1 Wednesday, 18 February 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.

5 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, good afternoon.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon to everybody and to you,

7 Mr. Kaufman.

8 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you. Perhaps just one small administrative

9 matter before we call the witness in. Yesterday Mr. Petrovic agreed to

10 introduce as an exhibit the video of Mr. Grbic who has already testified

11 before the Tribunal. Perhaps if I can take this opportunity to provide --

12 to tender the exhibit itself.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. That will be received as an

14 exhibit.

15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, may I ask if this will be received as

16 a Prosecution Exhibit or Defence Exhibit.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Prosecution by consent of the Defence.

18 MR. KAUFMAN: I don't think there's an objection to the -- its --

19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, let it be the exhibit

20 of the OTP; I don't mind. What we are interested in are the photographs

21 from this particular exhibit, which are things that the Chamber has heard

22 a number of times already. Whatever Mr. Kaufman considers to be

23 expeditious. Thank you.

24 MR. KAUFMAN: Yes. Let it not --

25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much for that, Mr. Petrovic.

1 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit P66.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Could the witness be brought in, please.

3 [The witness entered court]

4 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon, Dr. Kaiser. If I could remind you

5 once again of the affirmation you took which still applies.

6 Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

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

8 WITNESS: COLIN KAISER [Resumed]

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

10 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Kaiser. Please tell me: This commission of

11 experts which was set up by the security council, whom did it assist of?

12 Who were the members of this commission? Can you recall that?

13 A. Excuse me. You're asking me about the commission of experts. I

14 had dealings with the -- with a team of experts. I don't know if it's

15 exactly the same thing as the commission of experts. The commission of

16 experts was a little wider body.

17 Q. So I'm asking you about those people with whom you prepared a part

18 of the report of the commission of experts which has to do with events in

19 and around Dubrovnik.

20 A. Okay. The members of the team, there was a Canadian named -- an

21 officer named Dominic McAlea. And then there were two Norwegian lawyers

22 and myself.

23 Q. Can you recall the names of these Norwegians?

24 A. No, sir, I'm sorry. I can't recall their names.

25 Q. Was perhaps one of the interior Lund and the other one Oyvind

1 Hoel? If I pronounce the names correctly?

2 A. Yes, I recognise those names.

3 Q. So you know these people I assume in person, since you did this

4 work together?

5 A. Well, I have some memories of them, yes.

6 Q. Did you travel anywhere together?

7 A. Yes, we travelled together. We travelled from Zagreb to

8 Dubrovnik.

9 Q. How much time did you spend together in Dubrovnik?

10 A. It was a couple of weeks.

11 Q. So I presume that you got could well acquainted, that you had

12 occasion to discuss various things associated with your work, not only

13 your work because of which you came to Dubrovnik in the first place?

14 A. Well, yes, we were together quite a lot.

15 Q. Can you tell me: Were these Norwegian lawyers members -- or do

16 you hold any opinions of these lawyers? Are these serious people,

17 responsible people, who did their duties in a very conscientious way, in

18 your view?

19 A. Yes, they were very, very serious people.

20 Q. Tell me, if I understood this correctly, this was a project where

21 the project leader was Sharif Basuni [phoen] and you were just part of one

22 of the working bodies that was part of this overall project. Was that not

23 so?

24 A. Yes, sir, that is correct.

25 Q. In view of what you said a while ago about your colleagues, the

1 Norwegian lawyers, would you agree with me that if these were, as you

2 said, serious people, that what they said to the investigators of this

3 Tribunal certainly merits to be lent credence in terms of the correctness,

4 the truthfulness, of what they stated to them?

5 A. Yes, sir.

6 Q. Well, I have before me a statement which Mr. Hoel Oyvind gave to

7 the investigators of the international Tribunal, discussing precisely

8 these topics that we talked about yesterday here. And I would like to ask

9 you in that connection whether a statement which he -- whether an

10 assertion which he makes or several of his assertions he makes in that

11 connection. In his statement to an investigator of the Tribunal, Dirk

12 Hooijkaas, which he gave in March 2001 and April 2002. Speaking about the

13 mandate of your commission, Mr. Oyvind said the following: "Our task was

14 to establish whether their existed the sufficient evidence for putting on

15 trial war criminals and to identify those who had perpetrated war

16 crimes."

17 Did Mr. Oyvind correctly describe the purpose and the mandate of

18 your mission as part of the commission of experts?

19 A. Yes, I think so.

20 Q. Can you recall today, in view of this given definition of that

21 mission, can you remember today in respect of the other part of the

22 mission's task what the -- what was the conclusion, namely the task, the

23 second task, the question of those who were responsible?

24 A. I can't remember exactly what their conclusion was. You must

25 remember that I was taken there specifically about the damaging to the Old

1 Town.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Kaufman.

3 MR. KAUFMAN: I was under the impression, Your Honours, that there

4 had been a ruling on this matter yesterday, namely that this commission of

5 experts report would not be brought through the back door to the Chamber's

6 attention without a proper submission as to how it could be submitted.

7 Now, I understood Mr. Petrovic yesterday as not requesting that that

8 commission of experts' report be tendered as an exhibit, therefore I would

9 object to the conclusions of that particular report being brought to the

10 Chamber's attention by questions asked to the witness.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.

12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you will allow me.

13 I'm not raising this question in order to prejudge anything which would be

14 the attitude of this Chamber. I'm just asking the witness whether he

15 remembers what the result of his work was. If he doesn't remember it, I

16 will move on. I don't see anything questionable in that, but as my

17 learned colleague says, I myself see no reason for exhibiting that

18 particular report at this point. But if you feel that I am devoting too

19 much time to it, I can move on.

20 JUDGE PARKER: I think you should move on, Mr. Petrovic. Thank

21 you.

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

23 Q. Tell me, Mr. Kaiser, have you ever heard of the name Zeljko

24 Soldo?

25 A. Yes, I have.

1 Q. Tell me who is this man and how did you hear about him.

2 A. Well, I heard about him in fact when I was in Dubrovnik with the

3 team of the commission of experts, because Zeljko Soldo had been a -- I

4 think a Herzegovinian Croat officer who had been in the federal forces and

5 had in fact been, not captured, but he had been taken prisoner later on

6 after the shelling of Dubrovnik and he had been brought to trial by a

7 Croatian tribunal.

8 Q. Tell me what kind of contacts did your mission have with this man.

9 A. Well, I had no contact with him, but I believe that -- I think

10 two -- because I think he was in prison, in fact, in Dubrovnik, that two

11 of the members of the team in fact went to visit him.

12 Q. And is it true, is it true what Mr. Oyvind said when he says that

13 the commission relied very extensively on the stance of the Croatian army

14 in connection with the war doctrine of the Yugoslav People's Army, that it

15 didn't have any authentic, original sources of knowledge but that in

16 connection with that particular issue, it replied on what was given it by

17 the Croats.

18 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, I don't wish to sound like a broken

19 record, but I think I have already made my objection to this line of

20 questioning.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, what the commission might have found

22 or not found in that early preliminary report does not appear likely to be

23 of any assistance to this Chamber when it comes to consider what the

24 evidence led here reveals.

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

1 JUDGE PARKER: And I think the time you're spending on that is not

2 valuable for any purpose.

3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I'm not going to spend another

4 minute on it. My apologies, Your Honours.

5 Q. Mr. Kaiser, you told us that you had never seen anyone who was a

6 member of the Croatian army. Am I right?

7 A. When?

8 Q. In the period when you made these visits to Dubrovnik, 1991, 1992,

9 and 1993 -- rather, in 1991 and 1993 as things seem to stand now.

10 A. You mean 1991 when I was in a mission for UNESCO and in 1993 when

11 I was on mission for the commission of experts. In 1991 I mentioned that

12 we did see some soldiers.

13 Q. I'm asking you whether you had a personal contact with any of the

14 members of the Croatian army?

15 A. I did not have a personal contact with members of the Croatian

16 army.

17 Q. Do you know a man by the name of Miso Mihocevic?

18 A. I'm sorry, who is he?

19 Q. Do you know a person by that name and surname? This is a captain

20 of the Croatian army.

21 A. This may have been somebody we met in 1993. There may have

22 been -- listen, I'm not very good on this name, all right? But there was

23 some sort of liaison officer I think we met in 1993, not before.

24 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, I think Mr. Petrovic knows just as

25 well as I do -- Your Honours don't know this because Mr. Petrovic has the

1 statement in front of him, that this does in fact refer to 1993 and an

2 incident within the context of the commission of experts' report.

3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you allow me, I

4 think my colleague is exaggerating a bit. I'm not asking anything about

5 the report of the commission of experts; I'm asking him about his

6 acquaintance with people who were officers of the Croatian army. That has

7 nothing to do with the commission's report.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Proceed, Mr. Petrovic, on that limited basis. Yes.

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

10 Q. So you saw this person, this man, for the first time in 1993.

11 Right?

12 A. I remember seeing this man in 1993. I can't --

13 Q. Why then does Mr. Oyvind say the following in his statement:

14 "Your commission met when it came with Captain Miso Mihocevic. He was, he

15 says a liaison officer, to liaise between the United Nations and the

16 Croatian army. And then he goes on to say that "I found out that the

17 captain had had personal contacts with Mr. Kaiser on his previous trips."

18 A. This captain had had contacts -- this Croatian army officer had

19 had contacts with Mr. Kaiser on his previous trips. I did not have any

20 contact with a Croatian army officer on previous trips.

21 Q. Tell me then: Why would Mr. Oyvind state such an untruthful fact

22 in his statement? What reason would he have to do so?

23 A. Sir, we met lots of people, lots of civilians, in 1991. If some

24 of these civilians - and I can't remember this gentleman - if some of

25 these civilians turned out to be army officers later, that's one thing.

1 But I do not remember meeting a Croatian officer, this gentleman, in

2 1991.

3 Q. So for you, a member of the army is only a person who wears a

4 uniform. You cannot have a person who perhaps is not wearing a uniform,

5 whether that someone meets with you. Can that someone be a member of the

6 army anyway?

7 A. If that person tells me he's a member of the army and he's not

8 wearing his uniform, then I assume he's a member of the army. If he's

9 wearing a uniform, then I also assume he's a member of the army without

10 him having to tell me.

11 Q. If the person doesn't say anything to you and does not wear a

12 uniform, you conclude that the person is not a member?

13 A. Yes --

14 Q. Or you perhaps conclude or you conclude that perhaps that person

15 became a member later?

16 A. Yes, if a person doesn't say anything to me and he's not wearing a

17 uniform and a third person doesn't tell me that this person is a member of

18 the army, then for me he's not a member of the army. If a person whom I

19 may have met - and I can't remember meeting this man in 1991 - if later

20 this person becomes a member of the army, and I meet him, and he's a

21 member of the army in 1993, and he's in a uniform, yes, he's a member of

22 the army.

23 Q. Tell me: If you didn't see this person in 1991, when did you see

24 him? In 1993 you said that you -- you say that you had seen that person

25 before, and when was it in the meanwhile that you learned about this

1 person, Miso Mihocevic?

2 A. First of all we're trying to see if I met this person, and I

3 vaguely remember the name. And then I do remember meeting an army

4 officer, a liaison officer in 1993. And that's it. I didn't meet him

5 before, as far as I can remember. I can't remember this gentleman.

6 Q. So you submit that Mr. Oyvind is stating an untruthful fact for a

7 reason known to him?

8 A. I'm not stating he's making an untruthful statement. I'm stating

9 that I have not -- I have no memory of meeting this person before, that is

10 in 1991; I remember meeting him in 1993.

11 Q. And who was the liaison officer in 1991?

12 A. We didn't have a liaison officer. We did not have any dealing

13 with Croatian officers and we had no liaison officer.

14 Q. Who did the duties of the interpreter at that time, do you perhaps

15 remember, between the authorities, which is to say the Crisis Staff and

16 the international authorities and the other officials in the city of

17 Dubrovnik in 1991?

18 A. Well, we had an interpreter named Vesna Gamulin who accompanied us

19 everywhere.

20 Q. Did you ever have occasion to examine police files related to

21 1991?

22 A. You're talking about 1993 and the commission of experts again,

23 sir. There were -- there was a certain amount of information that was

24 made available by local authorities to the commission -- to the team that

25 was working for the commission of experts in 1993. And I recall getting a

1 very brief glimpse of photographs of bodies, a very brief glimpse because

2 I don't like those things, and I think that those were police photographs.

3 Q. Why does Mr. Oyvind say then that you and Mr. Lund inspected

4 police files for a full three days in Dubrovnik, and those police files

5 related to 1991?

6 A. I can't -- I indicated that I think that I did see police files.

7 I can't remember if I had looked at police files for three days in 1993.

8 Q. Tell me: Why would someone show to you, a Ph.D. Holder, historian

9 files with dead bodies? What connection does that have to do with your

10 line of duty?

11 A. I just happened to be with the lawyer that particular day. I

12 don't know what you're getting at.

13 Q. I'm asking you what connection is there between your own job and

14 the examination of photographs of dead bodies for a full three days?

15 A. I think I've answered you, sir. I was a member of the commission.

16 I could be asked to go somewhere and look for Red Cross files or

17 whatever.

18 Q. So you practically worked on all sorts of jobs, both those falling

19 within your particular line of activity and those which were outside of

20 your own field of competence?

21 A. Yes, I did different things, but I was particularly dealing with

22 the questions of the damaging to the Old Town.

23 Q. I'm asking you for the last time: Why would someone show to you

24 photographs of dead people in the police station when you were in charge

25 of assessing damage done to the Old City?

1 A. Sir, you have to realise something. When you're done for a couple

2 of weeks and there's four of you and you're trying to get your hands on as

3 much information as possible, you can't say, I'm sorry, I only deal with

4 the destruction of cultural heritage. I don't want to see anything else.

5 You're a member of a team and you have to help the team do its work.

6 Q. Even if you didn't know anything about that particular area of

7 work, still you would give them a hand, wouldn't you?

8 A. I would help them out if it was necessary.

9 Q. Thank you very much.

10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] First of all, I would like to make

11 a remark. Yesterday I spoke about P62, it's a Prosecution exhibit -- or

12 rather P63. I referred to it as P62 and I was corrected. It was P63 and

13 whenever I made a reference to P62 yesterday, what I had in mind actually

14 was P63. I wish to make that clear, first of all, Your Honours, and my

15 apologies to everyone in the courtroom. And now if the witness can please

16 be shown P51 and P63.

17 Q. Mr. Kaiser, can you please have a look at P63, tab 6. This is

18 your report. I am not sure about the dates. Can you please look at the

19 introduction, or rather, the letter that you wrote on the 14th of October

20 1993. That's page 1 of the letter, page 36. That's how the letter

21 begins, towards the bottom half of the first page of the letter.

22 You speak about your reasons and concerns as a human being, about

23 your helplessness to protect the people of Dubrovnik. Please explain:

24 Did you have any compunction about these things? Why did you voice these

25 sentiments in relation to what you talked about? You were an expert after

1 all, you were there as an expert free from bias, you were there to

2 ascertain what was going on. Why these emotional and sentimental

3 outpourings that we can find on page 1 of your letter, sir?

4 A. Can I see my -- read my emotional and sentimental outpourings,

5 sir?

6 Q. Yes, by all means. Paragraph 8 of page 1, the letter is dated

7 14th of October, 1993.

8 A. It's in connection with the so-called planned three-day

9 bombardment, sir. I mention the terrible shock I experienced at 5.48 a.m.

10 on 6th of December of having abysmally failed to protect the people of

11 Dubrovnik. Sir, may I indulge in a little bit of sentimental and

12 emotional comment now to explain the remark?

13 On the morning of that bombardment, I was extremely shocked when I

14 realised that it seemed that the shells were coming on the town, I did

15 have a sense, a very strong sense, that the mission had failed. And the

16 three flags we had run up over the town and the fact that there was

17 shooting going on was a failure. Sir, I did not believe that there would

18 be a bombardment. I was so confident that the three flags and that the

19 word that was given, these things would succeed in saving the town, and I

20 felt that we failed them.

21 Q. So it's your conscience that causes this concern?

22 A. Yes, I think it is.

23 Q. Do you perhaps feel a need to repay someone for something that you

24 were supposed to do and failed to do back then, at the time?

25 A. Sir, in the days I was going around in the town looking in the --

1 looking in the houses and being with the people, I also felt something

2 else, and that was shame. And I think when we're talking about failure

3 and we're talking about shame, we're talking about a sort of universal

4 human emotion. And I think that nearly everybody -- I know my colleague,

5 Mr. Carnez, felt something similar.

6 Q. I fully agree with you on that count, sir.

7 Can you please look at B.1, item 1. It's the section which is

8 about The Hague Convention signs. Can you just tell me briefly: Why was

9 it that you didn't mention in this section what you had seen before you

10 arrived in Dubrovnik, The Hague flag being flown on top of Srdj. You had

11 seen that, but you make no reference to it here. Briefly, please.

12 A. Yes, I mention I had seen it on a video. This was about the sign

13 of The Hague Convention in town. I was writing about the town. You

14 remember that the mission was in the town.

15 Q. Yes, I do remember, of course, that your mission was in town. But

16 this feature where there was a lot of fighting going on all the time is

17 just outside town in the immediate vicinity, so I've been wondering why

18 was this something that you did not think was worth including in your

19 report?

20 A. Sir, you also remember that I said I had seen it on a video taken

21 I don't know how many days before, and that when I was in Dubrovnik I

22 didn't -- I also didn't see it. I can also remind you of that. But the

23 main point is: I was to talk about what was going on in the town and how

24 the town was defended. This is part of a description of protection

25 measures taken in the Old Town of Dubrovnik. This is about the flag.

1 Other parts are about what the locals had done to protect their heritage.

2 Q. Fair enough. Tell me, sir: In connection with item B, 1 and 2,

3 this is your proposal to give the enemy a list of buildings marked and

4 protected under The Hague Convention. Is that what it says, sir?

5 A. B.1.2 correct?

6 Q. B, item 1 and item 2. The heading is: "Proposal Related to the

7 1954 Convention."

8 A. Yes. I indicate it was important -- that there should be

9 communication of information, and I say to the enemy and to UNESCO a list

10 of monuments that are marked.

11 Q. Does that mean that in this particular situation, such a list was

12 never actually forwarded to the other side?

13 A. As I mention afterwards, [French phrase spoken], this seems not to

14 have been done for Dubrovnik.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 Can you please look at C.1.1. now. All I want is for you to

17 confirm the truthfulness of this, that the chronology of shelling was

18 vague in the memories of the inhabitants of Dubrovnik. Is that correct?

19 A. Sir, at this time one of the things that we discovered very, very

20 often when we went around is the fact that people knew exactly the day

21 that their house was hit; this was something that they really, they really

22 seemed to remember. Later on, these dates, they do tend to slip out of

23 mind.

24 Q. You say: "It's interesting to observe that the citizens of

25 Dubrovnik often speak of four or five days of shelling of the Old Town in

1 November, which also may be the psychological impact of the shelling

2 itself on the citizens."

3 A. Yes, sir. What they're vague about -- they're vague about the

4 chronology; they're not vague about when their own house was hit.

5 Q. Can you please now look at the section C.1.2. You say that

6 projectiles most frequently -- the projectile most frequently used during

7 the shelling was the 82-millimetre shell fired from Stalin's organ."

8 So this seems to be corrected later on, Stalin's organ, and what

9 was inserted in its place was Stalin VBR. Can you tell me, first of all,

10 which of the two is correct and then what is a VBR.

11 A. Well, I don't see that written on this particular document. I see

12 indeed that a Stalin organ has been struck out. And then I see [French

13 phrase spoken], and something else a little bit written in the margin

14 which I can't read.

15 Q. Just a moment, please. My apologies, sir. Which document are you

16 looking at, the French one or the English one?

17 A. I'm looking at my report, sir.

18 Q. Fair enough. Please tell me what it said there and what the

19 correction was that you inserted and how the correction came about, sir.

20 A. Sorry, I can't remember at what moment this particular correction

21 was put it, but it removes the Stalin organs and -- frankly what's written

22 here in English is not very good. "The projectile most frequently found

23 for these bombardments, 24 targets acta [phoen] hit which were seen by the

24 observers was a shell of 82-millimetres shot in Rafel [phoen] from shell

25 of 82 millimetres."

1 It doesn't make a great deal of sense with the correction put in.

2 Q. So it's a mistranslation probably, isn't it, into English, I mean?

3 A. This looks like a mistake, not a correction. We have a mistake

4 first of all in the original text and now we have another mistake in the

5 correction.

6 Q. So what is actually correct in the whole thing? What's truthful?

7 If we look beyond translation problems in English and in B/C/S. Which of

8 the dates given here are actually truthful? What's your position on that?

9 A. We're talking about this 82-millimetre projectile. A little bit

10 later on in the paragraph it says in English: "For the population it was

11 called a rocket."

12 In other words we're talking about the rocket which was a

13 82-millimetre shell, that was a cylinder, which had little wings that

14 folded out when it was shot, and that's what we're talking about here.

15 Q. Fair enough.

16 Sir, can you please look at C.2.1, the heading is: "The report of

17 the Institute for the Protection of Cultural and Historical Monuments."

18 A. Yes, sir, I found that.

19 Q. Can you now please look at paragraph 2 which says: "Accurate

20 assessments have been made, but very often all they offer is mere

21 impressions of what had occurred."

22 What does that mean?

23 A. "Evaluation containing the report of this institute are of good

24 quality but often impressionistic."

25 Shall we continue? Say where.

1 Q. No. All I want to know is this first sentence; what does that

2 actually mean?

3 A. Well, it would -- they didn't do things like indicate -- try to

4 find out what the shells were. They weren't very exact about what types

5 of fragments were shot about. They were a little general in their mention

6 of the damage often -- not all the time, but often.

7 Q. Do you still agree with the fact that their reports often seem to

8 contain political propaganda? Would I be right in concluding that, based

9 on your other sentences in the same paragraph?

10 A. Well, let's put it this way: There was something that they didn't

11 bring up, which in fact could really indeed could be considered to be

12 political propaganda. On Fort Minceta, there were a number of impacts of

13 the 82-millimetre rocket, and these were close to the windows. Now these

14 -- on Fort St. John there were a number of refugees who were living in

15 the fort. It was said everywhere in the town that, in fact, the federal

16 artillerymen had deliberately been shooting at the windows to try to put a

17 shell through the window and to try to hurt the refugees. Now, they

18 didn't mention this in their report, and I thought this was a pretty good

19 example of trying to be even-handed and objective.

20 Q. What does your remark mean that there was a lot of political

21 propaganda involved in the whole thing? You refer to their report, not to

22 it actually going on in town?

23 A. "It's necessary to recall outside of any question -- political

24 question of propaganda, that it was very difficult on the psychological

25 level for the architects", et cetera, et cetera.

1 This is -- just keep it aside, because it was not -- it wasn't a

2 problem in this particular -- in this report. Political propaganda was

3 not a problem in their preliminary report. What was a problem was that it

4 was not precise enough.

5 Q. Can you now please have a look at Exhibit P51; that's the

6 preliminary report. Book 1, please.

7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.

8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. If you look at insula Z as it relates to the town walls, that's

10 Z24, right at the beginning.

11 Did you compile these minutes on damage assessment?

12 A. I worked -- I compiled some minutes of damage assessments; that's

13 correct.

14 Q. What about this specific one?

15 A. I don't remember which ones I did exactly. I did a bunch, and

16 then I went and did a lot of other things. I don't -- I don't know -- I

17 don't remember where the tower of St. Franjo in fact is.

18 Q. Well, these minutes clearly reflect that you compiled them

19 yourself, don't they?

20 A. Yes. I compiled them back in December 1991. I don't have minutes

21 of these. I don't have any of these materials anymore. I worked on these

22 and handed them in.

23 Q. Do you know anything about this document which seems to bear your

24 signature, your signature as the author of the document?

25 A. This is a typed-up version of notes that would have been handed in

1 to the members of the institute of a survey that I carried out with

2 Mr. Franic on this day.

3 Q. So this is your report, isn't it?

4 A. I assume that they have put -- they have not put my name on it in

5 such -- when in fact it shouldn't be on. This is our report.

6 Q. Can you please look at Z25. Did you do that, too?

7 A. Well, the English edition --

8 Q. Or don't you remember?

9 A. Well, the English edition says it's Mr. Franic that did it. And I

10 don't remember doing it, and I think it's just Mr. Franic that did it.

11 Q. The B/C/S version - unfortunately I don't have the English text

12 right now - seems to indicate that you did not sign this document, but

13 your name is there. So probably this is not correct, and maybe the

14 translation is not appropriate. But what the B/C/S version seems to

15 reflect is your name there, Colin Kaiser, historian.

16 A. Well, it seems that my name has been left out from the English

17 translation.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Can I indicate the copy which the Chamber has does

19 include your name, Dr. Kaiser.

20 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry Z27?

21 MR. KAUFMAN: 25.

22 THE WITNESS: I apologise. Yes, this one has -- yes, this one has

23 my name on it.

24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. That doesn't tell us anything, the fact that your name is there.

1 It doesn't jog your memory in any way, does it?

2 A. I'm trying to think of where the church of St. Spas is.

3 Q. If there's nothing you know about that, we may as well move on,

4 sir.

5 All right. Let's move on, then. Can you please look at book 2

6 now, same document. Can you please look at insula 8-36. Do you know

7 anything about this?

8 A. I'm looking at it. I'm trying to remember Gariste 2. I'm sorry,

9 sir, I don't remember the names of these little streets. This was a very,

10 very long time ago. Something else that -- well, there are no pictures.

11 Pictures often help one to remember things, and there are no documents

12 around here that have any pictures in them.

13 Q. Do you remember at all which section of the town we're talking

14 about?

15 A. Well, this is 8 and this would be -- this section would be in fact

16 south of the Stradun.

17 Q. Why is your signature not there if you were the one who compiled

18 this?

19 A. Sir -- okay, I'm looking at the English edition, the English

20 translation, it's typed. It doesn't indicate the individual documents I

21 signed.

22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please show the witness the

23 B/C/S version of the same document, P51, book 2. The pages 01069521.

24 THE WITNESS: It's got -- it's okay. I've got it.

25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

1 Q. Franic signed this?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Where is your signature?

4 A. My signature is not there.

5 Q. Why isn't your signature there if you really were the one who put

6 this document together?

7 A. Well, we were very busy, and we simply forgot to sign it. This

8 is -- remember, this is another thing, this is another kind of document --

9 this is a transcription on to clean form of a form of -- that was filled

10 out, and I don't know if anybody has original forms. I would suspect

11 there would be signatures on the original ones as well. This one, maybe I

12 simply never got around to signing.

13 Q. So this is the original of the damage report, or is this a

14 document that's no original at all? If this is no original, then what

15 sort of a document is this?

16 A. No. These are the transcriptions from the surveys that were

17 carried out, and this is the original report that would be

18 submitted.

19 Q. Which language did you use in the drafting of the original report,

20 which doesn't appear to be this report we're looking at now?

21 A. You mean what language did we use on the original forms? I can't

22 remember.

23 Q. So this is not the original report. We do agree on that, don't

24 we?

25 A. This is not the original form, but this is said to be the

1 preliminary report and it's presented as the preliminary report.

2 Q. Fair enough. Now, sir, tell me: The original form, which

3 language did you write it in?

4 A. I can't remember, but it's -- I -- I simply can't remember. I was

5 with Mr. Franic. Maybe I wrote some of them in English; maybe he wrote

6 some of them in Serbo-Croatian. I simply cannot remember.

7 Q. Did you sign that, what was written in the Croatian language?

8 A. I think that we signed the original forms, the rough forms that we

9 filled out. But there don't seem to be any available for verification.

10 And this is why those would come down -- this why they would -- the

11 signatures and the names would appear on this clean version.

12 Q. So this is the revised, purified version of what you originally

13 put down and compiled.

14 A. I would say clean not purified.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Before you leave this one, Mr. Petrovic, am I

16 correct in seeing the signature of Mr. Franic with a date of 2000 against

17 it, rather than 1991?

18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I also believe that you're right,

19 Your Honour.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] This is just an additional reason

22 why it is not clear why the original documents which were compiled are not

23 there, but rather documents that were signed and given in the year 2000.

24 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, I don't know if I may be of assistance

25 in this matter, whether this is in fact the appropriate time to raise the

1 issue, but since Your Honour did in fact raise the matter, I would

2 respectfully request Your Honours to remember the evidence of Ms. Peko

3 in this respect, that she was presented with the reports when she was

4 interviewed by investigators of the OTP and she signed the reports that

5 she had herself dealt with. So, of course, it may not be the appropriate

6 place to submit this, but I would also submit that this is what happened.

7 I believe Mr. Franic was also interviewed by the investigators of the

8 OTP.

9 JUDGE PARKER: I would simply observe, Mr. Petrovic, that there

10 are many signatures throughout the B/C/S version. They all appear to have

11 a date in 2000 or perhaps one or two in 2001. Now, all I can see at the

12 moment appear to have a 2000 date. So there appears no signature in 1991

13 on any form that I've quickly seen in the B/C/S version.

14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. We cannot hear counsel.

15 Sorry.

16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] My apologies.

17 Your Honour, you are right. There does not exist a single

18 signature on these documents from 1991, except for this signature on the

19 introductory text of the first section of the Croatian version of this

20 document. There are no other original signatures there. There is a

21 signature of the director of the institute Dorotea Valjalo and that is all

22 as far as signatures on these documents are concerned.

23 Q. Sir --

24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] May I continue, Your Honour? May I

25 continue, Your Honour?

1 JUDGE PARKER: You can, but that signature also appears to be

2 dated July 2000.

3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour. I

4 thought that at least that one was an original signature, in view of the

5 date, the 6th of January, and given the fact that this is written in this

6 little square here. But it is quite correct. My apologies again. This

7 is only further argumentation to substantiate my point.

8 JUDGE PARKER: I don't think it's a matter of apology,

9 Mr. Petrovic. It seems quite clear that generally speaking none of these

10 documents were signed in 1991 by anybody.

11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] That's true.

12 Q. Tell me, Mr. Kaiser, can we at all talk again -- I want to talk

13 with you about these reports at all. Do you anything -- who can assist me

14 with establishing the actual truth if you don't know anything about them.

15 Whom am I to ask about them? Can you help me there?

16 A. I will try to help you. As you well know, I mean, we were

17 involved in setting up the methodology of the reports -- a survey, and the

18 survey was to be carried out -- well, we carried out a little bit of it

19 ourselves, but then an overwhelming majority of it was carried out by the

20 members of the institute and the volunteers that they brought in. I

21 assume you can certainly ask the people who actually carried out them --

22 the mass of the work, you can ask them about it.

23 Q. All right. But if it says on this report that you did it, that --

24 when your name features in some 30-odd of these reports, of the 500 which

25 there existed in all -- although I would have every reason to ask you

1 about the other 470, once I will not do so, I will not take time out of

2 this time that we have allotted. But I'm asking you about this small

3 number which does bear your name. And please tell me: Is it true or not

4 that you are unable to tell me anything about it?

5 A. Well, if I had to chance to look at all my entries which I worked

6 on, if I had a chance to have a map of Dubrovnik, and if I had access to

7 the photographs, then I could tell you something about them, sir. I

8 didn't take -- I have no notes from this, my own notes. I made this

9 point already. I have extensive, copious notes for the survey made on --

10 for October and November which I kept, because that was a minor issue

11 after the 6th of December. I have no original documents, except there are

12 a lot of photographs taken by me which were -- which are not in the annex

13 but which were presented to UNESCO with very -- with captions. There are

14 hundreds of photographs. I don't have those photographs in my possession;

15 they are in the possession of UNESCO. I could help you, sir, if I had

16 access to all this information. Flipping through things all the time is

17 not very helpful for refreshing the memory, I'm sorry to say.

18 Q. So you cannot tell me anything about this. When I say this is not

19 true, you say you don't know anything about it. So should we move on.

20 A. If you don't want to look at every single form, which may or may

21 not refresh my memory.

22 Q. All right then, will you please take a look at 8-31. That's a bit

23 forward. Do you know anything about this?

24 A. Can I just, please, go to the English version of it. I'm sorry,

25 sir, I don't remember where this is exactly.

1 Q. Can you take a look in this same book, 11-29. Do you know

2 anything about this one?

3 A. I know where this street is. I think I know where it is, because

4 it's near the church, Domino. You're asking me if I remember ricochetting

5 shrapnel that caused minor damage to the cover. Blast -- for stability.

6 I don't remember any fragment damage. It's hard to remember these things,

7 I think you would appreciate. This is the locality I think I remember a

8 little bit better, but --

9 Q. Please look at what you have done, Mr. Kaiser. In those reports

10 where there is --

11 A. I'm sorry that's not --

12 Q. Where -- in respect of those reports which do bear your signature,

13 you don't remember anything. And as regards this one where there is no

14 signature of yours, you're telling me what kind of damage was sustained.

15 So you're improvising, sir.

16 A. No, sir, I wasn't improvising. I was reading what was written

17 here. And I was saying that I remember base -- roughly where this is.

18 But I don't remember this damage; this was written -- this is done by

19 somebody else.

20 Q. Please take a look at 12-1, sir. Let me warn you right away.

21 There -- it has your signature, so you need not be concerned about whether

22 this is something that doesn't have your signature so that you need to

23 resort to eloquency in order to reply to my question.

24 MR. KAUFMAN: I'm not sure I quite understood Mr. Petrovic's last

25 remark. It certainly didn't seem to be in the form of a question. "You

1 need to resort to eloquency in order to reply to my question," it seems

2 more of a remark of a sarcastic nature.

3 JUDGE PARKER: An inappropriate one, Mr. Petrovic.

4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise to the witness and to

5 the Trial Chamber.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

7 THE WITNESS: I don't remember where the Poljana Paska Street is.

8 This is an important building, a large structure, and I don't remember it.

9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Tell me: Here you establish that a guided missile was the shell

11 that actually inflicted the damage. Do you recall that?

12 A. Well, it's mentioned that this was the -- that this was

13 actually -- well, that's what it was attributed to, one of the shells. I

14 don't remember...

15 Q. Would you please then find -- you said that -- where it says the

16 type of shell it says "guided rocket, guided missile," so please read this

17 text and tell me where in this text there is a single reference to any

18 guided missile having hit this building here.

19 A. Please, I will read it. You are correct, it does not say. It

20 does not say specifically that this particular missile did any of the

21 particular type of damage.

22 Q. Tell me: With relation to this building it says MB 120

23 millimetres up here. How many hits were there? Do you know that? Why

24 isn't the number of hits indicated?

25 A. Sir, I don't remember doing this particular work. The -- I would

1 just -- excuse me, I would --

2 Q. Maybe you weren't there at all on that particular site?

3 A. Well, I was in Dubrovnik; I wasn't in Paris. I would just point

4 out that the text does indicate the different mortar impacts, in the first

5 sentence, for example. But it does say things like "several" on the

6 second page. I'm looking also at this English version --

7 Q. Did you perhaps find any fragments of any shell of any rocket?

8 A. As I mentioned, I don't remember doing this.

9 Q. Please, sir, take a look at - if you will - 12-3. Let us dispense

10 with the description of the damage, which you probably do not recall. Let

11 us just look -- will you please look at the date and hour when this damage

12 was established. It says -- or actually, this report was compiled. It

13 says that it was done on the 9th of December at 12.17.

14 MR. PETROVIC: [No Interpretation]

15 THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry. The interpreter apologies terribly.

16 Can you hear me now? Is it okay?

17 THE WITNESS: Yes, I can.

18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Please look at the date and the hour. Is it true that it says the

20 9th of December, 12.17?

21 A. Yes, sir, it does.

22 Q. Now look at the following, 12-4, does it say the 9th of December,

23 12.20?

24 A. Yes, it does.

25 Q. The next one, 12-5, does it say 9th of December, 12.30?

1 A. Sorry, I don't have 12-5.

2 Q. 12-5.

3 A. I'm sorry. I don't have it here.

4 Q. It is right behind it, the very next page.

5 A. I've found the Serbo-Croatian version. And you're right, it does

6 give a time.

7 Q. So it's 12.30. Right? Now look at 12-6, 9th of December, 12.40.

8 And then take a look at the next one, 12-7. The 9th of December, 12.46.

9 The previous one finished in 6 minutes. Then look at the next one, 12-8,

10 the 9th of December, 12.50. In 33 minutes six buildings, of which some

11 for four minutes and some or six minutes, came under this -- were

12 inspected. Can, Mr. Kaiser, this inspection be carried out in four

13 minutes or six minutes, an on-the-scene inspection of any structure. Is

14 that at all possible of any, any, any matter? Would this be a truly

15 serious effort and report?

16 A. Well, I think that these kinds of timings are really -- sort of

17 more indicative then in fact really, really realistic or even exact. You

18 know, some things can be done very quickly, if it involves simply shell

19 fragments on a facade, that kind of thing. I mean, some things take

20 indeed much, much longer. If this is a question of little damage, they

21 can be done fairly quickly, but I wouldn't guarantee that those are the

22 exact times that things were actually seen and inspected. I notice that

23 everywhere there's an attempt -- well, not everywhere, but there's an

24 attempt to do this, not just Mr. Kaiser.

25 Q. Can you please have a look. Let's go back to 12-3. This is the

1 third category of damage. So you entered the building. You looked at the

2 building from outside, 12-3 is the one I'm talking about. You looked at

3 the building from outside. The building has three storeys. Obviously

4 there is damage to the roof. And the next inspection was carried out by

5 Mr. Franic and yourself on Iza Roka Street at 12.20, which means that you

6 had completed the previous task in all of three minutes. You looked at

7 the building from outside, you entered the building, you examined the

8 building from the inside, you climbed up to the third floor in order to

9 ascertain if there was any damage on the third floor, and you did all of

10 this between 12.17 and 12.20, didn't you. Was that possible?

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

12 Q. Will you then agree with me if you say an indication of time, an

13 indication of time would be -- if we, roughly speaking, said at 1.00 at

14 12.00 and 12.30, but if you said 12.17, this is no indication of time.

15 This is time given in the most accurate way possible.

16 A. I think I really have answered -- this is given this way. But, I

17 mean, it doesn't strike me as being a particular -- problematic point.

18 This might have taken two minutes before or two minutes after.

19 Q. Very well. At any rate, this took three minutes, didn't it?

20 A. No, not necessarily. You're going on the timings that are written

21 here, but it may not have taken three minutes to do. Maybe it took three

22 and a half minutes, maybe it took five minutes, maybe it took six

23 minutes.

24 Q. Well, how come the next building was inspected at 12.20? Why is

25 it we can't seem to agree on these things that seem totally simple and

1 unequivocal, sir? This is obvious, isn't it.

2 A. Well, have you found any that took -- take place exactly at the

3 same time maybe? Maybe we saw a few buildings at the same time?

4 Q. No. One, two, three minutes, you walked around, if you had, and

5 you noted this down, because there -- I can't possibly conceive of any

6 other way for you to do this. If you look at 12-4, for example, you came

7 there and you had sufficient time to measure the stain.

8 A. Sir, what this measures particularly, it measures the progression

9 of the survey. It measures the progression of it. You're attaching

10 importance to whether -- its minutiae exactly or not. It measures the

11 progression from which building to which building to which building.

12 Q. Sir, can you look at 12-6 now. This was -- this took six minutes

13 to write, in view of the fact that the next one was done at 12.46. Well

14 now this building at 12-6 is a building that obviously has two floors and

15 an attic. You somehow managed to measure the hole in the roof. You look

16 at the walls, and you give the exact description of the state of the

17 walls. You enumerate the cracks on the second floor. You look at the

18 corners of the roof and you even look at the adjacent buildings, giving

19 accurate descriptions, noting all the details, and signing the report.

20 And all it takes is six minutes, during which time you also have

21 sufficient time to ascertain which projectiles were used, their

22 calibre.

23 A. We're just going around in circles. I'm going to repeat myself.

24 Maybe this didn't take six minutes; maybe in fact it took 12 minutes to

25 do.

1 Q. So these entries are not accurate then?

2 A. We're saying that these particular timings of when a visit was

3 building -- sorry, a building was visited do not -- are not accurate.

4 That's about the timings of visiting the building. These are approximate,

5 but this is a damage survey. This is not about a -- racing around the

6 town looking at -- looking at, in example, the chronometre in one's hand.

7 Q. Mr. Kaiser, that's precisely what worries me. You were supposed

8 to determine the damage and not use three or four or five minutes to

9 ascertain the damage when -- the time when the damage occurred, the type

10 of weapon that caused the damage, the calibre of weapon that caused the

11 damage, and count the damage that had been sustained by the roof and the

12 interior of the house from the ground floor to the top-most floor. That

13 were what you were supposed to do. Or else, what I can conclude is that

14 your entries are not accurate, because the most precise data I can see in

15 this report are the times given. Everything else seems to be more

16 descriptive, but the time, at least, the timings should be beyond

17 doubt.

18 A. The reports are descriptive and you will notice in the entries

19 that there's usually quite a lot of information. I think that's what's

20 very important, not these times in which the surveys were made.

21 Q. All right. For example, tell me about 12-6. You took six minutes

22 to do that. How were you able to ascertain the type of projectile? Do

23 you remember this particular building at all? If not, please let us not

24 waste anymore time.

25 A. I don't remember this building, but I was looking at the type of

1 damage that is indicated in this sheet. "Direct hit on the roof" is

2 damage. The bearing structure of the roof, two wooden support beams.

3 "House walls have been shaken up by the blast." I'm sorry, can I

4 continue, sir?

5 Q. Yes, please, go ahead, sir.

6 A. Second direct hit has damaged the top of the house corner

7 underneath the roof cornice. Now, we don't have any photographs here to

8 see what that looks like. It looks to me -- it looks to me, that is its

9 judgement made on the level and type of damage that would be carried out

10 by this particular type of projectile. It's indicated second category, by

11 the way, and normally there would be photographs to show the type of

12 damage.

13 Q. Did you find any fragments of projectiles there?

14 A. I don't see, sir, any indication here that there are fragments of

15 projectiles, but fragments of projectiles were identified by the teams.

16 Sometimes I've given a very cursory look at this report, you will see

17 indications like DVA Komada, which is two pieces, in which case the person

18 who carried out the survey actually had the presence of mind: Yes, let's

19 write down the pieces we found.

20 Q. Where it says clearly that projectiles were found, that's where

21 projectiles were found. Wherever it doesn't state explicitly that

22 projectiles were found, nothing was found, no fragments of projectiles.

23 Am I reading you correctly, sir?

24 A. You know, I didn't have an all-seeing eye on what was going on.

25 You know I didn't carry out this survey. You know I wasn't looking at the

1 teams. You know I'm not responsible for this work. I cannot say what

2 each individual team was doing. We had originally asked them to identify

3 projectiles and note down when they have found pieces, details of them.

4 Now, it appears from my very cursory reading of this, a few times they

5 did. But the problem is that we can't tell always when they did or if

6 they were judging from fragments that they found, or if in fact they were

7 judging on the type -- just simply on the basis of the type of damage and

8 knowing that there was only a small number of different types of

9 projectiles that were being used, which did create very different types of

10 damage and would be recognised on that basis.

11 Q. What we're looking at now, 12-6, Mr. Kaiser, allegedly you were

12 the one who wrote this, that's at least what the document says?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. You're talking about it as though someone else had actually

15 written it. If you can look at the following page in B/C/S. There's no

16 photograph there, as you said. If you look at the next page of the B/C/S

17 version marked 725, last three digits.

18 A. Yes, sir, I've found this.

19 Q. This photograph, does it have anything to do with the rest of the

20 document or not? Do you know that? Or is it just difficult to say?

21 A. Well, I see a number written on this document, but I'm not quite

22 sure -- near the caption. I'm not sure exactly to what that refers.

23 Maybe it refers to number 6 entry.

24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if we could please

25 have a break now. I apologise, but I will need another 15 minutes to

1 finish my cross-examination.

2 JUDGE PARKER: In view of the difficulties that the witness has

3 experienced following these reports, I think we can allow you that 15

4 minutes, Mr. Petrovic. We will adjourn now for the break.

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

6 --- Recess taken at 3.48 p.m.

7 --- On resuming at 4.14 p.m.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

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

10 Q. Mr. Kaiser, can we please briefly go back to Exhibit P63, tab 6.

11 I would like to ask you -- I'm talking about the annex to your report. If

12 you could please look at annex 1 to your report; it's a map. It's a

13 sketch of the damage. Can I please ask you to put this map on the ELMO so

14 that we can all follow.

15 Can we please just zoom out a little so that we can see the entire

16 image, because I can't see the image in its entirety on my monitor. If we

17 can just zoom out, please. Zoom out. If we can just zoom the photograph

18 out, please. Thank you.

19 Mr. Kaiser, what I would ask you to do is the following: Can you

20 look at this thick line down the middle. This line is probably a result

21 of the photocopying process. If you can look just next to the thick line

22 along the north wall of the Old Town, there are four or five impacts

23 there, a group of four or five impacts. Can you see that? The north

24 wall, a group of four or five impacts.

25 A. Yes, sir, I can.

1 Q. Thank you. Next, the upper left corner around the Minceta

2 Bastion, again the image is not very clear, but if we could just zoom out

3 a little, I believe it would be possible to see what we are talking about.

4 If we could make the image a bit smaller -- no, well then perhaps not.

5 This copy's not good enough.

6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours. Can we

7 please show the witness my own copy of the map; it's the same map from

8 Mr. Kaiser's report. Can we please have the image displayed in such a way

9 to see the entirety of the Old Town. Thank you.

10 Q. Number 41 is the group of impacts to the north, number 41, and the

11 group of six impacts. Then number 43 around the Minceta Bastion bears

12 another group of five impacts. Next, near the Pile gate, which is the

13 east wall, three impacts. And then at the far west, St. John's Bastion

14 where we have six, eight, or possibly ten impacts. Can you see that, sir?

15 A. Yes, I can.

16 Q. Do you have an explanation perhaps: Why were the impacts grouped

17 in this way? Why are they -- are there groups of impacts in such a small

18 space? The area marked as 41, number 43 around the Minceta Tower, the

19 Pile gate, and St. John's Bastion.

20 A. Some of these impacts are outside -- they're outside of the walls,

21 but to take a look at the impacts which are on the St. John's Tower, these

22 impacts from the early period, of the October/November period, mainly this

23 82-millimetre rocket, we believed that there were groups of impacts

24 because there would be -- these would be fired off in sequence at the

25 same -- in the same general area.

1 Q. If you look at number 41, the impacts there, the north wall,

2 those six impacts just outside the town walls, would you allow for the

3 possibility, since they are grouped in this way and not scattered, that

4 there may perhaps have been a target, something in this small area

5 surrounding the number 41 that was being targeted specifically?

6 A. Well, I'm just trying to remember where the car parking lot was.

7 And I -- you see, these were -- we didn't examine these, but I remember

8 that very close to the north wall there were cars parked and they had been

9 damaged by -- they had been damaged by shells.

10 Q. I am asking you about the grouping, the accumulation of impacts in

11 such a small area. Might that not be a result of the fact that there was

12 a target positioned there, otherwise the impacts would have been scattered

13 all over this area if that had been a result of a random shooting?

14 A. Well, what I was referring to the way a certain weapon was simply

15 used, this happened at a time when we weren't there. I mean, there may

16 have been something there, I don't know. This was about October,

17 November.

18 Q. So you do allow for the possibility that if we look at how the

19 impacts were grouped there was something there in the area that was a

20 target for those who were firing?

21 A. Are you referring specifically to number 41?

22 Q. For example, specifically number 41 or number 43, just below the

23 Minceta Tower or the Pile gate, because the grouping of the damage of the

24 impact is very peculiar.

25 A. Well, this is possible.

1 Q. Thank you. One of the witnesses mentioned that between the main

2 road to the north of Dubrovnik, to the north of the north wall, there were

3 positions of the town's defence. Is it perhaps possible that this group

4 of impacts, number 41, was a result of activity between the forces that

5 were deployed to the north of the town and beyond the main road, which is

6 about 200 metres further north towards Mount Srdj?

7 MR. KAUFMAN: I object to that question, Your Honours.

8 Mr. Petrovic is putting a supposition or evidence of other witnesses,

9 which this witness cannot possibly know or qualify, and ask him to draw a

10 conclusion from substantive matters not within his own knowledge.

11 Therefore I would object.

12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I only wanted for the

13 witness to say whether he allows for the possibility. I was not asking

14 the witness to draw any specific conclusions. If we know that the defence

15 forces were between the main road and the north wall, is it possible in

16 the witness's opinion that these impacts that we're looking at were a

17 result of activity by the defence forces? I'm not asking him to testify

18 about this; I'm only asking whether he can allow for the possibility that

19 this was indeed the case.

20 JUDGE PARKER: He certainly has been able to allow for the

21 possibility that a grouping of points of impact could indicate that

22 something was being targeted in the area and that perhaps is as much a

23 matter of common sense as anything else. But what you're now asking seems

24 to not only involve, as Mr. Kaufman says, the possibility of knowledge of

25 other witnesses, but also requires a view about military operations, which

1 seems not to be the field of Dr. Kaiser, if you will excuse me expressing

2 that view, and is really something beyond his expertise or knowledge. And

3 it will depend, I would suggest, on evidence of other witnesses.

4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I fully

5 agree with you.

6 Q. Now, sir, briefly can you look at annex 6 to your report, Exhibit

7 P63, tab 6. Sir, can you please say when this preliminary financial --

8 plan was drawn up?

9 A. I think we were working on it on the spot, in fact.

10 Q. When was it completed?

11 A. I think it was completed while we were still there, in fact.

12 Q. Can you look at item D, please. There is something there that

13 perhaps may assist us to determine the time, 17th of December, 1991, when

14 the conversion was made between the dinars and the dollars. Is it on that

15 date or around that date? Can you tell us that?

16 A. It could be around then, yes.

17 Q. Sir, what was this report based on?

18 A. This report was based on a lot of supposition because we are

19 putting in figures here on roof surfaces and things like that, it's based

20 on numbers that are given locally for labour costs and material costs and

21 things like that.

22 Q. Is it based on the preliminary report compiled by the institute?

23 A. No, I don't -- it's not based on the preliminary report.

24 Q. So this is a very general assessment which contains nothing

25 specific or accurate about the assessment in terms of money?

1 A. It's very inaccurate, extremely inaccurate. This is one of the

2 assignments that was sort of faxed out to the team in Dubrovnik, the

3 things that it had to take care of immediately and then put back

4 immediately, as soon as possible for the director-general.

5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Just another question, Your Honour.

6 My apologies, but I hope I'm still within the time frame I promised.

7 Q. You said recently, sir, that you heard that General Strugar had

8 been indicted, didn't you? That's what you said yesterday in answer to

9 one of my questions. When was it precisely that you heard this? Which

10 year and which season, if you can tell us? Perhaps you may not be able to

11 recollect the exact date, but perhaps you could give us the season or the

12 year?

13 A. I think it was probably when the indictment was issued, because

14 the indictments are available on the Internet. And every so often I look

15 at the Internet to see what documents -- what documents are there or if

16 any decisions have been reached.

17 Q. This means it was probably in the autumn of 2001, since that's

18 when the indictment was disclosed. I think that's beyond dispute.

19 A. It could have been then. It might have even been later.

20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Can I please ask the usher's

21 assistance. Can we show this document to the witness.

22 Your Honours, it's the World Heritage newsletter for May and June

23 2001.

24 Q. Tell me, sir, please, what sort of a journal is this? Are you

25 familiar with this journal?

1 A. Well, the different sectors and departments -- sectors of UNESCO,

2 they have specific types of publications, and this is a publication of the

3 World Heritage Centre of UNESCO, I believe.

4 Q. Can you please look at page 2 of this document, the first article

5 on page 2. And the headline is: "Prevent crimes against culture." The

6 section that begins: "Legal means." Paragraph 1, please. If you could

7 have a look, sir.

8 Can you please explain if the indictment for Dubrovnik was

9 disclosed or unsealed on the 2nd of October, 2000, how can it be that the

10 director-general of the institution we're talking about knows in May or

11 June 2000 that the indictment exists? How is that possible for him to

12 know?

13 MR. KAUFMAN: 2001 it's written here. On the newsletter at the

14 top.

15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, 2001, yes. The indictment was

16 published on the 2nd of October, 2001.

17 MR. KAUFMAN: So I think there's a mistake in the question, the

18 way it's been phrased.

19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, my apologies. I think I said

20 2001, but obviously the translation was wrong.

21 Q. So the indictment was published on the 2nd of October, 2001, that

22 much is obvious.

23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, what you have in

24 front of you is the World Heritage newsletter for May and June 2001,

25 before the indictment was published. All I want to know is whether this

1 witness can explain how that is possible.

2 THE WITNESS: No, I can't explain how that is possible.

3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Does this perhaps have anything to do with your participation in

5 this whole matter?

6 A. I'm sorry? What does that mean exactly?

7 Q. Does this have anything to do with your participation in the

8 Dubrovnik problem since 1991 -- from 1991 to this very day?

9 A. It may have something to do with it. Dubrovnik's on the World

10 Heritage List and there have been a whole bunch of UNESCO missions and a

11 UNESCO rehabilitation plan.

12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, can this please be

13 marked as a Defence exhibit, this document, unless there are any

14 objections. And I have no further questions for this witness. I thank

15 Mr. Kaiser for his patience over these days of cross-examination.

16 Q. Thank you, sir.

17 A. Thank you.

18 JUDGE PARKER: The World Heritage newsletter will be received as

19 an exhibit.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit D34.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Kaufman.

22 MR. KAUFMAN: Yes, Your Honours, I'll attempt to be as short as

23 possible.

24 Re-examined by Mr. Kaufman:

25 Q. Dr. Kaiser, you, I see, have brought with you to court a number of

1 slides. Is that pursuant to the request that was made on the first day

2 that you could perhaps obtain the best possible photographs which are

3 appended to your report?

4 A. Yes, it was in response to a request to retrieve photographs.

5 Q. So may we have those photographs?

6 A. Absolutely.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 Now, on Day 27 of this trial, page 85 in the transcript at line 25

9 you were asked whether you had had any further contact with the federal

10 authorities, other than that which you mentioned. You said no.

11 Now, we know that Mr. Daniel Janicot accompanied you on earlier

12 parts of your mission in answers you gave on cross-examination and

13 in-chief. Do you know if Mr. Janicot had any further contact with these

14 authorities?

15 A. That I don't know.

16 Q. Thank you. On day 28, page 16 at line 16, you talked about

17 witnessing a Macedonian soldier putting on one side of the wall, putting a

18 projectile whilst you were on the other side of the wall.

19 I wonder if you could possibly elaborate on this matter, where

20 exactly was that? Which wall are we talking about?

21 A. We're talking about a street which is behind -- it's behind the

22 Dominican Monastery, it's west of the Dominican Monastery, and this was

23 carried out in -- this is in conjunction with the survey of the damage of

24 October and November 1991. It took place in that framework.

25 Q. When we're talking about a wall, are we talking about the wall of

1 the building or the wall of the old -- the ramparts of the Old Town, the

2 walls of the Old Town?

3 A. No, this is the wall of a building, of a house.

4 Q. On day 28 at page 34 -- on page 37 you were questioned about what

5 steps you took to report the presence of soldiers in the Old Town, namely

6 those with the long-barrelled guns, as you mentioned.

7 And Mr. Petrovic at page 37, line 13 of the protocol, read your

8 statement to you, but he didn't complete the relevant paragraph that he

9 was putting to you. And I would like to give you that opportunity now.

10 You mentioned that you had seen very few of these soldiers. I would like

11 to ask you what else you saw in the Old Town with respect to military

12 hardware, equipment, units, whatever.

13 A. With the exception of the few soldiers that we saw, we didn't see

14 anything else.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 Now, sir, you talked about something that you called a rocket

17 mortar. You said it had fins. You gave a calibre estimate of something

18 in the region of 82 millimetres. You said it was distinguishable from its

19 more squat, 82-millimetre cousin. And you also said it was found in the

20 tops of buildings, always on the same side.

21 MR. KAUFMAN: Now I would like to ask Mr. Usher to place the table

22 that has already been placed in front of you in examination-in-chief.

23 This is contained in P51, MFI, in the very first pages.

24 Q. Have a look, please, sir, at items 2 and 3, which you identified

25 in-chief as the 82-millimetre items. Could you point out the rocket

1 mortar, as you call it? Sorry, once again, sir --

2 A. [Indicates]

3 Q. Yes, you are pointing to item number 3. This is the item which

4 you said had a flat trajectory?

5 A. That's correct.

6 Q. And this is the item you found, as you say, at the tops of

7 buildings, always on the same side. When you say "always on the same

8 side," what do you mean, which side?

9 A. The east side.

10 Q. Which would be facing which direction geographically?

11 A. It would be facing backwards towards the hills of Zarkovica.

12 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, I would like to submit this particular

13 item as an exhibit. It was presented in-chief. I'm fully aware that at

14 some later stage I'm going to have to make legal submissions as to the

15 admissibility of P51, which is currently marked for identification. As I

16 mentioned, this item was presented to Dr. Kaiser in-chief. Your Honours

17 asked me if I wanted it introduced as an exhibit. It wasn't even marked

18 for identification then. The same goes for a map of the walls of the Old

19 Town, which my request also extends to, showing the impacts which was in

20 fact presented to the witness in cross-examination by Mr. Petrovic. I

21 should like at any rate for this item to be admitted as a separate

22 exhibit. I have copies.

23 JUDGE PARKER: If it could be collected by the court officer.

24 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honour, the same applies, as -- with respect to

25 the walls of the Old Town, which was once again put to the witness

1 in-chief, presented to the witness in cross-examination. I should like

2 that to be tendered as an exhibit as well.

3 JUDGE PARKER: That's the one, the numbers of which concludes 074?

4 MR. KAUFMAN: Correct, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE PARKER: And the one with respect to the pieces of armament

6 concludes 068?

7 MR. KAUFMAN: Indeed, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Each of those will be received as an exhibit and

9 given a separate and fresh number. They being part of that which is

10 marked for identification as P51.

11 MR. KAUFMAN: And as one last matter, Your Honour, there was --

12 JUDGE PARKER: We'll give them a number first, Mr. --

13 MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I do apologise.

14 THE REGISTRAR: The first exhibit will be numbered Prosecution

15 Exhibit P67 and the map of the Old Town will be numbered P68.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

17 Yes, Mr. Kaufman.

18 MR. KAUFMAN: And finally, a photograph that was presented to the

19 witness in-chief which directly hinges on my next question.

20 Perhaps this could be placed on the ELMO in front of the witness.

21 This, one again, was a photograph which was presented to the witness in

22 examination-in-chief.

23 Q. Now, sir, the photograph which is currently being placed on the

24 display system for you we've been talking about rocket mortars. What do

25 you see in that photograph? How would you describe that?

1 A. Well, I see here the rear end of the cylinder with the little

2 wings that have gone back into their resting position, stuck into the old

3 port near the jetty.

4 Q. Is that your rocket mortar, sir?

5 A. Yes, it is.

6 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you, Mr. Usher. Could you -- I request that

7 this would be submitted as an exhibit once again.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.

9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have an objection to

10 that, unless we clarify that this photograph does not relate to the month

11 of December 1991. So with the proviso that these photograph is not dated

12 December 1991, with that proviso, the Defence is ready to have this

13 photograph admitted. If this can't be granted, then the matter becomes

14 much more serious, which we may discuss now, if you like, Your Honours,

15 or, by your leave, at a later date, perhaps.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kaufman, do you accept that this is not a

17 photograph directly relating to the 6th of December?

18 MR. KAUFMAN: Perhaps, Your Honour, with the Court's leave I could

19 ask the witness that particular question. And if he can't answer, then

20 I'm quite happy to --

21 JUDGE PARKER: I thought we had an answer to it, but please do

22 that again.

23 MR. KAUFMAN: Yes.

24 Q. Dr. Kaiser, are you able to tell us whether or not that particular

25 projectile which you see in the photograph on the display machine, whether

1 that relates to the 6th of December or an earlier date? Did you see it on

2 one of your earlier tours?

3 A. Yes, I said earlier, and I repeat, this is the 6th of December.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.

6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, who took this

7 photograph? When was the photograph taken? How can we tell that this

8 photograph is dated the 6th of December? Was the photograph taken by this

9 witness? Where is this photograph, the original of this photograph? Are

10 we going to open all these questions now? In that case, I beg to be

11 allowed to ask these questions. Based on what the witness was doing

12 himself, he remembers nothing. He vaguely remembers this photograph, but

13 it's not exactly clear when and where this photograph was taken.

14 Therefore, Your Honours, I object to this photograph being

15 admitted as such.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kaufman, do you plan to explore any of those

17 issues in your re-examination?

18 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honour, I can put the report in front of

19 Dr. Kaiser himself.

20 Q. Dr. Kaiser, if you could take P51 MFI, let us turn to the damage

21 report itself. Just so that I don't get accused of completely leading you

22 on that matter, it's to be found in the first volume at 01069129 Z40, but,

23 sir, before you look at that particular page -- have it in front of you

24 but don't look at the page. As far as the methodology was concerned the

25 photographs which are appended to the damage survey reports, were they

1 photographed at the same time of the compilation of the survey of that

2 particular site at a later date, or at an earlier date

3 A. They would be made at the time of the survey.

4 Q. Fine. So please open up the bundle at Z40. In the B/C/S version

5 it's 9129. I believe you have the English version open in front of you,

6 sir.

7 Please tell the Court the date of the preparation of this

8 particular site, survey.

9 A. Well, this was prepared on the 10th of December, 1991.

10 Q. And the date that appears there as the date of the impact as it

11 were?

12 A. 6th of December, 1991.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, I believe that that should clear the

15 matter up.

16 JUDGE PARKER: I propose, Mr. Petrovic, to admit the exhibit on

17 the basis of that evidence.

18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may. The witness

19 who has testified before you for these last few days, the reports that he

20 purportedly drew up himself, this witness is unable to comment on these

21 reports. He remembers neither what this is nor where this is. At Z40, we

22 have a report drawn up by Paula Kolic and Ivica Zile. The witness assumes

23 responsibility to confirm that this photograph is indeed linked to that

24 report. How? Based on what, Your Honours? He doesn't even know where he

25 purports to have been when he drew up the report. How can we possibly

1 have an exhibit like this admitted under the circumstances, there being no

2 indication between any link between the witness and Z40. That is the

3 first matter.

4 Secondly, Your Honours, if you look at the text of Z40, if you

5 look at the text, where can you find that in the text? Where can you find

6 a description of what we can see in the photograph and who is behind it?

7 There is simply no link between the two. I am honestly surprised that

8 Mr. Kaiser is able to confirm that the photograph was taken on the 6th of

9 December, if we have seen that he is not exactly familiar with

10 30-something buildings that have his name signed under them.

11 So then please, Your Honours, at the very least, may I be allowed

12 to ask questions about this photograph. I think, however, that this would

13 be superfluous. Time as of value and I would only be forced more and more

14 time on this matter, if allowed to re-direct. Thank you very much,

15 Your Honours.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic. No, you will not be

17 allowed to ask further questions, but I will.

18 Dr. Kaiser, what is your basis of knowledge for your evidence that

19 this was a photograph taken in respect of the damage on the 6th of

20 December?

21 A. Your Honour, in the 7th and the 8th of December, we divided the

22 town into two parts. I went around with Mr. Franic and we carried out a

23 very quick survey. This is not like a Garista or Varicevo or places like

24 that. This is a very obvious place. I kind of remember this place. This

25 is the port. And I remember crossing along in front and seeing

1 this.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Is there anything further, Mr. Kaufman, you want to

3 ask about this photograph?

4 MR. KAUFMAN: No. And I thank Your Honour for clarifying the

5 matter.

6 JUDGE PARKER: The ruling which I gave, Mr. Petrovic, stands, the

7 document will be received as an exhibit in view of the personal memory of

8 the testify witness. But you can be assured that the matters that you

9 have mentioned will be very much exercising the mind of the Chamber as it

10 comes to weigh the reliance it can place on this. Thank you.

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

12 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Prosecution Exhibit P69 and may I

13 request copies for the Court.

14 MR. KAUFMAN:

15 Q. Sir, briefly moving on. I would like to remind you of some things

16 that you said in cross-examination. Now, Day 28, page 61, line 10, you

17 stated that: The damage of October and November had already been

18 identified, is that correct, identified by the institute when you arrived

19 there.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And the first task you had was to verify that damage?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And such you did as is evidenced by annex 3 to your report at P63,

24 tab 6?

25 A. Yes, by annex 3 and also by 12 pages in the body of the report.

1 Q. Now, you state at page 72 of Day 28, line 17, that you prepared

2 your report for the director-general of UNESCO and you did so with

3 accuracy and conscientiously.

4 Is that still the case?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. So Mr. Petrovic, in cross-examination, put a whole string of

7 buildings to you, which appear in annex 3 to your report. Do you remember

8 that?

9 A. Yes, I remember the comparison between the annex 3 and the large

10 report.

11 Q. And the institute's report?

12 A. And the institute's report.

13 Q. He then purported to show you the same buildings as they appeared

14 in the institute's report. Now, Mr. Petrovic was firing these various

15 items at you at a pretty high-speed. Are you sure that you read the

16 details of all these items in detail, from the institute report as they

17 were being put to you in cross-examination?

18 A. Of course not. Of course not.

19 Q. Now, we can do this in a time-consuming way by going over all

20 those items one by one and allowing you to give your comment on each and

21 every one of them, or I can ask you in a shorthand way whether or not you

22 managed to notice whether there was corresponding features between what

23 Mr. Petrovic was putting to you as having been noted by you in your report

24 and what was noted by the institute in their report.

25 A. Well, as you remember, there were not very long discussions about

1 this and not long views of these documents. But I remember the first day

2 that the Defence counsel started to do this, he did -- there was -- we

3 spent some time on Ulica Boskoviceva. It was clear on the discussion of

4 the console, the balustrade, the balcony, that there was an overlap, if

5 that's what you're getting at.

6 Q. Well, there might have been an overlap, sir, but I have been over

7 those particular buildings last night as they were put to you, and I want

8 to ask you whether you remember whether there was an exact correlation

9 between the items that you said had incurred damage in October and

10 November in annex 3 to your report and the identification of the damage as

11 it appeared in the institute's report?

12 A. No, there wasn't.

13 Q. Let me take, for example, annex 3, item 26, the house at Siroka

14 Street 5. There in annex 3 is your report, if you would like to have --

15 that's open in front of you. There in your report you talk about second

16 floor consul -- cornice damaged by shrapnel and facade, superficial

17 damage. Is that correct?

18 A. That's correct.

19 Q. And you add: "The roof seems to have been hit by mortar on the

20 6th of December. Needs to be thoroughly examined."

21 A. That's right.

22 Q. Now, that same item was put to you as having been reported at

23 insula 11, number 36. Do you remember how that damage was described there

24 and whether there was any correlation between the damage that you talked

25 about and the damage that was identified by the institute?

1 A. I'm sorry. I didn't have time to read the entry.

2 Q. Would you like to read the entry?

3 A. Well, why not?

4 Q. Okay. Let's go to it. It's to be found in volume 2 of the

5 English version, item number 11 -- insula 11, item 36. You were

6 questioned on this. You were asked merely to give the date of the

7 preparation of the report; you were not asked to go into details. But now

8 I give --

9 THE INTERPRETER: Can the speakers please pause between question

10 and answer.

11 MR. KAUFMAN:

12 Q. I ask you, sir, if what you reported in October and November is

13 what is reported on December 6th.

14 A. Okay, I will look at both.

15 Q. Certainly.

16 Do you have an answer, sir?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And your answer?

19 A. On the 6th of December this building was gutted by flame.

20 Q. And in October and November?

21 A. It had very superficial damage done to the balcony.

22 Q. Do I understand from that answer, sir -- we can go through other

23 buildings because I can give you plenty of examples. The documents

24 eventually, I hope, will be before Your Honours so that we can do the

25 distinctions as is necessary but, can I understand from you, sir, that it

1 is possible to do a filtering exercise, that you can take the document,

2 the institute's report which purports to portray the damage of December

3 the 6th and you can filter out the damage having occurred in October and

4 November, if necessary, by taking your annex 3 and subtracting that from

5 the institute's report?

6 A. It is laborious but it is very easy to do.

7 Q. Thank you, sir.

8 Well, I won't trouble you anymore with that. I don't want to take

9 up too much of your time. Let us move quickly --

10 JUDGE PARKER: Can I pause -- ask you to pause to make the

11 observation that I hope you're not expecting the Chamber to do that

12 laborious task?

13 MR. KAUFMAN: No --

14 JUDGE PARKER: We don't have the skill nor the knowledge, nor do

15 we want to spend the time.

16 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, I wasn't intending on doing that. And

17 Your Honours will hear when I make my submissions on the matter, I submit

18 and I will submit that this document P51 which is currently marked for

19 identification is admissible and of course the weight has been challenged

20 and challenged very competently, I must say, by Mr. Petrovic, although I

21 believe it has substantial weight and that weight I will argue in front of

22 the Chamber.

23 However, this document is admissible. If necessary, Mr. Petrovic

24 and I will of course engage in conversations to make the Chamber's life

25 easy in respect of this matter. But admissibility is a separate issue

1 from weight.

2 JUDGE PARKER: We're not dealing with the question of

3 admissibility, Mr. Petrovic, don't worry --

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

5 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honour, there is an alternative. I could

6 explore, if necessary, the possibility of requesting very kindly, of

7 course, from Dr. Kaiser himself who is a very eager individual, I know

8 from my personal contact with him, although I don't wish to labour him and

9 burden him unnecessarily, of course, I would have to speak to him about

10 this matter asking him for his assistance in this matter. But I fear that

11 should not really be necessary. I feel that Mr. Petrovic and I could

12 possibly reach some other agreement, albeit at a later stage.

13 JUDGE PARKER: We look forward to that. Filing that, could I

14 indicate tat were you to move at a later time for leave to recall

15 Dr. Kaiser, that would probably be for the purpose of giving the product

16 of this effort. That would be considered by the Chamber. I think it

17 would be an enormous waste of time of everybody to attempt to do that as a

18 matter of re-examination at the present time. And -- though we can leave

19 it on that basis, as long as you are conscious of the Chamber's concern

20 that left as it is the position would be considered to be quite

21 unsatisfactory to the point of view of the Chamber.

22 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, I fully conscious of that.

23 Q. Dr. Kaiser, final questions, you'll be pleased to know. If you

24 could open up once again P63, tab 6, that's your report, the English

25 version. Mr. Petrovic questioned you on paragraph C.2.1 of that report.

1 And the general thrust of his questions in this matter were on matters of

2 possible political propaganda. The sentence that was put to you was that

3 the reports' assessments are well drafted but often provide nothing more

4 than the impression, and you were cross-examined on what was meant by an

5 impression. I would like to take you to the end of that particular

6 section of your report and ask you to read out the very last photograph of

7 that particular section, which perhaps elaborates your views of the

8 institute's methodology and reports.

9 A. This is the ending -- the ending -- last paragraph on that page?

10 Q. No, on the next page, 03073347. The last paragraph at the

11 section. Please, sir.

12 A. That said, the document's very considerable worth must also be

13 highlighted. It pinpoints the damage accurately ad puts forward

14 conclusions which are generally restrained and consistently

15 incontrovertible.

16 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, that is the institute's report for October

17 and November. Is that not correct?

18 A. Yes, sir, it is.

19 Q. You have already told the Court that you were the person who

20 instituted the methodology and instituted the classification, set the team

21 members out on their specific tasks. Is that correct, sir?

22 A. Yes, that's correct.

23 Q. Are you satisfied that they carried out their tasks in the same

24 way that they carried out their tasks in October and November?

25 A. I'm satisfied that they carried out their tasks.

1 Q. Thank you.

2 Now, sir, we know that you had various reasons to qualify the

3 institute's tasks, and you set that out as a result of their not being

4 ballistic's experts and sometimes, in your opinion, misdiagnosing, if I

5 could say, the calibre of the projectile which caused the damage which

6 they viewed. Is that correct?

7 A. Yes, that's correct.

8 Q. That was your reservation?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Yet, in C.2.1 when you're talking about the methodology and how

11 the institute carried out their work, you say that their assessment of

12 damage is accurate. Is that correct, sir? You just read out the passage.

13 A. Yes, yes.

14 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that their work on the report of

15 the 6th of December, the later report, the report that is now P51 MFI,

16 that their work on that report would have been any different from their

17 work on the October and November report, since you were the person who

18 instituted that methodology, et cetera?

19 A. The people that we worked with for October and November I would

20 fully expect that they would continue on, they would carry on the proper

21 methodology and assessment that we carried out together with them in

22 October and November.

23 Q. Sir, in your report you incorporated annex 7. Annex 7 is a list

24 of statistics, is it not --

25 A. Yes, it is.

1 Q. -- Which was provided to you by the institute for the protection

2 of monuments?

3 A. Yes, it was.

4 Q. You incorporated annex 7 into the main body of your report, did

5 you not, sir?

6 A. Yes, I incorporated it.

7 Q. You furthermore attached maps from the institute, 4A and 4B, or B

8 in particular --

9 A. Yes, I did.

10 Q. As a map being prepared after the 6th of December?

11 A. Yes, I did.

12 Q. Sir, this is a report you gave to the director-general of UNESCO,

13 is it not?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And you have already said that your mandate to the director of

16 UNESCO was to accurately report what you had witnessed in Dubrovnik, the

17 Old Town of Dubrovnik?

18 A. That's correct.

19 Q. I take it, sir, you wouldn't incorporate something in your report

20 that you didn't think was reliable, would you?

21 A. I regarded this document, these maps, as very credible -- although

22 a work in progress. But they were very credible.

23 Q. Sir, I apologise for the time that you've had to spend on the

24 witness stand, but I do thank you ever so much for coming.

25 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, do you have any questions of the

1 witness before he descends from the witness stand?

2 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, doctor, the time has been

3 extensive, but I think necessary.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Please turn the microphone on, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE PARKER: I do apologise.

6 I thank you for your attendance. The time has been lengthy, but I

7 think necessary. I'm delighted to say that you are now excused and free

8 to go.

9 Mr. Kaufman, the photographs that were mentioned, are you

10 proposing to do something with those?

11 [The witness withdrew]

12 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, I shall of course make sure that these

13 are the photographs which are the photographs appended to Dr. Kaiser's

14 report, and once I have gone through that exercise I will submit them to

15 the Trial Chamber. I believe that there is already an agreement that they

16 do be tendered, and I hope that can be done --

17 JUDGE PARKER: I think all of us would be grateful for a better

18 quality.

19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if these are

20 photographs which were appended to the annex which we received in somewhat

21 better form on Friday, if these are those photographs, this is quite okay

22 as far as the Defence is concerned.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.

24 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, there is another witness waiting

25 outside. I have substantial legal argument to make on the matter of

1 asking P51 to be tendered as an exhibit. I wonder whether Your Honours

2 want to hear that legal argument now or at a later stage.

3 JUDGE PARKER: When you say "extensive," can you put an estimate

4 in time?

5 MR. KAUFMAN: Well, not so extensive. I meant 10 minutes or so.

6 JUDGE PARKER: I see. The witness will take how long?

7 MR. KAUFMAN: Mr. Re is going to be handling the next witness. I

8 believe he indicated it was something in the region of three quarters of

9 an hour. Am I correct, Mr. Re?

10 JUDGE PARKER: Is that evidence in-chief or the whole process?

11 MR. KAUFMAN: Perhaps instead of speaking on Mr. Re's behalf I can

12 let it come from the horse's mouth, as it were.

13 MR. RE: Thank you. I anticipate, I would hope to be through his

14 evidence in 45 minutes to an hour or so. I'm told from Mr. Rodic that he

15 doesn't think he'd be more than 2 hours. Prosecution has some concerns

16 that it may actually take that long with the witness who is here for proof

17 of death, a forensic pathologist; however I do note that he has been in

18 The Hague since Saturday. We'd be quite anxious to get him on and

19 completed today if we possibly could.

20 JUDGE PARKER: There will be no way if you're going to take

21 possibly an hour, that even with a limited cross-examination of a similar

22 duration that he could finish today. If you look at the time now, we have

23 just over an hour sitting time remaining today.

24 MR. RE: That must have been supreme optimism.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. And I notice there is a special time

1 requirement for a witness to be recalled tomorrow, if I am not mistaken.

2 MR. RE: There is. That's --

3 JUDGE PARKER: A witness who must finish tomorrow.

4 MR. RE: That's Ambassador Alajbeg. Perhaps if the -- my

5 discussions with Ms. Lamb - I'll be here tomorrow - indicate that the

6 Prosecution on present indications only has about five to ten minutes of

7 re-examination on present cross-examination. Perhaps if my learned

8 friends could indicate how long they expect to be -- to continue their

9 cross-examination, we might be able to better plan -- the two witnesses.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. -- I thought we were going to get a duet.

11 Mr. Petrovic.

12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Believe me, it wouldn't be at all

13 that pleasant, Your Honour. Thank you.

14 As regards the witness Alajbeg. Can we please start tomorrow

15 morning with Mrs. Alajbeg. We shall certainly complete our part tomorrow,

16 but I would like to ask you that we do not start with Mr. Ciganovic

17 tonight, or perhaps if we do start -- if we do start, let us start with

18 her Madam Alajbeg tomorrow so that -- tomorrow afternoon so that we will

19 make sure that she will make certain that she will finish testifying

20 tomorrow and can leave tomorrow. So if we start at the beginning of

21 tomorrow's sittings, so then we can be quite certain that she will have

22 completed her testifying, as far as the Defence is concerned, of course.

23 Thank you.

24 JUDGE PARKER: The position would appear to be that if we put to

25 one side for the moment legal argument, it would be possible to conclude

1 the evidence in-chief of the witness that is waiting today. Just whether

2 it would be possible to conclude cross-examination late tomorrow is

3 somewhat uncertain and it could well be that the witness's evidence would

4 not be concluded until Friday. I can't see any way of overcoming that at

5 the moment.

6 I think the most practical course - returning to Mr. Kaufman -

7 would be to defer the question of legal argument until we have 20 minutes

8 to half an hour to spare on -- in the course of tomorrow or Friday for

9 that. And in the meantime, after the break, to hear the evidence in-chief

10 of the witness with cross-examination not to be concluded today, and that

11 cross-examination will be taken up after we have finished with the

12 evidence of the Ambassador who is to be recalled first thing tomorrow

13 morning. Is that convenient to all parties?

14 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE PARKER: That being so, I think we will have the break now,

16 and then we can get straight into the evidence of the waiting witness.

17 --- Recess taken at 5.18 p.m.

18 [Witness entered court]

19 --- On resuming at 5.44 p.m.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon. Would you like to take the

21 affirmation that will now be shown to you, please.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

23 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

24 WITNESS: DJORDJE CIGANOVIC

25 [Witness answered through interpreter]

1 JUDGE PARKER: Please sit down.

2 Mr. Re.

3 MR. RE: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Examined by Mr. Re:

5 Q. Dr. Ciganovic, can you please give the Chamber your full name and

6 occupation.

7 A. My full name is Djordje Ciganovic. My occupation is pathologist

8 and cytologist and forensic medicine specialist. So I'm a physician, a

9 specialist.

10 Q. Is that at the Pancevo health or medical centre which is located

11 near Belgrade in Serbia?

12 A. I'm currently working at the Pancevo health centre which is near

13 Belgrade in Serbia.

14 Q. I'm going to ask you about your medical qualifications. You have

15 a medical agree. When did you graduate from medical school and which

16 medical school was it?

17 A. I graduated in 1973 from the medical faculty in Zagreb, in

18 Croatia.

19 Q. Where did you work after your graduation?

20 A. After my graduation I worked in Dubrovnik as a general

21 practitioner until the year 1979.

22 Q. Did you work at the Dubrovnik general hospital or somewhere else?

23 A. I worked at the medical centre in Dubrovnik until that time.

24 After that, I went for my specialisation, specialised studies.

25 Q. When did you do your specialised studies, for how long, and what

1 was the specialisation, or the degree or qualification you obtained?

2 A. From 1979 to 1983 I pursued my specialisation in the field of

3 pathology at the medical faculty in Zagreb. And in parallel with that, I

4 also graduated -- I actually finished my post-graduate studies in the

5 field of medical cytology and obtained my master's degree in the field of

6 pathology. After this, I also completed my specialised studies in the

7 area of cytology, and after that my specialised studies in the forensic

8 medicine field, which I completed in 1987. From 1983 I worked as the

9 chief of the pathology and cytology and forensic medicine service in

10 Dubrovnik and also -- I did work in all these mentioned fields. My

11 specialisation, my specialised degree, in forensic medicine and cytology

12 was something which evolved in parallel with my work in Dubrovnik until

13 the year 1987 [Realtime transcript read in error "1997"], that is to say

14 my studies in those fields evolved in parallel. And I had to travel -- to

15 commute several times a week between Dubrovnik and Zagreb in order to

16 perform my duties in both these places.

17 Q. The transcript says you said 1997. Did you say 1997 or 1987, the

18 commuting between Dubrovnik and Zagreb?

19 A. From 1983 to 1987.

20 Q. Until when were you the chief pathologist or the chief of

21 pathology at Dubrovnik general hospital?

22 A. This was until the end of 1992.

23 Q. When did you leave Dubrovnik for Pancevo?

24 A. I left at the end of 1992.

25 Q. What did your duties as the chief of pathology at Dubrovnik

1 general hospital until the end of 1992 involve? What did you do?

2 A. I did work in the field of pathology, namely clinical autopsies,

3 histopathological analyses for diagnostic purposes on live patients, as

4 well as psychological tests or analyses on live patients for the purpose

5 of establishing diagnosis. Apart from that, I also worked in the forensic

6 medicine field, namely I undertook forensic medicine autopsies and

7 forensic medicine expertise. And I rendered such forensic expertise and

8 expert opinions in court in the case of bodily harm and injury in criminal

9 cases as well as in litigations.

10 Q. Are you able to tell the Chamber as an estimate how many autopsies

11 you would have performed at Dubrovnik between 1983 and 1992?

12 A. In this period I undertook court autopsies in Dubrovnik, all of

13 them, all of them -- all of the necessary autopsies for the court. And on

14 average there would be 70 of them per year. In addition to that, for four

15 years I also, in parallel with pursuing my other specialised studies, I

16 also undertook other court autopsies at the forensic medicine institute in

17 Zagreb during my specialised studies, where all of us were pursuing

18 specialised studies would work together on all the necessary post-mortems.

19 And there were about seven on -- about seven autopsies was the daily

20 average. So if I were to add up all the forensic medical autopsies that I

21 had done together collectively with my colleagues and those which I

22 undertook myself, the number that I would obtain would be about 8.000,

23 approximately.

24 Q. And did each of these autopsies -- a moment ago you mentioned

25 court appearances, did each of these autopsies involve your attending

1 court with an investigating judge or magistrate?

2 A. Each of these forensic autopsies necessitated my appearance before

3 the investigating judge. And as often as not, later, also in criminal

4 proceedings, before regular courts.

5 Q. Did you prepare or have prepared documents for the investigating

6 judge and your appearances in court?

7 A. Yes, I did. I would, as a rule, provide my finding and my opinion

8 in writing in such instances.

9 Q. Were you in Dubrovnik in the period September to December 1991?

10 A. Yes, I was.

11 Q. What was your main duty in that period?

12 A. In that period my main duty was to examine the people who were --

13 who had been killed during the war which had taken place there, in that

14 period. My other duties had been reduced to a minimum.

15 Q. Where did you perform your duty of examining people who had been

16 killed in the war?

17 A. I performed these examinations in the ward, the pathology -- the

18 pathology, cytology, and forensic medicine ward of the medical centre in

19 Dubrovnik.

20 Q. Was that at the hospital?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Which hospital?

23 A. That is the general hospital in Dubrovnik.

24 Q. And was that located outside of the Old Town?

25 A. It was located -- is located outside the Old Town, but quite

1 nearby.

2 Q. And could you estimate for the Trial Chamber approximately how

3 many autopsies you performed on what you've described as the victims of

4 war in that period, September to December -- or to mid-December 1991.

5 A. I cannot recall with precision, but I believe the number exceeded

6 100 autopsies.

7 Q. I want you to describe for the Trial Chamber the conditions under

8 which you were working at the hospital in performing these autopsies

9 during that period.

10 A. In the period in question in Dubrovnik, there was no electricity,

11 there was no water, and there was no heating. So the same conditions also

12 obtained in the hospital, apart from the fact that occasionally we had

13 current provided by -- electricity provided by the generator.

14 Q. Were you -- you were born in 1951. Were you mobilised during 1991

15 or did you have a work obligation?

16 A. I was not mobilised in the period from September to December 1991,

17 because my wartime duty station within the civilian service was precisely

18 to perform the duties which I did perform during this war.

19 Q. Did you receive a written notification of your war obligation or

20 your wartime duty station, or was it something that was understood by you?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Yes to which one? Yes, it was understood by you or yes you

23 received something in writing?

24 A. When the war broke out, all who were -- all men who were fit, able

25 for work, were assigned their wartime duties stations or stations in the

1 civilian service, given the extraordinary circumstances. So it was

2 also -- everybody in the hospital was assigned a specific duty along those

3 lines, and I was assigned to this particular position that I described for

4 you, which I actually held throughout the war. And of course it was also

5 my duty.

6 Q. And just on this topic of military service or mobilisation, did

7 you do JNA service? If so, when?

8 A. I did my military service with the JNA in 1976. And after

9 completing my military service, in my service booklet I was assigned a

10 station for the future, namely my assignment was in the civilian service

11 in the event of war.

12 Q. Where were you living in September, October, November, and

13 December 1991?

14 A. I was living in Dubrovnik in that period at three different

15 addresses.

16 Q. Were you ever living in the Old Town?

17 A. One of these places was, yes, in the Old Town.

18 Q. Did you experience shelling in that period, September, October,

19 November, December 1991?

20 A. Yes, I did.

21 Q. What can you tell the Trial Chamber about your experience of

22 shelling over that period?

23 A. Shelling was very frequent. In fact, it was a daily occurrence

24 practically. It took place mostly during the day. And as a rule, it

25 would last for a number of hours. Namely, it had a beginning and an end.

1 Q. Where were you living or staying on the 6th of December, 1991?

2 A. On that day, I was living in the Old Town.

3 Q. And on which street were you living?

4 A. The name of the street is Kneza Hrvasa. This is a small street

5 behind the cathedral in the Old Town.

6 Q. And why were you in that place?

7 A. I was there because my grandfather has a flat in this street and

8 that is why I stayed there, believing that I would be safer in the Old

9 Town than outside it from the shelling.

10 Q. Why did you think you would be safer in the Old Town than outside?

11 A. Well, I thought that because until that time we -- the Old Town

12 came under less shelling and the areas outside the Old Town came under

13 heavier shelling. Apart from that, I would -- I had to go to the hospital

14 at least once daily and sometimes many more times than that to do my work

15 there. And then to return home on foot. Because there was no petrol, one

16 could not drive one's car. This was, in fact, the shortest route that I

17 could take in order to make this trip to work and back as quickly as

18 possible.

19 Q. Was there shelling on the 6th of December, 1991?

20 A. Yes, there was.

21 Q. What can you say about the shelling on that day relative to the

22 shelling you had experienced over the previous few months?

23 A. On that particular day, the Old Town came under considerable

24 shelling and I was in the cellar of the house in which I lived. After the

25 shelling I went outside, together with the other people.

1 Q. I'll come to that in a moment. The first question I wish to

2 explore with you is: How would you describe the shelling on that day in

3 comparison to the shelling that you had experienced in Dubrovnik over the

4 preceding few months? I mean, how would you describe the intensity of it

5 on that day?

6 A. The shelling that day was quite intense, but even before that I

7 had experienced shelling of considerable intensity while I had been living

8 in my house outside the town.

9 Q. Where was your house outside the town, in what street?

10 A. My house outside the town was in a street which was called the Put

11 of the JNA at that time and its current name is Put Andrije Hebranga. And

12 this is the a circular road that leads to the Old Town and outside the Old

13 Town. It is immediately above the Old Town.

14 Q. Were there any particular days in the months preceding the 6th of

15 December that stand out in your mind as when there had been particularly

16 intense shelling?

17 A. Yes, there were days, but now I cannot recall which days those

18 were. Because of the intensity of the shelling, I moved out of my house

19 because it was very dangerous there. I moved to another section of town,

20 the section of town called Lapad, and stayed with friends there. In fact,

21 they had a shelter. Sometime later when it became dangerous there as

22 well, I moved into the Old Town.

23 Q. A moment ago you were telling the Chamber about the 6th of

24 December. And you said "the Old Town came under considerable shelling and

25 you were in the cellar of your house which you lived after the shelling

1 and went outside, together with some other people.

2 About what time did the shelling start on that day?

3 A. I cannot recall exactly, but I believe it was in the morning.

4 Q. How long did you remain in the cellar for, approximately?

5 A. I remained for quite many hours, but I can't remember exactly how

6 many.

7 Q. What can you say about damage that you may have observed after you

8 went outside?

9 A. When I went outside I noticed substantial damage. There were

10 fragments of shells, windows that had been shattered, and doors, too.

11 Several buildings in the Old Town were ablaze. And everything looked

12 quite untidy and damaged.

13 Q. How did that compare to the Old Town on the 5th of December, 1991,

14 that is the damage you saw on the 6th of December?

15 A. On the 5th of December, there had been no such damage in the Old

16 Town.

17 Q. Was your building damaged on the 6th of December?

18 A. My building was never hit directly during this war, but it was

19 damaged both on the 6th of December and in previous -- during previous

20 shelling. It was damaged by shrapnel. About 50 shells landed near my

21 house throughout the war at a distance of between 3 and 10 metres.

22 Q. In case there's any confusion, I'm -- hopefully I'm directing you

23 to the building you were staying in on the 6th of December, as opposed to

24 your house outside the Old Town.

25 A. I think I misunderstood the question. On the 6th of December, not

1 a single shell landed near the house in which I was staying in the Old

2 Town.

3 Q. Doing your best, can you please tell the Trial Chamber what

4 buildings you saw, what specific buildings you saw damaged or on fire in

5 the Old Town on the 6th of December.

6 A. A building was on fire where the headquarters of the summer

7 festival were, the Dubrovnik summer festival. It's on old building which

8 is a protected monument. These protected monuments are usually referred

9 to as palaces. Also, two other buildings on Od Puca street, which is a

10 small tree -- street parallel to the Stradun near the Orthodox church.

11 Q. When you -- in the last part of your answer, did you mean those

12 buildings were on fire?

13 A. Those buildings were on fire.

14 Q. You've told us about fire damage. What about other damage or

15 damage to other buildings that fell short of buildings being on fire? I

16 appreciate it's been a long time, but doing your best can you please tell

17 the Trial Chamber about the damage to any specific buildings you can

18 remember.

19 A. Many roofs had been hit by shells and the resulting damage was

20 substantial. Many shells landed on the ground so you could see craters

21 resulting from explosions and you could see shrapnel causing damage to the

22 surrounding houses and walls. Also, architectural ornament was damaged on

23 many buildings and on many monuments inside the Old Town.

24 Q. At a general description, Dr. Ciganovic, is there any way you can

25 more specific about any specific buildings you can remember damage to?

1 A. I can't be more specific because almost every building had

2 sustained at least some damage from shrapnel.

3 Q. Did you go to work on the 6th of December after you left the

4 cellar of the building you were staying in?

5 A. Yes, I did go to work once the shelling was over.

6 Q. What about the next day, the 7th of December, 1991? Did you go to

7 work in your job performing autopsies in the general hospital in

8 Dubrovnik?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Did you perform a number of autopsies on that day, that's the 7th

11 of December?

12 A. Yes. I performed 19 autopsies, partial autopsies, on that day.

13 Q. Did you prepare a report of the 19 autopsies on that day?

14 A. Yes. I prepared a report on the autopsies that I performed.

15 Q. I want to show you a document dated the 7th of December, 1991.

16 The first thing I want to you to do, doctor, is just to identify

17 whether that is in fact a report relating to those 19 autopsies on the 7th

18 of December, 1991.

19 A. Yes. This is the report.

20 Q. You told the Chamber earlier about the general conditions under

21 which you performed autopsies in late 1991. Now, I want you to tell the

22 Trial Chamber in more detail as to the procedures you generally employed

23 when a body was brought to the hospital in that period.

24 A. In that period and on that particular day, the procedure I

25 followed was to establish the identity of the victim, to ascertain what

1 caused the death and how the death came about. I mainly used external

2 examination of the body with partial autopsy, which implies opening those

3 parts of the body which had sustained damage in order to ascertain with

4 any degree of certainty what the cause of death had been.

5 Q. All right. I'll go into that in a little bit more detail in a

6 moment. But first, how many people were present -- or, sorry. I'll

7 withdraw that part. The body came to the hospital. Where was the body

8 taken to?

9 A. The body came to the hospital, and it was taken straight to the

10 morgue at the section room of the pathology and forensic medicine ward at

11 the hospital. After the autopsy, the body's buried.

12 Q. Was the morgue a separate room to the autopsy room?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Did you have assistance in performing -- assistants, not

15 assistance, in performing the autopsies?

16 A. I did have an assistant for performing autopsies. This is common

17 in my line of work. There was another autopsy assistant who had been

18 mobilised to work with the ambulance as a paramedic.

19 Q. Did you have assistants, that's with a T, when you performed your

20 autopsies on the 7th of December?

21 A. Yes. On the 7th of December the autopsy assistant was with me,

22 Drago Kaleb was the name. He was also an employee of the general hospital

23 in Dubrovnik.

24 Q. Who else was present when you performed your autopsies on that

25 day?

1 A. On that day, as in all other cases, the investigating judge of the

2 district court in Dubrovnik was there, the crime technician of the

3 Dubrovnik police --

4 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic.

6 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Objection. I object to this way of

7 examining a witness. The witness has been shown a document to identify,

8 and he did identify the document. But it is not proper for the witness

9 when answering the questions of my learned friend and colleague to read

10 the document and then provide his answers based on reading the document.

11 He should tell us based on his memory who was there on the 7th of

12 December. That's what the question was about. For him to tell us based

13 on his recollection who was there on the 7th of December. Or perhaps the

14 question should be: Can you, sir, please read out who was with you on the

15 day.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Rodic.

17 Mr. Re.

18 MR. RE: In my submission it comes to the same point. I didn't

19 understand this to be a memory test in relation to who was with him on the

20 day.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Well, the point is taken. If this is the doctor's

22 own report and if it was prepared at about that time, he may properly be

23 able to refresh his memory. But be conscious of the objection, if you

24 would, and try and avoid the problem.

25 MR. RE:

1 Q. Dr. Ciganovic, can you recall, without looking at your report, who

2 was present in the autopsies you performed on the 7th of December, 1991.

3 That's a yes or no question -- answer.

4 A. Yes, I can recall the positions of the people who were present,

5 because the autopsy -- forensic autopsy is always performed in the same

6 way. I remember specifically by name my assistant, Drago Kaleb, and the

7 investigating judge, Miloglav. I don't remember any other persons

8 present.

9 Q. You just said you don't remember any other persons present.

10 You've identified the report as a report which prepared for the autopsies

11 on that day, which is your report. Are the names of the other people

12 whose names you can't recall in that document, without looking at it?

13 A. I can't recall the names of the other people. I know that there

14 was a crime technician, a crime inspector, a recording clerk, an

15 investigating judge, my assistant, and myself. And there was another

16 person who is a medical worker and who was appointed in the course of the

17 war as the commander of the identification platoon. By name, Dr. Raguz.

18 Q. Would looking at the report in front of you refresh your memory as

19 to the names of all people present? That's without looking at it, doctor.

20 A. Without looking?

21 Q. Yes. If you looked at the document, would it refresh your memory

22 as to the names of the people present? That's all I'm asking.

23 A. If I could look at the document, I would recall the people because

24 those were people that I had also worked with in peacetime, performing the

25 same tasks.

1 MR. RE: With the Chamber's leave, could the witness be allowed to

2 refresh his memory from his report?

3 JUDGE PARKER: Doctor, can you tell me, this report is your

4 report, is it?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Can you tell me when it was prepared?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was prepared on the 7th of

8 December, 1991.

9 JUDGE PARKER: He may refresh his memory, Mr. Re, if the report is

10 able to assist him in that way, by looking at the report.

11 MR. RE:

12 Q. You understand, doctor?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Could you look at the report. If there are any names that you

15 haven't mentioned so far that you have forgotten, could you please tell

16 the Trial Chamber who else was present.

17 A. The police inspector, Damira Poljanic; crime technicians of the

18 Dubrovnik police, Matija Rebric and Ivica Stankovic. I knew all these

19 people personally.

20 Q. Thank you. A short while ago you were telling the Trial Chamber

21 about the procedures you employed, and you got up to where you said you

22 performed a partial examination or a -- I'm sorry, I've lost the

23 transcript and I can't remember the exact words that the witness used.

24 JUDGE PARKER: "A partial autopsy", the doctor said, are following

25 physical examination, the autopsies being -- the partial autopsy being to

1 damaged or injured parts of the body. I think that was the effect of the

2 evidence.

3 MR. RE: Yes, thank you.

4 Q. What did you actually do? What did your partial autopsy actually

5 involve? What did you do?

6 A. After examining the entire body - I'm referring to the external

7 examination - after examining the clothes, the skin, and any other

8 external marks of injury, I would proceed to examine the depth of the

9 injury in order to determine the channel and the depth of the wound, the

10 direction of the channel, and the intensity of the damage sustained by the

11 internal organs. And also, to reach, if I could, the object that caused

12 the injury, which more often than not was lodged inside the victim's body.

13 This entailed partially opening parts of the body, specific parts of the

14 body, where the injury occurred so that I could get inside by using my

15 instruments and have a look.

16 Q. In what circumstances did you perform a full internal autopsy or

17 examination?

18 A. Full autopsies would be performed in cases where I could not

19 ascertain the cause of death, as described.

20 Q. How did you record what you were doing?

21 A. I dictated to a court recording clerk who was in the adjacent

22 room.

23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the accused has just

24 made a complaint to me -- well, that -- it was nothing after all,

25 Your Honours. My apologies.

1 THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]

2 JUDGE PARKER: It's all right. Thank you. It seems to be all

3 right now --

4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the President, please.

5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Sir, there's no problem at all.

6 Several days ago I told you - at least according to the instructions I

7 received from my doctor - this is a spine problem when I hold my head up.

8 There's some sort of interruption that causes me to cough, you see, and

9 that's why I try to lower my head, have some tea, to stop this so then I

10 feel better. That's what this was about. But other than that, it's fine.

11 JUDGE PARKER: I'm sorry we interrupted you, doctor.

12 MR. RE:

13 Q. Your answer was you dictated to a court recording clerk who was in

14 an adjacent room. Did anyone take notes at the time you were performing

15 your external, or partial internal examination or internal examination?

16 A. I kept notes whenever I found something. And following each

17 examination, I would go to the adjacent room and dictate my notes to the

18 recording clerk.

19 Q. What did you keep the notes on?

20 A. I kept notes on ordinary paper, and I used a pen to take them.

21 Q. What was your practice in relation to those notes in compiling the

22 report and what you did with those notes?

23 A. When performing a forensic autopsy, I had been trained to memorise

24 everything that I saw and found. And after that, to dictate into a tape

25 recorder or to a recording clerk my findings and my opinion. In these

1 specific cases, as there were quite a number of bodies there, I made

2 notes, noting only the essential information on a piece of paper. After

3 that, I would dictate everything that I had found to the recording clerk,

4 after which the notes would usually be thrown away.

5 Q. Do you still have the notes that you made of these particular 19

6 autopsies?

7 A. No, I don't have the notes that I made in the autopsy -- in the

8 autopsy room. The pen itself was blood smeared because my hands were

9 covered in blood and the paper, too, was blood stained. So the lot was

10 discarded after the autopsy was completed.

11 Q. The front page of the report from which you've refreshed your

12 memory refers to six people as present during the examination. The first

13 is the investigating judge Pero Miloglav. What was his role?

14 A. He was the investigating judge who carried out an investigation on

15 behalf of the court. In this case, the reason was that people had been

16 killed and that people had sustained bodily harm.

17 Q. Can you just turn to the final page of the report. There's a

18 signature on it. Can you tell the Trial Chamber whose signature it is.

19 A. At the end of this report, you can't see a clear signature there

20 but my name was typed up as well as the name of the investigating judge.

21 In all cases where autopsies are carried out, the reports are signed by

22 myself and the investigating judge, which is the case with this document,

23 too.

24 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may address you.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic.

1 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I would like to draw the Chamber's

2 attention to the fact that the English translation does not correspond

3 with the B/C/S document in its entirety. Under the names we see autopsy

4 carried out by Dr. Djordje Ciganovic in the presence of the investigating

5 judge, Pero Miloglav. In the English version there's an additional

6 clarification concerning the stamp, Dubrovnik district court, Republic of

7 Croatia. And to the left there is the following text: An employee of

8 this court Ane Glavanic certifying that this corresponds with the

9 original. But this seems to be the only person who actually personally

10 signed this document, which means neither the investigating judge nor the

11 doctor who performed the autopsy put their signatures there, and this

12 particular section of the text that I've just read out to you seems not to

13 have been translated into English, in the English version of the

14 document. So this is something we believe you need to take into account.

15 Thank you.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Rodic.

17 MR. RE: I was just about in fact to explore that with the

18 witness, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE PARKER: If you would, Mr. Re.

20 MR. RE:

21 Q. Dr. Ciganovic, if you look in the screen -- look at the screen in

22 front of you, you will see the -- that portion which Mr. Rodic just

23 referred to has been enlarged. Now, can you see the signature there?

24 A. Yes, I can.

25 Q. Whose signature is it?

1 A. This signature belongs to an employee of the district --

2 Dubrovnik district court administration. They made the photocopies and

3 they put a seal on them.

4 Q. So are you telling the Trial Chamber that this is a copy -- a

5 certified copy issued by the Dubrovnik court rather than the original of

6 the report?

7 A. Yes. That's how I would identify this document. It's a certified

8 document.

9 Q. And what was your practice and that of the investigating judge in

10 relation to signing the original, and where did it go?

11 A. This report was copied at least three times, three separate copies

12 were made. The investigating judge and myself signed it -- signed at

13 least one of the copies. While the remaining copies, because of the needs

14 of the court, were sent to different places. All the copies were

15 forwarded to the court and should be in the court's archives.

16 Q. The report refers to 19 autopsies you performed on the 6th of --

17 sorry, the 7th of December, 1991. Are you able now, some 12 and a bit

18 years after -- sorry, 13 -- 12 and a bit years afterwards able to

19 remember the names or the details of the autopsies you performed on that

20 day?

21 A. I can't recall all the names of those that had been killed on that

22 day, with the exception of one person, namely Pavo Urban who was a

23 photographer, a photojournalist, and quite a well-known person in

24 Dubrovnik.

25 Q. Are the details of your autopsy on Pavo Urban in that report?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Perhaps if you could turn to the fifteenth autopsy you performed.

3 A. Yes. That's the autopsy I performed on Pavo Urban's body.

4 Q. And are the details of the autopsy you performed accurately

5 recorded in that report?

6 A. The details of this autopsy are indeed accurately recorded in this

7 report. Furthermore, there is a typo that was made and corrected, by

8 hand, that was made at the time, on the 7th of December, 1991, in my

9 presence.

10 Q. I don't think that -- that hasn't come out in the English. What

11 is the typographical error you're referring to?

12 A. Where there is the description of the autopsy, line 5, it says:

13 "In the area of the hip." And then this was crossed out and the word

14 "naval" was added in hand.

15 Q. Is that your handwriting or someone else's?

16 A. I don't believe this is my handwriting, but I can't remember

17 whether I made this correction or whether the correction was inserted by

18 the recording clerk once the document had been typed up.

19 Q. This is a yes or no question. Are you able to tell the Trial

20 Chamber about the details of the autopsy you performed on Pavo Urban

21 without referring to your autopsy report?

22 A. I remember that he had one injury in the naval area, an explosive

23 wound on the surface of the skin, which was several centimetres in

24 diametre, 5 or 6 centimetres, I believe it was, through which one could

25 see the damaged intestines and other abdominal organs, wells the profuse

1 bleeding inside the abdominal cavity, as well as the signs of blood

2 flowing from the wound across the surrounding skin. Inside the abdomen I

3 found a fragment of the explosive device that had caused the damage and

4 haemorrhage was the cause of death.

5 Q. You just referred to an explosive device causing damage and

6 haemorrhage being the cause of death. How were you able to diagnose the

7 cause of death?

8 A. On the basis of the signs of haemorrhage of -- on the corpse. A

9 corpse which had bled to death has characteristic signs which are, of

10 course, easily observable by physicians, specialists of my profile. This

11 is clear evidence that the person in question bled to death.

12 Q. You first referred to seeing in the naval area an explosive wound.

13 Can you put it -- can you please tell the Trial Chamber in lay terms what

14 an explosive wound is or describe an explosive wound and how you're able

15 to say that the wound you saw was an explosive wound.

16 A. I was familiar with such types of wounds also from my earlier

17 practice, namely explosive wounds have identifiable characteristics.

18 First of all, an irregular and, as a rule, large entry opening with an

19 irregular wound on the skin which features contused and torn edges. And

20 this contused edge of the wound, which is caused by the entry of a

21 projectile into the body, if the wound was inflicted by a nearby

22 explosion, at close range that is, there is also a sign of burning on the

23 edges and around the edges of the wound; while inside the wound -- at the

24 entry and inside the wound there is also a trace of the passage of the

25 projectile which is caused by the dust and the specks from the surface of

1 the projectile.

2 Inside the body, there is very heavy damage which is observable

3 with a wide channel, around which channel there is an area which is an

4 area where the tissue is contused due to the transfer of the kinetic

5 energy of the projectile to the soft tissues of the organism. The

6 explosive device or projectile is, as a rule, inside the body, because due

7 to its irregular shape it does not have a large penetrating capacity.

8 Q. Does it differ from a gunshot wound, and if so, how?

9 A. It differs very much from a wound inflicted by a firearm, such as

10 a pistol or a rifle or something similar to that, because the bullet of a

11 firearm mainly causes a regular round entry, aperture. It has a more

12 regularly-shaped channel of the passage of the bullet through the body,

13 and as a rule it exits the body through an exit wound.

14 Q. Apart from the irregularity of the wounds and the other things you

15 have just described which enable you to distinguish an explosive injury,

16 what other signs do you find on the bodies of people who have suffered

17 different types of explosive injuries?

18 A. If the wound was inflicted by an explosion from close range, as a

19 rule, there are a number of explosive wounds. If the explosion was from a

20 farther distance, there is a smaller number of wounds and sometimes just

21 one explosive wound. Some of these explosive wounds are just like small

22 lacerations on the body's skin, while some of the -- some are of -- some

23 cover a larger surface. And if there are a number of such wounds, they

24 are all -- they all differ in size.

25 Q. What about an injury from, say, ricochetting shrapnel?

1 A. From -- a wound from a ricochetting shrapnel, if the shrapnel is

2 what you mean, yes, it looks just exactly like a directly inflicted wound

3 but it is of a lesser intensity.

4 Q. Were photographs taken of the bodies upon which you performed

5 those 19 autopsies?

6 A. Yes. Yes, it was customary when performing forensic autopsies for

7 the crime technician to take photographs of the victims.

8 Q. I want to show you --

9 MR. RE: Mr. Usher, can you please show the witness a photograph.

10 Q. If you can turn to your report, does your report and body number

11 15 which you've identified as Pavo Urban, does that refer to a photograph

12 and a number?

13 A. Yes, it does.

14 Q. What number is that?

15 A. Is that number 15 in the report?

16 Q. It has a photo number 74 next to it?

17 A. This number is there because that is the 74th victims of the total

18 number of victims since the beginning of the war.

19 Q. What can you tell the Trial Chamber about the photograph which is

20 in front -- which is in front of you on the ELMO?

21 A. On the photograph we can see a partially unclad dead body with a

22 bodily injury in the naval area. It is -- the photograph is of rather

23 poor quality.

24 Q. Is it the photograph -- is it a photograph of Pavo Urban taken at

25 the time you performed your autopsy?

1 A. Yes, it is.

2 [Prosecution counsel confer]

3 THE WITNESS: If I may clarify. All these photographs were made

4 prior to the autopsies.

5 MR. RE:

6 Q. You referred earlier to an explosive injury about 5 centimetres in

7 diametre. Can you see that -- is that particular injury depicted on that

8 photograph?

9 A. Yes, I can.

10 Q. What was your opinion as to the cause of that particular injury?

11 A. All the characteristics of the wound on the surface inside the

12 body were -- and inside the body were the characteristics of an injury

13 inflicted by an explosion and from the abdomen near the spine -- in the

14 abdomen near the spine, I found a piece of this explosive device.

15 MR. RE: Could I inquire whether there's any objection from my

16 learned friend of the tendering into evidence of that photo. The other

17 photo I tend to tender and the doctor's report. I only say it because of

18 the time, it being a couple minutes to 7.00.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic.

20 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence will have an

21 objection, but as to the reasons for our objection I believe it will be

22 more appropriate for me to give you those after the cross-examination.

23 But I am indicating our intention to raise an objection.

24 MR. RE: Well, might it just be marked -- might them both be

25 marked for the moment, Your Honour?

1 JUDGE PARKER: We will mark for the moment for identification

2 firstly the report and then the photograph.

3 THE REGISTRAR: The report will be marked document MFI P70. The

4 photograph document MFI P71.

5 JUDGE PARKER: I think that might be a convenient time, Mr. Re.

6 Doctor, I'm sorry to say that we have come to the end of our day.

7 I appreciate that you have been put to considerable inconvenience, and we

8 regret that. A witness who had previously spent some days here but was

9 not able to conclude her evidence is returning to conclude her evidence at

10 the beginning of our hearing tomorrow. It is not presently clear how long

11 that will take, although it will conclude during tomorrow. It's possible

12 that your evidence could follow and be concluded, but I am not able to

13 assure you of that I'm sorry to say. So it may be that you'll be here

14 until Friday.

15 We will adjourn for the night.

16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

17 at 7.00 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday,

18 the 19th day of February, 2004, at 2.15 p.m.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25