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. I'm sorry. Just two matters if I may, Your

20 Honour, briefly. In the interval I was approached by the Victims and

21 Witnesses Unit who requested me to bring to Your Honour's attention that

22 the witness has now been on the stand for a fairly long time and he is

23 growing slightly agitated that the cross-examination will be continuing

24 for some time longer, if I can put it that way. Of course I don't want

25 to interfere with Mr. Petrovic's discretion, what he feels is appropriate

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 for the defence of his client, but I thought it right and appropriate to

2 bring it to Your Honours' attention so Your Honours are aware of this.

3 That's the first matter.

4 The second matter is one that I would wish to raise personally

5 and it arises out of a comment that Mr. Petrovic made in the last

6 question that was put to the witness before the interval. It was

7 basically a comment that the Prosecution have selectively chosen exhibits

8 to put before Your Honours. The Prosecution puts the exhibits which it

9 feels are relevant to prove the indictment before Your Honours through

10 this particular witness. There has been no hiding of evidence in this

11 case, and insofar as that comment may be interpreted as suggesting that

12 the Prosecution are withdrawing or hiding evidence from Your Honours, I

13 would take objection.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, as to the first issue, the length of

15 the cross-examination, are you in a position to give some indication of

16 how much long your you will be?

17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Well, this is very difficult for

18 me, Your Honours. Cooperation and cooperativeness implies two sides. If

19 there were any cooperation on this particular matter, we would have

20 finished this long ago, this story that we have been talking about for

21 the last two days. But, Your Honour, I will do my very level best to

22 finish today even if I have to give up some of my questions. But of

23 course you will appreciate that I'm in no position to promise that. I

24 will do my level best.

25 But we have come to a situation whereby this report -- which is a

1 key piece of documentation, which is the very basis of everything -- this

2 is a report that you are acquainting yourselves with for the first time

3 only now. Had you seen it before, I would not be in a position to have

4 to point out the different aspects of the report now and to indicate the

5 various things, the relevant issues, and I have to acquaint you now with

6 when this report was given, how, and so on and so forth.

7 I will do my level best for us to finish today the

8 cross-examination, but despite the best wills, I cannot make that

9 promise. I can only here repeat, I will try to do my best, Your Honours.

10 Thank you, Your Honours.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, we have been not raising the matter

12 of time in respect of the evidence of this witness because we realise the

13 importance of the report and Annex A to your case. And we realise from

14 quite early in your cross-examination that the report cannot be taken at

15 face value. You have made that very clear, and the resulting position is

16 one which is very unsatisfactory, and I hope that discussions between

17 counsel can overcome that situation in some way, failing which it will

18 continue to be a difficulty for the cases of both the Prosecution and the

19 Defence and for the Chamber itself later in the case.

20 Nevertheless, having said all of that and given you to date

21 unlimited time, I think you have made very considerable headway. And it

22 ought to be possible now to focus your questions to a relatively speedy

23 close to your cross-examination.

24 If I could turn to the second matter. I don't call for any

25 submissions, Mr. Petrovic. I would just observe that in the system and

1 procedure of the Chamber, it is not the position that the Prosecution

2 places every possible document or piece of evidence before the Chamber,

3 although that may be an expectation in some other legal systems. It is

4 the position that the Prosecution places before the Chamber the evidence

5 which it thinks is relevant to the [sic] case, but it makes known to the

6 Defence all other documents and evidence which is known to it which may

7 be relevant to the Defence, so that it may be that you will want to

8 introduce some documents or some evidence as part of your defence that

9 the Prosecution have and have not used. That is a perfectly proper

10 procedure for you to follow if it is relevant to your Defence.

11 So I just make that observation, and I think we can just leave

12 that issue where it lies. If you could proceed now with your

13 cross-examination. Thank you.

14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you, Your

15 Honour. Thank you for all the comments which you have made. But in

16 connection with the last thing which you said, I wish to say that the

17 document which will soon be before you is not a document that I received

18 from the Prosecution at any stage of the proceedings, but it is a Defence

19 document. But let me not dwell on that; all in good time.

20 But I am sure that you will for yourselves understand the

21 significance of that document and how, generally speaking, is -- how

22 selective, generally speaking, is the presentation of documents by the

23 Prosecution. Sometimes these are public documents which we are in a

24 position to obtain ourselves, but sometimes if something has not been

25 disclosed to us either through the evidence of the Prosecution or the

1 material under Rule 68 and knowing of this selective practice, this can

2 indeed endanger the right of the accused, of the indictee, to a fair

3 trial with all documentation being present whether it is of an

4 exculpatory or incriminating nature, and that is what I was talking

5 about, Your Honours. But of course I shall not belabour the point with

6 any further argumentation but will move on to my specific questions.

7 Thank you.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Before you do, could I just note that I may have

9 been careless in my use of language or there may have been an error in

10 recording, but at line 24:16, I this meant to say relevant to its case.

11 It is recorded as "relevant to the case." That correction will no doubt

12 be made in due course. I'd be grateful.

13 Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.

14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

15 Q. Before we move on to that report, Mr. Kaiser, are you able to

16 continue? Do you agree that we continue?

17 A. I have a job, an employer, and an enormous amount of work on my

18 desk. Let's continue and get finished.

19 Q. Fair enough. I agree. Please look at this map on the ELMO which

20 is Annex 1 to your report from an unspecified or, rather, unestablished

21 year. Now, please look at it and show to the Chamber where the St. John

22 Fortress is, if you're able to. And how many hits did it take? Can you

23 count them? Five or six?

24 A. There are eight hits or hits and fragment damage.

25 Q. That is indicated on the map which is included in your report,

1 which refers to October and November.

2 Now, please look at the preliminary report, Z38. So Z38.

3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] This, Your Honour, is 0068460.

4 Q. So tell me, does this indicate a hit on the 6th of December?

5 A. That is the date which is indicated.

6 Q. And just another question in this regard, in respect of this

7 map -- or, rather, two questions. I apologise.

8 Look at the location of Pile. Do you know where that is? The

9 Pile gates. Can you find in the preliminary report any references to

10 Pile? There are four. I can say that right away to help you. Look

11 first at Z27. That is the first reference to Pile. 0061449 is the

12 number.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Can you see it? The date of the impact is the 6th of December.

15 Do you agree that that is what it says, --

16 A. That's right.

17 Q. -- 6th of December? Now take a look at the Z36, 0061458. That

18 is also the location of Vrata or Pile, the Pile gates. Does it also

19 indicate that the hit was taken on the 6th of December, 1991?

20 A. Yes, it does.

21 Q. Please take a look then at the following document, the next page,

22 0061459, also the Pile gates. It states also that the hit was taken on

23 the 6th of December, 1991. Is that correct?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. And finally take a look at Z42, the approach bridge to Pile,

1 6 December 1991. Is that what it says?

2 A. It says 6th of December.

3 Q. Well, I submit to you that in the preliminary report there does

4 not exist a single trace of any damage to the Pile gates and the

5 surrounding parts of the ramparts which refers to any other date except

6 to the 6th of December, whereas your report states that there were hits

7 in October and November. Do you agree with this statement of mine?

8 A. I would like to just look at my annex on this.

9 Q. There is no need for you to consult the annex. Please just tell

10 me this: Do you agree that there is no other date referred to in the

11 report except the 6th of December or -- or is there another date? This

12 is what I'm interested in.

13 A. [Previous translation continues]...

14 Q. Thank you. We no longer need the map. We are moving on.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Did we get an answer to your question,

16 Mr. Petrovic?

17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] The witness said yes. I don't see

18 it transcribed.

19 JUDGE PARKER: I didn't hear it. I didn't --

20 THE WITNESS: The only damage mentioned in their preliminary

21 report is for the 6th of December.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Thank you. Would you please take a look at Annex 7 to your

25 report. So please tell me -- Annex 7 to your report, if I may repeat, is

1 P62, tab 6, Annex 7. Have you found that?

2 A. Yes, I've found it.

3 Q. Can you first of all tell me where did you get this table?

4 A. Okay. This -- this table was given to me by the institute when I

5 went for the New Year's concert in Dubrovnik at the very end of 1991. I

6 went there just for the concert.

7 Q. Please tell me, what language is the table compiled?

8 A. I think it's in French. I've very poor copy, but if I recall, I

9 think it's in French.

10 Q. How do you account for the fact that they gave you a table in the

11 French language there? Where did they get this table when the report was

12 never prepared in any other language except in Croatian?

13 A. Well, this was simply done in French locally. Mr. Carnez is

14 Francophone, and he's not very, very anglophone at all. I think it was

15 done out of consideration.

16 Q. Tell me now, would it comes is a surprise to you that this table

17 that you were given us a say on 31st of December, 1991, does not exist in

18 the preliminary report of the 6th of January, 1992?

19 A. Well, I haven't seen it in my cursory perusal of that report.

20 Q. Does this surprise you? Do you have an explanation?

21 A. It's a little surprising that there would not be a table like

22 this in that report.

23 Q. Do you think it was an accidental omission?

24 A. I don't know why it was omitted.

25 Q. Did you point it out to them at some point?

1 A. No, I didn't.

2 Q. Thank you. In the course of your stay in Dubrovnik, did you draw

3 up any other document, any -- anything else in writing with reference to

4 this except for Annex 2, which is about ten words on one page?

5 A. There is a certain number of annexes which were drawn up

6 because -- notably there was an annex which contained -- is a map, which

7 was a map that we seen to the director general for his information, on

8 the 8th of December.

9 Q. Perhaps I was not precise enough in formulating my question. In

10 your preparation of the methodology for the work to be done, did you draw

11 up anything else, say for this document which contains only ten words?

12 Did you make any other instruction, guideline, anything else?

13 A. I don't remember -- excuse me. I don't remember drawing up any

14 other documents. This is for the institute, in other words.

15 Q. Very well. Thank you. Tell me, please, when did you leave

16 Dubrovnik? I am referring to the period of December 1991.

17 A. It was 22nd of December.

18 Q. And where did you go?

19 A. Well, we -- we took the Krila Dubrovnika out and then we went

20 to Italy.

21 Q. Where did you spend the ten following days?

22 A. Well, we went from Italy to Paris; Naples, Paris. And then I was

23 in Paris up until the -- up until the trip for the midnight -- for the

24 New Year's Eve concert at Dubrovnik.

25 Q. Would you kindly tell me this: Who invited you back to

1 Dubrovnik?

2 A. Well, this particular concert was organised by Minister Kouchner

3 and also by UNESCO. And I was asked to accompany a high official of

4 UNESCO, Mr. Lopez, who was the assistant director general for the bureau

5 of external relations to Dubrovnik.

6 Q. When did you arrive in Dubrovnik on the 31st of December, and

7 when did you leave? At what time, if that was on the same day?

8 A. I think we arrived in the afternoon of the 31st. And then we --

9 in fact, we left at night. We went right back after New Year's to the

10 port of Gruz and took the liner. It was a very short stay.

11 Q. Who did you meet on that day? What did you do?

12 A. Well, I did meet the members of the institute. I spent most of

13 my time with the UNESCO official, though.

14 Q. Did he accompany you to those meetings at the institute?

15 A. Yes, Mr. Lopez came to the institute.

16 Q. Was that an important event also for the people of the institute

17 and the town of Dubrovnik, that a high official of UNESCO of your stature

18 came to attend even for a brief stay this concert?

19 A. Well, I was still a consultant. It was very important for the

20 director general to send a high official. This assured a better sort of

21 representation, a more symbolic presence in the town. There was a lot of

22 other visitors as well.

23 Q. Could you tell me why such an important thing as the visit of a

24 representative of UNESCO and your own visit was something that you

25 omitted to mention to the investigator who took your statement in

1 November 2000, and January -- sorry, March 2001?

2 A. Well, perhaps he didn't ask questions in a complete way or ask

3 about everything, and -- well, I just didn't -- I just didn't mention it,

4 that's all.

5 Q. He asked you when you returned to Dubrovnik. Since you obviously

6 answered one of his questions by saying, "I returned to Dubrovnik in

7 November 1992 as part of the Council of Europe mission." Why didn't you

8 tell him then what you are telling us today?

9 A. Well, I guess at the time it didn't seem to me to be of enormous

10 importance.

11 Q. Why does it seem important to you today when discussing the same

12 subjects? The subject is still the same today and then.

13 A. I'm sorry. I don't remember saying here that it was extremely

14 important or relevant to the matter at hand.

15 Q. You said that the visit of a high official of UNESCO was

16 important, and you are somebody representing UNESCO, an escort of that

17 high official.

18 A. Yes, but those are sort of separate matters. We were talking

19 about war damage, and you're alluding to this visit. I'm not certain

20 what the linkage is.

21 Q. It will be clear. Just tell me this: Did you continue your

22 contacts with Nikola Obuljen after your first visit in November-December,

23 and end December?

24 A. You're asking me if I continued my contacts -- at, in Dubrovnik

25 during this short visit? Or later on?

1 Q. In the course of 1992, after the period we've just discussed.

2 A. During the shellings of May and June 1992, I think I talked to

3 him once on the phone. When I came to Dubrovnik in November 1992, I

4 think I probably paid him a courtesy -- I paid him a courtesy visit.

5 Q. So you talked to him once. Why him?

6 A. Well, he spoke -- he spoke excellent English. He had been

7 very -- rather friendly and I think he had appreciated what we'd tried to

8 do.

9 Q. What your statement given these years ago says is this; and three

10 years ago you had a better recollection of the events than today.

11 "Around May and June 1992 when the JNA again started to shell Dubrovnik,

12 Bruno and I were in regular contact with Obuljen." Regular contact. Are

13 you trying to hide today that you were in regular contact with him?

14 A. I'm not trying to hide anything. If I made that statement back

15 then, then it probably meant that I was in contact with him a few times

16 on the phone.

17 Q. Tell me, how come that it -- that you were not in contact with

18 your colleagues from the institute for the protection of monuments,

19 architects, and others? Instead, you were in contact with the military

20 commander of the town of Dubrovnik. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Was

21 he in charge of contacts with you, the military commander?

22 A. First of all, I was in contact with the members of the institute

23 by phone. I was more in contact with them. Secondly, I didn't -- I -- I

24 didn't know that Mr. Obuljen was, in fact, a military commander because

25 it was never, ever raised or brought to my attention. He was also -- he

1 seemed to be a competent administrator as well. And

2 Mr. Poljanic, I don't think Mr. Poljanic spoke very good English. So if

3 I was going to have contact with somebody from the municipality, it would

4 be somebody who was anglophone.

5 Q. But Mr. Kaiser, in the statement that you gave and signed, you

6 don't say a word about being in contact with anyone else in 1992 save for

7 Mr. Obuljen. You don't mention the people from the institute. You don't

8 mention Poljanic. No one else. And you were not in contact with your

9 colleagues or experts. You are in contact with the military commander.

10 Even if you were not aware of his formal position, you knew when you saw

11 six soldiers carrying weapons in the street, you call Obuljen. You don't

12 call the institute or somebody else or one of your colleagues. How do

13 you explain that?

14 A. I was in contact first. I don't understand why you -- you

15 conclude that because it's not mentioned in the statement that I wasn't

16 in contact with the colleagues. I was definitely in contact with them.

17 Q. Well, I draw that conclusion because in response to an obvious

18 question by the ICTY Prosecutor -- investigator about your contacts in

19 1992, you answer: "Bruno and I were in contact with Obuljen." I suppose

20 that otherwise you would have said, "We had contacts with Franic,

21 colleagues, and people from the institute." But you mentioned only

22 Obuljen, and you were very definitive about it; only Obuljen.

23 A. I think I've given my answer to this question, sir.

24 Q. Did you, Mr. Kaiser, play any role in the bringing of the

25 indictment against Pavle Strugar?

1 A. I don't really understand that question. How could I bring

2 any -- how could I have any role in bringing the indictment against

3 General Strugar?

4 Q. Any role, I said. I didn't say you brought the indictment

5 yourself. I asked if you had played any role in it. I didn't mean that

6 you brought the indictment against him.

7 A. You mean on the basis of my mission and my mission report, that

8 that is some sort of contribution to the indictment against

9 General Strugar.

10 Q. From 1992 to year 2001, did you play any role in the provision of

11 information contributing to the issuance of an indictment referring to --

12 related to Dubrovnik? Did you, in that period, have contacts with any --

13 with anyone employed by the OTP?

14 A. Maybe --

15 MR. KAUFMAN: If I may, before the witness answers the question.

16 There are two questions in that particular question of my learned friend.

17 One is: Did the witness have any role in providing information which

18 contributed to the issuance of an indictment, which I would suggest is

19 inviting a speculative answer. The witness cannot possibly know what

20 went through the Prosecutor's mind when the indictment was submitted.

21 The second part of that question, however, is a legitimate

22 question. So I would ask for the Chamber to perhaps direct Mr. Petrovic

23 to split his question up, and I would object to the first part of that

24 question.

25 JUDGE PARKER: The question is better split, I agree, but I do

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 not agree that the first is speculative. You read more into it than is

2 necessary, I think, Mr. Kaufman, and perhaps you might deal with the

3 first part of it, Dr. Kaiser. Did you have any role? Did you take any

4 step toward the issue of an indictment or toward persuading people to

5 issue an indictment?

6 THE WITNESS: I was part of the mission of the commission of

7 experts to Dubrovnik, and I was an expert on that mission. I also helped

8 to work on the report. But if you regard that as working towards an

9 indictment, well, I mean, I don't know what exactly the answer because I

10 don't know what all the mechanisms were.

11 JUDGE PARKER: That concluded effectively in 1991; is that

12 correct?

13 THE WITNESS: The commission of experts' mission to Dubrovnik was

14 -- yes. 1993. Otherwise, I can see no possible role that I would have

15 taken or played.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Petrovic, has that dealt with the first

17 part of your question?

18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you allow me.

19 Accidentally or deliberately, the witness is confusing or mixing up

20 things. Perhaps it's accidental. Look at what he says here. The

21 commission of experts in Dubrovnik -- yes, yes, yes, Your Honour, but you

22 are asking "was that concluded effectively in 1991." That was your

23 question, Your Honour. And the witness replies, "Yes." And then he

24 says, "1993." Your question was, "Was it concluded in 1991?" And he

25 says, "Yes," and then, unless it's a mistake, he says "1993." That is

1 line -- that is page 40, lines 5, 4 and 5, and your question is in line

2 2, page 40.

3 JUDGE PARKER: I understood the witness to be correcting me.

4 When I had said his role concluded in 1991, he was correcting me that the

5 commission of experts' mission was later, in 1993. That's the way I

6 understood him. But more importantly, the point he makes is that that is

7 the only role he's played at all relevant to these proceedings. I think

8 you were asking did he do something else, something different. And his

9 answer to that is no.

10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

11 Q. Now I would like you to answer the second part of my question.

12 Did you have any contacts with anyone from the Office of the Prosecutor

13 in that period, from 1991 until 2001?

14 A. I'm -- I'm trying to remember if I had any contact, because it

15 seems that the interest of the Tribunal has been -- has been -- the

16 Prosecutor's office has been a long one. I may have had some brief

17 contact before 2001, but I really can't remember with whom.

18 Q. Well, try to remember where these contacts took place.

19 A. Sir, I did come because I -- to the Tribunal -- because I was

20 working as an expert witness on a number of other cases. And I met -- I

21 could meet different people and for different teams and that sort of

22 thing. But I can't remember if I met somebody or who I met. I may well

23 have met somebody, but it would have been extremely informal contact.

24 Q. On that occasion, did you discuss events in Dubrovnik with

25 anyone?

1 A. Well, if they -- if somebody asked me about Dubrovnik, I would

2 have probably given my opinion or some -- I would have made some remarks.

3 Q. Did anyone ask you?

4 A. You know, I thought I made it quite clear that I don't remember

5 with whom -- if with whom -- with somebody, that I had contacts before

6 that period.

7 Q. So you don't remember anything at all about it, any discussion of

8 Dubrovnik within the ICTY.

9 A. I don't remember. I think I've answered the question. I don't

10 remember this discussion.

11 Q. Did anyone else ask you about events in Dubrovnik, about what was

12 going on there? When I say "anyone else," I mean police authorities or

13 maybe state authorities.

14 A. Nobody asked me about it. Nobody was very interested in my role.

15 Q. Tell me, please, in your statement and in the

16 examination-in-chief, why didn't you see fit to mention at any point that

17 you took part in the commission that prepared a report for the UN

18 Security Council specifically on the subject of Dubrovnik?

19 A. I was basically answering questions. I assumed this would have

20 been known by the Prosecutor's office.

21 MR. KAUFMAN: And I can add in that particular context that I

22 didn't feel it appropriate to ask the witness those questions. I think

23 my learned friend knows that that's how the system works in the Tribunal.

24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Of course I do. But even though I

25 know how the system works, I cannot conceal my astonishment at the fact

1 that the report to the UN Security Council regarding Dubrovnik can be

2 regarded by your party as irrelevant for this Trial Chamber. That's what

3 I can't understand. Of course I understand the procedure.

4 Now, tell me, please, who engaged you -- or, rather, first tell

5 me, what kind of expert commission was it in which you took part that

6 prepared the report for the UN Security Council?

7 A. Well, that was the expert commission set up by the UN to pave the

8 way for a tribunal, I think. This was a particular team that was sent

9 out to look at the Dubrovnik area.

10 Q. Is that then a report of an expert commission to the UN Security

11 Council under the UN Security Council Resolution number 780 from 1992?

12 A. I assume that it is.

13 Q. Is that the UN Resolution which orders the establishment of a

14 commission that would review any possible war crimes and suggest ways in

15 which this institution that we are in today will be created? Is that the

16 Resolution?

17 A. Well, I would sort of repeat myself. I assume that it is that

18 Resolution.

19 Q. Tell me who set up this commission.

20 A. The commission was set up under the aegis of the United Nations.

21 Q. Is that the commission that was set up in keeping with the

22 Resolution we are discussing?

23 A. Yes, I think so.

24 Q. Tell me, who engaged you to work on that commission?

25 A. Sorry, I'm just trying to remember. I can't remember whether it

1 came through UNESCO. I was -- I was approached. Perhaps by -- perhaps

2 by Mr. Fenrick.

3 Q. Can you remember?

4 A. I can't remember the exact circumstances of my being engaged on

5 it, but I remember Mr. Fenrick had a role. William Fenrick had a role in

6 that commission.

7 Q. Who is Mr. William Fenrick?

8 A. Mr. Fenrick is a specialist in international law, and

9 Mr. Fenrick, he works here in the ICTY.

10 Q. Do you know what his job is here in the ICTY?

11 A. I don't know what he does here exactly.

12 Q. Do you know when and how this report was finalised?

13 A. The -- the report was actually -- was finalised during the

14 mission period. It wasn't finalised afterwards. I mean, we worked on

15 the report to get it done before the team split up.

16 Q. Do you know that this report was submitted to the UN Security

17 Council?

18 A. I heard later that it was.

19 Q. Do you know that this International Tribunal was established

20 based on that report?

21 A. On the reports of the commission, you mean.

22 Q. Inter alia, based on the report of that commission. May I have

23 your answer.

24 A. The International Tribunal was the follow-up to the work of the

25 commission of experts on the various reports which they -- they prepared

1 on war crimes in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in Croatia.

2 Q. How objective were you in your work on the UN Security Council

3 commission of experts?

4 A. I was trying to be objective.

5 Q. Is there anything in your report about this in the sense of

6 information that you obtained from any other side which is not the

7 Croatian side and refers to Dubrovnik?

8 A. I think that most -- I think nearly all the documents we obtained

9 were obtained in Dubrovnik, which is on the Croatian side. I can't

10 remember just offhand if there were other documents that we obtained from

11 the international community, for example, the ECMM. I think we maybe

12 went through Zagreb and were looking for documents from them. And I

13 think that's it.

14 Q. Do you feel still today that your report is objective and

15 balanced when, for instance, you see evidence of combat operations by the

16 Croatian side from the immediate vicinity of the Old Town?

17 A. Sir, I'm -- let me just say I'm an historian. I know when you're

18 that close to events you're not going to have a complete picture. The

19 complete picture can only build up over time.

20 Q. Please, sir, do you perhaps see things differently in relation to

21 the way you saw things in 1993 regarding, of course, events which are

22 under review?

23 A. Well, I think you've probably seen a few examples of how I've had

24 doubts about things over the years. There was a long discussion about

25 boats. I've learned recently some information that I did not know about.

1 That certainly enriches the picture of what was going on in Dubrovnik at

2 the time. And what I'm saying is this information fills out things.

3 If you're -- I think you're also asking does that change

4 fundamentally my vision of the past. And the answer to that is that it

5 doesn't change fundamentally that vision of the past.

6 Q. Tell me, who gave you this information that actually complemented

7 your vision of events in Dubrovnik?

8 A. Well, in the first place, Mr. Stevens, the investigator who came

9 in 2001 and mentioned the question of the mortars in the park. Secondly,

10 well, yourself, sir. You've mentioned some things about the HOS. You've

11 added information to the information that I have already.

12 Q. Did you hear any other information from anybody else? Did you

13 actually actively seek such information?

14 A. I wasn't actually seeking information on Dubrovnik.

15 Q. Did you perhaps hear of any other military positions apart from

16 those that you referred to yesterday; the Croatian positions, that is, in

17 Dubrovnik?

18 A. There's a position on Srdj. There is a position on Hotel

19 Belvedere. And there was a great big wooded area in Lapad. There could

20 have perhaps been positions there. There were positions in the inlet,

21 west of the town. There were front -- there were front lines. There

22 were front positions. But it's not the Rijeka Dubrovacka. It's the

23 Mokosica and those places. I know that there were positions there, or I

24 had heard that there were.

25 Q. From whom did you learn this information after this period that

1 we're talking about, 1991, 1992, and 1993, if these people are not

2 Mr. Stevens or I myself?

3 A. I'm sorry. What I was talking about, those positions, the

4 positions I'm referring to, in fact, at the time of the mission. I

5 haven't heard about -- I haven't heard specific --

6 Q. Tell me, did you hear of the Gradac park?

7 A. I'm sorry, I don't recognise the name of that park.

8 Q. We'll be coming to that later, but I will revert to the report

9 now.

10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can I ask the usher to show the

11 witness this document, please, and of course provide a copy to Their

12 Honours.

13 Q. Mr. Kaiser, is this the report that we are discussing?

14 A. Yes, it is.

15 Q. Does it say on the top "United Nations Security Council" on

16 page 1? Please have a look at page 1.

17 A. Yes, it does.

18 Q. On the right-hand side, is there the exact number and the exact

19 indication mark of that report as is usual within the system employed in

20 the United Nations Security Council?

21 A. There's a reference.

22 Q. Please let us now take a look at some of the parts of the report,

23 some parts, rather, of this report which are of relevance. Please take a

24 look at page number 4 of the report. And take a look at the third full

25 paragraph on page 4. Please peruse it and then we'll discuss it briefly.

1 Actually, the second full paragraph on page 4. [In English] "The

2 commission was provided with ..." You see?

3 A. Uh-huh. Okay. I've read it.

4 Q. [Interpretation] Is it correct that the essential information for

5 the compiling of this report was inaccessible to you and your colleagues

6 at the time that we're discussing?

7 A. It's clear from this paragraph that a lot of relevant information

8 was not available, yes.

9 Q. Is it true that you didn't get anything in the way of information

10 from the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia which related to

11 the establishment of units, the locations, and the movement of military

12 forces in and around Dubrovnik in the relevant period?

13 A. It's clear from this paragraph that there was no such information

14 forthcoming.

15 Q. Is it true that in this report you note that that is the greatest

16 shortcoming, this unavailability of such information, namely?

17 A. You're referring to some specific part of that report.

18 Q. I'm referring at all times to this particular paragraph. I just

19 want to hear you say whether this is so or not, because this is the

20 introductory part, and it obviously is in the section of report which is

21 marked B, which is the methodology in the report. It is a part of the

22 report, in other words.

23 A. Yes. The report says it was the most notable gap.

24 Q. Is it true that the Republic of Croatia, the highest levels of

25 the Republic of Croatia, had promised to you that you would obtain the

1 information that you needed in order to fill that gap?

2 A. I -- I can't remember if that promise was made.

3 Q. Well, we'll take a look at this. At line number 5, for instance:

4 [In English] "This is how access to important sources of

5 information was effectively denied even though the commission had

6 previously visited all the key local government officials and secured

7 their promise of positive support for the commission's investigative

8 efforts."

9 A. It's mentioned the commission visited. This may have been

10 upstream -- I don't remember having such discussions. The commission

11 visited. We were part of a team that was sent down to Dubrovnik. I

12 assume there were other discussions. If they had written this, it's

13 certainly correct.

14 Q. [Interpretation] Please take a look at page number 5 of this

15 report. The first full paragraph after this enumeration, following the

16 letters of the alphabet. Which starts with ...

17 [In English] [Previous translation continues]...

18 A. Okay. I read it.

19 Q. [Interpretation] Can I have your comment on it. In relation to

20 this paragraph or is it self-explanatory, in your view?

21 A. I think it's fairly straightforward.

22 Q. Please take a look at page number 7 of this report. Section 3,

23 where it says ... [In English] [Previous translation continues]...

24 [Interpretation] And then the second paragraph again. Is it

25 correct that your commission noted that free elections in the Republic of

1 Croatia had brought chauvinist nationalists, Franjo Tudjman's

2 nationalists to power?

3 A. It's written there that the elections brought to power

4 nationalist parties such as the HDZ in Croatia.

5 Q. Is that true? Is that exactly what I said? Do you share this

6 conviction?

7 A. Well, you said chauvinist. I mean, the adjective used is

8 "nationalist."

9 Q. No, no, no. I used exactly the terminology "nationalist party,"

10 which is used here.

11 A. They were nationalist parties.

12 Q. And are they a chauvinist party?

13 A. National parties aren't exactly chauvinists parties, necessarily.

14 Q. Is the HDZ or was the HDZ an example of a nationalist party of

15 chauvinist orientation?

16 A. I think it would be qualified as a hard-line nationalist party.

17 Q. From which it is just one step to chauvinism. Do you not agree

18 with me?

19 A. "Chauvinism" is not a word I use quite often. I'm not sure what

20 it means.

21 Q. Well, let us not belabour that point. Please take a look at page

22 number 8, the first paragraph. "JNA garrisons blockaded by Croatian

23 forces ..."

24 A. I'm sorry, you want me to read this paragraph?

25 Q. Yes, please. It's very brief. Does it just note -- it just

1 notes that the garrisons were blockaded by the Croatian side. Do you not

2 agree?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Now please take a look at page number 9, section C marked ... [In

5 English] [Previous translation continues].... Take a look at paragraph

6 number 4 on page 9 as part of this section, and please read that

7 paragraph.

8 A. I've read it.

9 Q. Does it say as a conclusion that the commander of the JNA sector

10 in and around Dubrovnik was a vice admiral by rank?

11 A. It says that.

12 Q. No other name is mentioned in respect of the sector commander

13 there; right?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. Did you perhaps hear about Admiral Jokic, Vice Admiral Miodrag

16 Jokic?

17 A. Yes, I heard that name. Yes.

18 Q. And do you know whether he perhaps was the commander of that

19 sector holding the rank of vice admiral who is referred to in this

20 report?

21 A. Yes, I suppose it was him.

22 Q. When was it that you heard about General Pavle Strugar for the

23 first time?

24 A. Well, these -- when was it? These were names that sort of came

25 up. I can't remember when I heard it for the first time.

1 Q. But surely you heard about it after the period in which this

2 report was drawn up.

3 A. Well, I heard about it, of course, recently with the indictment

4 that was handed down.

5 Q. This same page, please. Section 5. This reiterates a statement

6 that you were denied -- your commission was denied access to key

7 information during that period. Is that correct?

8 A. That is correct.

9 Q. Now, please look at page number 10 in this report.

10 MR. KAUFMAN: If I may once again. The way my learned friend

11 phrased the question was, "this reiterates that you were denied" access,

12 it should be. I take objection with the word "reiterate" because the

13 first time it was mentioned it was denied access held by the Republic of

14 Croatia. This time round, however, it's the lack of information from

15 Croatian and Serbian military sources.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Kaufman.

17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I don't think I even need say

18 this, because at the beginning, the witness said that he got nothing from

19 the JNA. He neither asked nor received any information from them, if you

20 remember. So I don't see why this should be raised as a question. But

21 of course, the report is quite clear itself.

22 Q. Take a look at page 10. So the second full paragraph, the first

23 sentence, which starts with --

24 A. "Without information"; right? Okay.

25 Q. Could you read this sentence for us, please.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 A. "Without information on the marginal activities to the ad hoc

2 military units formed in Croatia to resist the JNA advance, the

3 determination of what constituted a valid military objective for JNA

4 attention is very difficult."

5 Q. Thank you. Does this mean that you didn't have valid information

6 that could serve for the drawing of conclusions as to what the activities

7 were of the warring factions?

8 A. Certainly; military operations outside the town would certainly

9 fall into that, yes.

10 Q. Can you explain now to me how you came by this particular

11 explanation, military operations outside the town? How did this cross

12 your mind? Did you know that at the time? How did you come up with that

13 particular explanation at this particular moment when I posed this

14 question to you?

15 A. What I'm saying is that the picture -- the picture of military

16 operations throughout the commune is something that's not very clear. I

17 don't know very much about it. If we were talking about the shellings of

18 Dubrovnik, that's a different matter.

19 Q. Where is there such an explanation or such a conclusion in this

20 report? How do you arrive at this conclusion?

21 A. I'm sorry, I'm not deriving the -- I'm not deriving the

22 conclusion from the report. By the way, I have not seen this document in

23 a very, very long time.

24 Q. But do you know if there is a conclusion to that effect anywhere

25 in the report?

1 A. From what we've seen so far today, we've seen that there has been

2 a lot of information which has been denied to this -- to the commission

3 of experts, a lot of military information from both sides. And that's

4 one question that's very, very, important. About operations, the chain

5 of command. My reference is to, simply, the question of damage done by

6 shelling, that's all, in the town.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Is that a convenient time, Mr. Petrovic?

8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, it is, Your Honours. Thank

9 you.

10 JUDGE PARKER: We'll have the normal break now.

11 --- Recess taken at 5.25 p.m.

12 --- On resuming at 5.50 p.m.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

15 Q. Mr. Kaiser, will you please look at page 13 of this document that

16 we've just been dealing with. In Section C of this on that page, look at

17 paragraph 4. So subsection C, para 4. Did the experts' commission at

18 the moment when this report was being filed stress that the shelling was

19 probably from JNA positions, without any certainty about the claim? The

20 word "probably" indicates that it's only a possibility.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. A strong possibility. Look at page 14, the second paragraph.

23 Will you please read out the first two sentences in that paragraph.

24 A. "On November -- 7th of November, 1991, an ultimatum was announced

25 on the local radio demanding that all Croatian forces surrender by noon.

1 On 8th of November, 1991, Vice Admiral Jokic announced that discussions

2 with the Croats had not succeeded and that he would spare only the Old

3 Town."

4 Q. Thank you. I would be correct in concluding that this ultimatum

5 of the 7th of November would be an ultimatum made by Admiral Jokic,

6 according to this report?

7 A. It with appear to be the case.

8 Q. Does it also say that Jokic said that "he" would spare the Old

9 Town?

10 A. That is what it written.

11 Q. Would that be reflective of the fact that it was a conclusion of

12 the commission that Jokic was in command, in charge, in the area in

13 question?

14 A. Well, it wouldn't necessarily conclude that he was in charge. He

15 was just the chap who had announced that the discussions had not

16 succeeded.

17 Q. It says here that "he would spare the Old Town." "He would spare

18 only the Old Town." Does that seem to indicate that he was the person

19 who was able to decide whether or not to spare it?

20 A. He could be the person. It could be, simply, a rather

21 personalised rhetorical device.

22 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Kaufman.

24 MR. KAUFMAN: Questions of command and who was in command, in my

25 submission, is a legal question which will be determined by the Trial

1 Chamber at the end of the day. Questions of command can be analysed on a

2 de facto basis and on a de jure basis. The witness has given his answer.

3 I would request that Mr. Petrovic do not stray into asking the witness

4 questions of legal import.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, certainly the factual foundation

6 which you have pursued is very properly put forward and including the

7 fact that there was an apparent statement by a person other than the

8 accused who was apparently exercising the position of command. You've

9 got that.

10 To go on then and try and have this witness reach some

11 conjectural conclusion is going too far. Thank you.

12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Q. Could you tell me, Mr. Kaiser, does the report submitted to the

14 UN Security Council ever mention the preliminary report done by the

15 institute from Dubrovnik that we have been discussing?

16 A. Sir, I mentioned to you I haven't seen this document in a very

17 long time, and I can't really answer that until I see the document again.

18 Q. All right. It isn't mentioned, but we'll deal with that later.

19 Please look at page 16, the bottom of page 16 where it says:

20 "The inquiry of the JNA," and the first paragraph of page 16. Read it

21 and then I will ask you a couple of questions.

22 A. Okay. I've finished.

23 Q. Thank you. Is it clear from this passage that in relation to the

24 events of the 6th of December the processes against these events were

25 made from the highest level of the international community?

1 A. Yes, sir, that's the case.

2 Q. Does it follow therefrom that the protests were directed

3 primarily at the federal authorities in Belgrade in view of the level

4 from which the protests were made regarding the events of the 6th of

5 December?

6 A. I think that is the case.

7 Q. Is it the case that the European Union made a protest on the same

8 day according to what it says in this report?

9 A. Well, it mentioned specifically the ECMM who made the protest,

10 which is an emanation of the European Union, of course.

11 Q. Is it correct that the Yugoslav People's Army had promised a full

12 investigation regarding the incident?

13 A. This is the information which these -- the team of experts and

14 the commission found proper to write here.

15 Q. Is it true that in the same text, further down below, it says

16 that "On the 7th of December, a delegation of the JNA visited the Old

17 Town to investigate the damage"?

18 A. It's written here, yes.

19 Q. Thank you. Will you please look at only one more paragraph, para

20 3 on the same page. The first sentence. Will you read it out for us.

21 A. "From the perspective of the law of armed conflict, it is clear

22 that there were valid military objectives in and around the city of

23 Dubrovnik."

24 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, up until now the witness has not read

25 out aloud sections of the report which currently is not before Your

1 Honours as an exhibit and has not been tendered. I don't know whether my

2 learned friend intends to ask for the exhibit to be tendered. However,

3 my observation on the passage that has been read out is that it is a

4 matter of pure legal import, so I would object to it on that ground. And

5 I object, furthermore, to parts of the report being read out if it is not

6 going to be tendered at the end of the day. I have my own submissions to

7 make on tendering the report but I'll leave that until Mr. Petrovic

8 announces whether or not he intends to submit the report.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.

10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The Defence

11 proposes and requests that this be exhibited.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I wanted to do this at the end of

14 my cross-examination, but if it's necessary I'll do it now.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kaufman.

16 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, in this particular matter, an

17 expression involving gooses and ganders springs to mind, perhaps put more

18 eloquently by Your Honour as reciprocity. Dr. Kaiser in this matter is a

19 co-author of the commission of experts' report and to the extent that

20 this report would be submitted, I would also submit that the exhibit

21 currently marked as P51 MFI should also be submitted along the same

22 grounds. I would request Mr. Petrovic perhaps to stipulate on what legal

23 basis he requests to tender the document.

24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Gladly, Your Honour. I'll be

25 happy to. First of all, it is a report which is a fundamental document

1 of the institution in which we all find ourselves today. It was based on

2 this report that the ICTY was founded. It is the first point, all not

3 the most important.

4 Second, the gentleman who is testifying here today is the

5 co-author of this document, as my learned friend so correctly observed;

6 co-author. It is precisely the fact upon which the Defence insists,

7 speaking of the unfortunate preliminary report. He is the co-author to

8 the UN Security Council, and the preliminary report is something from

9 which he distances himself. He hasn't even read it, because it is not

10 written in a language he understands; and I can, if necessary, provide as

11 many arguments as necessary. And I will provide them when my learned

12 friend asks to tender P51. But to look for similarity between those two

13 documents is absolutely inappropriate. Thank you, Your Honour.

14 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honour, I perhaps spoke a bit too quickly. If

15 I look at the front page of the item which my learned friend submitted to

16 me and to the witness, Dr. Kaiser's role is defined as consultant to the

17 commission of experts which is exactly the same role he was granted with

18 respect to P51 MFI.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. At the moment, Mr. Petrovic --

20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours --

21 JUDGE PARKER: -- I find it difficult to distinguish this

22 document from P51. While it may be speaking in its contents in some

23 respects to matters that are relevant to this prosecution, it is speaking

24 as the product of a committee of inquiry that looked at these matters on

25 its face in a very hasty way in 1993 with nowhere near the resources that

1 would be appropriate to a full investigation of all the relevant

2 circumstances, and with a very different objective and purpose from that

3 which faces this Chamber. I could speak at greater length, but that is

4 sufficient to indicate that the report is not obviously a document of

5 direct relevance to the Chamber.

6 Now, some aspects of it may have a relevance because of their

7 bearing on the evidence of this particular witness, and I have been

8 assuming that that is the basis upon which you were dealing with this

9 report in your cross-examination. But this Chamber at the moment could

10 hardly rely on this report or the contents of it as proof of any of the

11 matters that it has to consider in this trial, whether proof for the

12 Prosecution or for the Defence, because there is such limited

13 authentication of it and such limited reliance that on the face of it

14 could be placed upon any conclusions that are set out in it.

15 I do accept that there is a fairly strong parallel between this

16 report and P51, and it may be at the end of the day that whatever happens

17 to P51 will happen to this report, at least in part to maintain an even

18 balance one way or the other between Prosecution and Defence. But at the

19 moment, I would think the report not directly or obviously admissible,

20 particularly given the role of the present witness in its preparation and

21 the nature of the process which led to its preparation.

22 For that reason, it would be preferable if your cross-examination

23 did not extend to a detailed reading into the transcript of passages from

24 it. You certainly may well want to direct the attention of the witness

25 to particular passages and learn whether he had a role in the inclusion

1 of that part or whether he agrees with what is there said or whether he

2 has a different understanding of that matter, and so on. And I don't

3 want to suggest that what I've just said is exhaustive of the relevance

4 and of the use you may make of the report, but I think it would be

5 prudent for the moment not to be reading very significant extracts from

6 the report into the transcript.

7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours, for the

8 comments and remarks you made. At this moment, the Defence shall for the

9 time being abandon its request to exhibit this document and, therefore,

10 there is no need to discuss the matter further at today's hearing. The

11 issue is, therefore, moot. And I will not deal with the report any more.

12 Instead, I should ask the witness to look at exhibit P62,

13 specifically tab 3.

14 Mr. Kaiser, I should like us to deal now with document under

15 tab 3 of Exhibit P62. And in this context, would you kindly look at

16 page 8. Page 8 of this report in its English version -- sorry,

17 page 8 of the document, not the report.

18 And before that, would you kindly explain to the Chamber the

19 import of the zone located directly next to the ramparts of the Old Town,

20 abutting the ramparts.

21 A. Well, I mentioned that I had discovered very recently that there

22 had been what looks to be an extension of the core -- yes -- no. Zone

23 immediate du noyau monumental du Dubrovnik. This could be a buffer zone.

24 It's called a buffer zone. But I'm sorry, I never really looked at this

25 document.

1 May I just look at it briefly to see exactly what it is, if it's

2 an extension or simply a definition of the buffer zone.

3 Q. No. We have not reached the buffer zone yet. I'm asking you

4 what the import is of the zone in this document related to the 95 bis,

5 the extended zone abutting the Old Town established by the document

6 before you, Exhibit P62, tab 3.

7 A. Okay.

8 Q. That's my question.

9 A. Okay.

10 Q. I'm not talking about the buffer zone.

11 A. In that case, we're talking about an extension of the Old Town

12 itself. Annex 16 of our report, as Mr. Carnez and I indicated, raised

13 some questions about the delimitation of the Old Town. There were things

14 that were not clear to us, and we felt that these sorts of things had to

15 be clarified, where the limits of the Old Town where were.

16 Now, there was a very important element. As I said earlier, a

17 few days ago now, there were various structures, various buildings,

18 fortifications or buildings of economic importance which were part of the

19 economic and military structure of the Old Town of Dubrovnik, and it's

20 very logical that the town be taken -- be considered as a whole. And if

21 I understand, this was the response which was made by the authorities of

22 the Republic of Croatia, to ask for the extension of the World Heritage

23 Site to the Old Town. We also had the problem of the Kasa [phoen], with

24 the breakwater.

25 This means that this area is part of the Old Town, which means

1 that it has to be managed the same way as the Old Town. There are all

2 sorts of restrictions with what can be done to buildings. It's that sort

3 of matter. And this would protect these buildings also. For example,

4 these quarantine buildings, it would protect them from significant

5 changes. This is what this would be about. This would be the reasons

6 for it.

7 Q. So if I understood you correctly, in terms of cultural and

8 historical importance of the Old Town, the importance of this zone is

9 also very high, and these two zones cannot be artificially separated.

10 They are part of one and the same cultural and historical whole. Is my

11 understanding correct?

12 A. That -- that is correct.

13 Q. Now, please look at this same page 8 which I asked you to open.

14 The last sentence in paragraph B. The English version of the report. Do

15 you have the English or the French in front you?

16 A. I have the French in front of me.

17 Q. Sorry. I don't know if they coincide. Would you please check.

18 A. The last sentence goes like: "In the course of this process was

19 prepared technical documentation," et cetera.

20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I could have your

21 indulgence for a moment. I apologise for this delay, Your Honours.

22 Q. Mr. Kaiser, I really regret it, but I couldn't find the paper I

23 needed. Did you find what I asked you to? The description of inventory.

24 That's a sub-heading, page 8 of the English translation, tab 3.

25 A. "Description of Inventory" is what it is. Is that what it is?

1 Okay. I'll look for it.

2 Q. Yes?

3 MR. KAUFMAN: I may be of some assistance. It's page 9 in the

4 French version. It's page 8 in the English version.

5 THE WITNESS: Well, b is the "History of Preservation and

6 Conservation" and c is the "Means of Preservation and Conservation" and

7 the management plan.

8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. This will probably be the quickest way to proceed. If I may ask

10 the assistance of -- just a moment. I need to locate it.

11 A. I have page 6, "Description and Inventory", b.

12 Q. So under b, "Description and Inventory". Is that what we're

13 talking about?

14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, have you found the

15 item I mentioned? Can I continue?

16 JUDGE PARKER: I have a heading small b, "Description and

17 Inventory."

18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. That's

19 precisely what I would like to discuss.

20 Q. Mr. Kaiser, I'm interested in the last sentence, the description

21 of borders, of the borders of this zone in question.

22 A. Yes. I found the last sentence.

23 Q. So the border on the west is Gradac park, then Don Frana Bulica

24 Street, Ante Starcevic Street, Iza Grada Street until the Fran Supila

25 Street at the end. Is that what it says?

1 A. That's what it says.

2 Q. Would you now please look at page -- in fact, it's a map in the

3 same section, a little before the page we looked at, 03245807 being the

4 number.

5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I made photocopies to facilitate

6 our work. I hope it's not a problem to distribute it. You will now

7 receive a copy of the map.

8 Q. Mr. Kaiser, these little dots you see there are indications of

9 the border of the zone in question; is that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Can you see on the right-hand side just next to this border, do

12 you see the mark "Gradac"?

13 A. Yes, I can see that mark.

14 Q. Do you know what Gradac is?

15 A. I've seen earlier that it's a park.

16 Q. Can I then please ask you to mark on this copy which is in front

17 of you using the highlighter, just encircle this word, "Gradac," which I

18 would like to offer, Your Honour. Put it on the ELMO so we can look at

19 it.

20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] So, Your Honour, for your ease of

21 orientation, I should like to tender this document as evidence, if you

22 agree.

23 THE INTERPRETER: Would counsel please speak into the microphone.

24 The interpreter cannot hear.

25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can the marked document please be

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 admitted to the file as evidence.

2 JUDGE PARKER: It will be, Mr. Petrovic.

3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE PARKER: And while that is occurring, I think it should be

5 done that we mark for identification the United Nations Security Council

6 report that was so much the subject of cross-examination so that we have

7 a document in the record that is identified and identifiable, should it

8 later become an exhibit. So that will be given a

9 marked-for-identification number.

10 THE REGISTRAR: The map will be numbered Defence Exhibit D29, and

11 the report will be marked for identification MFI D30.

12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown

13 this photograph which was taken from this film, from this footage.

14 Q. This is a photograph taken from the film which the witness who

15 testified before this Chamber submitted to the OTP, and the OTP submitted

16 it to the Defence team.

17 Mr. Kaiser, can you tell us what is it that you see on this

18 photograph, please.

19 A. It's an artillery piece.

20 Q. To the best of your knowledge of events in and around Dubrovnik,

21 the fact that -- is this changed in any way by the fact that you can see

22 that this kind of weaponry was deployed in this zone?

23 MR. KAUFMAN: Excuse me. Before the witness answers that

24 question, I would just like to state that I don't know whether my learned

25 friend intends on tendering this particular photograph, but there does

1 not appear to be any date on the photograph itself. I would have thought

2 that before the witness were asked to give an answer to that particular

3 question he should at least know to which date this photograph is

4 referring.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Can you help us with that, Mr. Petrovic?

6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, I'm sorry, I cannot,

7 unfortunately, Your Honours. I can help you just by saying that this

8 photograph was taken in October, November, or December 1991. I can help

9 you to that extent. And that was according to the evidence which was

10 given to the OTP by the witness Grbic, and the OTP of course gave it to

11 us. I'm not asking Mr. Kaiser to say anything about the specific date.

12 What I'm asking him is what his reaction is that at the very boundary of

13 the protected zone we have this artillery piece which was photographed

14 there.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic. Yes, Dr. Kaiser.

16 THE WITNESS: Well, it's presumably on the boundary of the

17 protected zone, which is protected later on. If this is indeed a

18 photograph taken between October and December 1991, this is something I

19 haven't seen before, and I haven't heard about it before.

20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. If this photograph is authentic, would something of this kind

22 cause your deepest concern about the protected zone of the Old Town?

23 A. Okay. Now we have to get this chronology also straight. This

24 change in the boundary is carried out later on. So if this piece is

25 there between October and December, it is indeed outside of the boundary

1 of the Old Town of Dubrovnik.

2 Q. Is the extended protected zone, as you said before a while ago,

3 was it equally valuable in 1950 [as interpreted], 1991, and 1994? Can we

4 agree about that?

5 A. The protected zone -- the protected zone is a protected zone, and

6 it is equally valuable. But it also depends on when it's protected.

7 Q. Does the content of that zone, irrespective of when its form of

8 protection began, does the content of that zone, is it something which is

9 very valuable property irrespective of the actual commencement of the

10 formal protection regime? Is it -- does it have equal status in 1991 and

11 in 1995 or did something happen to make that valuable only in 1995,

12 something which fundamentally changed the zone? Did its essence of a

13 highly valuable cultural and artistic zone exist always?

14 A. We're talking about two different kinds of value. I mean, you

15 have a recognised legal protection, and you also then have a cultural

16 value. There are two different things. The legal protection is supposed

17 to, as much as it's possible, to cover things which are of culturally

18 valued. But there is a difference. We're talking about legal

19 protection, and we're talking about cultural value.

20 Q. So this zone immediately next to the Gradac park, was it a zone

21 of the highest cultural value also in 1991, the same value of the Old

22 Town? No? As you said a while ago.

23 A. It didn't have the same legal value. It would have a different

24 cultural value because it was not inside of the walls, but it would be

25 considered part of the town system.

1 Q. Today, is today the Gradac park protected in the same way as the

2 world cultural heritage is, as a part of the world's cultural heritage as

3 park Stradun, as the Stradun Street is because of its cultural and

4 historical value?

5 A. Yes, as it would be outside of the zone of the World Heritage

6 Site, it would not enjoy exactly the same protection as the World

7 Heritage Site. If it is listed "heritage" under a register, a national

8 register of heritage, it would have the right to a certain level of

9 protection. It might not be the same -- probably would not be exactly

10 the same level as for the World Heritage Site itself.

11 Q. Mr. Kaiser, I'm asking you about today. Is the zone today the

12 zone that is under review and the zone which is marked on the map which

13 you encircled a while ago, which shows its boundary, is its legal status

14 today the same as the status of Stradun -- at this point in time today?

15 Yes or no?

16 A. Gradac is outside of the zone. Therefore, its legal status is

17 not the same.

18 Q. Okay. All right. So is the boundary and the area right next to

19 the boundary -- five metres away, that is -- is that today protected just

20 like Stradun is?

21 A. Yes, it is.

22 Q. Thank you. Is the zone five metres away from Gradac, was it from

23 the cultural and historical standpoint equally valuable in 1991 as it is

24 today?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. When it is protected --

2 A. Yes, because --

3 Q. -- like the Stradun?

4 A. [Previous translation continues]... concluded, it recognised its

5 historic value that it didn't have under the legal classification in

6 1991, but it recognises it in 1993.

7 Q. So the zone was formalised as such in 1991, but its essential

8 cultural and historical value existed also in 1991.

9 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry, the interpreter corrects herself. The

10 first year is 1993.

11 THE WITNESS: Yes. It had the same value.

12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Yes or no. Thank you. We didn't have to use up this much time

14 to establish this simple fact.

15 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please not overlap with the

16 witness.

17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, would you -- can I

18 have this photograph which I just gave and the photograph which I offered

19 yesterday which shows Minceta, could these two photographs be exhibited?

20 And the Defence will attempt to provide colour photographs for you which

21 we haven't been able to do up to this point, believe me.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kaufman.

23 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, these photographs are taken out of a

24 video which, as Mr. Petrovic rightly states, was a video supplied by the

25 witness Grbic who has testified before the Tribunal. I'm always in

1 favour of providing the evidence in its entirety if possible. So if

2 Mr. Petrovic is seeking to admit the whole video, then that is agreeable

3 as well.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Was that video not tendered?

5 MR. KAUFMAN: I don't believe it has been.

6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. No.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Now, which was the one which you mentioned from

8 yesterday, Mr. --

9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] This is the photograph of Bogisic

10 park and the photograph of Minceta. So I should like to ask that

11 photograph about which our distinguish witness spoke yesterday, which I

12 can see here is on the table in front of you. I would like that

13 photograph and this photograph of today to be tendered as evidence, Your

14 Honour.

15 JUDGE PARKER: They will each be separately received. And the

16 video itself; is that to hand, Mr. Kaufman?

17 MR. KAUFMAN: It can be obtained. It my friend agrees, we can

18 find it as such.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Perhaps you could produce it as soon as

20 convenient, and that will be received as well. Thank you.

21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Could you just pause, Mr. Petrovic.

23 THE REGISTRAR: Yesterday's photograph will be exhibited as

24 Exhibit D31, and the photograph submitted today will be Exhibit D32.

25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

1 Q. Mr. Kaiser, will you please explain to us what is the buffer zone

2 in the light of the document which is P63, tab 3.

3 A. Well, normally a buffer zone is a zone outside of the registered,

4 inscribed zone of a historic monument or natural park or whatever. And

5 buffer zone is also subject to certain protection, certain legal

6 restrictions; on its use, on the buildings, on the changes, but it is a

7 much, much lower -- needs a lower level of protection. And the exact

8 servitudes have to be defined specifically by different countries.

9 Q. Please take a look now at the map which is marked 03245801. That

10 is its ERN number, which is in the right top corner.

11 A. Yes, I've found it.

12 Q. Could you please put the map on the ELMO. Do you know Dubrovnik

13 that well as to be able to tell me what the boundaries of this buffer

14 zone are?

15 A. No, I'm afraid I can't tell you exactly what those boundaries are

16 in terms of streets and that sort of thing.

17 Q. Can you just, geographically speaking, make this distinction?

18 Like, say, this north part, where would this northern part be,

19 approximately?

20 A. Well, I mean it looks quite clearly, as it goes up to the limit,

21 in fact, of the inhabited, built-up zones. That's what you would see on

22 the north.

23 Q. Where is Srdj, roughly?

24 A. It would be up here. Well, sorry. It would be up here, I think.

25 JUDGE PARKER: You're indicating a position off the map and --

1 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE PARKER: -- and to the north?

3 THE WITNESS: It's to the north.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Do you agree with me that this northern zone or this northern

7 boundary is the highway? Are you familiar with that fact?

8 A. Well, it could be a highway, yes, a big road.

9 Q. As the crow flies, do you know how far the Srdj peak is from that

10 road? If you don't know exactly, can you make an approximation.

11 A. The peak from Srdj as the crow flies. Seven or 800 metres.

12 Q. Maybe this map could be of use. Would you please -- would the

13 witness please consult this map. Could you please juxtapose these two

14 maps. And what do you think? How far is it from the Adriatic coastal

15 road to Srdj?

16 A. It looks --

17 Q. If you cannot assess it, then --

18 A. Well, I mean from this map it look -- it would look a bit less.

19 About 500 metres, 600 metres.

20 Q. Thank you. Thank you. This will be ascertained in other ways.

21 Let us not dwell on it now.

22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can this map be marked

23 possibly for identification or is Defence Exhibit for easier reference in

24 the further course of our work.

25 JUDGE PARKER: There seems to be no objection. It will be

1 received as an exhibit.

2 THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit D33.

3 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honour, my only comment would be that it's not

4 cartographically accurate.

5 JUDGE PARKER: It's not out of keeping with much of what we have

6 then, Mr. Kaufman.

7 Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.

8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I have to say I'm surprised by the

9 remark of my learned colleague, because it seems that the defence maps

10 show that Srdj much closer to the Old Town than perhaps some would wish

11 it.

12 Q. Would you, Mr. Kaiser, move on to tab number 6. Your report, in

13 other words, and locate in the report the section which is marked E1.1,

14 entitled "Overview of the Detailed Survey of the Institute for the

15 Protection of Monuments." And its number is 073357. Have you found it?

16 A. I have it, but there seems to be a difference in numbers at the

17 top of the page.

18 Q. You have found it. I can see it from here. But you have found

19 it in the French version, that is why.

20 Tell me, please, these annotations that have been added there in

21 your handwriting, are they, first of all, in your handwriting?

22 A. They seem to be, yes.

23 Q. Will you please explain to us what it written there. What did

24 you write it down and why?

25 A. Well, there's no date on it. I can read it to you. It says

1 "quality survey question by C. Kaiser, especially with" -- "with regard,"

2 I suppose, "to calibre of ordnance" [quote].

3 Q. Now, please tell me if you don't know when you wrote this, can

4 you tell me why you wrote this?

5 A. I wrote this afterwards. I don't know exactly when, but I wrote

6 it afterwards.

7 Q. Why did you write it?

8 A. I had some doubts about the calibres that were indicated on this

9 annex document.

10 Q. Can you tell us what kinds of doubts did you have? What gave

11 rise to these doubts? How did you come to the conclusion that there

12 existed some problems in that regard?

13 A. I said I don't -- I think this had probably been if I had seen

14 one or two of the -- or some of the entries in the report, the

15 preliminary report, it would be on the -- probably on the basis of that

16 where I question whether or not in fact the calibre was, in fact, the

17 right calibre.

18 Q. So your doubt to the extent that there were mistakes in the

19 report was engendered after your having perused one or two reports

20 already.

21 A. Yes. My doubts came afterwards, probably after having had some

22 access to some of the forms.

23 Q. Please take a look at this section which is marked D2.1. In this

24 section, you refer to the fact that JNA artillery had the intention to

25 shell the Old Town for three days.

1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's page 0303073354

2 in the English translation.

3 Q. Will you tell me, where did this idea, this information come

4 from, these three days of shelling?

5 A. Well, this was a rumour that was sort of flying around at the

6 time. In fact, it's indicated here. "One is tempted to say only

7 historians can determine if the federal artillerymen had the intention to

8 shell the Old Town for three days as it was said"; "as it was said."

9 Q. Tell me, please, what kind of importance do rumours have that

10 they would deserve to be incorporated in a report which has very serious

11 claims to objectivity? What place do rumours have in such a report?

12 What need is there for comment on rumours?

13 A. Well, I mean, there are a lot of ideas that are floating around

14 and they can keep floating around. The way it is described here is that

15 only historians are going to know if this is the truth. That rumour may

16 have disappeared totally from history, but at the time it was written,

17 there was a rumour. What if people start repeating the rumour all over

18 the place.

19 Q. I don't see in your report anything that would, for instance, be

20 a rumour that you heard from the other side. Why don't you report that

21 to the General-Secretary? For instance, were are there no rumours about

22 the use of mortars from the Old Town? Why don't you deal with that in

23 your report? That, too, is a rumour, if what you said is correct.

24 A. The report was about Dubrovnik and what was happening at

25 Dubrovnik. You noticed in this report that there is nothing about the

1 preliminary meetings.

2 Q. Very well. Look at section F, please, F1.1.

3 A. I've found it, sir.

4 Q. Thank you. Now, could you tell me what your conclusions were

5 here about the number of citizens in the Old Town, the population. Is it

6 true that you claim that not more than 50 per cent of the population of

7 the Old Town were actually residing in their own homes around the 6th of

8 December, that under a half of them only were in their homes at the time?

9 A. Yes. The passage -- the passage is implying that the population

10 that was actually -- the population of the Old Town was between one-third

11 and one-half.

12 Q. On the 6th December; correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Now, look at the first paragraph above this section F. Here you

15 say that the shooting was intentionally grouped on the parts of the Old

16 Town lying on the embankments which had suffered significant damage from

17 earthquakes in the 1970s. It is just above the sub-heading section 5.

18 How did you come -- how did you arrive at this conclusion? Is this also

19 a rumour?

20 A. No, this isn't a rumour, but this is a belief that I don't have

21 any more. Now, let me try and explain it. There was an earthquake in

22 1979. The zone of the ground that is the most sensitive is the infill

23 zone which is the Stradun, and south of the Stradun. This is most

24 sensitive to the earthquake, and most earthquake damage was particular to

25 this zone.

1 When we looked at maps at the time, we looked at maps of the

2 earthquake zone, and then we had the maps of the impacts and the damage

3 on the Old Town, there was definitely an overlapping. A lot of the

4 buildings that were badly damaged were located in this infill zone. And

5 afterwards when we walked around, some buildings seemed to -- buildings

6 that had not been properly repaired after the earthquake of 1979, the

7 cracks seemed to have become enlarged. So the concern was that -- the

8 question was, and it was answered a little bit perhaps too quickly -- in

9 fact, it was targeting in this zone because this zone was the more

10 fragile zone.

11 Now, this was a hypothesis at the time. It was discussed. This

12 was suggested by the people we were with in the institute. There were

13 indeed a lot of cracks, but there were a lot of -- you know, it doesn't

14 mean that those cracks were related to the earthquake damage. There were

15 some that were. This was a hypothesis. Today I would say I don't think

16 this is -- let's put it this way, it is the people, the real specialists,

17 the architects and engineers who went to Dubrovnik and worked on the town

18 afterwards did not say that this seemed to be going on or that these

19 buildings were especially damaged because they had been situated on the

20 earthquake zone. This is a hypothesis which should just be abandoned,

21 but something was written in this report.

22 Q. To cut a long story short, you don't hold this belief any more,

23 and this statement in the report is incorrect. But tell me, is that

24 accurate?

25 A. I don't hold this belief any more.

1 Q. Thank you. Now, tell me, in that part of town, you just

2 mentioned there were structures where the damage from earthquakes from

3 1970s was not repaired even. But tell me, how did the people who made

4 this report distinguish between what can be qualified as a bad condition

5 of the building due to the earthquake and the consequences of what may

6 have happened on the 6th of December or perhaps in October, November of

7 1991?

8 A. I'm not sure how they made the distinction, because you would

9 have to go through the whole report and look at each form to see if there

10 was an allusion made to earlier earthquake damage. For example,

11 yesterday we came across the example of the synagogue which had been

12 damaged in the 1979 earthquake and had not been -- it hadn't been

13 properly repaired after the earthquake. I don't -- we'd have to go back

14 and see what did they write. What did they write on the form, the damage

15 form, for the synagogue.

16 Q. If I told you that 99 per cent of the records that were made bear

17 no reflection of any damage from the earthquake, does it mean that nobody

18 made the distinction between earlier earthquake damage and damage

19 inflicted in December 1991?

20 A. It could be they may have -- I'm not sure what it means. They

21 could have separated it out unconsciously -- no, consciously. I'm not

22 sure what it means exactly. I'm not sure how they treated that.

23 Q. So, if in 99 per cent of the records there is no mention of the

24 condition of structures prior or any description of damage that existed

25 before, does it mean that they did not make any distinction because there

1 is no trace of it, no written record? It doesn't say whether the crack

2 is from an explosion or from an earthquake, or the crack resulted from

3 the generally bad condition of the building.

4 A. Well, some buildings were repaired after the earthquake, some

5 weren't repaired. In this report, they were supposed to be looking

6 specifically for damage which could be traced back, could be traced back

7 to a projectile of some sort. Did -- the question you're asking, did

8 they do that; did they successfully filter out the earlier damage, did

9 they mix old cracks -- say that old cracks were in fact new cracks when

10 they weren't? It's that kind of question that you're asking, and I can't

11 give you the answer to that one.

12 JUDGE PARKER: I think you've had a big day, Mr. Petrovic.

13 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE PARKER: We will --

15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] But --

16 JUDGE PARKER: We will adjourn now. Dr. Kaiser, tomorrow I must

17 ask you to return. I can only say you're a day nearer the end.

18 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, before the Trial Chamber does in fact

19 adjourn, I would on behalf of the Victims and Witness Unit once again

20 request, perhaps, to know how long Mr. Petrovic intends on continuing

21 cross-examination, because we do have witnesses, of course, lined up

22 waiting to give evidence at the conclusion of Dr. Kaiser's evidence. It

23 would be helpful if we had an estimate of how long cross-examination is

24 anticipated to take.

25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is very difficult

1 for me to adjust what I think is important with the position of the

2 Victims and Witnesses Unit. I think it is important for us to deal with

3 important issues from this mountain of documents that the testimony of

4 this witness relates to. It is the essence of the indictment against our

5 client. To limit my questioning above what is absolutely necessary is

6 not acceptable to us, but I will do it. And I have already skipped a

7 great number of subjects, because the lack of logic and the abundance of

8 discrepancies is something that we have to put forward -- although not

9 entirely, because somehow or otherwise physically it is impossible -- and

10 I am limiting myself only to vital things. But even in the present

11 reduced form, I have to continue, although I will make further reductions

12 to try to free Mr. Kaiser and let him go back to the obligations that he

13 has abandoned in order to come here and testify.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you Mr. Petrovic. We're grateful for that.

15 Can I say that in view of the ground that you've covered and the

16 time that you've spent and your hopes and expectations earlier today that

17 the Chamber would hope that you would be able to conclude your

18 cross-examination in the first session of tomorrow.

19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I will try, Your Honour. Thank

20 you for your understanding.

21 JUDGE PARKER: We will then adjourn.

22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.05 p.m.

23 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 18th day of

24 February, 2004, at 2.15 p.m.

25