121210ED

Page 5995

1 Good morning, Mr. Miokovic. Before we continue, I have to admit

2 that I'd forgotten to instruct you last Friday that you should not speak

3 with anyone or communicate in any other way with whomever about your

4 testimony. I was informed that at our request, the

5 Victims and Witnesses Section passed on this instruction to you. Could

6 you confirm that?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can confirm that, Your Honours.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Miokovic, we'll now continue, and I'd like to

9 remind you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given

10 at the beginning of your testimony. Mr. Stojanovic will now continue his

11 cross-examination.

12 WITNESS: DRAGAN MIOKOVIC [Resumed]

13 [Witness answered through interpreter]

14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, you may proceed.

15 Cross-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:

16 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, sir. Can you hear me?

17 A. Good morning. Yes.

18 Q. I'd just like to go into some of the details that concern your

19 professional background. If I have understood this correctly, you

20 started working in the police force having completed secondary school; is

21 that correct?

22 A. That's correct.

23 Q. In the course of your work in the police force, did you receive

24 training of any kind in relation to ballistics, artillery, sniper rifles,

25 and other weapons that you may have came across subsequently?

Page 5996

1 A. No.

2 Q. Did you perform your military service? If so, where and what

3 sort of military education did you receive or military training did you

4 receive?

5 A. I performed my military service in 1981 in Pula. I was in the

6 Anti-Aircraft Artillery Unit.

7 Q. Did you learn anything about the technical characteristics and

8 the possibilities of mortar weapons during that period of time?

9 A. As for mortar weapons, no. While I was doing my military

10 service, I had no training or no contact with the use of mortar weapons.

11 Q. When the war broke out in Sarajevo, did you have problems -- any

12 problems in the sense that people were wounded by artillery?

13 A. I was wounded on the 2nd of June, 1992, but I was not wounded as

14 a result of artillery fire.

15 Q. Would you tell the Chamber where you were wounded and how? What

16 were you wounded by?

17 A. I was wounded in an armed clash with a criminal group in Sarajevo

18 while I was performing my duties as policeman.

19 Q. Were you then sent out of Sarajevo and Bosnia and Herzegovina for

20 treatment?

21 A. As of the 7th of April -- or from the 7th of April until the

22 26th of June, 1993, I was receiving treatment in Germany. I returned to

23 Sarajevo on the 26th of June.

24 Q. In the course of the examination-in-chief, at one point in time

25 you mentioned certain information. You mentioned the percentage of

Page 5997

1 Croats, Serbs, and the percentage of other groups who according to you in

2 the wartime period worked in the police force of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

3 Where did you obtain this information from? Where did you obtain these

4 percentages from that you made use of?

5 A. I wasn't referring to the police forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I

6 wasn't referring to the wartime period. I was referring exclusively to

7 the security services centre in Sarajevo which is where I worked. I was

8 talking about the period from December 1993, when I first arrived in the

9 CSB, the security services centre.

10 Q. Let's make this clear. The percentage of 20 to 25 per cent, does

11 that include the number of those working in the CSB in Sarajevo, and if

12 so, during which period of time? Is that what this percentage refers to?

13 A. The CSB in Sarajevo from December 1993, which is when I left the

14 police station in Sarajevo and was transferred to the CSB, up until the

15 time that the Dayton agreement was signed. So in fact, that is the

16 period concerned.

17 Q. I'd like you to tell us how you obtained that information. Is

18 that official information, information to which we might have access?

19 Could we verify this anywhere?

20 A. This information is information I obtained on the basis of my own

21 experience, because we all worked in the same building. As to whether

22 this information can be verified, I believe that that is the case,

23 because records were kept at the time.

24 Q. Are you telling us that this is information you obtained by

25 making your personal assessments? It's not as if you came across this

Page 5998

1 official information in any documents.

2 A. Of course, this is my own personal assessment.

3 Q. Did you also declare yourself to be a Serb at that time?

4 A. Up until the beginning of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, I always

5 declared myself to be a Yugoslav.

6 Q. My question concerned the wartime period when you made these

7 assessments and you assessed the number of non-Bosniak employees, when

8 you assessed what the percentages were, that's what I was referring to.

9 A. Believe me, I wasn't calculating percentages of any kind. If

10 you're asking me if I declared myself to be a Serb, then my answer is

11 yes, but my assessment regarding 20, 25 per cent is only an assessment

12 that I made on the basis of my own personal observations and experience.

13 It wasn't arrived at through an analysis of any kind. It wasn't arrived

14 through a detailed analysis of the ethnic composition of the

15 Sarajevo CSB, security services centre.

16 Q. That is what I'm persuaded of, and that's what I wanted you to

17 say because the transcript says that that is the percentage you were

18 referring to. But I would now like to have a look at the following

19 document: P609. And while we're waiting for this document to appear on

20 the screen, sir, I would just like to tell you that this in fact is an

21 interview that you gave to investigators from the ICTY on the

22 14th of November, 1995, and it is -- it has been admitted into evidence

23 in this case, and in response to a question put to you by the

24 investigator concerning your ethnicity, on the 14th of November, 1995,

25 you said something contrary to what you just said. You said that you

Page 5999

1 were a Bosniak.

2 Could you please tell the Chamber how it is that there is such a

3 discrepancy? You can see this on the first page. It's line 5.

4 A. I can see it, but I don't know what is problematic here.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, could you explain to the witness

6 where you find a contradiction? If it is that he says I always declared

7 myself Yugoslavia and that you find here that his ethnic origin is

8 Bosnian, I don't know whether that's the same. It may be two different

9 instances, and for official purposes in the former Yugoslavia he may have

10 reported himself as a Yugoslav which does not necessarily contradict that

11 he's here described as of Bosnian ethnic origin.

12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, a few minutes ago,

13 you can see this in the transcript, the witness said that in the course

14 of the war, it's line 7, if I can see this clearly -- it's page 7, in

15 fact. The witness said that up until the war, he declared himself to be

16 a Yugoslav, and in the course of the war he declared himself to be of

17 Serbian ethnicity.

18 All I am doing now is trying to clear this up, because on the

19 14th of November, 1995, in the course of the war according to the

20 information he provided to the ICTY, he declared himself to be a Bosnian,

21 to be of Bosnian ethnicity.

22 JUDGE ORIE: If you can explain, please do so, Witness.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My parents were Serbs. Before the

24 war, I always declared myself to be a Yugoslav. In doing that, I was not

25 disregarding my Serbian origins. I don't see what would be problematic

Page 6000

1 about the fact that I said I am a Bosnian here. I said I was a Bosnia,

2 not a Bosniak. I'm pointing this out for the purpose of the translation,

3 the interpretation. But I don't think that this in any way doesn't leave

4 me with the right to declare myself a Serb or to feel that I am a Serb.

5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Thank you. I won't delve into that matter. I'd now like to deal

7 with the events that concern Livanjska Street, and this relates to the

8 document. Could we please have a look at paragraph 10 in this document.

9 And while waiting for it to appear, there are just a few matters I would

10 like to go through with you.

11 You were at the on-site investigation on the 8th when the first

12 shell fell; am I correct?

13 A. Yes. In Livanjska Street I was present at that on-site

14 investigation.

15 Q. And you left the site before the second shell fell; is that

16 correct?

17 A. That's correct.

18 Q. On the following day you went to the site again to carry out an

19 on-site investigation because of the second shell that had fallen; is

20 that correct?

21 A. On the following day we went to the site to repeat the on-site

22 investigation relating to the first shell, because that's what UNPROFOR

23 had requested. We also wanted to carry out an on-site investigation into

24 the second shell.

25 Q. To the best of your recollection, when did that second shell

Page 6001

1 fall?

2 A. I believe it was about half an hour or 45 minutes after we had

3 left. It was perhaps half an hour after we had left the site.

4 Q. And tell us when did you leave the site?

5 A. According to paragraph 12, it was at 1730 hours.

6 Q. I'm asking you about this because I would like to draw your

7 attention to paragraph 14. Could you tell us when you went to the

8 on-site -- to carry out the on-site investigation on the following day,

9 how many shells fell after you had left the site?

10 A. Two shells fell. I apologise. Well, that's fine now. I just

11 wanted to see paragraph 14. It's fine now.

12 Q. Yes. I would like us both to have a look at that paragraph,

13 paragraph 14. And here you say at 1900 hours, at 7.00 p.m. that same

14 evening a second shell fell only 20 metres from the site at which the

15 first shell fell. In this statement, is it true that the conclusion you

16 drew is that one shell fell, not two?

17 A. What you are saying is correct. All I can do is assume that I

18 was referring to the second shell, because it had certain consequences.

19 As for the shell that hit the ground, that was imbedded in the ground,

20 there were no consequences. That shell didn't have any particular

21 effect, which was not the case with the other one.

22 Q. Here you say the following and this statement was given a year

23 after the event, you say that the shell fell at 7.00 p.m. that evening.

24 Today in the course of the examination-in-chief you said it was about

25 half an hour after you left at 5.30. What in fact is correct? This is

Page 6002

1 what you said here today and in the course of the examination-in-chief.

2 A. What it says here is probably correct given all the time that has

3 passed.

4 Q. But this is confusing us, which is why I would like to see

5 Exhibit P611, which has been admitted into evidence. Please have a look

6 at Exhibit P611 now.

7 On the 27th of October, 2010, you provide additional supplemental

8 information to the OTP concerning this event. Could we now look at the

9 following page in the B/C/S version. We have the right page in the

10 English, and in describing the chronology of this event in the

11 Livanjska Street, you say that the second shell fell on Livanjska Street

12 at 17.25, and then the third one fell at 17.30 at number 36. Would you

13 please explain what is closest to the truth? In 1995 you said that it

14 was 7.00 p.m., and then as is in P611, you say that the time reference

15 was between 17.25 and 17.30, and then this morning you said that the time

16 reference was 1800 hours, some 30 minutes after you departed.

17 A. I really don't have a problem in explaining this. I'm not trying

18 to wiggle myself out of this but to explain this time difference of one

19 hour, of one hour and a half, I really can't do it now. I can't explain

20 it now given all the time that has passed. It could be due to some

21 technical elements, and if we are interested in the accurate precise time

22 when the second and third shell fell, we could probably refer to the

23 accompanying documents, dispatches, that were sent at the time which

24 would probably point us in the right direction. After all, these were

25 just my statements, my recollections.

Page 6003

1 Q. But we will agree, won't you, that your statement suffers, if I

2 may say so, from the consequences of the passage of time and that it is

3 not fully precise.

4 A. Given this time interval and given the time references that

5 you --

6 JUDGE ORIE: There's no need to ask that. It's clear that the

7 time references are not completely consistent. It's all in the late

8 afternoon, early evening, but it's not consistent. That's clear,

9 Mr. Stojanovic from the statements, from the answers given by the

10 witness, so there's no need to further explore that at this moment.

11 Please proceed.

12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. We

13 were trying to understand this situation better due to the artillery

14 diaries and so that we could make further comparisons, but all right.

15 Let us go back to P609, please, paragraph 10 of that exhibit.

16 Q. I would like for you to provide a detailed explanation for the

17 Court, please. On the 8th of November, having received information that

18 there was shelling and that the first shell fell at Livanjska Street, you

19 went on site, and would you please explain to the Court how it came about

20 that the representatives of UNPROFOR left the on-site investigation, as

21 far as you can recollect?

22 A. At that time, it was a routine procedure for the UNPROFOR

23 observers to come to the site and to monitor what we were doing during

24 the on-site investigation. Given that the UNPROFOR teams had better

25 mobility, frequently they would reach the site before us. There were

Page 6004

1 situations where they would do things to change the site and how it

2 looked, which of course created problems for us and for our on-site

3 investigations.

4 Now that you're asking me about this particular instance when

5 UNPROFOR left the site, let me tell you this: Two observers of UNPROFOR

6 came to this site. Some 15 to 20 minutes after them, French UNPROFOR

7 battalion came to the site as well. They were not observers. They were

8 active-duty military personnel. They were not observers. And their

9 commander, via an interpreter, told me that they wanted to conduct the

10 on-site investigation and that their experts would come to carry out the

11 on-site investigation together with us. He left the site, and up until

12 the time we departed, we waited for them to come back. However, they did

13 not.

14 Q. Where were you when you talked to this French soldier or

15 French officer?

16 A. I was in the immediate vicinity of the zero point, which is the

17 point where the shell fell. When I say immediate vicinity, I mean

18 distance up to 10 metres from the place where the shell landed.

19 Q. Now, these two UNPROFOR representatives who had been there before

20 you, did they tamper at all with this site and with the traces of the

21 mortar explosion? Did they touch anything?

22 A. As far as I can remember, before the French battalion arrived,

23 one of the two observers who had been there, I saw him at one point

24 kneeling close to the zero point, crouching there, and I saw him

25 touching, almost touching, the stabiliser of the shell, and I warned him

Page 6005

1 not to touch it until all the necessary steps had been taken.

2 Q. Was that before you started the on-site investigation or after

3 that?

4 A. Definitely before.

5 Q. Please look at paragraph 10 of your statement. It says there

6 that upon returning to the site having talked to this French soldier

7 whose name you don't know, and you were told that one of the UNPROFOR

8 representatives had tried to pull out the remains of the shell from the

9 ground and that it was one of your people who warned him not to do it,

10 and you are telling us that you told him that.

11 A. I am fully certain that I said this to this UNPROFOR

12 representative who was from Africa. He was a black man. And I'm sure

13 that I told him. And as I said to you, it frequently happened that the

14 UNPROFOR observers would make our work much more difficult by tampering

15 with the evidence at the scene.

16 Q. Now, please look at item 13, paragraph 13. That evening at

17 around 8.00 p.m., you say in your statement that UNPROFOR held a press

18 conference and that their spokesperson said that the Bosnian police did

19 not let them carry out the on-site investigation and that that evening

20 the minister of the interior issued an order that a report be prepared

21 because this is what the Presidency of the country had asked for, and you

22 personally did that.

23 Now, please tell me, from this time distance can you now explain

24 to us and to the Court where did this statement on UNPROFOR come from?

25 How come the UNPROFOR complained that you did not let them carry out the

Page 6006

1 on-site investigation if the things unfolded in the way that you had just

2 described to us?

3 A. Well, first of all, I confirm that all of this is correct.

4 That's exactly how it was. So then and now, under oath I state that the

5 assertion that the UNPROFOR members were not permitted to carry out an

6 investigation into this event is absolutely untrue, and it's total

7 speculation.

8 Q. And are you aware that after that UNPROFOR issued another

9 statement in which they said that the shell came from the positions of

10 the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

11 A. Yes, I am aware of that, and this is why the following day there

12 was a joint investigation, if I can name it that, and the dilemma around

13 this position of theirs was cleared up in the technical sense.

14 Q. And after you paired up the firing charts of the shells, do you

15 agree that this shell was fired from positions of the

16 Bosnia and Herzegovina Army?

17 A. Well, I really don't know what their official -- and when I say

18 "their" I mean UNPROFOR, what their understanding of the whole thing was,

19 but what I did point out was that when we did pair up the results at the

20 site and when it was noted that the finished charts could not be

21 relevant, they immediately accepted that and even they took the firing

22 tables for the 82-millimetre mortars from our technicians, which was used

23 during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

24 Q. And since you carried out the inquiry on the 8th and the 9th

25 of -- into the first shelling incident and the second, according to your

Page 6007

1 recollection did they come from the same positions which were under the

2 control of the Army of Republika Srpska?

3 A. Well, I cannot be sure until I look at the documents, but I think

4 that they did not. I think that they came from a diametrically opposite

5 direction when you look at the directions.

6 Q. Well, let me just complete this part of my topic. After you

7 documented your information and operative data and all the investigations

8 that had to do with a certain criminal act, then criminal charges would

9 be submitted to the relevant prosecutor's office once all of that was

10 done. According to what you know, were charges submitted for processing

11 to the relevant prosecutor's office regarding this incident as well?

12 A. Are you talking about both shelling incidents? I just want to be

13 sure.

14 Q. Yes. We're talking about the same event, but it happened on two

15 different occasions.

16 A. Well, the complete documentation along with the criminal charges

17 would be -- and were filed to the relevant prosecutor's office, and if

18 this wasn't done, it would be something unacceptable.

19 Q. But what I'm a little bit puzzled about is I have information

20 that your public security centre did not provide the criminal charges to

21 the prosecutor's office for the first shelling incident; is this correct?

22 A. This is something that simply cannot happen. It cannot happen.

23 Had something like this happened, someone, and in this case it would be

24 me, would be responsible for that.

25 Another reason why this simply could not happen was this:

Page 6008

1 Because of all of this information, all these events regarding the

2 reporting back to UNPROFOR and regarding the assertion that we did not

3 permit them to carry out their investigation, well, the investigation

4 that was carried out on the second day was conducted by the investigating

5 judge of the court in Sarajevo. So in view of this fact in particular,

6 it's practically impossible for this document -- for these documents not

7 to have been provided to the prosecutor's office.

8 Q. [Microphone not activated]

9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, could you activate your microphone.

11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. And this first shelling incident that you talked about when you

13 were at the scene, the investigating judge was not present for that.

14 A. Are you asking me about the first day?

15 Q. Yes, the first day.

16 A. According to the law that was in force then about the criminal

17 procedure, it was the duty of the section where I worked to inform

18 immediately the investigating judge on duty as soon as an incident

19 occurred, and then that judge could come to the scene, conduct an

20 investigation or authorise the CSB to carry out the investigation. So on

21 the first day it was this second case. He did not come to the scene, but

22 he authorised us to carry out the investigation.

23 Q. Thank you. I'm going to come back now to this question which was

24 the reason why I put all these other questions.

25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please look at

Page 6009

1 65 ter 12942 in e-court, please. B/C/S page 127, and the English page is

2 page 14 and page 15.

3 Q. Sir, we will be looking at the criminal report that was the

4 result of the work of the CSB in Sarajevo, its investigation. The

5 criminal report was submitted on the 21st of December, 1994. Among other

6 things, it is said in the criminal report that:

7 "Based on Article 151 of paragraph 6 of the Law on Criminal

8 Procedure, a criminal report was submitted against unidentified

9 perpetrators due to well founded suspicion that on the

10 8th of November, 1994, at around 1725 hundred hours," please take note

11 time, "in violation of international law and with intent to kill and

12 inflict physical injuries to as many civilians in the city of Sarajevo as

13 possible, the perpetrators fired two 82-millimetre mortar shells from the

14 north-east direction, from enemy positions at

15 Spicasta Stijena-Hladivode."

16 I'm asking you whether this criminal report is also documentation

17 submitted for the first incident, against the unidentified perpetrators

18 in the first incident.

19 A. No. The criminal report does not refer to that.

20 Q. And then how is that possible? [Microphone not activated]

21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. How is that possible after you stated here today that you believe

24 there is no doubt that this is something that should have processed?

25 A. These are two separate events. This is the second incident. So

Page 6010

1 both in terms of the investigation and in terms of submitting criminal

2 reports, these incidents were treated as separate incidents. So there

3 must be a criminal report that relates to the first shell that killed two

4 children, one directly on the scene and one child died after being taken

5 to the hospital.

6 This criminal report refers exclusively to the incident that

7 occurred after I left the investigation following the impact of the first

8 shell.

9 Q. Well, let's try to deal with one more question on this topic.

10 The following day, the 9th of November, was there a joint investigation

11 by UNPROFOR and representatives of the CSB Sarajevo that covered both the

12 first shelling incident when one shell dropped there and for the second

13 shelling when two shells fell?

14 A. I am quite sure that a joint investigation was carried out

15 regarding the first incident. It's been a long time since then, so I

16 cannot remember whether an investigation was carried out regarding the

17 second two shells from the second incident.

18 Q. Could we please look at P609 again, and can we look at

19 paragraphs 15 and 16. And in paragraph 16, you say that you went with

20 your team to carry out the first investigation for a second time. This

21 was the following day. And when you got there, the UNPROFOR had already

22 completed its investigation.

23 So I'm asking you now, did you conduct this investigation jointly

24 or was it the way that it is stated here, that each of you carried out a

25 separate investigation?

Page 6011

1 A. Well, the principle was that they carried out their investigation

2 without presenting the results of this investigation to us. After they

3 finished, we would do our investigation, we would get our results, and

4 then these results would be compared. This is what I meant when I said

5 that we worked together, that we did a joint investigation. It wasn't a

6 mixed team. Each team worked independently and then the results were

7 compared.

8 Q. Can you please now look at paragraph 15, which -- in which you

9 say, among other things, that you established that the same, we're

10 talking about the same, the first mortar shell, was fired from a location

11 that was east of Serb-held positions at Borje. Is this a translation

12 problem, or you stand by what is said here, that somebody said something

13 to you to this effect?

14 A. Are we talking about paragraph 15 here?

15 Q. Yes, lines two and three.

16 A. Well, regarding the second shelling, we established that the

17 shell came from the east, from Borje.

18 Q. When you say someone told you, who were you thinking of? Who

19 could have said something like this to you since you do not possess

20 significant expert knowledge as a ballistics expert to be able to tell

21 where the shell came from?

22 A. Well, this could only have been something that a ballistics

23 expert told us, because it was not my job to conduct any ballistics

24 examinations because I am not an expert in that it wasn't part of my

25 duties to do that.

Page 6012

1 Q. When you say east of Borje, would that be the area of

2 Spicasta Stijena?

3 A. I really -- I really cannot answer this question right now. All

4 I know is that in relation to the place of impact of this shell that

5 we're talking about, Borje and Spicasta Stijena are, conditionally

6 speaking, in the same direction, and what is east of what or west of

7 what, that's something that I'm really not able to say.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, the English language, as far as I'm

9 able to understand it, it's not entirely without ambiguity. It says:

10 "We are certain it was fired from the east, from the locality of

11 Serb-held position at Borje."

12 Now, if you would read from the east, that is from the locality

13 of a Serb-held position at Borje, then you are at Borje. If you read

14 from the east, from the locality, that would mean east of the locality of

15 a Serb-held position of Borje, it is not Borje anymore but it's east of

16 Borje.

17 Now, for me it is a bit unclear in the English and I would like

18 to ask the witness. Did you say that it came from the east, that is from

19 the locality of Serb-held position at Borje, or did you intend to say

20 that it came from a position east in relation to the location of

21 Serb-held position of Borje. That is not Borje, but east of Borje?

22 Which one of the two did you mean, Witness, if you still remember? If

23 you don't remember, tell us as well.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that mortar shell came

25 from the east in relation to the point of impact, but it is also correct

Page 6013

1 that when we read in the B/C/S, it states here east from -- or east of

2 Borje.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Borje being more to the west of from where the

4 projectile was fired, the firing position being east of Borje. Is that

5 what you intended to say?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is exactly the thing that I'm

7 not able to answer. What I want to say is that the mortar shell came

8 from the east in relation to the point of impact.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed. Judge Fluegge may have

10 one more question.

11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, but to a different topic. On page 20,

12 line 3 and 4, you said:

13 "Each team worked independently and then the results were

14 compared."

15 This is in relation to your team and UNPROFOR investigators; is

16 that correct?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In your statement, which is still on the screen,

19 in paragraph 15 I read there and I quote:

20 "Since it was --" oh, sorry.

21 In another paragraph you said that UNPROFOR didn't disclose their

22 findings to you. Is that also correct? This is paragraph 16 of your

23 statement. The UNPROFOR -- and I quote again:

24 "The UNPROFOR had just completed their investigation but they did

25 not disclose their findings to us by mutual consent."

Page 6014

1 Did they disclose it at a later time or were you able to compare

2 the results of your investigation and the UNPROFOR results?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely, Your Honour. In

4 the other paragraph, paragraph 16 here, this is explained. Thus they

5 first did their measurements. They did not give us the results. After

6 they did that, we did the same, and then we compared these results, and

7 this is explained in this second paragraph.

8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That means that UNPROFOR disclosed their results

9 after you have carried out your investigation, but they did it. They

10 disclosed it to you to enable you to compare the results. Is that the

11 right understanding?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely.

13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.

14 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you the following in relation to the

15 same matter: On the day it happened, that is the 8th of November,

16 UNPROFOR was around as well and had tried to take any measurements, or

17 did they come for the first time on the 9th?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, they did come to the

19 scene on the 8th, but the soldiers came, and they said that their

20 investigation team would come. In spite of the fact that there was a lot

21 of shelling of the broader area where we were, we waited for them but

22 they simply didn't come.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, what finally made them disclose their

24 results to you? What happened that initially they did not want to share

25 their findings with you and afterwards they did?

Page 6015

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think that we did

2 not quite understand each other.

3 On the first day, the first day, on the 8th of November, UNPROFOR

4 did not carry out an investigation at all. That evening, however, at

5 2000 hours, it issued a statement that the Bosnian police did not permit

6 them to conduct an investigation. And since I was the leader of the

7 investigation team on the scene, I had to write a statement in relation

8 to that where I wrote down a detailed chronology. Based on the fact that

9 there were two opposing opinions, one that they were not permitted to

10 conduct an investigation and the other that they didn't even attempt to

11 carry it out, it was agreed the investigation be carried out the

12 following day, actually a reconstruction of the incident. The method

13 used to conduct the investigation was that we would conduct separate

14 investigations, and then when each team was finished we would compare our

15 results.

16 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore the nondisclosure of their results was

17 only during the investigations but after you both had completed your

18 investigations you compared the results of your and their investigation.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct. And then when we

20 compared the results, they still stood by the position that it's possible

21 that the shot came from the positions of the Army of

22 Bosnia and Herzegovina, and when we asked them on the basis of which they

23 went -- reached this conclusion, they said they did it on the basis of

24 these firing tables.

25 JUDGE ORIE: That's explained in paragraph 17 of the statement,

Page 6018

1 investigate such fatal incidents?

2 A. I can't say anything about the officially reached agreements, but

3 on the basis of my experience what I can say is UNPROFOR observers, in

4 90 per cent of the cases, were always present when we carried out on-site

5 investigations, but UNPROFOR itself very seldom carried out such

6 investigations.

7 Q. To the best of your recollection as far as this site in

8 Livanjska Street is concerned, how far is it from the front line? How

9 far was it from the front line at the time?

10 A. Quite far. It was quite far from the front lines around Sarajevo

11 at the time.

12 Q. Could you please try to tell the Chamber what the distance would

13 be in hundreds of metres, in kilometres.

14 A. Two or three kilometres at least.

15 Q. Which ABiH units were deployed at the Kosevo Hill, which is where

16 Livanjska Street is located, if I have understood this correctly.

17 A. Throughout the wartime period, I was in the police force, and I

18 really don't know anything about the Kosevo Hill or the positions of the

19 ABiH. I don't know which units were present at the various locations.

20 Q. But do you remember that during those days there was intensive

21 fighting in that part of the Sarajevo battle-field?

22 A. What I can remember is that the 8th of November was an extremely

23 difficult day -- or, rather, on that day the shelling of Sarajevo was

24 heavy.

25 Q. Which police station did the Kosevo Hill area belong to?

Page 6019

1 A. The Kosevo Hill came under the Centar police station, but during

2 the wartime period the police stations had been divided along territorial

3 lines. They had been broken down into military police stations. As for

4 what the name or designation of the police station at Kosevo Hill was, I

5 cannot remember.

6 Q. How far was the headquarters of the military police station at

7 Kosevo Hill from the site where the shells fell in the street we've been

8 referring to?

9 A. Several hundred metres, but their headquarters were located far

10 from the sites where the shells hit. The two policemen who were securing

11 the site of the on-site investigation were wounded. They were members of

12 that military police station.

13 Q. Would you agree with me now that the police station of the

14 policeman who was wounded was several hundred metres away from the site

15 where he was wounded?

16 A. Yes, I could agree with that.

17 Q. Thank you. Could we now deal with an event that you spoke about

18 on the 3rd of March, 1993, and this relates to the tram that was hit.

19 I'd like to clarify something that was not clear.

20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have a look at P612,

21 page 6 in the B/C/S version and page 7 in English version.

22 Q. Sir, this is a report dated the 3rd of March, 1995, shown to you

23 by the Prosecution, and what I would like to clarify is something that we

24 can see in paragraph 2 of your statement, and there you say, amongst

25 other things, that as soon as information had been received from the high

Page 6020

1 court in Sarajevo Potparic, Milorad was at the head of the on-site

2 investigation, went to the site and carried an investigation there. Do

3 you stand by what you said, that the investigative judge on that occasion

4 went to the site?

5 A. If that's what it says here, then of course I do.

6 Q. [Microphone not activated]

7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Mihajlo Pavlovic, does that name ring a bell?

10 A. Yes, I know the person. He was a police officer in the Centar

11 police station at the time.

12 Q. Was he present at the on-site investigation as far as you can

13 remember when you and the other individuals mentioned in the report, as

14 well as the investigative judge, went to that site?

15 A. Not necessarily. It's not as if he had to be present since he

16 worked in the central police station, and in such cases their task was to

17 go to the site, secure it, and inform us. As to whether he was present

18 at the on-site investigation itself, I really can't remember, but he

19 wasn't officially a member of this on-site investigation team.

20 Q. Who compiles an official report that is part of the criminal

21 file?

22 A. Do you mean the one I have in front of me?

23 Q. I'm referring to this one and also in general.

24 A. In such cases when members of the public that I worked in go to

25 the site then the report is compiled by the inspector from the department

Page 6021

1 concerned, and in this case I was that inspector.

2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have a look at

3 P612, pages 5 -- or page 5 in the English and B/C/S version.

4 Q. Sir, you will see the same date on the document. It's the same

5 incident that is concerned. An on-site investigation was carried out in

6 relation to the tram that was hit, tram designated as 268, and the

7 signature is that of Mihajlo Pavlovic's. Can you see that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Can you tell the Chamber how it is that he compiled such an

10 official report? And in that report he describes the events that concern

11 the incident.

12 A. As I have said, the local police station goes to the site. They

13 are the first to go to the site. Policemen in uniform secure the site,

14 and crime inspector Mr. Pavlovic, for example, would then go to the site.

15 Mr. Pavlovic was part of the department at the time. And this criminal

16 official would then -- crime official, rather, would contact us to tell

17 us what was happening, to inform us about everything.

18 This official report is an internal one that was compiled for

19 that police station. It isn't sent to anyone else apart from the head of

20 the police station. The report of mine that we had a look at a minute

21 ago is important, and all other documents are based on it. All expert

22 reports and so on are based on that document that is compiled in relation

23 to the investigation.

24 Q. In his report, Mr. Pavlovic says that at 12.30, at the same time

25 as you, obtained information -- he obtained information that fire had

Page 6022

1 been opened on this tram and the duty investigative judge was informed of

2 the incident, and he then established an on-site investigation

3 commission, and he doesn't say that the investigating judge was present

4 at the site.

5 Does this refresh your memory? Was the investigating judge at

6 the site?

7 A. As I have already said, the official report that I drafted on

8 this occasion is authoritative, and since it says that the investigating

9 judge was at the site, he therefore carried out or was involved in this

10 on-site investigation.

11 Q. So it wouldn't -- so what the official report drafted by

12 Mr. Pavlovic says is not correct in this case.

13 A. What it says in Mr. Pavlovic's report is not something I can

14 interpret, saying that the investigating judge wasn't present at the

15 on-site investigation.

16 JUDGE ORIE: You're suggesting that there's a contradiction.

17 Even if the Pavlovic report doesn't say that he was present, it also does

18 not say that he was not present, does it? Or is -- or did I

19 misunderstand your questions?

20 Now, the final thing is if there's any suggestion that this

21 report is false or fake or is -- there are lies on it, then please come

22 to that point as quickly as possible and not purely on the basis that the

23 report says that the duty investigating judge was notified and he formed

24 an inquiry commission, and where it does not say that Mr. Pavlovic at no

25 point in time was present at the scene of this incident, that's not a

Page 6023

1 good basis for, and certainly not -- goes very much to the point of

2 saying that the report is false, fake, inaccurate. It's all rather

3 marginal as we understand it now and as presented by you. So if you want

4 to make that stronger point, please do it.

5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I'll try to do that now,

6 Your Honours. I just want to lay a foundation for the questions I would

7 like to put to the witness. I think this is what is essential for these

8 questions. Could we see P3, page 24. It's a bundle of photographs from

9 Sarajevo -- of Sarajevo. And could the usher please give the witness a

10 pen so that he can mark certain locations.

11 Could we please zoom in to the central part. I'm interested in

12 the yellow building. Could we zoom in a little more. Thank you.

13 Q. Sir, do you recognise what we can see in the photograph?

14 A. Yes, I do.

15 Q. Is this a general view of the site where you carried out the

16 investigation?

17 A. You can't see the site where I carried out the on --

18 investigation in this photograph. It's a little further to the east.

19 But according to eyewitness statements, the location at which the tram

20 was hit is visible in this photograph.

21 Q. Thank you for having clarified that. Could we now ask you to

22 mark with an arrow the direction in which the tram was moving.

23 A. [Marks]

24 Q. Thank you. And could you mark with a circle the location where

25 you noted the presence of the first tram that was hit? I'm referring to

Page 6024

1 the first tram, number 268. Would I be right if I said that this street

2 where the trams were present was called Zmaja od Bosne?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And would you agree that the Marsala Tita Street can't be seen in

5 the area depicted by the photograph?

6 A. No, it can't be seen there. It continues from

7 Zmaja od Bosne Street and an investigation was carried out in

8 Marsala Tita Street.

9 Q. Could you tell the Chamber what the name of this transversal

10 street was at the time, if you look to the right from the direction which

11 the trams drive?

12 A. Franje Rackog street.

13 Q. Would you agree with me that immediately behind the

14 Zmaja od Bosne and Franje Rackog, the crossroads of those two street, the

15 tram-lines turn to the right if you're looking in the direction which the

16 trams advance?

17 A. I agree with you. That is the so-called S curve.

18 Q. And according to your recollection, could you tell me if the

19 tram, tram 268, was hit before the S curve, in the S curve, or once it

20 left the S curve?

21 A. The location where the tram was hit, this is something that we

22 learned from eyewitnesses. In view of the fact that the investigation

23 was carried out at the location where it was carried out I could give you

24 a hypothetical answer to this very precise question of yours. I cannot

25 give you a precise answer to your question.

Page 6025

1 Q. Thank you for that answer. So you don't know exactly where this

2 happened other than what the information of the eyewitnesses was; is that

3 correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Thank you. Can we now look at the same -- yes, but before we

6 finish this technical part, all I would like to ask you is the following:

7 Could you mark the circle with a T so that we can mark the place that

8 eyewitnesses said that the tram was hit, and then in this form we could

9 tender this document for adoption into the file of this.

10 THE REGISTRAR: Document as marked by the witness becomes D109,

11 Your Honours.

12 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.

13 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Can we

14 now look at P612 [Realtime transcript read in error "P162"] again in

15 e-court, and can we look at page 4, both in the B/C/S and the English

16 versions.

17 Q. We can't really see it so well, but still I would like to ask you

18 to look at it together with me. This is a document dated the

19 3rd of March, 1995, signed by the chief of the centre. I assume that

20 it's the security services centre chief. His name is Enes Bezdorb. The

21 document states in paragraph 3 that:

22 "The on-site investigation established that about 1210 hours on

23 the 3rd of March, 1995, at the junction of Marsala Tita and

24 Franje Rackog Streets, a single bullet fired from aggressor positions at

25 Grbavica hit tram number 268 ..."

Page 6026

1 Is this correct?

2 A. The dispatch was of course signed by the chief of security at the

3 centre because he was the only one who could sign dispatches like this.

4 On the other hand, the operatives were the ones who actually drafted the

5 dispatches. As for the location where the Marsala Tita and

6 Franje Rackog Streets meet or join, this is an error formally speaking;

7 however, it's just an error involving a distance of some 10 to 15 metres.

8 So formally Franje Rackog Street does not border Marsala Tita Street.

9 However, Marsala Tita Street continues on to the Zmaja od Bosne Street

10 some 10 metres farther than these crossroads.

11 Q. I'm asking you this because I'm going to show you some more

12 documents, and then we will come back to the location from where the shot

13 could have been fired.

14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at the same

15 exhibit but page 8 of the B/C/S and page 9 of the English version,

16 please.

17 Q. Sir, I think that this document was shown to you during the

18 examination-in-chief. This is a report on the forensic on-site

19 investigation which is a part of the case file that is sent to the

20 Prosecutor's office related to this incident, which states that the

21 location of the incident was at the intersection of the Franje Rackog and

22 Marsala Tita Streets. So I'm asking you again do you still believe that

23 the incident occurred some ten metres before that as you look in the

24 direction of the movement of tram 268?

25 A. The only thing that I can say in relation to this is the

Page 6027

1 following: I'm not sure even today that many citizens of Sarajevo know

2 exactly where Zmaja od Bosne Street ends and Marsala Tita Street begins.

3 So what I am stating and what I put in my report is that according to

4 reports by eyewitnesses, the tram was hit at the location which I marked

5 with a circle on that photograph.

6 Q. But would we agree that authorised officials such as the CSB

7 chief and the crime investigation technician who drafts the documents

8 following the search or the investigation on site are supposed to know

9 where which street is when they provide these statements?

10 A. Yes, I can agree with you about that.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, this is all rather argumentative.

12 What you want to say is that what the document says may not be fully in

13 accordance with what he -- what the witness now says. That point is

14 clear to us, so let's move on. And apart from that I think page 34,

15 line 7, reference is made to P162, where apparently we are looking at

16 P612.

17 Please proceed.

18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, perhaps I am

19 mistaken, but we are actually looking at P612. Thank you.

20 Can we now look at the same document, page 25 in the B/C/S and

21 page 20 of the English version?

22 Q. If I understood you correctly, sir, you said in your official

23 report you indicated the actual location on the basis of what

24 eyewitnesses of this incident said, and we have a statement by one of the

25 eyewitnesses. It was a person who was actually wounded on the occasion.

Page 6028

1 Four days after the incident, he described the incident and stated when

2 the tram was close to the containers between the Assembly of the

3 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Marin Dvor, he heard a shot and all

4 the passengers in the tram, including him and Asima, dropped down or laid

5 down on the floor - do you see that? - and according to this description

6 can we agree that according to this eyewitness and the person who was

7 wounded in the incident, the location where the tram was hit is at least

8 100 metres farther towards the east.

9 A. I can agree with you that the position is somewhat more to the

10 east than the one that I indicated, but not by 100 metres. Not by that

11 much, no.

12 Q. Why am I asking you all of these things? Would you agree with me

13 that it's not the same if we're talking about precise measurements of the

14 location where the bullet was fired -- actually, it's important to

15 measure down not to 50 metres or 100 metres but down to a half metre in

16 order to be able to measure precisely the angle of impact, and all of

17 this is important in order to establish precisely the place where the

18 projectile was fired from?

19 JUDGE ORIE: What is --

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, we can agree.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This is a long statement about what people

22 should do rather than a question about facts, Mr. Stojanovic. Try --

23 let's try to focus on -- on facts rather than on whether the witness

24 agrees that half a metre or 75 centimetres or 25 centimetres or 10 metres

25 would be the best to measure. Let's move on.

Page 6029

1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Sir, regarding this incident, did you have the opportunity to

3 read the reports on the forensic examination of the site, and did you

4 have the opportunity to look at the findings of the ballistics expert

5 regarding the barrel size in relation to the entry and exit locations of

6 the projectile that hit the tram?

7 A. As you said yourself at the beginning today, I really am not a

8 ballistics expert. I'm not trained in ballistics examinations. It was

9 not my job to conduct such examinations, so I'm not really the proper

10 person to give you answers to these kind of questions or for these kind

11 of analyses.

12 Q. In your official report of the 3rd of March, 1995, you noted that

13 the projectile was fired from the Grbavica area, and was this based on

14 you having some more detailed information about the location from where

15 the projectile was fired?

16 A. In that location fire would usually be opened from the building

17 which at that time was known as the Metalka building.

18 Q. Now, when you know these -- this information about the Metalka

19 building and the directions that were pointed out by the eyewitnesses to

20 the incident, and if necessary we could go back to the picture because I

21 don't want this to be any kind of trick question, but would you agree

22 that the location described by the eyewitnesses, by the wounded person,

23 could not have been hit from the Metalka building? Would that be

24 correct?

25 A. So much time has passed since then, so right now I'm really

Page 6030

1 unable to give you a definitive answer to that question. I cannot say

2 that it was impossible. It's more difficult to hit that than from the

3 location that I marked on that photograph, but I cannot confirm your

4 assertion that it was impossible even if it was that location.

5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at P3 once again,

6 please, page 24. [Microphone not activated]

7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, could you --

9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please zoom in just for

10 one octave. Could we zoom out, please. Thank you.

11 Q. Sir, the witness Gicevic, as we read a little bit earlier, said

12 that according to his best recollection the shot occurred when the tram

13 was between the B&H Assembly and Marin Dvor. I would like to ask you

14 this: You've got the key on the photograph, so can we agree on the fact

15 that the Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina is this white building just in

16 front of the building marked by the number 4 on this photograph?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And can we agree that the Marin Dvor area are the buildings which

19 are across from the Assembly, and they're along the road that is

20 Zmaja od Bosne Street?

21 A. It's from the church that you can see on the photograph, and then

22 it's to the right, to the east.

23 Q. And can we agree that the Metalka facility, the building, as you

24 referred to it and that is marked in this photograph, is the building in

25 the square marked with the number 8?

Page 6031

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And is it possible, now that you can see this aerial photograph,

3 to say that you could hit a tram from the Metalka building that happened

4 to be in front of the B and H Assembly in the manner that you say the

5 eyewitnesses described?

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, was the BiH Assembly building the

7 same at the time of the incident as it is now, to your knowledge? I'm

8 not asking you to give testimony.

9 Perhaps the witness could tell us. Was the building the same at

10 the time of the incident as you now see it on these -- this picture?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was the same, yes, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My answer to your question would be

14 speculation. I said the first time I answered the question that I cannot

15 really be precise. I cannot say yes, it could have been hit, and in the

16 same way I cannot say it could not have been hit. It's just speculation.

17 The statement by the eyewitness is authentic. There are other

18 statements by witnesses who asserted something else. However, in my

19 report, the location where the shot came from is not specifically

20 mentioned. There is an assumption, but the place could not have been

21 measured precisely from the position where we were conducting the

22 investigation.

23 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. So can we're agree then that you as a professional performing an

25 official task now and then, based on the information you obtained on the

Page 6032

1 scene, could not even with close accuracy determine where the shot was

2 fired from or precisely where the tram was when it was struck?

3 A. If we were to rely exclusively on technical possibilities of

4 answering your question, then, no, not a single tram -- for not a single

5 tram was it possible to determine exactly the origin of fire, but there

6 are certain other technical and expect, and I still stand by what my

7 official report states, in fact.

8 Q. Thank you. Did you have any information according to which

9 members of the ABiH had positions in the executive council building as

10 well that we can see in photograph number 4, and in the Assembly building

11 that you have located, and sometimes in the Unis building, which has been

12 marked with number 5 in this photograph? Did you have any such

13 information?

14 A. As I have already said in answer to one of your previous

15 questions, as a policeman, I didn't have any precise information about

16 the locations at which the ABiH had positions. Given that the

17 demarcation line was near, the front line was near, and the locations you

18 have mentioned, apart from the Unis buildings which are quite far away,

19 our locations where -- I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the ABiH had

20 its own positions.

21 Q. Thank you. Did you know in the course of your work that there

22 were sniper nests, ABiH sniper nests, there, at least in the wider area

23 that we are referring to?

24 A. I didn't have any such information. I still have no such

25 information.

Page 6038

1 photograph that shows the point of entry of the bullet, the point at

2 which it penetrated the side of the tram?

3 A. Yes, that's the photograph in question.

4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Let's have a look at page 6 -- I

5 mean page 16 in the B/C/S version, and it's page 12 in the English

6 version. We can stay on page 12 in the English version. We have the

7 text here.

8 Q. Could we agree that number 2 marks the position hit by the bullet

9 on the other side of the tram, or is that the same side of the tram that

10 we are dealing with, the side of the tram that you referred to in your

11 official report?

12 A. It's difficulty to me -- for me to be sure about this photograph.

13 I can't answer your question on the basis of this photograph. I can't

14 say whether this is where the bullet entered on the same side of the tram

15 or whether it was on the other side of the tram.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, let's first check which part of the

17 English page covers this photograph. Let me -- is that "Interior of the

18 tram, garage number 268, with traces marked with the numbers 2 and 3," in

19 the middle? Is that the one?

20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's text, Your Honours.

21 Photograph number 6. So it's the sixth comment, if you're looking at the

22 English testing.

23 JUDGE ORIE: I see "Traces marked with the numbers 2 and three,

24 photographed at closer range." That is what we're looking at at this

25 moment.

Page 6039

1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct.

2 Q. Let's conclude. You cannot say for certain here today whether

3 the position marked with number 2 is the other side, the opposite side of

4 the tram or is this the photograph from the inside of the tram of the

5 site at which the bullet entered the tram number 268.

6 A. I think this is the entrance, but I can't say for certain on the

7 basis of this photograph, but I do think that this is the point of entry

8 of the bullet that penetrated that side of the tram.

9 Q. Thank you. Let's have a look at photograph P3 again. It's

10 page 24. And then to the best of your recollection, I would like to ask

11 you to mark this photograph, to mark the place where

12 Zmaja od Bosne Street turns into the Marsala Tita Street, the location at

13 which these two streets intersect.

14 JUDGE ORIE: To start with, could we zoom in to have a better

15 picture.

16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. If you could mark this photograph with a transversal line in

18 relation to the Zmaja od Bosne Street. Could you mark the location of

19 the intersection, or in fact could you mark the location in which

20 Marsala Tita Street starts.

21 A. I'm not certain, but I think that this location can't be seen by

22 the building that is now the building of the joint institutions of

23 Bosnia and Herzegovina. It's perhaps at the first third of these

24 buildings where the buildings of the institutions are now located.

25 Q. Thank you. Now according to what we see, what you're describing,

Page 6040

1 if we look at the Metalka building, the place where Zmaja od Bosne

2 becomes Titova Street, if the tram were in that location, could that shot

3 have come from the Metalka building?

4 JUDGE ORIE: If you can answer that question, please do so.

5 But on the basis of these kind of photographs, Mr. Stojanovic,

6 without a position from where the photograph is taken exactly at the

7 point from where you say it could or could not have a line of sight, that

8 is -- the Chamber does not accept that as a possibility, unless the

9 witness has any other explanation on why he thinks he could do it. But

10 on the basis of these kind of photographs, it's just impossible to do it,

11 apart from any inaccuracies that may exist in other respects, but please

12 proceed.

13 Witness, if you can answer the question, please do so.

14 If not, Mr. Stojanovic, you're invited to put your next question

15 to the witness.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I cannot add anything

17 to what you have already said. I'm really not able to answer this

18 question.

19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. In that case, can we

20 now please look at P3, photograph that is on page 25. This is the next

21 photograph in the e-court system. Thank you. Can we please look at the

22 photograph on the left-hand side. It's a close-up.

23 Q. Do you agree that this aerial photograph provides a view of the

24 Franje Rackog and Zmaja od Bosne intersection and the Metalka building

25 that you talked about but now looking from the position of the

Page 6041

1 Holiday Inn Hotel?

2 A. Yes, I agree with you there.

3 Q. And would you agree with me that you can see on the

4 Zmaja od Bosne Street clear traces of tram rails which at one point

5 separate off? And if we look at that from the direction that tram 268

6 was moving, this forks off to the right. Do you see that on the

7 photograph?

8 A. Yes, I -- I can see that on the photograph.

9 Q. And would you agree with me that you didn't know when you

10 mentioned that the possible direction of fire from the Metalka building

11 from Grbavica, you were unable to say from which part of the building the

12 shot could have been fired? You simply don't know that, do you?

13 A. That is correct, I don't.

14 Q. And also, you don't know after Grbavica was reintegrated, which

15 is how you put it, and after investigations were conducted in this area

16 the Metalka, you did not actually go to the Metalka building and conduct

17 an investigation there in order to be able to determine the location from

18 where the fire came?

19 A. Yes, I personally did not go to inspect that particular building.

20 Q. Thank you. I'm going to put the last question to you relating to

21 this incident. The question is: Do you recall that that day at that

22 time there was an incident, and there was firing between a patrol of the

23 French battalion and units at positions around the Miljacka river in

24 Grbavica?

25 A. I think this is stated in my official report, and if I recall

Page 6042

1 correctly, there was an exchange of fire that day between the French and

2 the -- and that fire was opened from positions of the Army of

3 Republika Srpska and those of the French battalion, but this is something

4 you would need to check in the report, but I think that that's what

5 happened around that time when this tram incident occurred.

6 Q. All right. Thank you very much. I don't have to show you the

7 official report. I am satisfied that this is stated in your report.

8 Now I'm going to put this question to you: You assert that if

9 the bullet did come from the Metalka building, according to the

10 ballistics expert's findings, it could have only have had come from there

11 if the tram was exactly at the Zmaja od Bosne and the Franje Rackog

12 intersection. It could not have happen in the way that Witness Gicevic

13 described, and it could not have been in the way that it was described in

14 the dispatch. Would I be correct? This is what we, the Defence, assert.

15 A. Again, I'm unable to give you a precise answer to this question.

16 Q. Thank you. Well, I will not be dealing with this topic anymore.

17 Could we briefly just turn to the events of the

18 23rd of November, 1994, which you also investigated. Do you recall that

19 you were questioned about this incident during the examination-in-chief

20 in this courtroom?

21 A. I'm really not sure that I understood your question.

22 Q. Well, I will try to reformulate it and to make it simpler. Am I

23 correct that on the 24th of November, 1994, you investigated, as the

24 leader of a team, one incident that struck another tram that was going

25 along that same street?

Page 6043

1 A. Yes, that is correct.

2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at P614 now.

3 Q. This is your report, and I'm just going to ask you if you can

4 remember if you know, according to the people who are in charge of these

5 duties in your investigation team, where this bullet came from.

6 A. I think that according to eyewitness statements, I haven't found

7 it yet in the report, but as far as I can remember, I think they refer to

8 these four skyscrapers in Grbavica, but I would really need to look at

9 the report.

10 Q. Was this sniper fire?

11 A. When we talk about incidents that occurred in Sarajevo as a

12 result of firearms, it's very difficult to assess whether they were

13 explosive sniper weapons or some other kind of infantry weapons.

14 Q. Can we look at page 2 of this document in both versions. And in

15 those documents you state that at 1545 hundred hours, tram number 238 was

16 hit while moving towards the new part of town, towards the west. And the

17 tram was hit in the stretch of Zmaja od Bosne Street running from the

18 Philosophy Faculty to the museum. Do you see that part?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And would you agree with me that you didn't provide any more

21 detailed information about the type of weapon and that you describe the

22 location as being from the south to the south-east or south-west, I don't

23 see which one, in relation to the spot where the tram was hit from the

24 direction of Grbavica?

25 A. Yes.

Page 6044

1 Q. And what I want to ask you now is this, and this is from document

2 P619. Can we see that in e-court, please. And while we're waiting I

3 would just like you to confirm the following: Is this the incident that

4 you established as the one where no traces of bullet could be found

5 because the bullet entered through an open window?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Thank you. I'm not sure why in the English version there is a

8 part that is blacked out, but I will ask you this: Do you recall that

9 one of the eyewitnesses at the time said that the tram was hit by a burst

10 of fire?

11 A. At the time when we had cases like this, my colleagues would

12 interview witnesses. These colleagues were from other departments, so if

13 you asked me if some witness said that the tram was hit by bursts of

14 fire, then what I can say is no, at this moment I cannot recall whether

15 anybody said that or not.

16 Q. I'm asking you this because we have the official report in front

17 of us, and in paragraph 2 of the report, and you can see that for

18 yourself, it is noted that according to a statement by an eyewitness,

19 Mr. Tanovic [as interpreted], he heard a burst of automatic gunfire, and

20 then after that she felt a blow in her shoulder and heard glass

21 shattering.

22 My question is this: Do you agree that this eyewitness statement

23 is opposite of what you actually found on the site, and that is that the

24 bullet entered through an open window?

25 A. Yes, it is opposite.

Page 6045

1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour.

2 MS. HARBOUR: To the extent that the witness said he was

3 testifying about the incident when the bullet entered the open window, I

4 believe that the Defence should first direct the witness to the first

5 paragraph in this statement and be careful not to confuse the two

6 different trams that were hit in this incident.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, there seems to be a clear problem if

8 this statement here says that the window was shattered and at the same

9 time to say that this is the same incident as with a bullet entering

10 through an open window. That should be clarified first before we draw

11 further conclusions. Could you please follow the suggestion of

12 Ms. Harbour.

13 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I will, Your Honour. I think I

14 already tried that with the question whether this tram is from that same

15 incident but I will try to be a bit clearer.

16 Q. In your official report it states that on that day, two trams

17 were hit, one at 1530 [Realtime transcript read in error "1535"] hundred

18 hours, that's tram 263, and then 15 minutes later, tram 238 moving in the

19 same direction was also hit. And this is why I asked you whether the

20 indent that involved 238, the one when the bullet entered through the

21 open window, was the one involving tram 238.

22 A. Thank you for that clarification. As you yourself said, there

23 were two trams. The first one was hit through an open window, and this

24 was not the case with the second tram.

25 Q. Thank you. I'm going to end with this question that was also put

Page 6046

1 to you by the Prosecutor.

2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please look at P618.

3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just before you move to the next, just a

4 clarification for the record, Mr. Stojanovic. At page 54, line 4, you

5 said one at -- one was hit at 1535 hundred hours, but in the document it

6 was 1530 hundred hours.

7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Thank you for

8 your intervention. It was at 1530 hundred hours, and that is what the

9 official report also states. Thank you.

10 Q. So this is just what I wanted to clarify. In this report that

11 was shown to you and for which you said during the examination-in-chief,

12 if you recall, that this is probably an error here by the person who

13 wrote the report, tram 263 that is mentioned in the report and for which

14 it is said that the rear right side glass of the front car was damaged,

15 could that be actually something that applies to tram 238, and could this

16 perhaps be a typing error?

17 A. With all due respect, I'm really unable to deal with such

18 details. I would like to be specific and precise, but I cannot in this

19 case.

20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I thank the witness. I would

21 like to thank the Trial Chamber. I have no further questions for this

22 witness.

23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stojanovic.

24 Ms. Harbour, any need to put further questions to the witness?

25 MS. HARBOUR: Just very few questions, Your Honour.

Page 6053

1 been uploaded, and with the Court's permission, if we could release that.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you have a number for it or --

3 MS. BOLTON: I do, Your Honour. It's 28590A.

4 JUDGE ORIE: And it is exactly what?

5 MS. BOLTON: It is General Fraser's amalgamate the statement and

6 you will recall there was one issue in the statement.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

8 MS. BOLTON: That that paragraph -- entire paragraph has been

9 redacted.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's -- the new version, then, can replace

11 the old one that was about protected information, family relations.

12 MS. BOLTON: Correct.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Yes, the new version, the redacted

14 version can replace the unredacted version.

15 MS. BOLTON: Secondly, Your Honours, there was -- you will recall

16 after the 92 ter procedure with General Fraser, I moved for the admission

17 of all the exhibits with the exception of three exhibits, and I

18 understand that the exhibits had -- that weren't contested have been

19 assigned provisional exhibit numbers.

20 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that the others have been assigned

21 provisional exhibit numbers as well, but the three that were objected to

22 you said you would come to them later.

23 MS. BOLTON: Yes. My information was that the ones that had been

24 given provisional exhibit numbers had also been MFI'd, and I don't --

25 JUDGE ORIE: They were all MFI'd. We'll decide on admission.

Page 6054

1 Those not objected to of course we'll admit, but then three are

2 remaining. The first one is 65 ter 8735, which has been provisionally

3 assigned number P588.

4 MS. BOLTON: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you. With respect to that

5 document, I should indicate with respect to all three documents it's the

6 Prosecution's position that they meet the test for admission as

7 associated exhibits, and in particular, that they would meet the test --

8 the lower of the two standards being that they would render -- their

9 exclusion would render of lower probative value the witness's statement.

10 The first of those --

11 JUDGE ORIE: Should we first identify all three of them so we

12 know for sure what we are talking about. The first one as I said was

13 65 ter 8735. The second one is 65 ter 9741, and I think the third one is

14 65 ter 11189.

15 MS. BOLTON: That's my understanding, Your Honour. Thank you.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. These three you say they meet the standard for

17 admission.

18 MS. BOLTON: Yes. And dealing with -- so with respect to 65 ter

19 11189, my only submission is that it meets the test for admission as an

20 associated exhibit.

21 With respect to 08735, it's my respectful submission that some of

22 the evidence that was a tendered through the witness provides additional

23 corroboration of the authenticity and reliability of this document. This

24 was, to remind Your Honours, a VRS Main Staff order that had been signed

25 by General Milovanovic, and the issue was who controlled -- we would say

Page 6055

1 it indicates that the freedom of movement for the UN and UNPROFOR was

2 controlled at the level of the Main Staff of the VRS. That is what the

3 witness has indicated in his statement at -- I believe it's paragraph, I

4 think, 130 or 132.

5 That evidence, in my respectful submission, was corroborated by

6 the re-examination of General Fraser, and in particular, the

7 re-examination on Defence document 1D00474. That was a SRK document

8 which the Defence put to the witness, and in that document there is -- I

9 read a portion of it to the witness regarding freedom of movement of the

10 UN where General Galic had emphasised that that was an issue not in his

11 competence and proposed the issue be resolved at the highest level as

12 part of the overall problem of Sarajevo.

13 So in my respectful submission, that portion of the document is

14 further corroboration of the contents of the proposed associated exhibit

15 and enhances its reliability and authenticity.

16 And finally, Your Honours, with respect to 65 ter 09741, it's

17 discussed at paragraph 134 of the witness's amalgamated statement, and

18 it's a document again signed by General Milovanovic, dated the

19 12th of June, addressed to the Ilidza Brigade and indicating that it is

20 the VRS Main Staff that decides on the use of aerial bombs and not -- and

21 possibly a corps if the VRS GS approves and not a brigade according to

22 its plan. And it's my respectful submission that the contents of this

23 document and its reliability are corroborated by two exhibits that were

24 introduced through General Fraser, being Exhibits P580 and P581. And

25 P581, Your Honours may recall was a letter - or I would characterise it

Page 6056

1 as a correspondence, I guess - from General Mladic to Colonel Tadija

2 where he was questioning a planned use of modified air bombs, asking

3 questions about who had authorised it, and reminding him that he needed

4 the approval of either the level of the Main Staff or if it had been

5 issued by the commander, the supreme commander, he wanted to know.

6 So in my respectful submission again, that document corroborates

7 the authenticity of the proposed associated exhibit.

8 Those are my submissions with respect to the admissibility of the

9 exhibits, Your Honour. Do you wish me to --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Should we try to deal with this first, because these

11 were the three objected to by the Defence. I don't think, but forgive me

12 when I'm wrong, that we have received yet the reasons for the objection,

13 Mr. Ivetic.

14 MR. IVETIC: That's correct, Your Honours, apart from the very

15 general objections that were in the response to the Rule 92 ter motion,

16 if I can begin, I guess, with 08735, I have here, Your Honours, that the

17 witness has not given any personal testimony as to any personal knowledge

18 of this particular document, and it is dated before the witness assumed

19 his position as MA in sector Sarajevo.

20 With regard to 09741, although it is during the time period when

21 the witness was present in Sector Sarajevo, the statement and the

22 testimony of the witness have not added anything to the document. He

23 cannot authenticate a document that is not signed by him and for which

24 there is no testimony that he received or was aware of the document

25 during the relevant time period.

Page 6057

1 With respect to 11189, this is again a document that purports to

2 be of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, and therefore the witness would not

3 have been a signator to it. It is not discussed by the witness and does

4 not -- he does not add any personal knowledge to this document.

5 So, again, those are the bases for the objections to these three

6 documents. Thank you.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber will consider the submission by

8 the parties and then decide on admissibility.

9 Apart from that since the others were not objected, provisionally

10 assign exhibits to which provisionally were assigned numbers P590 up to

11 and including P602, and next range, P604 up to and including P607 are

12 admitted into evidence.

13 Ms. Bolton, there was another matter which you would like to make

14 submissions.

15 MS. BOLTON: There is, Your Honour. Just before we leave this

16 area, just so there's no misunderstanding, the unredacted statement

17 admitted under seal from General Fraser has been assigned an exhibit

18 number, and we -- we do wish to rely on that for the Trial Chamber's

19 deliberations at the end of the day. So we would need a separate P

20 number for the public version.

21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think -- but -- but let me -- I think I'm now

22 back on track again on this matter. It's not a matter of replacing the

23 evidence. The evidence remains as it was before. I don't think, but

24 we'll check that, that new exhibit numbers would be assigned to public

25 versions of the same evidence, but we'll deal with that. It's clear that

Page 6058

1 there is now a version available which is ready to -- for the public, and

2 we'll deal with that together with Madam Registrar.

3 MS. BOLTON: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Bolton.

5 MS. BOLTON: Yes. So the other issue I would like to address

6 Your Honours on, and I thank you for the opportunity to do so, has to do

7 with some issues that arose primarily at the beginning of

8 General Fraser's testimony last week on the 5th of December. And I

9 think, Your Honour Justice Orie, you correctly indicated at one point

10 that I seemed to be taken aback or somewhat dismissive of the Defence's

11 complaints with respect to the -- the addition of that one exhibit to the

12 65 ter list, and I think that that was fair criticism, Your Honour, but

13 I'd like to perhaps indicate that there is some area of confusion for the

14 Prosecution, and it would be helpful to us if we could clear up that

15 area.

16 So there were two issues that were raised at the very beginning

17 of General Fraser's testimony by the Defence, and they both pertain to an

18 e-mail that I had sent on the 2nd of December, 2012, which I copied the

19 Trial Chamber on, and that was an e-mail indicating that the existing

20 65 ter summary for the witness didn't include three topics, and also that

21 there were two additional potential exhibits that I intended to present

22 to the witness during proofing and that I might possibly seek to

23 introduce them through the witness.

24 And at the beginning of proceedings, the objections raised by the

25 Defence were to first -- they were of the opinion that we had not

Page 6059

1 complied with the Chamber's guideline with respect to the amendment of

2 the 65 ter summary; and secondly, that we had not complied with the

3 guidance with respect to the addition of exhibits after the seven-day

4 guidance rule. And specifically at page 5765, the Defence stated:

5 "Defence notes that it received an e-mail on Sunday,

6 December the 2nd, 2012, at 6.35 p.m. for this witness with three now

7 topics for the 65 ter summary and two new 65 ter documents of exhibits.

8 This is not more than a couple of days before the testimony of the

9 witness, and this testimony has been scheduled for at least two months."

10 With respect, Your Honour, to the 65 ter summary, your guidance

11 of the 24th of August, 2012, at page 1638 indicated that the purpose of

12 Rule 65 ter witness summaries is to notify the opposing party and the

13 Chamber of the content of evidence expected to be elicited from a

14 witness. Such notice should be given sufficiently in advance of a

15 witness's testimony so as to enable the opposing party to prepare for the

16 witness's cross-examination.

17 When amendments to the 65 ter summary concern information which

18 was included in the witness statement was filed per the 92 ter motion,

19 the Chamber will consider that the Defence has been on notice

20 sufficiently in advance of the witness's testimony of the Prosecution's

21 intention to lead the proposed additional evidence which is included in

22 the 92 ter statement.

23 The e-mail I sent on the 2nd of December, 2012, indicated that

24 the existing 65 ter summary for General Fraser didn't include references

25 to modified air bombs, targeting, or the witness's personal observations

Page 6060

1 of General Mladic. However, I expressly stated repeatedly in the e-mail

2 that these were issues that were addressed in the witness's amalgamated

3 statement, and I provided paragraph references to those portions of the

4 amalgamated statement. And my intention, in fact, in sending this e-mail

5 was to avoid the very situation that arose, which was to avoid any

6 suggestion that these were new areas, and so I was a little taken aback

7 when having taken -- or made the effort to avoid the situation that it

8 did arise, and I apologise, because I obviously displayed that annoyance,

9 and I did not intend to. I try never to lose patience in court or to

10 display emotion, and so I do apologise to the extent that I was not

11 successful in doing so. And I certainly can understand why the

12 Trial Chamber was critical of my tone of voice when responding to those

13 areas of inquiry.

14 The second issue raised is the area where I think there may be

15 some confusion with respect to the existing guidance from the

16 Prosecution's perspective at least, and I think in fact the Defence has

17 also indicated in their submission on this issue that there may be

18 misunderstanding as to what is required.

19 In that e-mail I've averred to, I had indicated I intended to

20 present the witness with two documents that I had not included on the

21 list of potential exhibits that was disclosed to the Defence seven days

22 before the start of General Fraser's testimony. These were documents

23 that are not discussed in the witness's statement or have never been

24 discussed in his prior evidence. They're not documents he authored, and

25 so I didn't know whether or not he'd be able to identify the documents or

Page 6061

1 to speak to their contents. And in including this information in the

2 e-mail, again I thought I was adhering with the guidance, which on the

3 4th of September, 2012, indicated this with respect to the sending of the

4 list of documents. This is at transcript page 2160, for the record:

5 "The Defence sought guidance from the Chamber about when such

6 list of documents used by the Prosecution with witnesses should be sent.

7 The Chamber will not set any strict time limits in this respect at this

8 stage and is confident that the parties can find common ground on this

9 issue without involving the Chamber. At the same time, the parties are

10 encouraged to send lists of documents to be used during

11 examination-in-chief as early as possible. The Chamber would expect that

12 a first list of documents be sent no later than seven days prior to the

13 witness's testimony. Such a list could then be complemented at a later

14 stage following any proofing of the witness."

15 The way the Prosecution interprets this guidance is that we

16 should include all documents on our seven-day list that we know may be

17 introduced through the witness. So documents that we already know the

18 witness can speak to but that the guidance allows for the possibility

19 that a limited number of addition documents may be added after proofing

20 and whether or not that is allowed will depend on whether there is any

21 actual prejudice to the Defence, and that's an issue that must be

22 determined on a case-by-case basis. And it is our respectful submission

23 that this is the only interpretation of your guidance that would be

24 consistent with the Rules, because the adoption of a hard and fast rule

25 that prohibited the Prosecution from relying on documents that weren't

Page 6062

1 included on its seven-day list would amount to a finding of prejudice any

2 time such documents were included and wouldn't involve any case by case

3 analysis of whether there was actual prejudice.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton, you have used now 20 minutes

5 approximately on a matter you said you would deal with in 10 minutes.

6 Let me try to cut matters short, because I think that you have dealt with

7 the -- what the specific document was about, I'm not talking about the

8 adding to the 65 ter summary at this moment because that's something that

9 finally did not -- was not the focus of -- and was not the basis for our

10 decision. It was a document, a handwritten document, documentation about

11 a modified air bomb which landed in Hrasnica. That was a document which

12 consisted of two parts: The first part a general description of that

13 bomb falling there, and the second a -- detailed sketches, et cetera, on

14 all kind of particles of that bomb that were found.

15 Now, if the modified air bomb was part of a specific section of

16 the witness's statement, and it was, five or six paragraph, and where the

17 Hrasnica incident was the only specific incident referred to, there was

18 another one but without any further specifics, then the Chamber would

19 have expected that the -- the Prosecution would have foreseen that the

20 Hrasnica incident was part of the evidence to be given by that witness,

21 and it was. We have two other documents, one preparing for, another one

22 reporting about this air bomb being -- this projectile being fired.

23 Under those circumstances, the Chamber had difficulties in understanding

24 why it was only during proofing that a far more detailed report about the

25 landing of that air bomb would suddenly have come up from the blue of the

Page 6063

1 sky and suddenly turned out to be relevant where its relevance was

2 perfectly clear on from the beginning.

3 Second, if you intended to use it only to establish that that

4 modified air bomb fell there, there was no need to do that, because there

5 were already -- there was one other, even an insider document which

6 confirmed that. We fired it. That is where it was.

7 If, however, you wanted to use it for the technical details,

8 pages and pages of small sketches, then of course it would be prejudicial

9 for the Defence not to be aware of that, because they might want to

10 consult experts on these specific small drawings, sketches, et cetera.

11 Now, you didn't ask any question to the witness about those

12 details, so therefore we take it that it was only that you intended to

13 use it primarily and perhaps even exclusively for that modified air bomb

14 having landed where the SRK -- the, yes, SRK report already says that it

15 was fired and that's where it landed.

16 So under those circumstances, the Chamber did not fully

17 understand why that had not come up any earlier, and if you're

18 interpreting our guidance and if you say, We understand it that you can

19 add on the basis of proofing, then you should also understand that the

20 Chamber expects the Prosecution to present a first list with all

21 reasonably to be expected documents on that risk, leaving it open that

22 something new may come up. But the Chamber had some difficulties in

23 understanding that this was entirely new and could not be foreseen. That

24 is the gist of what it is, and this is, as you may have noticed by now,

25 is expressed on this case by case considerations.

Page 6064

1 If there's anything further you'd like to say about it, again you

2 asked for ten minutes. We have now spent 20 minutes, even 25 minutes on

3 it. You may make further submissions on the matter, but you now know in

4 more detail what -- what triggered, more or less, the focus on this

5 document.

6 At the same time, Mr. Ivetic, of course, since the details of

7 that document have not been used in any way by the Prosecution, the mere

8 fact that the modified air bomb landed in that area without further

9 details, is there any dispute about that? Is there any prejudice

10 inflicted on the Defence if we leave apart the sketches and the further

11 details?

12 MR. IVETIC: I don't believe there is a dispute as to that fact.

13 The dispute was as to getting the document and all this other information

14 through a witness who would not have the ability to comment on it.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Then the parties are invited to see to what extent

16 they can agree on admission of either the whole or a portion of that

17 document into evidence or to agree, for example, on the fact that the

18 modified air bomb landed at that point in time exactly at that spot.

19 We take a break. If there is any need for further submissions,

20 we'll hear from the parties. If the parties agree on anything the

21 Chamber will hear from that from the parties on that matter.

22 We need the next break also to prepare for the protective

23 measures for the next witness. We take a break and we resume at

24 5 minutes to 2.00, and we only have limited time after that, only 20 more

25 minutes to start the examination of the next witness.