1 Thursday, 6 May 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning to you all. In the first stage of the

6 morning, we will hear any submissions that counsel feel they wish to put

7 in addition to the written submissions on the question of the fitness of

8 the accused to stand trial.

9 It's your motion, I think, so that you should have first

10 submission, Mr. Petrovic.

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

12 Your Honours, the Defence in its attachment in the motion is

13 asking for these proceedings to be stopped because of the inability of the

14 accused Pavle Strugar to follow the proceedings here and submitted a

15 medical report by Dr. Dusica Lecic-Tosevski. It was submitted on the 1st

16 of February with another addition on the 12th of February this year.

17 Besides that, the Defence on the 4th of May submitted its written

18 submission regarding the clarification of certain important circumstances

19 regarding the procedural fitness of the accused before the Chamber.

20 The Defence wishes to say that it will just briefly address you in

21 this situation, that it stands by everything in the reports, the report of

22 the 2nd of February and the continuation of that report of the 12th of

23 February, as well as by what was stated during the proceedings of last

24 week when we heard the experts of the Defence and the Prosecution.

25 The Defence stands by everything that it stated there. The

1 Defence would first like to say that it thinks that the medical report

2 submitted on behalf of the Defence was drafted in accordance with the

3 rules of the profession, the methodology replied in drafting the report is

4 clear, consistent, and that the conclusions arising the report are beyond

5 doubt. The Defence is even more convinced in the correctness of what is

6 stated in Dr. Lecic-Tosevski's report following the questioning, the

7 cross-examination by the Prosecution, because this only boiled down to an

8 attempt to disqualify what the Defence expert stated in their motions and

9 what she said during her examination.

10 There were diagnoses, and the diagnostic methods applied in the

11 drafting of the reports of the 2nd and the 12th were not brought into

12 question through the questions of our learned colleagues. And they were

13 not put into question in such a way which would prevent Your Honours from

14 basing your decisions on what Dr. Lecic-Tosevski found in her reports.

15 Your Honours, we believe that there is one thing on which we can

16 all agree. I believe that this arises also from the position of the

17 Prosecution in this matter. And that is as follows:

18 General Pavle Strugar is a person with very serious health problems. I

19 think that we agree on that, and this also arises from what is stated in

20 the reports by the Prosecution. The Defence expert witness established

21 that General Pavle Strugar is not fit to follow the proceedings and that

22 he's not fit for reasons of numerous illnesses that he is suffering from.

23 General Pavle Strugar suffers from dementia, from depression, from PTSD.

24 Also, he has chronic kidney insufficiency. He has spondyloarthrosis and

25 other illnesses which were stated in the reports, primarily the reports by

1 the Defence and which were indirectly also confirmed through the findings

2 of those by the Prosecution.

3 All of these illnesses individually and together make

4 General Pavle Strugar a person who is not able to follow the proceedings

5 before this Honourable Tribunal. Dementia, which General Pavle Strugar

6 suffers from, of course, affects his memory, his ability of recollection,

7 memorising new things, and recalling old things, things that were learned

8 before. Depression and PTSD affect also his attention span, his

9 concentration, his ability to plan and conceive what is supposed to be the

10 defence of General Pavle Strugar before this Chamber. Chronic kidney

11 disease, from which General Pavle Strugar is suffering, affects the levels

12 of uria and creatine in his blood and affects the level of poisons or

13 toxins in his blood which are constantly poisoning his brain, his nervous

14 system, and making his functioning more difficult as well as damaging his

15 mental and other functions. Spondyloarthrosis is a disease which, as one

16 of its consequences, has the more difficult nourishing of the brain which

17 affects his speech ability which for a person of his age and his overall

18 health situation is already below normal. Another effect is also the

19 effect of spondyloarthrosis [as interpreted].

20 So the individual effect of each of these diseases boil down to

21 the fact that he is not able to follow the proceedings at a level that is

22 essential. General Strugar is required to follow the proceedings for five

23 days a week, and for the past five or six months back he was required to

24 actively take part in these proceedings, to follow everything that is

25 being said in this courtroom, to be attentive, to remember that, to write

1 it down, to analyse it. He is being also required to be able to, after 13

2 years with all of these diagnoses that have been given and which cannot be

3 questioned, he's being asked to reconstruct the events that are being

4 discussed here, to remember the names of the protagonists in those events,

5 to remember their role in those events, to recall his own role in those

6 events. All of this is important and for him to know so that at any point

7 he has all his -- this information at his fingertips as well as his

8 Defence so we can react timely in any situation that occurs in this

9 courtroom.

10 General Strugar is also being expected to testify. He's expected

11 before this Honourable Trial Chamber to talk -- to give the truth about

12 the events he is being charged with. He is expected to be efficacious in

13 being submitted to a cross-examination by the Prosecution, to respond to

14 all types of questions, to respond to questions in a time interval which

15 would last from a few days or even longer. And also, what is being asked

16 of him is, because of his illness, to be brought in a legally inferior

17 position. Can we ask this of him in view of all the illnesses that he has

18 been diagnosed with? And this is something that is not being questioned.

19 None of these functions that we discussed is General Strugar able

20 to fulfil effectively at the level required so that he does not jeopardise

21 his legal position before this Trial Chamber. The Defence at no point in

22 time claimed that General Strugar is so disabled that he's not able to

23 understand that he's in a courtroom, that he's before the International

24 Tribunal and that he's being brought to trial. This is not something that

25 the Defence disputes.

1 The Defence doubts his ability to actively follow these

2 proceedings in a satisfactory manner. It is not in dispute that

3 General Strugar understands what the United Nations are, but it is

4 disputable whether General Strugar can in an efficient manner process tens

5 of -- scores of hundreds of pieces of information that have been stated in

6 this courtroom over the past few months. Can he draw synthetic

7 conclusions from everything that he hears? Can he advise us regarding the

8 events that he is being charged with? Can he testify without falling into

9 the trap which can to a large extent make his procedural position more

10 difficult?

11 The only thing that General Strugar unfortunately is able to

12 discuss effectively and comprehensively with his lawyer is his medical

13 condition, his health problems. The question of, as he said just before

14 the beginning of these proceedings this morning, that he has quite serious

15 pain in his hip, that he's suffering, like he said yesterday, from

16 toothache or that he told us last week that he did not sleep for two days

17 in a row. So unfortunately, this is what the communication between us,

18 the Defence of General Pavle Strugar, and him boils down to. The

19 confirmation of what I'm saying here can be found in Dr. Lecic-Tosevski's

20 report. Her conclusion, and you have that before you, is that the

21 combination of psychological and somatic illnesses that General Strugar is

22 suffering from is making more difficult to a considerable extent his

23 memory, concentration, attention, planning, and strategy.

24 If we analyse some conditions which are relevant in assessing his

25 procedural fitness, and those are whether the accused understands the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 indictment, whether he understands the proceedings, whether he's able to

2 instruct his lawyers, whether he's able to testify, and whether he's able

3 to understand the consequences of his conviction. The answers to all of

4 these questions for the most part are that he is not fit to do this.

5 Your Honours, the Defence believes that the confirmation of what

6 the Defence position is is also found in the views of the Prosecution

7 expert witnesses. When we look at those more closely, we see there that

8 General Pavle Strugar suffers from vascular dementia. There is no

9 disagreement between the sides on the fact that General Strugar suffers

10 from vascular dementia. He's a person suffering from vascular dementia.

11 At this point, this Trial Chamber is conducting proceedings against a

12 person suffering from vascular dementia, and this is what is stated also

13 in the Prosecution witness's report. Their experts state in several

14 places that General Strugar forgets places, that he forgets their names

15 already after several hours, even though they were told to him several

16 times.

17 At a standard psychological ability test, he was given three

18 simple concepts or terms to remember. Out of those three simple terms

19 when he was asked following -- immediately following after he was given

20 them, he could not interpret two of those terms, two of three that he was

21 given he was not able to remember. Nobody disputed, Your Honour, at any

22 point whether General Strugar was sincere, whether he was absolutely open

23 in what he said, and in his cooperation, both with the experts of the

24 Defence and the Prosecution. So he was not able to remember two out of a

25 total of three terms.

1 Can such a person remember names of witnesses? Can he operatively

2 use the names of those witnesses when talking to his attorneys? Can he

3 use those names efficiently in his possible testimony? If out of three

4 terms, he forgets two after half an hour, can he effectively use the

5 contents of the testimonies before this Trial Chamber to recall them, to

6 recall from his memory names of witnesses or to recall a situation or an

7 event and refer to it and talk about it?

8 Prosecution expert witness, from the facts that the accused has

9 general cognizance of where he is, what is being discussed here, who the

10 Judges are, who the Prosecution is, who the Defence is, what the United

11 Nations is, from these general pieces of information and from this

12 knowledge of General Strugar, the witness draws the conclusion that these

13 general concepts are being interpreted as him being fit to follow the

14 proceedings.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, I'm going to have to ask you to draw

16 to a close.

17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you can permit me

18 just two more minutes. Thank you.

19 JUDGE PARKER: One more.

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

21 The essence of what the Prosecution expert witnesses say is that

22 there is vascular dementia, but they bring in a completely unknown

23 category in the medical sciences. They categorise vascular dementia,

24 claiming that there is a milder case of such dementia or a grave case of

25 such dementia. This is something that medical sciences do not know.

1 They're doing something to try to minimise his ailment. Even the accused

2 himself, General Strugar, minimises his own disability. This is what

3 Dr. Lecic said. He's used to suffering hardships. He's used to not

4 showing that he's in pain or that he's suffering. This is due to his

5 upbringing, due to his years. Your Honours, there is no dispute that you

6 have before you a person suffering from vascular dementia.

7 The reasons from general legal principles and also enshrined in

8 the Statute of the International Tribunal and for reasons of justice and

9 humanity urge you, Your Honours, to reach a decision granting the request

10 of the Defence to stop with these proceedings. Thank you, Your Honours.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Petrovic.

12 MS. SOMERS: Your Honours, Mr. Re will speak for the Prosecution.

13 Thank you.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Re.

15 MR. RE: The Prosecution's submission is that the accused is fit

16 for trial. The Prosecution has -- had engaged three eminent psychiatrists

17 to examine the accused. They applied the standard tests which are used in

18 assessing competency in domestic jurisdictions, and they found him fit to

19 stand trial. Against that, we had one Defence psychiatrist who applied

20 basically what appears to be her own medical diagnostic definition or test

21 who declared him to be unfit. In summary, the Prosecution says there is

22 simply no evidence that the accused is unfit under standard competency

23 tests to stand trial.

24 The Prosecution's submission is that these tests are to be found

25 or best summarised in the two extracts which we tendered in the

1 proceedings last week and are referred to in the psychiatric tests of both

2 sets of psychiatrists. The first time -- one is the Gruso [phoen] test

3 set out in evaluating competencies, forensic assessments and instruments.

4 We've annexed that to the written submissions filed yesterday.

5 The things the Court should be looking at or the Trial Chamber

6 should be examining in determining or assessing competency are set out

7 there. You must look in our submission at each of those and determine

8 whether or not there is evidence of these things. The Prosecution's

9 submission backed by the evidence of the joint psychiatric report is that

10 there is no evidence that the accused does not understand that counsel

11 works for the Defence, that he doesn't understand counsel's inquiries;

12 that is, not that he's uncapable of responding to counsel's inquiries in a

13 manner providing relevant information for the Defence. There's evidence

14 that he can provide a consistent account of events relevant to the charges

15 and the Defence, that he can manage the trial process, and that he's

16 capable of testifying. Professor Matthews gave evidence in

17 cross-examination that he was capable of testifying.

18 There is also no evidence the accused does not understand that he

19 is faced or accused of a crime, that the Court will decide on guilt or

20 innocence, that the trial could result in punishment, of his options in

21 pleading, that certain sentences are possible; that is, the nature and

22 seriousness, and of the various roles of the participants and the trial

23 process. There's no evidence he that the defendant is unaware or unable

24 to comprehend any of the things I've just listed or indeed the general

25 process of the trial. There is no evidence that the accused's beliefs

1 about the trial processes were distorted by any delusional beliefs. There

2 is evidence that he is appropriate -- that he has appropriate motivations

3 to further his own Defence and that his reasoning ability is sufficient to

4 process the relevant information during the decision-making. Why do we

5 say this? We say that because the methodology applied by the respective

6 psychiatric teams in assessing the accused and his competence.

7 Both psychiatrists of the Defence and Prosecution reviewed the

8 medical history of the accused which is, of course, the correct thing to

9 do. Dr. Lecic for the Defence then performed a battery of psychological

10 tests none of which were specific to or designed in any way to assess

11 trial competency or cognitive ability for trial competency. Dr. Blum, an

12 expert in geriatric cognitive issues for the Prosecution, performed

13 diagnostic tests. Professor Matthews who, as you heard, is an expert who

14 has examined hundreds of people in competency hearings and works almost

15 solely in this -- or works predominantly in this area, then assessed the

16 history attained through Dr. Smaltz [phoen] and assessed the accused's

17 standing against the standard competency tests. Dr. Lecic didn't do that.

18 The Defence doctor didn't do that.

19 The Prosecution also took another approach where they sought

20 objective third-party history, in this case, prison guards. Dr. Lecic

21 went to the accused's family. The Prosecution psychiatrist also looked at

22 videos of the Court proceedings showing the interaction between the

23 accused and the Court, his counsel and his speaking to the Court. The

24 Prosecution's submission is that the -- as set out -- as shown in the

25 cross-examination or the testimony of Dr. Blum and Dr. Matthews is that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 the psychological tests administered by Professor Lecic are simply

2 irrelevant to the task which she had before her.

3 Of course, there is concurrence on the fact that the accused has a

4 vascular dementia of some point. But the level of departure is at what

5 point and whether or not it affects his cognitive abilities such as to

6 prevent him from participating in the trial and understanding the

7 proceedings. The Prosecution's psychiatrists, three eminent

8 psychiatrists, found that the level was so mild that it did not impair his

9 abilities. Dr. Lecic, on the other hand, leaped to a conclusion that

10 because there was a diagnosis of some mild form of vascular dementia,

11 therefore the accused was unfit to stand trial because he had a number of

12 medical conditions at the same time. This of course confuses diagnosis

13 with the condition -- with the cognitive ability to understand the trial

14 proceedings. Dr. Lecic also diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder in

15 the accused, and she turned to the DSM-IV to determine that he had, in

16 fact, this diagnosis. The DSM-IV criteria which he attached to her report

17 and which he must meet to satisfy the diagnosis says that the accused was

18 "exposed to an event in which the following were present." The DSM-IV

19 text revision actually says "both of the following were present." One, he

20 experienced, witnessed, and confronted events that involved actual death

21 of many people as well as a threat to his physical integrity, et cetera;

22 and two, his response involved intense fear and helplessness.

23 Now, there is simply no evidence in the reports submitted or in

24 the evidence that the accused had either of those two responses. The

25 closest it seems to get is at page 5 of Professor Lecic's report where she

1 refers to a single incident which the accused's son describes the accused

2 as having spoken about. There is nothing in her history taken from the

3 accused which gets anywhere near his recounting anything that happened to

4 him during the war.

5 In fact, it is almost the opposite. Her conclusion is that he has

6 almost no memory of the war. That is, of course, completely contrary to

7 the detailed history given to the Prosecution's psychiatrists. Professor

8 Lecic did not explore with the accused - and she said this in

9 cross-examination - ways that he could plead, the general trial process,

10 his knowledge that certain sentences were possible. She did not ask his

11 family, the so-called objective sources, about their understanding of his

12 understanding of the trial process. In cross-examination, she said she

13 discussed punishment and that it could decide on guilt and innocence. It

14 doesn't appear in her report. She said that his memory was so impaired

15 that he was not able to participate actively at a high level in these

16 sophisticated proceedings. But how could she have known this if she

17 didn't ask him the basic questions relating to the conduct or course of

18 the trial? She concluded in cross-examination that he understands where

19 he is -- I'm sorry, in examination-in-chief, what's going on, and what he

20 has been accused of, but basically little more.

21 Against that, the joint report showed the accused was able to

22 choose his own lawyers, a military lawyer, an English-speaking lawyer.

23 That is making a tactical choice. He explained to them in detail the

24 nature of his defence, how it related to command responsibility. He

25 explained the military hierarchy. He explained how he voluntarily

1 surrendered. He explained how he, General Strugar, saved Dubrovnik and

2 how Admiral Jokic was responsible for the destruction. He explained that

3 Jokic was guilty, not he. He gave details of how he would testify. He

4 named Prosecution witnesses. He referred to specific people, Mr. Vlasica,

5 Mr. Valjalo, Mrs. Ogresta's testimony, and named two people, one of whom

6 was Mr. Jusic. He explained about UNESCO, the Geneva Conventions. The

7 Prosecution described him as having a rich vocabulary and an intelligent

8 person. The Prosecution asked: Are they talking about the same person,

9 the person who the Defence psychiatrist described as passive, lacking

10 interest, helpless, and regressed to a helpless state?

11 In conclusion, the Prosecution says that the only conclusion

12 available when you examine the two reports and the testimony of both is

13 that the accused has the necessary cognitive functions to stand trial, to

14 continue trial, and that the Prosecution experts' reports and conclusions

15 should be preferred to that of the Defence. And the Prosecution submits

16 that you should find him fit for trial and dismiss the motion.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Re.

18 We should now have the witness in. And the Chamber will consider

19 the issue of fitness to plead and give its decision at the earliest

20 opportunity.

21 [The witness entered court]

22 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning, Mr. Vukovic. May we remind you of

23 the affirmation you took at the beginning of your evidence which still, of

24 course, applies.

25 Mr. Re.

1 MR. RE: Yes. At the outset, I just wish to express our regret

2 for taking so long. I will endeavour to complete this very, very

3 quickly.

4 JUDGE PARKER: The clock is ticking.

5 MR. RE: With the Trial Chamber's permission, I will continue with

6 the last three minutes of the video. I will ask him about Exhibit 61, 39

7 so perhaps if that could be provided to the witness now, and I'm going to

8 ask the witness to mark on a map, but I won't do that in court. I have

9 prepared a list of the buildings I want him to mark. We were going to

10 give him a pen and ask him to do it during the next break which will be

11 after I've finished and I will tender it at that point.

12 WITNESS: SLOBODAN VUKOVIC [Resumed]

13 [Witness answered through interpreter]

14 Examined by Mr. Re: [Continued]

15 Q. Good morning, Mr. Vukovic. We were up to 17.56 in the video. I

16 just want to complete with you the viewing of the last few moments of the

17 video. Can you see it on the screen in front of you?

18 A. Not yet.

19 It's all right now.

20 Q. May I just stop you there at 18.09. You saw some burnt-out cars.

21 Just tell the Trial Chamber where the burnt-out cars are.

22 A. I do not have that particular still on my screen. Can you rewind

23 the tape, please.

24 JUDGE PARKER: I think you'll need to play on a bit.

25 MR. RE:

1 Q. Does that assist you?

2 JUDGE PARKER: I think if you play a little more, there will be a

3 broader perspective.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, now I do know where it is.

5 MR. RE:

6 Q. Where?

7 A. This locality is behind the town. It is a parking lot underneath

8 the city walls. So it is on the upper side of town towards Srdj.

9 Q. Stop. At 18.17, there was a building with a hole in it. Could

10 you recognise that one?

11 A. Can you please rewind it a bit. I cannot recognise it. But I can

12 say what area this is. It's the northern part of town; that is to say,

13 close to the walls where we had seen the parking lot earlier on. So this

14 northern part of the walls brings us closer to the Dominican cloister.

15 That is to say, the eastern part of town.

16 Q. At 18.27, there's a building with a hole in the roof. Do you know

17 what building that is?

18 A. That is the building of the Dominican cloister. Specifically, I

19 think that this is the main roof of the church.

20 Q. Stopped at 18.35. There's some stills showing some damage to

21 buildings. Is that in the same area of the Dominican monastery?

22 A. If you're asking me about this building, could you please rewind

23 it then and stop it.

24 Q. We're showing it now. 18.33, 18.35. The camera swung around over

25 the top of the Dominican monastery to the right. Can you identify where

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 those buildings are?

2 A. Could I have a broader view. These are residential buildings in

3 the block that borders on the Dominican cloister. I mean, this is its

4 immediate vicinity and buildings that are a bit further away.

5 Q. 18.52, do you recognise that building with the two holes in the

6 roof?

7 A. Yes. That is the western block of the Dominican cloister. Or

8 rather, the western part of the block of the Dominican cloister.

9 Q. 19.03, there was a church bell. Can we just go back. I just want

10 you to look carefully at the church building. Can you identify that

11 church.

12 A. I think that this is the small church that is right by the

13 northern walls. I don't know its exact name. But I know that that is the

14 building.

15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.

17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] The witness is identifying

18 buildings. He says this is such and such a building. This kind of

19 statement made by the witness implies, not only in this situation but in

20 any other situation, that that is a damaged building. Now he mentioned

21 the small church. What is damaged on the small church? This is one of

22 the dozens of examples of this nature that we have. He identifies a

23 particular building. The transcript may read as if this -- all of these

24 buildings were damaged buildings. But what I will like to have is a

25 specific answer as to whether the building he refers to had been damaged

1 or not because we have not seen any damage, say, in this particular case.

2 Thank you, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE PARKER: I think, Mr. Re, you can take it that in almost

4 every case the presence of apparent damage is something the Chamber can

5 observe. This particular example may not be as clear, although there is

6 apparently damaged stonework.

7 MR. RE:

8 Q. Mr. Vukovic, could you see any damage to that structure, the

9 church?

10 A. You mean where the bell is? I was not at this building myself, so

11 I cannot tell by this footage.

12 Q. On the still there, can you see on the right a different coloured

13 pattern on the stonework on the corner?

14 A. Yes, yes. The colour pattern can be seen, and this is perhaps a

15 reflex from a shrapnel impact on another building. So that is the part of

16 the structure that holds the bell actually.

17 Q. That's at 19.02.

18 At 19.10, could you recognise where the buildings are that had

19 some roof damage?

20 A. It's out of focus a bit, so I can't really see properly.

21 Q. Does that assist?

22 A. Again, this is a part of town by the northern part of the walls.

23 Q. In between the Stradun and the northern walls?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. What's the main street that runs across there that these houses

1 are near?

2 A. There are two parallel streets there that go parallel to Stradun,

3 the main street. The first one is Prijeko, the one right next to Stradun,

4 and the other one is Peline, which runs along the northern part of the

5 walls.

6 Q. 19.30, there's a building with a round hole in the roof. What is

7 that building and where is it?

8 A. It is on the eastern side of town right by the entrance after the

9 other bridge. I think this is the small church vis-a-vis the Dominican

10 cloister. Anuncijata is the name of the church. So the church of the

11 annunciation. And we see here buildings that are adjoining.

12 Q. I'll just stop you there. Go back to that one.

13 At 20.02, it appears to be the city walls with a large hole

14 missing and a person dressed in white walking passed. Can you identify

15 where on the city walls that is?

16 A. I think this is a part of the walls that is very close to the

17 Dominican cloister. In the background, we can see the building of the

18 Port Authority, Mali Arsenal, as it is called.

19 Q. 20.04, there appears to be a boat shed with two boats near it.

20 Can you recognise, can you identify that building?

21 A. It's the building I referred to a few minutes ago, Mali Arsenal,

22 and this is just a small shed that was added.

23 Q. So we just saw a building with the hole in the roof before the

24 camera swung to what looks like the pier. Do you know which building that

25 is?

1 A. That's the main building of Mali Arsenal. This was close to the

2 walls, so it was the damage sustained that we could see.

3 Q. 20.13, we've stopped, and it's showing part of the harbour, a

4 structure with some impact damage on the pavement. Which part of the

5 harbour is that?

6 A. The old harbour, the old port. And we call that the big pier,

7 Veliki Mul.

8 Q. 20.21, a projectile is on a wall. What can you say about that?

9 A. Nothing. Of course, the projectile caused damage. It also got

10 stuck in the actual stone structure of the stone wall. I cannot say

11 exactly which type of projectile it is, but it seems to be one of those

12 referred to in our preliminary report. These were the projectiles that

13 caused damage in town.

14 Q. Did you see anything similar in your inspections in buildings of

15 the Old Town in December 1991?

16 A. Similar, no. I did not see anything similar, especially not

17 something that remained stuck in a stone wall. I did not see anything

18 similar. I saw some that had wings in a more dense pattern, but I didn't

19 find this, what you showed me now, in other places, at least not places

20 that were accessible to me at the time.

21 Q. 20.26, there's a building with a hole in the roof. Can you

22 identify that building.

23 A. Could you please give me a broader view.

24 That's fine. I have recognised it. These are buildings of the

25 Veliki Arsenal. So that is where the city cafe is and the Slobodna

1 cinema. The metal sheet we see here is actually where the three

2 characteristic vaults are. So underneath is the terrace with the three

3 readily recognisable vaults of Dubrovnik.

4 Q. That's at 20.26. Please move on.

5 At 20.34, it showed some damage to the city walkways. Can you

6 tell the Trial Chamber whereabouts that is.

7 A. Can you please rewind it a bit.

8 This is above Veliki Arsenal, too. Namely, part of the walls go

9 through that area as well, so you can see that the parapet was damaged

10 partially.

11 Q. At 20.58 or 20.56 to 58 is a street or pavement with some damage

12 to it. Where is that particular location?

13 A. That is the street of St. Dominik. That's the eastern approaches

14 to town; namely, from Ploca towards Stradun. This is just before the

15 entrance to Stradun near the bell tower.

16 Q. Building at 21.01, which building is that, showing some damage to

17 the door frames?

18 A. Yes, yes. I am familiar with this. This is the block near

19 St. Blaise's church, and it is opposite the municipality building. We

20 actually call the area Pred Dvorom. This is the ground floor of a

21 building where there were two shops. It can be seen even on this still.

22 It's a souvenir shop.

23 MR. RE: That's the completion of the video.

24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vukovic, for that. Now, I want you to turn to

25 Exhibit 61, 39 which should have been provided to you. It's a commission

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 report on damage to old parts of Dubrovnik dated the 9th of December 1991

2 signed by Admiral Jokic. It's a JNA report of damage to the Old Town of

3 the 6th of December. Just take a minute to read through that and

4 familiarise yourself with the document.

5 Have you familiarised yourself with the document, Mr. Vukovic?

6 A. I have had a look.

7 Q. At item 3, do you know -- or paragraph 3, the house of Rudjer

8 Boskovic?

9 A. Yes, I do know it.

10 Q. Where is it?

11 A. It's in Boskoviceva Street.

12 Q. Is that one of the houses we saw in the video showing the damage

13 to the --

14 A. Yes, I think it was in the earlier footage. I think we saw it

15 yesterday.

16 Q. I want -- have you read the comment or the conclusion at the

17 bottom, second-last paragraph "it is the opinion of the commission that

18 there is no substantial damage to the cultural and historical monuments"?

19 A. Yes, I read it.

20 Q. And just above that: "The town representative said there was no

21 damage from the south of the Ulica Od Puca Street and that part of the

22 town was no inspected." How does the assessment in that report compare

23 with your own observations and inspections of the damage to the Old Town?

24 You went there on the 7th of December and went around inspecting 63-odd

25 structures between the 10th of December and the first week of January.

1 How does what they say compare with what you saw as to the extent and

2 level of damage?

3 A. I will say two things. First of all, this report, I think, does

4 not reflect even closely the real situation. That is one thing. The

5 other thing is for this document to be reliable, especially as regards to

6 the statements of gentlemen from the Institute for the Preservation of

7 Cultural Monuments, they would need to analyse this and they would need to

8 co-sign. The third thing is that the time given from 10.00 to 1400 hours,

9 so to make an inspection in two hours of such a large job I think would

10 cause perhaps some failings in this document or mistakes to be made,

11 perhaps, or shortcomings to appear. So this is all that I would say.

12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vukovic. Now, to complete your evidence-in-chief,

13 I want to show you a plan of the Old Town, an overhead view.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if my learned friend

16 would ask the witness to mark anything, then I think the proper way to do

17 it would be to provide the witness with an unmarked map. As far as I can

18 see, what he has been given already has some red and orange markings. The

19 map is already marked. So if he intends the witness to mark something he

20 should provide him with an unmarked map. In this way, I believe we're

21 proceeding in an improper way. Thank you, Your Honour.

22 MR. RE: Mr. Petrovic knows exactly what I'm going to do. I've

23 explained it to him out of court.

24 JUDGE PARKER: That seems to give rise to the objection, not

25 answer it.

1 MR. RE: I'm simply -- what we have done is the OTP has scanned a

2 map of the Old Town. And we have plotted in red all the buildings that

3 Mr. Vukovic inspected by himself or in combination with Mr. Kunic --

4 sorry, Ms. Kunic, or Mr. Vetma. And in orange, the buildings which are in

5 map P174 as having been inspected by him and Mrs. Peko. It is simply an

6 aide memoire to the Chambers to show where the buildings that he inspected

7 are on the map of Dubrovnik. I'm not asking the witness to mark anything

8 on this map. And Mr. Petrovic knows that.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Subject to what you have put being the evidence of

10 the witness, the document can be admitted.

11 MR. RE:

12 Q. Mr. Vukovic, as explained to His Honour a moment ago, that is a

13 document of which we've plotted in red the buildings you inspected in

14 combination with others, and in orange those you inspected with Mrs. Peko.

15 Is it accurate?

16 A. Yes, it's accurate.

17 MR. RE: I would like to tender it.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Only with one remark: Not shown

19 here are buildings in black which burned down.

20 JUDGE PARKER: I see some black-marked areas, Mr. Re, on the

21 document. I don't know whether they are in any way related to the comment

22 of the witness.

23 MR. RE: The black buildings are those the institute mark on the

24 map as having been burnt down. Six of those are referred to in the

25 indictment. Mr. Vukovic, I think, inspected one or two of those but they

1 are not in the schedule of the indictment. The purpose of this exhibit is

2 to match his buildings to those in the schedule. He's given oral evidence

3 of inspecting those two buildings.

4 JUDGE PARKER: You're saying a lot. At the moment, at least in my

5 mind, there has been no connection between the black markings of which

6 there appear to be five, not six, and the evidence of this witness.

7 MR. RE:

8 Q. Mr. Vukovic, the black markings, what are they?

9 A. The black markings show buildings which were entirely burned down.

10 But in this image that we have here, as far as I am interpreting it, there

11 are some buildings from the Od Puca Street which also burned down and

12 which I inspected. I'm a little bit confused because there is one

13 building there within the block that I inspected. It's marked in black

14 and it did burn down. But there is yet another building and another

15 building and yet another building which completely burned down. I don't

16 know why they are not marked in black just like this other building. So

17 please allow this to be my interpretation of this image.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Could the witness be offered a black pen and asked

19 to put a cross on the buildings he says were burnt down. Is that a way?

20 MR. RE: I think the wiser would be for us to eliminate the black

21 one and retender it later. We want a representation of the buildings he

22 inspected, not those in black. I can do that, we can basically do that

23 straight away, fairly quickly. I apologise for this. One slipped in.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Well, it would perhaps help the Chamber if the

25 buildings that are shown in red that had burnt down also had a black cross

1 on them. The witness could do that now, and we can readily identify the

2 one black stranger in the presently marked buildings.

3 MR. RE: His Honour has suggested a very, very good idea.

4 Q. Can you please just mark the black cross the buildings you

5 inspected within the red area that burnt down. Or orange.

6 A. This is a building that partially burned down, and I will mark

7 that in a special way.

8 I will just like to note that this building was marked in our maps

9 as partially burnt, meaning that the upper floor and the roof burn down.

10 What was additionally marked now are buildings that burned down entirely

11 including this building that was marked in black. So that would be all.

12 JUDGE PARKER: I think the record should record that the building

13 pointed to by the witness as having burned in the roof and upper floors

14 rather than in totality was at the left hand immediately of the one black

15 building that is within the red-marked group.

16 MR. RE:

17 Q. Is that on Od Puca Street, Mr. Vukovic?

18 A. This is a corner building, Siroka Ulica, and the street Od Puca.

19 Q. Did you mark on the building that was completely burned down that

20 you inspected, the one in Miha Pracata?

21 A. Yes, that's this building here.

22 Q. That's a building around the corner from Od Puca in Miha Pracata

23 on the southern side. Is that correct?

24 A. Yes. This is Nikola Gucetic Street and Miha Pracata Street. It's

25 on the intersection.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 JUDGE PARKER: The record might also be clearer if you would,

2 Mr. Vukovic, point with that pen to the one building which you inspected

3 which is shown on this plan as in black rather than red, having totally

4 burnt down as I understand your evidence just so that we can be sure that

5 we identify the same building as you do.

6 Is that a building in Od Puca Street?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what you are talking

8 about. That's this building here. It's at that address. It's in Od Puca

9 Street.

10 JUDGE PARKER: And it's in a block that is substantially in red,

11 the most extreme left block of that nature on the plan. Is that it?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I understood your question

13 properly, if you're thinking of the blocks which were used in order to

14 identify them, according to our methodology, I think that that is that

15 block. I think then that this is block number 11.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE PARKER: Now I think it would be useful if the Court officer

19 in due course was able to reproduce on each of the Chamber's copies the

20 markings from the marked exhibit so that we have accurate depictions, and

21 the Defence counsel may want their map marked in the same way. Subject to

22 that, do I understand you tender this map, Mr. Re?

23 MR. RE: I do. But what we might -- what we could do, which might

24 be better, is we could put -- go back and put a black X on these three

25 buildings he just described and give it --

1 JUDGE PARKER: There were more than three.

2 MR. RE: I will check the transcript. Yes, I move for its

3 admission, but if we did that, that might be a better --

4 JUDGE PARKER: I think we'll use the witness's own markings and

5 just reproduce them on our sets. The exhibit is marked now by the

6 witness, and we'll just reproduce that. Thank you for your thought.

7 THE REGISTRAR: The marked map will be number P175.

8 MR. RE:

9 Q. I want to show you another map which is attached to P51/ID,

10 03266206. I just want you to identify that particular map for the moment.

11 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

12 JUDGE PARKER: Sorry, Mr. Re. Yes.

13 Q. What is that map?

14 A. You're asking me the question?

15 You can see that from the title. It's a categorisation of damage

16 on facilities destroyed by war destruction in the Old Town of Dubrovnik of

17 October and November 1991.

18 Q. Is that a map which is in the Institute report P51/ID, but it's

19 just a larger colour copy of it? A3 copy of what's in the Institute

20 report.

21 A. I don't know about this colour version. But I assume that it

22 corresponds to the black and white one that I reviewed and that I used in

23 my up-to-date inspections.

24 Q. A moment ago you said it was October-November. The title actually

25 says "October, November, and December 1991." Is that correct?

1 A. I did say "and December."

2 Q. Thank you.

3 MR. RE: The record is reflected. I just want this marked for

4 identification for the moment. I understand there's a dispute as to the

5 tendering of P51/ID.

6 JUDGE PARKER: I can anticipate that dispute. But it merely

7 leaves the Chamber with the question, which of these are December damage?

8 MR. RE: That will ultimately be a matter of submission and, of

9 course, weight of the evidence.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Now, is this sourced to anything?

11 MR. RE: P51/ID.

12 JUDGE PARKER: So that the problem is with P51? In fact, this

13 document?

14 MR. RE: It's a rather --

15 JUDGE PARKER: My concern, Mr. Re, is that P51 is still not an

16 exhibit for obvious reasons, and this would appear to be a summary of its

17 total content.

18 MR. RE: Yes, the reason for doing it this way is I'm asking the

19 witness to identify -- identify this document being a larger from that

20 exhibit. So if the exhibit goes in, it can go in as a large aide memoire

21 for the Chambers.

22 JUDGE PARKER: At the moment, it will not rise any higher than

23 P51. It will be marked for identification, Mr. Re. And you've still got

24 a way to go to get it in.

25 MR. RE: We're working on it, Your Honour.

1 Q. What I will ask you to do over the break is to take a copy of the

2 large photograph which we tendered yesterday, and we have a list of

3 buildings I will like you to mark on it, and a special purple pen. I want

4 you to circle the buildings. I've listed them. And I've listed numbers

5 next to them. If you could do that over the break and write in white on

6 the right a legend, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 to 15, what the buildings are, noted in

7 English - don't do it now - it would be very helpful. And I also wish

8 to --

9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic. Excuse me, Mr. Re.

10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like that any

11 presentation of evidence is conducted before the Trial Chamber. If the

12 witness is supposed to do anything according to a list from Mr. Re, I ask

13 that the Chamber is part of that process to see what is being marked, how

14 it's being marked. I can see that it's a list. I can see it from here.

15 The Prosecutor is providing the witness with a list of what he's supposed

16 to mark. Your Honours, let us see what this is about. Allow the witness

17 to do this in front of us so that we are informed of each detail of that

18 process of marking that is being expected of this witness. Thank you.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic. From the point of view of

20 the Chamber, the witness is being invited in the break to mark on a map

21 which is not yet an exhibit a list of a number of documents that are on a

22 list that has been offered to him. If he does that, and his evidence is

23 that he has done that, whether that document is admitted will depend then

24 on his evidence about that list and what it signifies. And that is

25 something we will explore after the break.

1 MR. RE: I'm just distributing a list -- a copy of the things I've

2 asked him to mark.

3 JUDGE PARKER: And we will then ask the Court officer to do that

4 which she has been anxious to do for some time; that is, to give the

5 number for the map which is now marked for identification.

6 THE REGISTRAR: The map marked for identification which is

7 03266206, that's the ERN number, is P176.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Your half hours continue to stretch, Mr. Re. I

9 think we will have a break now and hopefully the matter can be concluded

10 in a minute or two after the resumption.

11 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.

12 --- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Re.

14 MR. RE:

15 Q. How did you go, Mr. Vukovic, in circling the large colour

16 photograph of the buildings provided to you, the list of buildings in a

17 number in the circle and writing a legend on the side in white? Would you

18 just be able to put it on the overhead projector to your right so that we

19 can all see how you went.

20 The list which we circulated had 15 buildings to mark and 4 blocks

21 to draw, to mark on the boundaries. How did you go?

22 A. First of all, if I can just give additional clarification, or

23 rather can I ask you for additional clarification. Could we have the date

24 when this aerial image was made? I think that would be of interest in

25 view of the comprehensiveness of information upon which this photograph

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 should be based.

2 My second question is the following: I managed to mark all the

3 buildings and blocks like you asked, but I have to ask you about building

4 number 9, Institute office. Which particular locality do you have in

5 mind? Because the institute office, this is actually the institute for

6 the protection of cultural monuments, and it is in two different places.

7 One of the localities is very close to the Dominican cloister. It's the

8 one here.

9 Q. The one you're circling now.

10 A. Then we can mark it now. That is number 9. And also a small

11 technical correction. The city walls is not Pelinje, it is Peline,

12 P-e-l-i-n-e. That would be it. Just another matter: I have added this

13 on to this map as well. I don't know whether it will be visible enough.

14 The situation is the same like on the photograph, but I think with a clear

15 representation of the blocks and everything else that you wished to ask

16 about, I think. As you could see, I did not manage to mark all the

17 buildings in the legend. I came up to building number 4. So that would

18 be it for the time being.

19 MR. RE: Your Honour, could I propose this. If I complete my

20 examination-in-chief now and the witness completes that during the

21 cross-examination break, completing the marking of the -- the circling of

22 the buildings and the marking of it, and it could be tendered later.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. Mr. Petrovic.

24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission,

25 I would like to know: What is this? What does this mean, this list that

1 the Prosecutor gave to the witness asking him to circle all these

2 buildings? What is the purpose of all of this? I have not seen anything

3 from the exhibits that we've had so far that would show me what the

4 purpose of this effort is. In order to be able -- for the witness to

5 explain anything further or to have anything admitted into evidence, we

6 need an explanation.

7 JUDGE PARKER: I can only say that from the point of view of the

8 Chamber, each of the blocks and buildings are ones that we recognise from

9 the evidence of the witness. Is there a purpose beyond that, Mr. Re?

10 MR. RE: No, it's simply identification of locality of buildings

11 and locations the witness has referred to in his testimony and in the

12 videos he identified. That's all. To give the Chamber a good overhead

13 view of where these buildings are.

14 JUDGE PARKER: That being so, Mr. Petrovic, it's merely another

15 form of depiction of part of the evidence of the witness. And it's on

16 that basis that it would be received. But we will have the witness

17 complete the legend at a convenient time, and then we'll formally receive

18 the map. That concludes your examination, does it?

19 MR. RE: Yes, yes. And I thank you, Your Honours.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Re.

21 Mr. Petrovic. Perhaps it would be useful to remove the

22 distractions from the witness at the moment and he can then concentrate on

23 the cross-examination.

24 Cross-examined by Mr. Petrovic:

25 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Vukovic, I am Vladimir Petrovic,

1 attorney-at-law, Defence counsel. I'm going to put a few questions to you

2 in relation to your evidence before the Honourable Trial Chamber over

3 these past few days.

4 First of all, I would like to ask you something about this last

5 list that you used for the markings. Let's start with this most recent

6 development. There are 15 buildings on that list.

7 A. Yes, there are 15 buildings and 4 blocks.

8 Q. Please be so kind as to tell us whether it is your assertion that

9 these 15 buildings were damaged on the 6th of December 1991. Is this the

10 gist of your testimony?

11 A. I don't know what the gist of the question was. But what I

12 answered, if that is considered to be testimony and evidence, then we

13 could call it that. I can only confirm the buildings for which I know

14 were certainly hit on the 6th. Since I was at these buildings or near

15 them.

16 Q. Please focus on my questions. The buildings, the 15 ones on this

17 list, some of them were hit on the 6th and some were not.

18 A. I'm talking about some of them. Some of them were hit on the 6th

19 and some were hit before the 6th. But I think that the ones hit before

20 the 6th were a minority.

21 Q. Thank you. We'll deal with that later.

22 Please tell us briefly, what was the exact job title you held in

23 the institution that you were employed in in September 1991 and onwards?

24 A. I'm sorry. What was the date? I didn't manage to catch that.

25 Q. September 1991.

1 A. I was the responsible town planner in the town planning institute,

2 the Institute for Planning and Environment.

3 Q. Tell me, this institute, this service, is it -- or rather was it

4 an integral part of the then municipal assembly of Dubrovnik?

5 A. Yes. It was the only institution at the level of the former

6 municipality of Dubrovnik and it was engaged in the elaboration of town

7 plans.

8 Q. Tell me, where was your particular service?

9 A. Our building, and therefore the service, too, if you meant the

10 physical locality --

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. -- it was in Lapad, near Gospino Polje, that is to say in the

13 immediate vicinity of Put Ive Vojnovica. If you're familiar with

14 Dubrovnik, it is from the Hotel Lero towards Lapad.

15 Q. Yes. Tell me, where was the municipal assembly of Dubrovnik?

16 Where was its building?

17 A. The municipal assembly building was in the Old Town. This is a

18 locality which is above the City Cafe so that you would know where it is,

19 or rather the town theatre is, too.

20 Q. Between the bell tower and the rector's palace. Right?

21 A. Yes, that's right.

22 Q. You told us that at the moment when you first found out about

23 these events in Dubrovnik that you were at a meeting of the executive

24 council of the municipal assembly of Dubrovnik. Is that right?

25 A. The executive council. Those would be the right words, yes,

1 exactly.

2 Q. In what capacity did you attend the meeting?

3 A. In my capacity as the responsible town planner. I was elaborating

4 on a town plan which was then supposed to enter the procedure of being

5 adopted by the municipal assembly. Specifically, it had to do with the

6 peninsula of Babin Kuk.

7 Q. Where were these meetings held? Or rather, where was this meeting

8 held?

9 A. This meeting was held on the premises of the building you referred

10 to, that is to say on the first floor, I think, and that was the premises

11 where the executive council of the then municipality of Dubrovnik used to

12 meet.

13 Q. So that is the building between the bell tower and the rector's

14 palace?

15 A. Yes, that's right, on the first floor.

16 Q. Were you a member of the executive council?

17 A. No, I was not.

18 Q. Was Zeljko Sikic president of the executive council?

19 A. Yes, at that time Zeljko Sikic president of the executive council.

20 Q. Was Mr. Sikic president of the council throughout this period of

21 the time that we're talking about here, that is to say, October, November,

22 December 1991?

23 A. I think the answer is yes.

24 Q. Did I understand this correctly, did I understand your statement

25 correctly when you said that you last attended a meeting of the executive

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 council on the day when the hostilities started in the territory of the

2 town of Dubrovnik?

3 A. This particular wording could be put as follows: That at that

4 moment, the meeting of the executive council was interrupted, adjourned.

5 It was a Tuesday. I remember that Tuesday well. And it was around 12.00.

6 That is something I remember. Now, whether it was official hostility

7 vis-a-vis Dubrovnik is something that I cannot interpret but at that point

8 in time that is how I understood it.

9 Q. At any rate, at that time in 1991, or rather after that point in

10 time, it is quite understandable that you did not attend meetings of the

11 executive council any longer?

12 A. I did not because all activities were ceased. All activities that

13 had to do with the official activities that we as the institute were

14 supposed to perform for the municipality until that time.

15 Q. Do you know anything about the further activities of the executive

16 council in that period?

17 A. I do not know. For your information, you should be using the word

18 executive council, not executive board.

19 Q. Sorry. You are -- perhaps the problem is that we are using

20 similar languages, and this is the word that we use in our language.

21 A. A board is a bit lower than council. We did have boards, too, but

22 they were at a lower level.

23 Q. So we're talking about the executive council which is a city

24 government, isn't it?

25 A. Yes, that's right. A city government, a town government, the

1 executive.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, we need to pause between question and

3 answer for the interpreter.

4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you for having cautioned me,

5 Your Honour. I'll do my best.

6 Q. Mr. Vukovic, do you know Mr. Sikic personally?

7 A. I knew him personally to the extent that we were in contact in

8 relation to various official communications.

9 Q. Did you ever see him in this period of October, November, December

10 1991?

11 A. I remember well that at that time I was working on a town plan for

12 the big marina in Dubrovnik, in the Harbour of Gruz. In that period, this

13 was sometime around the month of June, if I remember correctly, that is

14 when this was supposed to be adopted by the municipal assembly, and I can

15 say with certainty now that this was the moment when we got to know each

16 other a bit better. So we would see each other from time to time, but it

17 had to do with that particular matter.

18 Q. Would you please focus on my questions as much as possible. I'm

19 asking you about these three months, October, November, December 1991.

20 A. I cannot tell you with any certainty because my memory doesn't

21 serve me very well any more.

22 Q. Do you know what a crisis staff is? What the crisis staff of the

23 Municipality of Dubrovnik is?

24 A. As far as I could infer at that moment as an inhabitant of

25 Dubrovnik, it was a body that was supposed to coordinate life in the city

1 in a way in the extraordinary situation that came to be when the war

2 started.

3 Q. Do you know who the members of the crisis staff were?

4 A. I don't know exactly.

5 Q. Would it perhaps be of assistance if I told you that Mr. Sikic was

6 one of the prominent members of that crisis staff?

7 A. Possibly. I'm not sure if that's the way it was.

8 Q. Can you tell us in this period of time, October, November,

9 December, that is, for how many days were there attacks or any kind of

10 operations on, in, and around the town of Dubrovnik?

11 A. I must tell you that I did not keep a diary, so I cannot answer

12 you with any degree of precision. But I can just give you my general

13 impression. I know that from the summer and moving towards the 6th, the

14 intensity of hostilities went up in terms of shelling and generally

15 speaking the atmosphere in town.

16 Q. You referred to shelling, or rather bombardment. How do you

17 understand this what you call bombardment or shelling in the period from

18 October to December 1991?

19 A. I can only confirm on the basis of my memory -- I mean, I was in

20 Lapad for the most time then. And I was not at all these different

21 localities, so I'm only going to talk about the things I witnessed myself.

22 As far as the shelling was concerned, so I will confine myself first to

23 the locality where I was an actual eyewitness and secondly I heard things

24 over the radio and people who were in direct contact.

25 So I cannot give you the exact figure. I can just tell you that

1 there was this progression. And as it progressed from the summer towards

2 the 6th of December, the intensity was increased. The locality that was

3 shelled in my neighbourhood was the reporting centre. I think I referred

4 to that in my initial statement, and I think that this is something that I

5 experienced rather intensively. Also, I saw the shelling of Srdj and also

6 I saw these aircraft projectiles from the sea.

7 Q. When you say from the summer, what month are you referring to?

8 A. As far as I can remember, I think it was already in August that

9 something was happening when one airplane of the Yugoslav Army flew at a

10 low altitude by the town of Dubrovnik. We thought that this did not auger

11 well for the future. It was probably a reconnaissance flight or something

12 like that.

13 After that, there were only individual cases, sporadic ones, and

14 then there were more and more as we move towards the 6th of December.

15 Q. When did these cases of individual, sporadic bombardment or

16 shelling take place, as you call it?

17 A. It was sometime in the month of October, November. November was

18 already shocking for us because even the Old Town was targeted then. So

19 that would be an answer to your question, I believe.

20 Q. If I were to tell you that during those three months, there was a

21 total of four days of what you call bombardment or shelling, what would

22 you say to that?

23 A. I said a few minutes ago that I cannot speak with any degree of

24 precision about the number of days or shells or hours. I didn't keep a

25 diary. And my memory does not serve me that well.

1 Q. But is it possible there was only four days?

2 A. I cannot give you an answer with any degree of certainty.

3 Q. What's the address of your mother's place in Old Town in

4 Dubrovnik?

5 A. She lives in Poljana Buniceva. That's near the cathedral.

6 Q. What's your mother's address?

7 A. It's Buniceva Poljana, and I think it's either 6 or 4. I don't

8 know exactly at the moment.

9 Q. Well, I wondered -- I'm a little surprised that you don't know

10 your mother's address.

11 A. Well, these addresses changed since when I was there. It was 4 in

12 the beginning, and then later it was 6. It was just the land surveyors'

13 office designation, so it was either 4 or 6.

14 Q. Do you know what the number of the house is today where your

15 mother lives in Old Town?

16 A. Yes, that is Buniceva Poljana number 6.

17 Q. Was your mother's house damaged?

18 A. No. Luckily, it was not damaged much, but it did have indirect

19 hit damage from a projectile which fell in the vicinity and destroyed the

20 front doors as well as the glass on the first floor.

21 Q. And can you tell us how did this house number change in Old Town?

22 Why did it change and when? How come that it changed from 4 to 6? Was

23 something new built there? Was there a new building? Were buildings

24 issued with new numbers or something like that?

25 A. I think the number change probably came about for statistical or

1 land surveying office reasons. When they were placing stone number

2 markings, then at the time the sequence that was recorded in the cadastre

3 office was also stuck to there. So I think that this change really is of

4 minor significance.

5 Q. Isn't it strange that such a trivial question such as the address

6 on which you lived and at which your mother lives is something that you

7 are not sure about?

8 A. Well, we're talking about the number. Why is that so significant?

9 If you're asking me about exactly which building she is in, I'm the visual

10 type. I can tell you exactly which building that is. So that is Buniceva

11 Poljana 6 or number 4.

12 Q. I'm asking you because you showed us here at least 63 buildings

13 claiming that these are the exact building numbers as it states in Exhibit

14 Number --

15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not get the number of the

16 exhibit.

17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. And you're saying about these buildings you know something for

19 certain. But as far as the place where you lived or where your mother

20 lived, you say that you are not sure?

21 A. Well, at the moment when we were conducting the inspections, we

22 were focussed on certain information that we required at the moment,

23 including the house number which we were supposed to identify and inspect.

24 So this is what we were focussed on at the time. So it is quite

25 understandable that this is a piece of information which is reliable and

1 which represents something that is true. And specifically, my mother's

2 house is a building that suffered an indirect hit with shrapnel, so it was

3 never handled as a damaged building. We just thought that it was

4 something that did not have the same significance as some of the other

5 damage.

6 Q. So if I understand you well, you did not register your mother's

7 building?

8 A. No, it was not part of our inspection. The buildings, it did not

9 have the same extent of damage as the other buildings did.

10 Q. We will come to that later, and we will see whether this is so or

11 not.

12 You said that after learning that bombardment as you called it

13 started, you said that you went to your office, and that you took steps to

14 protect books. What exactly did you do? What were the books that you

15 were protecting? You were protecting them from what? And how did you

16 protect them?

17 A. First of all, it was our duty to protect the material that we had

18 in the department of urban planning from potential damage which was sort

19 of announced due to the bombing. I'm talking about new maps, which is the

20 basis for urban planning, many urban plans, so it was our duty in a way to

21 protect and preserve these things.

22 Q. Where did you do that?

23 A. We did that in the building of our institute, and it was near

24 Gospino Polje which I mentioned earlier.

25 Q. And you did this every day.

1 A. We came every day.

2 Q. Well, let me put the question to you first. This was a job that

3 you did every day until the time that we are talking about, until December

4 and the events which we were discussing earlier.

5 A. Yes, that is correct.

6 Q. How often did you go to the Old Town and to see your mother in

7 that period?

8 A. Up until the 6th of December, I went on average once a week. But

9 we were in touch more often by telephone.

10 Q. Was the telephone working throughout that period?

11 A. Yes, luckily it did.

12 Q. Tell us very briefly, what route did you take from your apartment,

13 from Ive Vojnovica 104 to the Old Town, to your mother's place?

14 A. There were two routes. If you know the route, one of them was Ive

15 Vojnovica Street. That is quite a large street linking the area of Lapad

16 and the part towards Old Town. And that's the route I most frequently

17 took. Mostly walking on the side which was less exposed to the site at

18 Zarkovica. Then I went along Cingria [phoen], Ulica, and passed by the

19 old hospital, came down to Pile, and then would enter the Old Town and

20 took a shortcut to the institute. So that was the route.

21 And along with that, we also used another route which goes on the

22 other side of the Montovjerna hill. That street today is called Ban

23 Jelacic Street. I don't know what it was called at the time. I don't

24 remember any more. So that was also another parallel direction to

25 Cingria.

1 Q. So these were the two directions that you used when going to Old

2 Town?

3 A. Yes, those were the two main routes.

4 Q. And this third one was an alternative route?

5 A. Yes, this one was Ive Vojnovica through Cingria, to Boninovo.

6 Q. Ante Statevica?

7 A. Yes, that's -- it's called Ante Statevica now. That's the street.

8 I considered that to be one route.

9 Q. Did you move around the town of Dubrovnik other than these regular

10 visits to your mother?

11 A. No, I did not.

12 Q. In this period, does that mean that you did not go anywhere from

13 your flat in Lapad except to go to work, which is nearby, and to visit

14 your mother in the Old Town?

15 A. That was mostly the area within which I moved, yes.

16 Q. You lived in Ive Vojnovica number 104?

17 A. Yes, that's correct. And I'm still living there now.

18 Q. Could you please tell us where the information centre was or the

19 alerting centre that you talked about.

20 A. It was across the street, to the south of the building where I

21 lived, in the immediate vicinity of the new hospital. That's the area of

22 Gorica Sveto Vlaho, so it's above the sea.

23 Q. When you say information centre, what is that, what kind of a

24 facility was that?

25 A. That was a facility also before the war for the assembling of

1 certain information and providing certain information. But I don't know

2 exactly what this was all about. It was a kind of working name that I

3 heard, and that's how I interpreted it.

4 Q. What kind of information are we talking about? Is this

5 intelligence information or what kind of information? What do you know?

6 A. Well, I don't really know anything about it.

7 Q. Is it true that your street, Ive Vojnovica Street in this period

8 that we're talking about was exposed to quite strong, intense shelling?

9 A. Yes, quite intense shelling. On the 6th of December specifically,

10 and it was so intense that we even named it is the Vukovar neighbourhood

11 because the level of the intensity was such and the effects were such that

12 it was really terrible.

13 Q. Can you explain to the Trial Chamber what do you mean by the

14 Vukovar neighbourhood? Is that a synonym for major destruction?

15 A. Yes, precisely, and it relates to the town of Vukovar which up

16 until then was a kind of example of such terrible destruction.

17 Q. Could you please tell us who was shelling your street and where

18 did the shells come from.

19 A. The shells evidently came from the eastern side. I don't know

20 exactly where from. But according to some information I heard that there

21 was firing from Zarkovica, from Zvekovica, that there were tank grenades

22 as well that were being used, the impacts were quite strong. I even

23 remember one man who was killed. I didn't see him, but I did see the car

24 that he was in at the time when the shell struck it. It was all burned

25 out. My apartment was partially destroyed by shrapnel. Excuse me.

1 That was one source in that period. And I'm not sure whether

2 there was anything behind the hill of Srdj from Strincjera. So that was

3 from the northern side, if I can sort of describe the direction more

4 closely.

5 I don't know whether there was anything coming from the direction

6 of the sea. I know that in that block of ours, we were concerned from

7 danger from the seaside. I'm not sure, though, whether anything really

8 did come from that direction or not.

9 Q. And did you hear whether any part of town was actually shelled

10 from the sea?

11 A. No, I did not specifically hear whether it was from the sea, but I

12 know that there was a danger coming from there. I don't know whether this

13 was really so or not.

14 Q. And you mentioned Zvekovica. That is above Cavtat, isn't it?

15 A. Yes, that is an area -- when I say Zvekovica, you can take that to

16 mean that it's a broader sector, and it indicates the environs where we

17 could maybe term that it came from. So when we say Zvekovica, that's the

18 area I mean, but I'm not able to tell you what weapons we're talking

19 about.

20 Q. In your statement, you said that the shelling was progressive,

21 that it would start at one end of the street and then go on from one house

22 to the next. That's how you described it. Is this correct?

23 A. Yes, at one point, I don't know exactly what time of the day this

24 was, I know that things would start out with lesser intensity, and then at

25 some point of the day, they would start substantial shelling in a way that

1 the place of impact in the line of fire would move by 10, 15, or 20 metres

2 forward. So that would be the sequence of strikes that we could recall at

3 that point.

4 Q. So the shells would move forward by 10 or 20 metre increments?

5 A. Yes, I'm not sure about the distance. But this is just a layman's

6 estimate.

7 Q. But that's the gist of it, isn't it?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And you said that all the cars in the streets were destroyed?

10 A. Absolutely. They were destroyed.

11 I apologise. Yes. All the cars were burned in that section. And

12 there were also some casualties that I mentioned earlier.

13 Q. Very well. Could you please tell us, before the conflict broke

14 out in the area of Dubrovnik, was any JNA unit located there according to

15 what you know?

16 A. According to my recollection, I didn't hear of anything like that.

17 When you're talking about the town area, what do you mean? Do you mean

18 the broader area of the town or the inner centre?

19 Q. When I say the town of Dubrovnik, I mean the town from the Hotel

20 Belvedere to the Komolac Stjepan, including Lapad, Gruz, Babin Kuk, Old

21 Town. This is the part of town that I mean.

22 A. That area is something different. I already said that Zarkovica

23 was the point -- if I have understood the question.

24 Q. No, you did not understand the question.

25 A. Well, then I apologise. Could you please repeat the question.

1 Q. Before the conflict broke out, before September, before August --

2 before August 1991, in that area, from Hotel Belvedere to the Gruz

3 harbour, were there any JNA units located there?

4 A. As far as I know, no. But of course I say "as far as I know."

5 Q. Of course. We're only talking about the things that you know.

6 Could you please tell us, in the period October, November, and

7 December in this demarcated area of the town of Dubrovnik, where were the

8 Croatian Army weapons situated?

9 A. I don't know.

10 Q. Do you know of any position of the Croatian Army in this area as

11 we have delineated it now? Just now, in the period of October, November,

12 and December?

13 A. It was more like a story, but I didn't really have any reliable

14 information. It was mostly something that was supposed to respond to this

15 attack. So I think it was somewhere at Glavica or thereabouts. That is

16 all that I knew at the time. It was a layman's information.

17 Q. The layman's information that you had at Ilinija Glavica, that the

18 area of Bogosica Park?

19 A. I'm not sure whether it's the area of Bogosica Park exactly, but

20 it's in that sector. I think that Ilinija Glavica includes that area.

21 Q. Ilinija Glavica is within the near vicinity of Bogosica Park?

22 A. Yes, more or less.

23 Q. What did you hear about Ilinija Glavica?

24 MR. RE: Could we just clarify for the record whether Glavica and

25 Ilinija Glavica the same place? I note in the transcript Mr. Petrovic --

1 sorry, the answer at 47.15 was it was at Glavica, thereabouts, and then

2 the question was, the layman's information you had, Ilinija Glavica. I

3 just want to clarify we're talking about the same place.

4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Mr. Vukovic, we have all the while been talking about Ilinija

6 Glavica, haven't we?

7 A. Yes, I see it written down here in a wrong manner. It was the

8 church of St. Ilija, and it was after that church that the hill was named

9 Ilinija Glavica. Therefore, this is the correct definition of the

10 locality I'm talking about.

11 Q. So the two of us have all the while been talking about Ilinija

12 Glavica as part of Bogosica Park?

13 A. No, no, I can't really say that Bogosica Park would come

14 exclusively under Ilinija Glavica, but it does come under a part of it.

15 Q. Tell us, do you know which positions of the Croatian Army were

16 there?

17 A. I don't know.

18 Q. In the period of October, November, and December in 1991 in

19 Dubrovnik, did you ever see any armed people around?

20 A. Well, my movements were quite limited. I've already stated this.

21 And within the area that I moved in, I do not recall ever seeing armed

22 soldiers.

23 Q. Did you see anyone carrying weapons?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Did you see anyone wearing a uniform of the Croatian Army or the

1 Croatian police in that period?

2 A. It's difficult for me to recollect.

3 Q. Do you know of anyone who was drafted into the Croatian Army in

4 that period?

5 A. I did know of some of my friends, several of my friends who were

6 apparently wearing a uniform, but this is something I learned eventually.

7 Q. Would you please be so kind as to tell us what you found out

8 eventually.

9 A. Well, we found out that these people were on positions defending

10 Dubrovnik.

11 Q. Were you told where these positions were?

12 A. No, we didn't discuss that.

13 Q. Were these people, these friends of yours armed?

14 A. I did not see them.

15 Q. Did the Croatian Army in Dubrovnik have its own artillery?

16 A. I don't know that.

17 Q. Did you ever hear the activity of Croatian Army from Dubrovnik on

18 the JNA positions?

19 A. It was very difficult to conclude that from what we would hear and

20 to actually identify whether the source of the fire that was opened came

21 from the JNA or the other side. I can only say with some certainty that I

22 was unable to distinguish at the time what constituted an impact and what

23 constituted fire being opened from the other side.

24 Q. Were there any positions of the Croatian Army in your street, in

25 Ive Vojnovica Street?

1 A. I did not see them.

2 Q. Were there any Croatian Army artillery positions in your street,

3 Ive Vojnovica Street?

4 A. My answer again is I did not see them.

5 Q. Would you be surprised if I told you that in your street, in Ive

6 Vojnovica Street, the main artillery position of the Croatian Army was

7 stationed in the period of October, November, December 1991?

8 A. This is the first time I hear of it.

9 Q. Do you know that the command post of the Croatian Army artillery

10 was situated in your street in the period of October, November, December

11 1991?

12 A. I hear this information for the first time.

13 Q. When passing down your street, Ive Vojnovica Street, did you ever

14 see the artillery pieces of the Croatian Army?

15 A. No, I didn't.

16 Q. Did anyone ever open fire from the Croatian side, from your

17 street, Ive Vojnovica Street?

18 A. I told you a moment ago that I was unable to identify the source

19 of explosions in order for me to be able to answer your question.

20 Q. What would you tell me if I told you that in your street the most

21 important position of the artillery of the Croatian Army was situated

22 in -- on the 6th of December 1991?

23 A. I will tell you again that this is the first time I hear of it.

24 When you talk about the Ive Vojnovica Street, it's a very long stretch of

25 the road. And you should be more precise as to state the exact position

1 you're talking about in the Ive Vojnovica Street if you're insisting on me

2 being precise.

3 Q. We'll come to that later. Do you know that in the Ive Vojnovica

4 Street where you reside, from the artillery position of the Croatian Army,

5 on the 6th of December 1991 170 artillery shells were fired?

6 A. I don't know this. This is the first time I hear of it. And I

7 tell you again, it was difficult for me to identify in that hell what was

8 gunfire, what was the firing of a shell, and what was the impact of a

9 shell and the direction it came from.

10 Q. Where -- what is the location of the bridge in Ive Vojnovica

11 Street?

12 A. As far as I know, there is not a single bridge in the Ive

13 Vojnovica Street.

14 Q. Where is the overfly in the Ive Vojnovica Street?

15 A. I am not aware of it.

16 Q. Where is the crossroads where from the Ive Vojnovica Street you

17 turn for Medarevo?

18 A. I do know of that crossroads. There are two roads forking off,

19 one closer to Gospino Polje heading towards the place called Gorica, near

20 the Gorica Sveto Vlaho, and the other connects with the Ive Vojnovica

21 Street, and I'm not sure which one of these you're referring to.

22 Q. Tell us, is Lazaret a protected cultural monument belonging to the

23 A category?

24 A. I cannot answer this. This wasn't an area that was of interest to

25 me, and I am not familiar with categorisations.

1 Q. Do you know that the fortress at Srdj was also a cultural monument

2 belonging to the B category?

3 A. I don't know.

4 Q. What is the cultural protection status of the Gradac Park?

5 A. I am not familiar with the details of the classification because

6 this wasn't something I was closely interested in, nor did I deal with it

7 when working with the plans. So I wouldn't even indirectly be able to

8 answer your question.

9 Q. How far is Montovjerna from your house?

10 A. You mean the Montovjerna hill?

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. In my estimate, when you go along Ive Vojnovica Street, it takes

13 you some 8 to 10 minutes to walk there.

14 Q. As the crow flies, how far is the hotel complex, the camping site

15 at Babin Kuk away from your house?

16 A. Are you asking me about the entire peninsula?

17 Q. The camping site at Babin Kuk, as the crow flies, how far is it

18 from your house?

19 A. In my estimate, a kilometre or thereabouts. I'm not sure.

20 Q. Please tell us, how long have you been in The Hague?

21 A. I arrived last Saturday. My flight from Dubrovnik was delayed.

22 And I have been in The Hague to this day.

23 Q. Is this your first stay in The Hague as a witness for the ICTY?

24 A. Yes, this is the first time.

25 Q. You did not come to The Hague earlier to discuss things and

1 matters with my colleagues from the OTP?

2 A. No.

3 Q. In the course of this year in Dubrovnik, were you ever visited by

4 either my colleagues here in the court or by investigators of the OTP?

5 A. I did meet with the OTP investigators.

6 Q. Can you tell us who with and when?

7 A. It was, I believe, two months ago. And I'll tell you that there

8 was Ms. Susan with two associates of hers. And the second time, there was

9 Mr. David Re. We had a talk, and that was all we had in the meantime.

10 Q. How long did these discussions take? First with Ms. Somers and

11 then with the other colleagues, how long did that particular meeting last?

12 A. I think it was sometime in the evening, and it lasted maybe for an

13 hour, hour and a half.

14 Q. And with the learned colleague Re?

15 A. I spent some more time with him. I can't tell you precisely now.

16 But I think we met over two days, but not for the entire day because, of

17 course, I had my professional obligations, and I was unable to spend the

18 entire day with him.

19 Q. What about my learned colleague tell you? What were you expected

20 to tell to the Court?

21 A. Only to tell the truth.

22 Q. But in addition to that, apart from telling you to tell the truth,

23 did he tell you anything about the nature of your testimony?

24 A. Well, that I was supposed to talk about things that I

25 professionally deal with, things that I know, and that that was the

1 essential reason why I was invited, called to testify here. And as for

2 the preliminary report -- and that I was supposed to testify in relation

3 to the preliminary report made for the Old Town in Dubrovnik. And that

4 was the intention. That's what we talked about.

5 Q. In those two days of discussions with Mr. Re, which materials did

6 you use?

7 A. I was shown two or three videos. I'm not sure. I believe I said

8 that at the start. They were presented to me as videos taped by

9 Mr. Djezo Jusic. I was also shown a video by Mr. Grbic, and another video

10 that was presented to me as the video made by the JNA. And those were the

11 materials presented to me at the time.

12 Q. Did you sketch any maps, you and Mr. Re, at the time?

13 A. Maps? No. I can't remember precisely. But I do know that we

14 went through all the things that I personally signed, the plans of the Old

15 Town, the locations I inspected. This was what actually took up most of

16 our time. Now, whether I drew any maps I --

17 Q. For instance, as today, did you make any markings on a map?

18 A. I can't recall. I might have indicated the boundaries between

19 blocks, but that could have been all that I could have done at that

20 moment. But to tell you the truth, I can't remember really.

21 Q. How much time has elapsed since this visit of Mr. Re's to

22 Dubrovnik? It must have been this year.

23 A. Yes, but I told you the extent to which I remember.

24 Q. Therefore, you don't remember whether several weeks ago you and

25 Mr. Re marked on a map individual facilities we're talking about today?

1 A. I did tell you that it is quite possible that I indicated what was

2 supposed to be presented as the block that I worked on. But it was not --

3 it was something that was just a summary of what I did, and I recall this

4 very well.

5 Q. Let's try this again. Did you make any marks on maps with

6 buildings several weeks ago when Mr. Re was there with you in Dubrovnik?

7 A. I don't know. I've told you how far I remember. Now, how many

8 maps, what sort of marks, I can't recall.

9 Q. Were there several maps?

10 A. That was -- that included all the elements that were included in

11 the report, and those were the only materials that we used.

12 Q. Does memory serve you well?

13 A. Well, for my immediate sphere of interest, yes. For the issues of

14 minor importance, no.

15 Q. Marking different facilities on a map, would that constitute

16 something -- a matter of interest to you that you would remember well?

17 A. Well, it would be of secondary interest.

18 Q. Please tell us, if you don't remember what and when you marked

19 something that took place several weeks ago, how do you expect the Trial

20 Chamber to believe you when you tell -- recount them things that happened

21 a decade ago?

22 A. Well, I was able to work only within the information that I had on

23 the map. On the basis of my technical expertise, I was able to talk about

24 the whole area. Now, when you ask me about what I was able to tell the

25 Trial Chamber, I can tell you that with high precision, I was able to

1 retell you what I experienced in those years.

2 JUDGE PARKER: You have seen, Mr. Petrovic, my concern at the form

3 of your last question. That's not for the witness to comment on.

4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Of course, Your Honour. I accept

5 your criticism.

6 Q. Please be so kind as to tell us, prior to these discussions with

7 my colleagues seated here in the court, did you talk to anyone else from

8 the OTP?

9 A. No. If I may just correct my statement, when I had my first

10 contact with the investigators, that was in 2001. And I believe you have

11 the written statement of that. And then the other one I told you about

12 was the second contact, and then there was the third. That's all.

13 Q. On the 6th of July the year 2000, did you give a written statement

14 to the OTP?

15 A. I suppose that was the date. I'm not sure. But if I took a look

16 at it and I saw my signature, I would be able to testify to what you said.

17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask the usher's

18 assistance to present this statement to the witness. It is his witness

19 statement in English and the B/C/S.

20 A. What I have here is a version in Croatian which was not signed,

21 and I have a version in English that is signed. It is my signature. I

22 don't see what this was all about. I cannot remember that I signed the

23 Croatian version or only the English version, but evidently on the English

24 version I can see my signature.

25 Q. Thank you. Can I please ask for the English version to be

1 returned to me.

2 Thank you.

3 Could you please leave the statement aside now. We'll move on to

4 that later. Tell me what this first interview looked like, the one with

5 the investigators of the International Tribunal, in the briefest possible

6 terms.

7 A. In the briefest possible terms, I was informed by my colleagues

8 from the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments that

9 investigators came, that they would be willing to talk to me as one of the

10 members of the team that worked on the preliminary report. I was informed

11 by telephone, and I was quite simply asked whether I could come and at

12 what time. I responded to their invitation. I came. The interview took

13 place in the presence of a man. I don't remember his name now. He was a

14 younger man. And the interpreter was there, too. The interpreter who

15 spoke Croatian. And this took place in the Institute for Reconstruction.

16 It is an institute that is involved in this kind of operational work that

17 has to do with the reconstruction and restoration of Dubrovnik. So it was

18 held, I mean the interview, in a meeting room. That's what I remember

19 now.

20 And I think it was for about two or three hours, perhaps even more

21 than that.

22 Q. As far as I can see, you remember that it took about two or three

23 hours.

24 A. Well, it took about two or three hours. Its duration was two or

25 three hours.

1 Q. I see. And what kind of material did you have here?

2 A. You mean on that occasion? Well, as far as I can remember, I

3 think that I was presented with this material that we had done. So these

4 were books, binders that in a way presented what we did in the period

5 after the 6th of December.

6 Q. So you had before you the preliminary report, or rather what we

7 here call P51/ID.

8 A. Yes, that's right.

9 Q. Did you have the opportunity of seeing this preliminary report on

10 that occasion? Could you examine it?

11 A. I scanned through it, but it was very superficial. It wasn't that

12 I studied it carefully. Let us say I skimmed through it.

13 Q. Did you look at the report in general, or did you look at the

14 sections that you worked on?

15 A. My attention was primarily focussed on what I had done. But in

16 passing, I also looked at the sections that I did not work on.

17 Q. How long did you take looking at your section, the one that you

18 worked on?

19 A. As far as I can remember, it didn't take very long. It was very

20 scant information, just at first glance.

21 Q. Were you asked to look at each and every page of the report that

22 you had worked on?

23 A. I think that later, I was asked to confirm with my own signature

24 the authenticity of what I had done myself. That in a way was more

25 detailed information about what we had before us.

1 Q. So you looked at each and every page of that report that had to do

2 with you. Is that right?

3 A. I think that was all. Later on, I had established that there was

4 a mistake, either in terms of the typing or the interpretation.

5 Q. Please answer my question. Did you look at each and every page of

6 the report that had to do with your inspections?

7 A. Well, yes, I did look at them. But if that's an answer, I'll

8 explain the rest sometime later, what I meant to tell you now.

9 Q. Did you sign every page of the report that has to do with what you

10 did?

11 A. I signed, yes, what was presented to me. And as far as I can

12 remember, that was all.

13 Q. In addition to your signature, did you affix the date on each and

14 every page, the 6th of July 2000?

15 A. On every page, there was the date, too, and I signed it.

16 Q. Did you yourself put your signature and date on each and every

17 page?

18 A. Precisely. At the moment when I signed each and every page, I put

19 the date there as well.

20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be

21 given -- I see the exhibit already in front of him, P174.

22 Q. Please keep it there in front of you. So we'll be using it during

23 our further discussion.

24 A. Is it this material?

25 Q. Yes.

1 Please be so kind as to look at the tenth insert, X-1. From X-1

2 to X-12, please look at the 11 buildings. Not the list, but within P174

3 itself.

4 A. Do you mean this?

5 Q. I'm referring to the binder that is right in front of you.

6 A. Oh, I see.

7 So X-1 to X-11.

8 Q. Have you had a look at it?

9 A. Not all of it.

10 Q. Please take a look at it, and then tell us when you've finished.

11 You don't have to read all the details, just --

12 A. Let me just have a look at the exact order.

13 Did you say to X-12 or throughout?

14 Q. To X-12.

15 A. All right, I've had a look at it.

16 Q. X-1, X-2, X-3, and X-5, and X-6, if you look at the dates of

17 inspection, is it the 10th of December 1991?

18 A. Yes, that is what it says.

19 Q. What about X-7? X-9? Is the date the 11th of December 1991?

20 A. X-7?

21 Q. And X-9.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. What about X-10, X-11, and X-12? Is the date the 12th of December

24 1991, the date of inspection?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Please look at your statement now, the one that is before you, the

2 one that you gave on the 6th of July 2000. Please look at page 3 of your

3 statement, paragraph 4 where it says: "On the 13th of December, four

4 colleagues from the town planning office and I attended at the institute

5 and made ourselves available to assist in the investigations which by this

6 time were well underway."

7 Tell us, please, when did you and your colleagues come for the

8 first time to the office in December 1991?

9 A. The first contact was --

10 Q. When did you first physically come to the institute?

11 A. It was around this date. But when I made this statement, in a way

12 I think it was not additionally verified in terms of this information.

13 After all, it was in the year 2000, almost ten years later. My memory of

14 the date was very tentative. In a way, it was marked as the 13th. I

15 don't know why I said the 13th. But I assumed that it was around that

16 date more or less. I did not really insist on the actual date.

17 Q. Why did you tell the investigators and why did you sign that

18 afterwards, that on the 13th of December 1991, you made yourself available

19 to the institute? Why does it say the 13th of December?

20 A. First of all, this was said with the intention of giving a time

21 when this happened.

22 Q. Mr. Vukovic, you never said "around the 13th" or you did not say

23 "in the first half of the month," or "the second half of the month." You

24 said specifically and precisely the 13th of December.

25 A. I think that at that point in time, this information was just an

1 approximation of the date rather than it was supposed to be a very precise

2 date. Had I known at the time that this precision was of such importance,

3 I would have corrected it.

4 Q. Please look at the one-but-last paragraph of your statement on

5 that same page, number 3, where it says: "Today, I signed and dated each

6 of these investigation reports." Is it correct that before you gave this

7 statement, or at least that's what it says here, you reviewed the report

8 and you saw all the dates on the reports contained in it? Didn't you

9 refresh your memory on that day, precisely on that day, in terms of what

10 each one of the reports says? And nevertheless, did you write the date of

11 the 13th of December stating "I made myself available for the institute"?

12 A. This is what I can say. At the moment when I signed this, I based

13 my statement upon what I mentioned earlier; namely, that I just skimmed

14 through the material. I did not look at each and every detail. I

15 believed that this material which was before me actually did correspond to

16 what I had done at the time. So this particular piece of information,

17 namely, the date which I marked as the date when we went into town, is

18 something that I did not consider to be essential to that statement at

19 that moment. So it remained at that level, at the level of what I wished

20 to say.

21 Q. On that day, did you have before you all the reports on which it

22 says very clearly when they were made, including the 11 reports I referred

23 to you -- I referred to a few minutes ago? Aren't they all dated before

24 the 13th of December?

25 A. I did not quite understand your question. Sorry. Could you

1 please repeat it.

2 Q. On that day, did you not have before you all 11 reports bearing a

3 date that preceded the 13th of December 1991?

4 A. If I understood your question, you mean these 11 that we looked at

5 just now in this list?

6 Q. Yes, you understand me well.

7 A. I did not look at the dates in detail because at that moment the

8 dates were not important pieces of information to me when I was checking

9 this.

10 Q. On the 6th of July 2000, did you not sign each and every one of

11 these reports, these 11 reports of the buildings that were inspected on

12 the 10th, 11th, and 12th?

13 A. I think I did. Everything that was offered to me and where my

14 signature was. In a way, I initialled all of this stating in this way

15 that it was in line with what I had done.

16 Q. On that same day did you not sign a statement including the

17 information that you made yourself available to the institute on the 13th

18 of December? Please give me a very precise answer to that. Was it not on

19 that very same day that you signed a statement which says that you made

20 yourself available to the institute on the 13th of December 1991? Yes or

21 no.

22 A. I do not have the Croatian version here with my signature and

23 date, so I cannot tell you with any degree of certainty whether I signed

24 all these reports on that day and the statement itself.

25 Q. I'm going to read it out to you because you said a few minutes ago

1 that on the English version, your signatures can be seen. And my

2 colleague will follow this very carefully. What it says here: "On the

3 13th of December, four colleagues from the town planning office and I

4 attended the institute and made ourselves available to assist in the

5 investigations which by this time were well underway."

6 Underneath is your signature and the date, the 6th of July 2000.

7 A. Then that's the way it was.

8 Q. Tell us, then, how is it possible that on the same day you claim

9 two different things? You put your signature on the reports dated the

10 10th, 11th, and 12th, and on that very same you say that you made yourself

11 available to the institute only on the 13th. How is that possible?

12 A. I'm going to repeat to you yet again what I said. The date of the

13 13th at the moment when I gave the statement was an approximation of the

14 time when we actually went out to carry out these inspections. This is

15 the only thing I can confirm to you. And I wish we would leave this

16 information at that level. There is really not -- nothing to add in terms

17 of the date.

18 Q. When did you and your colleagues Buzic, Franetovic, Karaman, and

19 Kunic, come to the institute. Did you come together?

20 A. I cannot remember exactly now whether we went individually or

21 together. But at any rate, we had reached agreement to go to the

22 institute. Now, in which groups we went and whether we went together or

23 not is something I cannot remember very specifically.

24 Q. Buzic, Franetovic, Karaman, and Kunic, when did they first come to

25 the institute?

1 A. You mean in relation to this inspection?

2 Q. But, of course.

3 A. They came in the same period approximately when we were supposed

4 to start this effort; that is to say, making these tours, and that is what

5 was mentioned here, this date in the reports or rather in the reports we

6 made.

7 Q. Did they also start their work on inspecting the damage at the

8 same time as you did?

9 A. I can just talk about those who worked with me. I don't know if

10 they were parts of other teams. I cannot remember at the time. But those

11 who were with me, they were there on the same day that I was.

12 Q. Does that mean that Ms. Karaman and Ms. Kunic began to work on the

13 same day as you did?

14 A. Yes. They were supposed to. But I don't know whether they did or

15 not. We would need to refer back to the report because I cannot recall

16 those details any more.

17 Q. I will help you. Do you remember if we worked with Ms. Karaman

18 and Ms. Kunic at all?

19 A. Yes, I did work with Ms. Kunic, and I also think I worked with

20 Mirjana Karaman. I'm not sure about her, but I know about Davorka Kunic

21 for sure.

22 Q. Could you please close that material in front of you, all the

23 things that you have in front of you. Could you please just put them

24 away.

25 Was the inspection of the facilities in the Old Town paid?

1 A. No.

2 Q. And you worked with Kunic for sure?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. How many buildings did you inspect with Ms. Kunic?

5 A. I don't know. I would need to refer back to see.

6 Q. Were you with Ms. Karaman together at the training about how your

7 work should be done?

8 A. No. We did not go, but we got this information from our

9 colleagues from the Institute for the Preservation of Monuments. And I

10 was personally able to convey this information further after I received

11 it myself.

12 Q. And do you remember after you looked at this panel and you

13 received this information, do you remember setting out to begin your work

14 on the same day?

15 A. Having found out about what this was all about regarding this

16 panel that you are talking about, I don't remember whether we set out on

17 our inspections on the same day. But it was afterwards.

18 Q. Who did you inspect the mosque with?

19 A. I would need to look at that.

20 Q. Well, just leave the paper aside. Try to remember.

21 A. I think that there were two of my colleagues with me, but I don't

22 know exactly who they were. I think they were probably Matko Vetma and

23 Lucijana Peko. But I'm not a hundred per cent sure at the moment. I

24 would have to look at the documents in order to refresh my memory.

25 Q. Did you look at any facility with Mr. Zeljko Franetovic?

1 A. As far as I know, no.

2 Q. Did you go to any inspections with Ms. Buzic?

3 A. I'm not sure.

4 Q. Did you inspect any building with Zvonimir Franic?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Which one?

7 A. Yes, I remember. It was a building in which our colleagues

8 Zvonimir Franic actually lived in. It's a block near the Domino Street

9 and near a square. It's close to the St. Domino's church.

10 Q. Did you inspect anything -- no, let me rephrase that.

11 Do you know that the first time with Mrs. Kunic who came together

12 with you, as it says in your statement, that for the first time with her,

13 judging by that report, you went out to inspect a building together with

14 her only on the 16th of December?

15 A. Yes, that is possible. But I'm not sure. I would need to check

16 at that particular case to be sure about it.

17 Q. Do you know that Ms. Karaman, even though you said you're not sure

18 whether you worked with her at all, joined you in the inspection of seven

19 buildings on the 13th of December?

20 A. Well, I would give the same answer that I gave you before.

21 Q. Do you remember at all how these inspections were like, what they

22 were like?

23 A. Yes, I do.

24 Q. Is it strange to you that none of your associates did not inspect

25 or participate in the inspection of any facilities before the 13th?

1 A. I don't think that that is unusual in any way. The inspections

2 were completed with colleagues when they were able to come. Coming to the

3 old Dubrovnik centre was something gradual. Our teams were completed

4 gradually so that the teams from the urban town planning institute joined

5 this work incrementally.

6 Q. I'm asking you, is it strange that none of your colleagues about

7 whom, at least according to your statement, you said they came together

8 with you, that none of them inspected any facilities before the 13th of

9 December?

10 A. Well, none of these things should be taken literally. It's more

11 of a figurative nature, and it describes an activity which simply

12 indicates a process that took a long time.

13 Q. I'm now going to come back to a sentence from your statement on

14 page 3, paragraph 4, where you clearly state in describing your activities

15 during one day, that is, on the 13th of December, and you say: "On the

16 13th, four colleagues and myself attended the institute and made ourselves

17 available." There are no activities there lasting over weeks or months.

18 This is about your activities on the 13th of December 1991.

19 A. First of all, the date can be given an interpretation, like I said

20 before. It's an approximate date. Secondly, making ourselves available

21 for assistance is a lasting activity. It's not something that ended at

22 that time. So if we're actually going for precision, we cannot just take

23 it the way you explained it.

24 Q. Could you please then explain to us "to be available for

25 assistance in the investigations which by this were well underway"? What

1 does that mean?

2 A. Do you want me to go word for word or do you just want me to

3 provide an explanation of the context.

4 Q. No, arrival on the 13th and making yourselves available for the

5 investigations which by this time were well underway?

6 A. This phrasing can just be defined provisionally in the sense of

7 describing what was happening in that period. The time is approximate.

8 The activities are approximate, the activities we were supposed to carry

9 out and which we did carry out. And thirdly, it describes in relation to

10 these activities of ours something that had already been started. When it

11 says here "were well underway," it means that this was already being

12 carried out before the 6th of December as well as after the 6th of

13 December. So that the way this is phrased does not indicate the quantity

14 of information, but it just indicates that the process had begun.

15 Q. So that when you say "well underway," you are thinking of

16 activities before the 6th of December?

17 A. No, no. I am predominantly thinking of activities after the 6th

18 of December.

19 Q. Do you know how many buildings were inspected in the period before

20 the 13th?

21 A. I don't know precisely.

22 Q. Approximately?

23 A. Well, I did not make any kind of statistical report so I really

24 wouldn't be able to give you any approximate number.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, is that a convenient time?

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

2 JUDGE PARKER: We'll have another break now.

3 --- Recess taken at 12.23 p.m.

4 --- On resuming at 12.50 p.m.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

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

7 Q. Mr. Vukovic, before December 1991, did you have any experience

8 relating to determining the manner, the time, the cause, and the effects

9 of damages on a building?

10 A. My main qualifications were actually based on identifying the

11 present state of the cultural heritage, and this is something that we were

12 trained for during our university education. We had exercises and learned

13 about how to identify certain conditions of cultural and historical

14 monuments. I worked professionally on a building complex, the music

15 school building complex in Dubrovnik, and I did an architectural

16 inspection of that building, determined its current state, drafted also

17 how this building was going to be restored, and presented what the

18 building was going to look like after the reconstruction. This was simply

19 part of our basic training.

20 Q. Besides the elementary training, do you have any other experience

21 in determining damage on a building caused by a fire, for example?

22 A. Experiences on monuments belonging to the cultural heritage is --

23 consists actually of what I spoke earlier. You needed to determine what

24 the cause was of the damage, the extent of the damage, and those

25 experiences were actually something that was implied through our

1 elementary training. On the other hand, when we're talking about

2 incidents like this of such a scale, when we're talking about earthquakes

3 based on additional expert information, you could even train somebody in a

4 very short period of time who did not have our education in order to be

5 able to determine the existing state of a certain building.

6 Q. Could you please be more specific in answering my question. My

7 question is: Do you have any experience in determining the cause of a

8 fire on a building prior to the 6th of December? Did you have such

9 experiences prior to the 6th of December?

10 A. No, not regarding the cause of a fire.

11 Q. Did you ever determine the cause of fire on any kind of building

12 before the 6th of December 1991?

13 A. No, I did not.

14 Q. Did you ever determine the cause of damage due to weapons or

15 ammunition?

16 A. No, not prior to that. And by that I mean, not prior to the 6th

17 of December 1991.

18 Q. Did you know anything about the types, the models of projectiles,

19 except for what you read on the panel at the institute when you got there?

20 A. No, I didn't have any detailed information about that, other than

21 what I saw at the panel for the preservation of cultural monuments. I can

22 also add to that the knowledge that I had acquired during my military

23 service in the JNA which I served in Banja Luka from 1980 to 1981.

24 Q. Why didn't you have a permanent team in order to inspect these

25 buildings featured in Exhibit P174?

1 A. These situations could not have been foreseen, so we did not have

2 the possibility of forming permanent teams. Especially not prior to these

3 incidents. This is an ad hoc situation which quite understandably called

4 for quite a different kind of organisation. So the way in which we

5 proceeded was also the result of such a situation.

6 Q. Why did the people constantly change, those people who conducted

7 these inspections with you?

8 A. You mean with me personally.

9 Q. Yes, with you personally.

10 A. That depended on the availability of certain person people who

11 could assist at a particular time. That was the only reason, no other

12 reason.

13 Q. Did you ever before make inspection reports on the damage?

14 A. If you're thinking of the type of damage which we saw in the

15 period after the 6th, I did not.

16 Q. Did you succeed in personally touring each of these buildings

17 mentioned in P174?

18 A. I personally inspected each building that I said I had inspected

19 and signed that I had inspected.

20 Q. Did each member of the team inspect each of the buildings?

21 A. If you're thinking of the team that I worked in, then all the

22 buildings were inspected by the whole team, the same way that I inspected

23 the buildings, the other members inspected them, too.

24 Q. How much time did you have for each building?

25 A. It depended on the degree of damage. When we had minor damage, we

1 needed less time, and when we had major damage, we needed more time. But

2 on average, it was from 20 minutes to half an hour.

3 Q. What needed to be done in that 20-minute to half-an-hour period?

4 A. As part of our inspection, the primary thing that we did was

5 acquire visual information, what we were able to see when we came into the

6 building, if there were any traces of damage. The second part was talking

7 to the inhabitants of a building or to the people who lived in

8 neighbouring buildings, perhaps across from the building that we were

9 inspecting or people who lived in buildings in the block next to the

10 building we were inspecting. So that was the basic concept of how we

11 approached our inspections. And based on the information that we had,

12 prior expert information that we had before as to what could be the cause

13 of impact and so on.

14 Q. Did you write that down when you were there out on the location?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Did you make a kind of sketch when you were out in the field?

17 A. We noted the building that we worked on on the map, and we also

18 took notes by hand, and we filled in the information that was required in

19 the questionnaire.

20 Q. So you did not sketch any of the damaged buildings?

21 A. No, we did not.

22 Q. Did you photograph the damaged buildings?

23 A. No, I personally did not. But there were photographers from the

24 Institute for the Preservation of Cultural Monuments. They made

25 photographs. However, they did not take pictures of each building due to

1 the technical nature of our work. It was not possible to photograph each

2 building. Some spaces were very tight, and there were also limitations as

3 regards developing the film. We didn't have water. We didn't have

4 electricity. So this was an activity that had to be reduced to a minimum.

5 Q. So you did not photograph each building because some buildings,

6 because of their position it was not possible to photograph. That's the

7 first reason. And the second reason is that you didn't have water or

8 electricity in order to be able to develop the film.

9 A. Well, this other reason was secondary, but the main reason was

10 also because there weren't enough people. This was done by just one man,

11 and he was not able to be in every building that was being inspected.

12 Q. Yesterday, my learned colleague showed you the front page of the

13 report where it says that there were four or five photographers who did

14 the job, if I am not mistaken.

15 A. No, I think you misread that. There were two photographers, one

16 of them was a professional working for the Institute for the Protection --

17 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter missed the name.

18 A. And the second was Djukic who was a photographer working there,

19 and those are the two that I know of.

20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Please be so kind and look at the binder in front of you and tell

22 us which facility could not be photographed due to the facility's position

23 and why, why couldn't it be photographed.

24 A. I can only tell you that the photographs were attached here on the

25 basis of the material that my colleague collected from the Institute for

1 the Preservation of Cultural Monuments. He would go out on his initiative

2 on the basis of what he knew of the shelled site, and his attention was

3 focussed at the time on the vital institutions, that is, the monastery,

4 churches, palaces, and bell towers, and possibly also the ramparts. And

5 in addition to the information that we would provide to him --

6 Q. This was not my question. My question was, which facility could

7 not be photographed?

8 A. Well, those facilities for which the photographs have not been

9 appended here.

10 Q. Therefore, this means that those facilities could not be

11 photographed?

12 A. Yes, not at that moment, they could not.

13 Q. These handwritten notes, what did you do with them later on?

14 A. We organised them and made a paper out of them. I don't remember

15 how it went.

16 Q. You finished your work in the field. What did you do in physical

17 terms with the notes you made?

18 A. We placed it on a desk, and then each and every copy, handwritten

19 copy, was transformed into an expedited [as interpreted] version which

20 could be forwarded on for typing out and for being organised in terms of

21 its layout.

22 Q. What is contained in the exhibit P174 is that what you personally

23 typed out or did you dictate it to someone?

24 A. Neither of these. We provided them with a manuscript of

25 handwritten material that was then copied, typed out.

1 Q. Did you see that transcript later on?

2 A. I saw it when it was a finished product. It was already sort of a

3 binder that contained several volumes.

4 Q. Did you double check whether your notes matched the text that was

5 typed out?

6 A. We did that, but not letter by letter, number by number. And

7 there might have been some typographical mistakes, errors, there. But if

8 you took any extract here at random, it did match our handwritten notes.

9 Q. Why did you not place your signature on these notes at the time?

10 A. I don't think we were asked to do that at the time. And I don't

11 think that it affects the credibility of the material.

12 Q. Yesterday, or the day before, you told us that you did write the

13 date of damage for most of the buildings. Are there any buildings that

14 you didn't write the date of when the damage was incurred?

15 A. We personally wrote the date for each and every building, but

16 possibly while the materials were being transcribed, some of the data

17 might have been left out. I could not intervene. But even if this was

18 the case, it was very sporadic, maybe in one or two cases it did happen.

19 Q. In cases when there were no tenants in the building, who did you

20 obtain information from?

21 A. From neighbours.

22 Q. And when there were no neighbours available, what did you do in

23 that case?

24 A. Well, I must say that we were lucky in having either tenants or

25 neighbours present because it was done at the time when people were

1 returning home. They were trying to make these places habitable so that

2 in cases when there were no tenants there would at least be neighbours.

3 Q. Tell me, how did you manage to be present at two places at the

4 same time while you were making these lists?

5 A. I am not familiar with what you're talking about.

6 Q. Did you sometimes manage to be at three places at the same time?

7 A. If you mean during one day, then my answer is yes. But at the

8 same time, then no.

9 Q. I will read this out to you. On the 16th of December at 11.00,

10 you were inspecting the facility XI-16. At 11.00, at the same time, you

11 were inspecting the facility XI-17.

12 A. Could you tell me what you're talking about in order for me to

13 follow visually.

14 Q. Of course. XI-16, XI-17, you were visiting these two facilities

15 at 11.00, and also the facility XI-19. How did you manage to inspect

16 three facilities at 11.00?

17 A. You said XI-16?

18 Q. XI-17 and XI-19. You were allegedly present at all these three

19 facilities at 11.00.

20 A. You said 16, 17, and?

21 Q. 19.

22 A. It must have been a typographical error. This was supposed to be

23 an approximate piece of information for us. But this must have been

24 mistyped.

25 Q. How do you know it's an error when you did not match if they

1 tallied your notes?

2 A. Because something like that would never have been done.

3 Q. It would never have been done, provided that you were there at

4 11.00 at all these three facilities?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. But since probably you were present only at some facilities and

7 not at others, then it states here that you were at three different places

8 at the same time.

9 A. I think it's the day that matters. And as for the time, there

10 must have been an error. I can confirm that this is the exclusive reason

11 for this.

12 Q. On the 17th of December, you were also present at three places at

13 the same time, facilities XI-23, XI-26, XI-27. At all of these three

14 facilities, you were present at the same time, at 10.00.

15 A. 17.

16 Q. 17 December, the facilities 23, 26, 27.

17 A. 23.

18 Q. How did you manage in this case to be present at the same time at

19 three different places?

20 A. You said XI-23, XI-26. Which was the other one?

21 Q. XI-23, XI-26, and XI-27.

22 A. This is a situation similar to the previous one.

23 Q. So you were --

24 A. Yes, I was there, and this must have been a typographical error,

25 mistyping what we had written in the manuscript.

1 Q. How did you manage on that same day, on the 17th of December, at

2 10.10 hours to be at the facility XI-24 and at the same time visiting the

3 facility XI-25?

4 A. I think that the same reasons as previously can be applied here.

5 Q. So there's an error at hand again?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. How can we verify that that is what indeed happened? There are no

8 photographs. There are no sketches. We don't have your working notes. We

9 only have this piece of information that you were at three different

10 places at the same time.

11 A. It can be confirmed by indicating what had been done -- what had

12 already been done on that facility when it was undergoing reconstruction.

13 Q. Tell me, how did you manage in ten minutes to inspect five

14 facilities, XI-23, 24, 25, 26, 27? All of them having been processed

15 between 10.00 and 10.10?

16 A. This must be an error again. But it's the same situation that you

17 could put to your members of the team who have apparently, according to

18 their notes, managed to inspect the JNA, has managed to inspect the entire

19 town in two hours.

20 Q. So it must have been a similar situation.

21 A. No. Here we have several facilities inspected over several days.

22 Q. How did you manage on the 16th of December to be at two places at

23 the same time, facilities XI-30 and XI-31? You visited those at 1400

24 hours. How did you manage again to be at two different places at the same

25 time?

1 A. My previous answer is valid again. We relied on the date to

2 denote the day when they were there. The time wasn't as important. So

3 that's one thing. So even if there was an error, it does not

4 substantially affect our work done on that facility.

5 Q. What is the accuracy of what you've written down given all these

6 errors?

7 A. This is accurate given that an assessment was made on the basis of

8 this material in determining what the damage was. And on the other side,

9 there were other projects that were developed that were supposed to be the

10 basis for the reconstruction of these facilities.

11 Q. What was the situation like on the 17th of December, facilities

12 XI-32, XI-33? Again, you were at these two facilities at the same time on

13 the 17th of December.

14 A. It must be the same error again.

15 Q. The same error.

16 A. Yes, I mean, the technical, typographical error.

17 Q. How was it possible for you on the 15th of December, these were

18 facilities XI-22 and XI-23, to be at both these facilities at the same

19 time, at 13.30?

20 A. XI-22.

21 Q. And XI-23. You were present at both these facilities at the same

22 time, at the same moment. What was the situation like here?

23 A. It was the same situation. If there indeed exists such a

24 proximity of time as this, then it merely means that these two facilities

25 were close to each other. So that's why we used this time. We basically

1 looked at these two facilities at the same time or even at other

2 facilities because we were able to view these different facilities at the

3 same time either when looking from it from the street or from other

4 angles.

5 Q. On the 10th of December --

6 MR. RE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... I think there's

7 an error in the last one. The two I have, XI-22 and XI-23 seem to say

8 different times. XI-23 says 1000 hours, and XI-22 says 10 -- sorry, it

9 says 9.45. Maybe my learned friend meant to refer to different buildings.

10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I made a mistake, and

11 I apologise to everyone, first of all to you. It was IX-22 and IX-23.

12 Reports IX-22 and IX-23.

13 Q. You were present at both these facilities, IX-22 and IX-23 at

14 10.00, both these buildings. Was there an error here as well?

15 A. Yes. This was an error again.

16 Q. The buildings X-2 and X-3, was there an error as well because you

17 seem to have been at these two buildings at 1200 hours?

18 A. Which ones did you mention?

19 Q. X-2 and X-3. There you were at these two different places at the

20 same time.

21 A. These buildings are in immediate vicinity of one another. This

22 other building at Buniceva Poljana was on our way to this other building

23 that we looked at in greater detail. So that's why we identified them at

24 the same time. I do remember that there were such cases as this one.

25 Q. So these were mostly mistakes?

1 A. Yes. But as I've said, this piece of information for us had

2 secondary value. We didn't attach much importance to it. We thought the

3 date was much more important than the time of inspection.

4 Q. Fine. If the date is more important, please tell me the

5 following: We are talking about the 17th of December. 18 locations, 23

6 buildings were inspected by you between 9.45 and 13.20. How were you able

7 to inspect 23 buildings in a bit over three hours?

8 A. This was possible because not all the buildings were damaged to

9 the same extent. And we would spend different intervals of time at

10 different buildings. I've told you from some 20 minutes to half an hour,

11 45 minutes. That's why it was impossible [as interpreted] within this

12 three-hour interval.

13 Q. That day when you visited 23 buildings --

14 A. If I may just digress a bit, which buildings are you referring to?

15 Q. On the date of 17th December.

16 A. Tell me what the block was. That's easier for me.

17 Q. Yes. These a blocks 11 -- I mean, primarily block 11.

18 A. That's fine.

19 Q. I can read out the number if you think that my records aren't

20 adequate enough.

21 A. You mean then the entire block 11 that I worked on? Yes, that's

22 next to Od Puca Street.

23 Q. Therefore, my question.

24 A. Tell me.

25 Q. How did you manage in 9 minutes and 20 seconds for each of these

1 23 buildings, how did you manage to inspect their damage, to talk with the

2 neighbours, to write down the date of impact, the type and number of

3 projectile, to number the damages, the holes, storeys? How did you manage

4 to do that for all the 23 buildings in 9 minutes and 27 seconds for each?

5 Who can do such a thing?

6 A. Could I please have some more time to concentrate, and then I'll

7 give you the answer.

8 I'll give you a response in relation to what I said a few minutes

9 ago. During these inspections, there were some buildings where the

10 situation was more than evident, those that were burned down completely.

11 There was no need to stop and spend any time there. They could have been

12 dealt with very briefly, those that were completely destroyed.

13 So basically, we would stay at such buildings only for us to see

14 for ourselves what had happened, and that would be very brief indeed. As

15 for the other buildings that you refer to here, the brevity of time

16 referred to and the description here are things that you have to take into

17 consideration, and I kindly ask the Honourable Trial Chamber to bear this

18 many mind. Quite simply, if we did not have sufficient information during

19 our first inspection, we would go for additional inspections, and then we

20 would take more notes and in this way supplement our reports. So what you

21 refer to now is a description that is disproportionate to the time spent

22 there, so it's only a relevant truth. We inspected the buildings yet

23 again. We went there yet again, but this was not recorded anywhere.

24 Q. Why is it only now after three or four days of examination that

25 you tell us now for the very first time that you went for these additional

1 inspections? How come this is not contained in your statement? It is not

2 contained in your examination-in-chief. How come you remember only now?

3 A. Because this examination has gone on for quite a while, and I

4 believe that the level of information that I am now trying to remember is

5 stimulative enough in order to help me remember all these additional

6 pieces of information, too.

7 Q. So that probably has to be an addition to your testimony when you

8 say that when you returned from these inspections, you would present your

9 reports at a desk, and then they would be further processed. So you wish

10 to correct your statement in that respect, too?

11 A. Well, yes. In that part, and I don't think that this would

12 diminish the importance of what's being said in any way.

13 Q. So what are you correcting in respect of what you said now?

14 A. Just a moment, please.

15 Q. When you put your report on the table, you said a few minutes ago

16 that you would return from your inspection and you would put the report on

17 the desk. So what do you correct now?

18 A. That our job ended there and then. This is actually a continuous

19 verb. It went on and on, our job did. So we had to give additional

20 pieces of information. We had to go back for further inspections.

21 Q. Where did you do this and when?

22 A. I cannot remember exactly. But for example, these examples that

23 you pointed out now, it is possible that they were such cases.

24 Q. Is this contained anywhere in the report that additional

25 inspections were carried out?

1 A. No.

2 Q. Is it referred to anywhere that additional inspections were

3 carried out?

4 A. No, as far as I know, no. At least not where I personally worked.

5 Q. How can we believe you? It's not contained in the report; it's

6 not contained in your notes; there's nothing. There is your statement

7 which changed twice over the past 15 minutes.

8 A. The statement has only been supplemented, but the essence has

9 remained the same. The fact is that inspections were carried out on that

10 day, the day that is mentioned. As for the rest, I believe that this is

11 only additional information that can practically be interpreted in one way

12 or the other. But this basically does not diminish the importance of what

13 was written here.

14 Q. Please be so kind as to tell us why you changed your statement

15 with regard to yet another matter, not exactly 15 minutes ago but, say, 20

16 minutes ago. In response to my question "where did you spend most of your

17 time, where did you stay the longest," you said "where the damage was the

18 greatest, the most serious, the biggest." That's what you told us about

19 20 minutes ago. Then about 5 minutes ago, you said to us that where the

20 damage was the greatest, you practically did not spend any time there, so

21 are you changing your statement yet again?

22 A. I think the statement was of a general nature, and I think this

23 means that as far as greater damage is concerned, when more time was

24 needed to establish it, especially the second and third category, then --

25 so I'm speaking in principle, I'm speaking in general. More time was

1 required. And it was even necessary to go back to collect additional

2 information, as I said a while ago.

3 Q. And that's not different from what you said a short while ago?

4 A. I don't know what you're referring to.

5 Q. Well, that, where the damage was big, you spent a lot of time

6 there. That's what you said 20 minutes ago, and that's what you said now.

7 And 5 minutes ago you said when the damage was big, you did not really

8 spend any time there?

9 A. It only had to do with the buildings that burned down and they are

10 an exception. And I think I actually said to in one of my previous

11 statements.

12 Q. How many such buildings were involved, or rather on this day, when

13 you inspected -- the 17th of December, when you inspected 23 buildings and

14 you spent 9 minutes and 20 seconds inspecting each and every one of them

15 on average, how many of them were totally burned down?

16 A. About four were totally burned down.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Re.

18 MR. RE: My objection is simply it's Mr. Petrovic's dividing time

19 by buildings and saying it took 9 minutes and 23 seconds or whatever,

20 that's not the witness's evidence. And the witness has already answered

21 that it took much less if a building was completely burnt out.

22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave, I beg

23 your pardon.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Carry on.

25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] An integral part of the evidence

1 that is being introduced through this evidence witness before the

2 Honourable Trial Chamber is this document, this document is the basis. He

3 read out from this document all the time about the damage that he

4 registered. He has only been testifying on the basis of this document,

5 with the exception of the buildings that you asked him about, Your Honour,

6 whether he remembered them independently of this.

7 So the only thing I have before me is this report. And in that

8 report, it says that he inspected 23 buildings in 3 hours and 20 minutes.

9 That's what I asked him about. I don't see what it is that my learned

10 friend is challenging.

11 JUDGE PARKER: I think the difference between you is over the

12 words "on average," which you put in at the end of the question, if I

13 remember it. The witness has indicated he took different times with

14 different buildings, and your question, at least initially, created the

15 impression that you were saying that his evidence was that he took 9

16 minutes and 20 seconds or thereabouts for each building. But you then

17 added "on average," which technical means you're in the clear, but there

18 remains force in Mr. Re's objection.

19 I think you can be confident, Mr. Petrovic, that the points you're

20 making have been well and truly appreciated by the Chamber, and I'd

21 suggest you move on.

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

23 Could the witness please have P172 placed before him, if it's not

24 already there. Perhaps it is already before the witness, but I can't see

25 from here.

1 Q. Mr. Vukovic, the day before yesterday on page 18 of the

2 transcript, that is to say, the LiveNote, the unofficial transcript, you

3 said that on the 7th of December when you came to the Old Town, you went

4 towards your mother's house. And then you said: "I saw something that

5 shocked me because it had to do with my mother's life. Usually she was on

6 the ground floor. On that occasion, she was one storey above. When the

7 shell fell, it completely destroyed the very solid door of his house."

8 Then my learned friend asked you "what else did you see?"

9 And you said: "I saw there in front of my mother's house on the

10 facade some traces."

11 And my learned friend said "what kind of traces on the facade?"

12 And you say: "Traces on the stone facade." And you're referring

13 to your mother's house all the time.

14 Could you please be so kind as to find on this map, rather, within

15 P172, the building where your mother lived. And then I'm going to put

16 further questions to you.

17 A. That is block 10.

18 Block 10, but it wasn't specially indicated. This block that

19 you're talking about, if I may just add to this information --

20 Q. No. Allow me. Is there on the map, P172, on this list of ten

21 buildings, is one of those buildings the building that I hope your mother

22 still lives in?

23 Could you please put that on the ELMO.

24 A. That is the building, and this is the door that we talked about.

25 The shell was here. So this is where the shell struck and broke through

1 the door. It riddled the door --

2 Q. Yes, please, do not make any markings on the document which was

3 introduced by my colleague for other purposes.

4 A. Yes, I apologise. I just wanted to show you what I was talking

5 about.

6 Q. Thank you. In the preliminary report, could you please tell us

7 where --

8 MR. RE: Could that document he just marked which has a 10 on it

9 perhaps be separated from that and a photocopied one be substituted so we

10 know what he has marked on.

11 JUDGE PARKER: I'm not sure why you want that done, Mr. Re.

12 MR. RE: Because the exhibit P172 is an aide memoire to the

13 Chambers, and -- the Trial Chamber, and the witness has just marked in a

14 sense in a way that it is not evidence of something that happened to his

15 mother's house and is a representation of where a shell or whatever

16 landed. And that in my submission should be --

17 JUDGE PARKER: You want this page marked as a separate exhibit.

18 Is that what you're saying?

19 MR. RE: Please, extracted. And a substitute page 10 put in.

20 JUDGE PARKER: I can we can pursue that, but I think we'll see

21 whether there is a motion to admit it as evidence later. We will allow

22 the substitution.

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

24 Q. Mr. Vukovic, you inspected all the facilities in Buniceva Poljana

25 where your mother lives, and these are buildings marked with 1, 2, 3, 4.

1 These buildings are all at Buniceva Poljana. Could you please kindly tell

2 me where in your reports does it state that there is such a shocking

3 damage that you noticed on the 7th of December when you came into Old Town

4 for the first time afterwards?

5 A. Yes, I will answer you. I do not see first of all that 4 is on

6 Buniceva Poljana. It's on Gunduliceva Poljana. And it's a fountain.

7 Buniceva Poljana is this location here. Number 4 refers to something

8 else, and that is Gunduliceva Poljana, and the fountain is number 4.

9 Q. Well, let's make this short. Within the zone which was the

10 subject of your inspection, where is the most shocking scene that you

11 encountered which could have an effect on the life on a person who is most

12 dear to you? Where is that stated in the report that you developed?

13 A. My description of it being shocking is of a highly personal nature

14 because it has something to do with the life of my mother. The shocking

15 part does not refer to the extent of the damage, but what I was shocked

16 about is the fact that all the time during the shelling she was in the --

17 she was on the ground floor. And that day, she was not just incidentally

18 on the ground floor. Had she been there, she would have been killed in

19 the shelling. So that was what was shocking to me. As far as the

20 physical damage is concerned, I said in my previous testimony that the

21 apartment in which my mother lived at the time and in which she still

22 lives was not damaged to such an extent that it should be registered.

23 Q. So the door was damaged, the stone facade was damaged by shrapnel

24 from a mine which allegedly exploded in front of it within your zone. So

25 this is not relevant enough to be recorded in the report that we are

1 discussing?

2 A. There were similar examples which only confirms that what we were

3 doing indicates that the number of damaged buildings was not exaggerated,

4 but that there were probably more than we mentioned.

5 Q. The reason why you were not sure why you spent a part of your life

6 together with your mother in Buniceva Poljana number 4 or number 6. And I

7 will tell you the reason why you were not sure. The house you say is

8 Buniceva Poljana number 4 is actually marked here as Buniceva Poljana

9 number 3. The second reason is that the description of the damage at

10 Buniceva Poljana number 4 has nothing to do with the damage that you are

11 talking about.

12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is in reference

13 to Document X-3.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please read a little more

15 slowly what you said in the beginning because I think that some of the

16 claims you are making are not correct.

17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I suggest that we

18 continue this conversation tomorrow.

19 JUDGE PARKER: I think it would be useful if you would just read

20 once more, more slowly. That will allow the witness to think overnight.

21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Gladly.

22 Q. The reason why you could not recall whether your mother lives at

23 Buniceva Poljana number 4 or Buniceva Poljana number 6 is in the fact that

24 the description of the damage that exists for Buniceva Poljana number 4 is

25 completely different from what you have described for this Trial Chamber.

1 Could you please look at document X-3 and tell us whether the damage there

2 corresponds to what you described to the Trial Chamber as having shocked

3 you on the 7th of December 1991.

4 A. The building of Buniceva Poljana number 4 about which you are

5 stating that I am unsure about when we're talking about the number of the

6 house that my mother lives in, that was not my intention. In my

7 statement, I did not wish to create any confusion. It is just a result of

8 total lack of information. It's just a question of shadings in what we

9 are describing. The damage on my mother's house were not reported as

10 relevant in these reports because, as I said before, there were many such

11 examples, and we did not consider each one to be important enough to

12 record as damaged buildings.

13 When we're talking about Buniceva Poljana number 4, that is the

14 building in front of which a shell fell. And this is drawn here very

15 clearly, and also described. So I don't know what is disputed here.

16 Q. At the end of this questioning, at least, are you sure that your

17 mother lives in number 4 or whether she lives in number 6, or still not

18 sure about that? This is my last question today.

19 A. She lives in this building that I have shown here. She lives

20 here. I don't know what number that is. I'm still not sure. But if in

21 our description we marked this as number 4, then it's possible that this

22 is number 6, or some other number. But the number referred to as number 3

23 for this house, that for certain has that house number.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. We will -- yes, Mr. Re.

25 MR. RE: Before we adjourn, could the witness possibly mark with

1 an X on that T-shaped building he said was his mother's house before we

2 leave so that it doesn't get lost - it just won't show up on the

3 transcript - and it be extracted from there, marked for identification,

4 and I can give the Registry an identical copy of page 10 to put back in

5 just so we don't lose what happened.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Would you please kind enough, Mr. Vukovic, on that

7 page 10 of the exhibit that's in front of you to mark with a large X the

8 residence of your mother.

9 THE WITNESS: [Marks]

10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

11 We will now adjourn until tomorrow.

12 [The witness stands down]

13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,

14 to be reconvened on Friday, the 7th day of May,

15 2004, at 9.00 a.m.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25