130123ED

Page 7197

1 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

3 Good morning, Witness RM055. I would like to remind you that

4 you're still bound by the solemn declaration that you've given at the

5 beginning of your testimony.

6 Mr. Lukic will now continue his cross-examination.

7 WITNESS: RM055 [Resumed]

8 [Witness answered through interpreter]

9 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]

10 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning once again.

11 I presume you have your statement before you in French?

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have page 32 of the

13 French version, the last paragraph. It is P749. In the English,

14 page 24, the third paragraph; in the B/C/S, page 44, the third paragraph.

15 In that part of your statement, you commented upon a document,

16 10402. It was a letter of protest sent by --

17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. -- Chief of Staff, Brigadier-General Nicolai on the 1st of July,

20 which is your letter of the 30th of June. I will not refer to it, the

21 document itself, since we are in open session.

22 As you see, you say that it was a list of incidents drawn up by

23 your command for Bosnia and Herzegovina. In it, there are 15 incidents

24 which occurred in the Sector Sarajevo zone of responsibility.

25 First of all, you say that cannon fire was opened at UN convoys

Page 7198

1 which were transporting supplies to the city.

2 My question is this: Is it true, is it correct --

3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hochhauser.

4 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I'm sorry to interrupt -- my microphone is on.

5 I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think counsel referred to the wrong 65 ter

6 number for that document. I believe he's referring to 11196.

7 JUDGE ORIE: There seems to be a problem with your microphone. I

8 see the light is on.

9 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Can you -- does this one work?

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If the interpreters can hear you, then please

11 proceed.

12 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I believe the document that counsel was

13 referencing on page 24 --

14 JUDGE ORIE: I take it from the translation that the interpreters

15 have no difficulties. I'm, at this moment, on the English channel.

16 Could that be confirmed by the English interpreters.

17 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, it can.

18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But apparently madam transcriber has problems

19 in hearing you, and we have as well.

20 Could.

21 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I believe it's 11196.

22 JUDGE ORIE: I see that out of the reach of the microphones, the

23 parties are resolving the matter. At the same time, Ms. Hochhauser,

24 could you say a few words to see whether it's now okay.

25 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Hello. Yes. Okay.

Page 7199

1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's only one word.

2 Let me see. Madam transcriber? Everything is okay. We can

3 proceed.

4 Ms. Hochhauser.

5 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I apologise for the interruption. I just wanted

6 to point out that I believe the 65 ter number that counsel referred to

7 for the document containing the list is RM11196, not the -- not the 65

8 ter number that he cited.

9 JUDGE ORIE: This being corrected, we can proceed.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 MR. LUKIC: The ERN number I have is ZA016157, and that's the

12 document discussed in the paragraph I'm referring to, and I think that

13 the number I quoted was the number I want to discuss. All the chart is

14 the number my learned friend mentioned.

15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is yours an ERN number or is it a 65 ter number?

16 MR. LUKIC: I mentioned 65 ter number --

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: You said ERN.

18 MR. LUKIC: Now I said ERN. It's ZA016157. It's ERN. And I

19 have it as 65 ter 01402.

20 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.

21 Well, it's not on our screen anyhow. You didn't want to show it.

22 So let's --

23 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... open session.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Let's see then.

25 MR. LUKIC: But I read the part of the statement I wanted to

Page 7200

1 read. I just want to ask the question --

2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, if the confusion continues, then we

3 should have it on our screen and we should look at it, although in -- not

4 to be shown to the public. But let's proceed first and see whether

5 there's any confusion or misunderstanding among the parties.

6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Sir, is it correct that UN convoys moved outside the routes that

8 had been pre-arranged with the Serb side?

9 A. That is correct, sir.

10 Q. Thank you. Is it also correct that they moved about in

11 improperly marked trucks? They were not marked properly.

12 A. That is not correct. All these trucks were trucks that were

13 either military trucks or trucks that had been rented by the UN HR.

14 Q. The trucks, which moved along unscheduled routes, went either

15 early, at dawn, or at dusk, just before the night fell.

16 A. That was correct at the beginning of the operation. Later on,

17 the trucks went at different times of the day.

18 Q. When you say that later on the trucks went at different times of

19 day, was it then that fire was opened on such convoys?

20 A. Indeed, sir.

21 Q. Were the same routes used by military trucks, transporting

22 members of the Muslim forces?

23 A. That route was improved and enlarged by the French military

24 engineering soldiers was used during the day by the civilian and military

25 means of the UN, and at night besides civilians and also Bosnian

Page 7201

1 military -- well, Bosnian Muslims, I meant to say.

2 Q. Neither you nor the Army of Bosnian Muslims did notify the Serbs

3 or the Serb side what was being transported on such trucks and when such

4 convoys were to move about.

5 A. It is partly true. At that time, or at this time, I would like

6 to remind you, sir, the situation that was prevailing, I said so before,

7 meaning yesterday, the Blue Routes were blocked, indeed, for the past few

8 months. Grievous incidents had taken place on these Blue Routes that

9 were created by the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps. Within that city tensions,

10 economic, social tensions were on the upward trend, linked to the heat

11 that year, linked to the lack of supplies, and linked to the fact that

12 they were closed in. Facing the impossibility in spite of the repeated

13 demands or requests of re-establishing the freedom of movement that was

14 guaranteed by the Bosnian Serb side on the Blue Routes, we have suggested

15 several options, in order to re-establish this freedom of movement. The

16 option that was selected in June was to unblock the city of Sarajevo by

17 opening up a passage without looking --

18 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... please stop. I apologise.

19 My question had to do with fire opened at such convoys which were moved

20 along the routes that were not approved by the Serbs. I'm not asking

21 about the Blue Routes or the city and the social situation on nutrition,

22 et cetera. Let us stay focussed, please, and kindly try and answer my

23 questions. I apologise, but I have time-limits, and we all need to

24 invest an effort into putting the right questions and receiving

25 appropriate answers. If there are any topics that are left open, the

Page 7202

1 Prosecution will have an opportunity to discuss it with you.

2 A. I do understand, so I will answer your question thus.

3 These convoys were not announced to the Bosnian Serb side. On

4 the other hand, each time that the fire was opened from the

5 Ilidza Brigade on these convoys, there was a reaction with fire by the

6 United Nations units. When this fire was an artillery fire, myself would

7 tell my counterparts of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps of such fire that

8 would be opened.

9 Q. Thank you. You talked about the road being expanded, made wider.

10 The French Battalion actually created the road and fixed it in such a way

11 that trucks could move along it, whether -- whereas, before that, it had

12 predominantly been a footpath; correct?

13 A. That's correct.

14 Q. The work that was undertaken enabled the Army of Bosnia and

15 Herzegovina to use that route to dispatch trucks, transporting different

16 kinds of goods to Sarajevo; correct?

17 A. Correction: We facilitated transport through this road.

18 Q. Did UNPROFOR check what kind of goods were being transported on

19 the trucks of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

20 A. The UNPROFOR did not check the civilian trucks or any other

21 trucks using this route by night.

22 Q. The road ended at the tunnel, or, rather, the routes of the Army

23 of BH trucks ended at the entrance to the tunnel in the settlement of

24 Butmir; correct?

25 A. This itinerary was close to the entrance of the tunnel and

Page 7203

1 continued to the western entry point of the airport area controlled by

2 the UN forces.

3 Q. At that point in time, the route was actually the backbone of all

4 supply for the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?

5 A. I would like to remind you what I said earlier on. The mode of

6 action consisted in deblocking the city of Sarajevo without trying to

7 have confrontation with the Bosnian Serb army but by retaliating, if

8 necessary.

9 Q. The thrust of my question went more in the direction of UNPROFOR

10 knowing that the route was being used to supply the BH Army with

11 ammunition and weapons; is that correct?

12 A. UNPROFOR knew that this run was used by the army, by the Bosnian

13 Muslims, and this seemed in compliance with the principle of impartiality

14 between both parties.

15 Q. I don't know if I understood your answer properly. Are you

16 trying to say that the Serb side agreed to the route created by the

17 French Battalion to be used to supply the Bosnian Muslim army in

18 Sarajevo?

19 A. This route had been built by the French Battalions and not the

20 Serbs. The Bosnian Serb party, of course, disagreed, because their aim

21 was to block as tightly as possible the city.

22 Q. I'll ask you a question pertaining to military doctrine.

23 Is it justified --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, we move to a different subject at

25 this moment, or are we still -- because I'd like to clarify the issue

Page 7204

1 which created so much confusion at the beginning of this --

2 MR. LUKIC: Please do so, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

4 65 ter 11196, that was the number referred to by Ms. Hochhauser,

5 is, indeed, a letter of protest dated the 8th of June in two languages.

6 A list is attached which, by the way, does not -- is not mentioned in the

7 letter. It's a list of incidents. Therefore, it's a bit confusing what

8 the list exactly has to do with the letter.

9 Now, the English version also contains the B/C/S version of the

10 letter. In e-court the B/C/S translation covers only the list and not

11 the B/C/S version of the letter, which, again, is found in the English

12 version.

13 65 ter 1402 is a letter written by a woman which appears only in

14 B/C/S and there's no English translation in e-court, as far as I could

15 see. Therefore, it seems that what you are quoting off or at least what

16 you were referring to, Mr. Lukic, is, indeed, 65 ter 11196.

17 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honour, I actually -- I came to a different

18 conclusion about what the confusion was. I think that the ERN number as

19 it's listed in the statement actually includes two 65 ter numbers and

20 that's 11196 and 10402. So I think perhaps the record didn't catch the

21 whole of the 65 ter -- second 65 ter that I had listed. I think I can --

22 the 10402 contains the list. I'm sorry. 11196 contains the list and

23 10402 contains the letter.

24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then there was, therefore, another confusion

25 about whether it was 10402 or whether it was 01402. That was confused as

Page 7205

1 well.

2 I think everything has been straightened out now on the record.

3 Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Although perhaps I ask one thing.

6 Ms. Hochhauser, in 65 ter 11196, the letter and the list are

7 combined. Now, the letter dates of the 8th of June, 1995. However, the

8 list describes events happening between the 30th of June and the 3rd of

9 July, 1995, which requires, for the person writing that letter, certain

10 capacities which I do not have. That is, what will happen in the month

11 to come. They are apparently with the same fax header so they certainly

12 would have been sent at one point in time together to whomever, but I'm

13 really surprised by -- to see attached to a letter of the 8th of June,

14 1995, to see what happened between the 30th of June and the 3rd of

15 July of that same year.

16 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honour, I believe that the cover letter,

17 which is the first page of 10402, lists both of these letters separately.

18 In any event, what I would endeavour to do --

19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Ms. Hochhauser, then have a look at it and

20 tell me, as a matter of fact, I do not see any list referred to at all.

21 So if you would then please bear with me and explain to me where on

22 D11196 reference is made to the list, then I would be happy.

23 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honour, what I might suggest if it's

24 amenable to the Court is that I take look at the hard copies of these --

25 both documents, that can I look at them together and revert -- come back

Page 7206

1 to you with an answer at the end of this session.

2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hochhauser, they're not in evidence. Hard

3 copies are at this moment not available to the Chamber. The only thing

4 we have is the material in e-court, and therefore since you started

5 saying what you believed was in 10402, that is, a reference to two lists,

6 then I wonder whether your hard copy appears under the same 65 ter

7 number, and, as you know, hard copies usually or do not always give a

8 clear indication as to the number under which they are uploaded into

9 e-court.

10 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honour, I -- I'm -- I'm sorry if I'm being

11 confusing. I'm referring to the first page of 10402 as uploaded in

12 e-court, which is a fax cover sheet, which lists what --

13 JUDGE ORIE: No. Could you please have it in e-court. What I

14 have in e-court for 65 ter 11196 is a three-page document. The first

15 page, although having fax headers, and -- two fax headers even, so they

16 must have been copied, one with page 04, the other one with page 13, but

17 it is an UNPROFOR document, it is a letter, to the left in English, to

18 the right in B/C/S, sent by Major-General Gobillard to

19 Major-General D. Milosevic. That's the first page.

20 The second page is a --

21 MR. LUKIC: Excuse me, Your Honour, should we go to private

22 session?

23 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.

24 [Private session]

25 (redacted)

Page 7215

1 provoke a strong protest."

2 Do you recall now that UNPROFOR was informed that the SRK was

3 asking for UNPROFOR convoys to be announced so that fire would not be

4 opened?

5 A. And what is the question that you're asking, if I may?

6 Q. Do you recall now that UNPROFOR was informed of the request by

7 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps to have all convoys announced so that no fire

8 would be opened upon them?

9 A. It seems to me that in the report that is mentioned, the captain,

10 Captain Novak, said that, according to him, vehicles, Bosnian vehicles,

11 were attacked. I do not remember that there was this type of a request

12 in this report. And I'm looking at the French version.

13 Well, my mistake, sorry. Sorry. I'm really sorry. Indeed, the

14 request was put through by Captain Novak during this meeting. I'm sorry.

15 Q. Thank you. A moment ago, you told us that Muslim forces had 128

16 portable rocket-launchers and that you found such pieces in the eastern

17 tunnel leading to Pale; is that correct?

18 A. Yes, that's right.

19 Q. Why did UNPROFOR seize those weapons? Did they open fire at

20 UNPROFOR?

21 A. No, the incident occurred after the cease-fire. A local

22 initiative made that this piece had been withdrawn from its depot, put in

23 a battery on the road, and one or two projectiles were fired.

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 7216

1 Q. Thank you. Was UNPROFOR also aware of the fact that the Muslim

2 forces in Sarajevo had 107-millimetre rocket-launchers, produced in Iran,

3 if I'm not mistaken?

4 A. I do not recall this type of weapon, sir.

5 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that when a rocket-launcher is being

6 fired it has a direct trajectory which cannot be picked up by any radar

7 devices?

8 A. [Previous translation continues] ... of course, a rocket has a

9 straight trajectory.

10 Q. When you arrived in Sarajevo, were you told that the French

11 ambassador protested with President Izetbegovic because the forces of the

12 Muslim army killed a French soldier? The protest and the killing took

13 place in April 1995.

14 A. I repeat, I was not in Sarajevo at that time, and I have no

15 knowledge of this protest. I'm discovering it today.

16 In any case, I had no hierarchical link with the ambassador of

17 France. We merely were trying to help an isolated fellow citizen.

18 Q. I would like us to focus now, again, on the tunnel.

19 You said a few moments ago that the road constructed by the

20 French passed by the tunnel; correct?

21 A. That is correct.

22 Q. Were there ever any attempts to prevent the passage of military

23 equipment through the tunnel or was there no reaction whatsoever? Or was

24 it even approved by the French Battalion?

25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Approved of by the

Page 7217

1 French Battalion.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time I was on duty in

3 Sarajevo, we did not try to stop the passage of equipment through that

4 tunnel.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. While you were in Sarajevo, or before your arrival, did you have

7 occasion to read an agreement by which the Serbs handed over the airport

8 to UNPROFOR? And do you know what kind of obligation was there on

9 UNPROFOR in the running of the airport?

10 A. I knew about it, sir.

11 Q. You do know, then, that UNPROFOR was supposed to prevent any

12 crossing over of soldiers or passing of military equipment and weapons

13 and vehicles?

14 A. That is correct, sir. If you give me some more time, maybe I

15 could elaborate on this.

16 Q. Please go ahead.

17 A. The tunnel characteristics did not allow for heavy equipment

18 passage. The transitional capacity of this tunnel was very limited, even

19 if it had been used 24/7. Besides, given the conditions arising from the

20 blockade of Sarajevo, we considered that some balance had been stricken

21 in the spirit of impartiality as I mentioned earlier.

22 Q. Thank you. So you were aware of the characteristics of the

23 tunnel. Did you visit it personally, or did you receive reports about

24 it? What were you told about the width and height of the tunnel?

25 A. I never went through the tunnel myself. I was invited to do so,

Page 7218

1 but I refused. And from the reports that I received, the width and

2 height characteristics of the tunnel made it that it was a small-size

3 tunnel, and this was later checked after the cease-fire.

4 Q. Do you know whether any UNPROFOR members took part in the

5 construction of the tunnel or in the attempts to make it wider?

6 A. I do not know, sir.

7 Q. Thank you. Let us focus next on UNPROFOR movements.

8 Let me ask you this: You said that UNPROFOR was not able to

9 visit hospitals. Is it also correct that UNPROFOR had no access to

10 certain parts of town because the Muslim side, the Muslim forces, would

11 not allow it?

12 A. This should be nuanced. Our teams were not totally free to

13 access any hospital at any time. Likewise, some inspections were not

14 facilitated by the Bosnian Muslim side in some parts, among others,

15 around Mount Hum. The same obstacles had been present before my arrival

16 and continued after that in the Bosnian Serb side.

17 Q. Thank you for this explanation.

18 Let me ask you this next: We have some UNPROFOR documents,

19 referring to a Muslim offensive. I believe we will agree, as it tallies

20 with what you had stated, that Muslim offensives with certain

21 interruptions lasted from the moment of your arrival until the Serb

22 positions were bombed. Would you agree?

23 A. Not entirely. The first Bosnian Muslim Corps attacks happened

24 between the 15th of May and the 28th or 29th of May. There was an

25 interruption caused by the failure of the operations and the reaction of

Page 7219

1 the other side and the fact that the units were exhausted. After that we

2 witnessed, again, limited attacks at the end of the month; among others,

3 around the 28th and 29th of June, if I remember well.

4 Q. Was there an offensive which was stopped on the 8th or 9th of

5 June and it followed the first one, which started on the 28th or 29th of

6 May? If you recall; if not, let us move on.

7 A. If memory serves, I would say that your dates are approximately

8 correct.

9 Q. Thank you. Let us be more specific now. The offences --

10 offensives were launched from all parts of town. Is it correct that in

11 the north there was an offensive aimed at the Cemerska heights?

12 A. I do not remember that place, Cemerska heights. The main axis of

13 the attack were, let me remind you, in the south, towards Lukavica, and

14 in the west, towards Ilidza.

15 As for the dates, June the 8th and 9th, I can confirm now that

16 these are the dates where the attacks re -- were relaunched.

17 Q. I will try to jog your memory, if I may.

18 In your statement, the French version, page 40, third paragraph;

19 in the English, page 29, the last paragraph; and, in the B/C/S, page 55,

20 the first and second paragraphs.

21 This is what is stated:

22 "Thank."

23 And then the next paragraph says:

24 "Yes, literally, the last Friday and Saturday, the 15th and 16th

25 of June, Bosnian troops attacked Serb positions all along the

Page 7220

1 confrontation line, attacking out of the city and into it from the south,

2 west, and north. Can you confirm that you also knew this, that they were

3 launching attacks both out of the city and from the south, west, and

4 north?"

5 Your answer was:

6 "Yes. This is consistent with our observations. I cannot

7 mention that these dates mentioned the 15th and 16th of June are the

8 right ones, mentioned by David Harland. The combat operations continued

9 over a period of one month. Our monitoring of this was to see and

10 realise that Bosnian troops were deployed towards the south, the

11 south-west of the city, that they were basically in that part of the

12 city."

13 Do you accept this part of your statement?

14 Kindly repeat your answer. It was not picked up by the

15 transcript.

16 A. I will repeat what I said at the time and what I told you earlier

17 on. The main axis were on the south and in the east --

18 THE INTERPRETER: In the west, correction.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Sir, is it also correct that such attacks took place in the city

21 itself; for example, in the direction of the Jewish cemetery?

22 A. From the area of the Jewish cemetery towards Lukavica, that's the

23 southern part of the front that I've been talking about for quite

24 sometime now.

25 Q. But not out of the city but in the city itself; correct?

Page 7221

1 A. From the confrontation line, of course, which was at the height

2 of the Jewish cemetery towards the Bosnian Serb lines and towards the

3 general direction of Lukavica.

4 Q. Thank you. Let me ask you something else about your statement.

5 In the French, it is 37; in the English, 27, the very bottom; and

6 in the Serbian, in the B/C/S, it is page 50, under the Roman numeral VII.

7 There you refer to a statement. There is an ERN number in the

8 statement itself --

9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see document 10184,

10 to that end.

11 I would kindly ask that it is not broadcast outside the

12 courtroom.

13 Q. There, we see, on the first page, that Mr. Harland informed

14 Philip Corwin and also included Mr. Akashi, under info.

15 In the third paragraph it reads: I would like to inform you that

16 the acting sector commander, and then we have the name, believes that the

17 BH Army was deploying its mortars around the PTT building so that it

18 could draw fire to it where close to it, close to the place which is

19 fought over in order to control the western part of Sarajevo, and that is

20 it.

21 Do you recall that the BH Army placed its mortars around the PTT

22 building, that is to say, the headquarters of UNPROFOR, and that it used

23 those mortars in combat?

24 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I'm sorry to interject, but when I read from the

25 document, as I see it on the screen, it says --

Page 7225

1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Now I'd like to deal with the time just before the bombing of the

4 Serb positions.

5 I think that I know the answer, but I do have to ask you. In

6 your view, did the Serbs have the right to take weapons from the Weapons

7 Collection Points if they were attacked by the Muslim forces?

8 A. Well, you know my answer so I will state it again.

9 The text of the protocol that was presented by the Bosnian Serb

10 side during the signing of the said agreement anticipated the possibility

11 of taking up the weapons if the UNPROFOR was not able to keep attacks

12 from happening against the Serb side. As much as I know, this protocol

13 was not approved by the UN authorities.

14 So that was my first point.

15 Second point that I've already stated was that the nature, the

16 power of attacks that were given by the 1st Bosnian Muslim Corps reacting

17 to the situation that they were presented with, did not justify from a

18 technical and professional point of view -- did not justify, from a

19 technical and professional point of view, did not justify the taking back

20 of additional weapons. Enough heavy weapon of artillery were deployed

21 around Sarajevo so as to able to react when faced with these attacks from

22 the Bosnian Muslim side.

23 Q. You will agree with me that Mr. Akashi, together with

24 Mr. Karadzic, signed that protocol.

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please have 1D557 on our

Page 7226

1 screens.

2 We need the third page. Can we please have page 3. These are

3 the paragraphs of the agreement. We see on page 3 that this document was

4 signed by Mr. Akashi and Mr. Karadzic.

5 So can we now please have page 4 of the document.

6 Q. We see in paragraphs 1 and 4 precisely what you said to us just

7 now.

8 If UNPROFOR withdraws for any reason or if they cannot stop the

9 attacks of the Muslim army, the Serbs do have the right to take these

10 weapons. You said to us just a moment ago that you believe that the

11 attacks of the Muslim army were not strong enough to justify the taking

12 of these weapons. However, in paragraph 4 of this protocol, it says, and

13 I'm going to read it out in English so that you can get the right

14 interpretation:

15 "[In English] Neither the Serb nor the Muslim side is permitted

16 to engage in military activities of any description, and this includes

17 consolidation of trenches or their forward movement and similar

18 activities ..."

19 [Interpretation] Would you agree with me that this protocol - and

20 we'll go back to the issue of whether it is valid or not - that this

21 protocol does not allow any kind of military activity whatsoever. This

22 protocol does not refer to any kind of stronger or weaker military

23 activity. Any kind of military activity is ruled out. Would you agree

24 with me on that?

25 A. In the document that we have on the screen, yes, of course.

Page 7227

1 Q. You said that the UN authorities - we heard that that just now -

2 did not accept this protocol that was signed by Mr. Akashi.

3 Would you please be so kind as to tell us whether the UNPROFOR

4 authorities ever informed the Serb side or the Muslim side - or perhaps

5 the Croat side - about that, that they did not accept the protocol signed

6 by Mr. Akashi?

7 A. I wouldn't be able to answer your question, sir.

8 Q. You personally did not receive any information to that effect?

9 Namely, that the UN authorities informed anyone of the three warring

10 parties in Bosnia-Herzegovina about this protocol not being valid.

11 A. I shall repeat, that, at the time, I only knew the -- the

12 official text.

13 Q. Thank you. Would you agree that without meeting the

14 prerequisites referred to in paragraphs 1 and 4 of this agreement, it is

15 not possible to implement the agreement on weapons collection?

16 A. I do not understand your question. I'm sorry.

17 Q. Probably I didn't put the question probably so I'll try to put it

18 in more understandable terms.

19 A prerequisite for the collection of Serb weapons at points that

20 are controlled by UNPROFOR, was a prerequisite for that, that there

21 should be no fighting and that Muslims should not carry out any offensive

22 actions.

23 Can you answer that?

24 A. It seems to me that the weapons -- that some weapons had been

25 collected previously on these collecting points, weren't they?

Page 7228

1 Q. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to provide answers from

2 where I stand today.

3 As for weapons collecting points, was there a cessation of

4 hostilities? Because weapons could not be collected while fighting was

5 going on; right?

6 A. When the agreement was signed and implemented, there was a quiet

7 period in 1994, before I came to Sarajevo.

8 Q. Thank you. Precisely.

9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic, I would like to ask the witness for a

10 certain clarification.

11 On page 32, the witness, in line 15 and 16 said: I shall repeat

12 that at the time I only knew the official text.

13 I understand that the text we just saw on the screen was not

14 accepted by UN authorities. To which official text are you referring in

15 your answer? What agreement do you mean?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, it was the

17 agreement that organised the collecting points for weapons. And I do not

18 remember, I do not remember, I do not recall this additional page.

19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What do you mean by "this additional page"? You

20 mean this page we have on the screen now, signed by Mr. Karadzic and

21 Mr. Akashi?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's this page that I personally do

23 not remember.

24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And, again, I would like to understand that.

25 Which agreement was, in your view, valid and accepted by the UN

Page 7229

1 officials?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The weapons were collected on

3 collection points in the safe area, and they were under the control then

4 of -- of UNPROFOR units.

5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That doesn't answer my question.

6 Which agreement do you mean? Agreement which led the --

7 agreement about establishment of these weapons collection points? Which

8 agreement do you mean?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed. The agreement in

10 January 1994 on the setting up of the collection point in the safe area.

11 That's what I'm talking about.

12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps, Mr. Lukic, I'm also a bit confused.

14 If I were able to understand your line of questioning, what you present

15 is a message which was sent in August 1994 by Mr. Akashi to Mr. Annan.

16 That's the outgoing code cable. What we see is that attached to it is a

17 signed document of February 1994, if I am -- so that's from many months

18 before. Then you say that is signed, and the suggestion is that the

19 protocol, which is not signed, and which is not referred to in any way in

20 the February 1994 document, although it is mentioned in the code cable,

21 would apply, if I understand you well, on the basis of the signature

22 under the February 1994 document. But I may have missed something,

23 but -- but that is what I got from the questions you've put to the

24 witness and the witness has not always been very precise in referring to

25 agreements.

Page 7230

1 So we have a January agreement, which is not in this document; we

2 have a February agreement signed by Karadzic and Akashi; we have a code

3 cable in August, to which this protocol is attached, without any

4 reference to agreement reached. Just it's mentioned. It's referred to.

5 It's unsigned.

6 So I'm -- I'm trying to understand exactly what was applicable

7 agreement at that point in time.

8 MR. LUKIC: I'm trying to understand the same thing, Your Honour,

9 but obviously we got this document from the Prosecution and --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But there's a strong suggestion in your line

11 of questioning that the signature under the February document would -- in

12 one way or another, would justify an assumption that the protocol which

13 is here mentioned in the August 1994 code cable, that that would be

14 agreed among the parties -- or would apply apart from, again, the

15 context -- the content of the document, as far as consequences are

16 concerned.

17 Please proceed.

18 MR. LUKIC: Give me one second, Your Honour.

19 [Defence counsel confer]

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please take a look at 65

22 ter number 10248.

23 Q. This is a report from a meeting with the Army of

24 Republika Srpska. Co-ordination of heavy weapons withdrawal.

25 MR. LUKIC: This is under seal, the document.

Page 7231

1 Q. [Interpretation] It's a document dated the 18th of September,

2 1995. And it was drafted after the bombing of Serb positions; is that

3 right? The air-strikes started on the 30th of August, 1995.

4 A. That is correct.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we stay on page 1 in English.

6 And can we have page 2 in B/C/S, number 16 (b).

7 Q. "In case of any major provocations or attacks by the BiH from the

8 city centre or from outside, all weapons are to be quickly redeployed, in

9 less than 24 hours, and heavy shelling of BiH positions is to be

10 expected. They want this warning to be acknowledged."

11 Do you remember that after the bombing, the Serbs understood the

12 withdrawal or collection of weapons as follows: If they are attacked,

13 they have the right to use those weapons. So these are the same rights

14 that are envisaged by the protocol that we were looking at a moment ago.

15 Would you agree with that?

16 JUDGE ORIE: Which point exactly of the protocol you're referring

17 to at this moment, Mr. Lukic?

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Paragraphs 1 and 4. Primarily 1.

19 Because 4 is even more strict, saying, No military activity whatsoever.

20 JUDGE ORIE: And your question would be, Mr. Lukic?

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Does the gentleman remember that the Serbs, even after the

23 bombing, stated that they had the right to use their heavy weapons that

24 they had previously handed over if they are attacked by the Muslims, that

25 is to say, for the purpose of self-defence which, in our view, is only

Page 7232

1 logical.

2 A. Sir, I remember very well this statement made by Colonel Lugonja,

3 and we had very good relations. And he clearly stated that they would

4 resume the collection of weapons if they were attacked. I can confirm

5 that. That's what he said.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, again, we are now talking about

7 apparently what is put down in the protocol as a right reserved by the

8 Bosnian Serbs and which apparently is then repeated as a claim, because

9 it's on the basis of the language, it's not more or less than that, they

10 stress the following points, as it reads. There's nothing about an

11 agreement.

12 It -- it all -- the whole discussion, the whole questioning, is

13 about whether it applies. Shall we focus on that first before we start

14 interpreting? And if you say, That's unclear to me, you put the question

15 to the witness whether the Bosnian Serbs were ever informed that it was

16 withdrawn or would not apply.

17 Now that question becomes relevant if there, first of all, is

18 evidence that there is an agreement or that there is a reason to assume

19 that it would apply. And that was the gist of my previous comments,

20 that, on the basis of these documents, it seems -- at least we have

21 difficulties in finding a solid basis for such an assumption.

22 MR. LUKIC: Unfortunately, I was not the creator of these

23 documents so we will probably have to explore this matter in the future

24 with other witnesses as well.

25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm certainly not -- but, I think, as a matter

Page 7233

1 of fact, in preparing for the questions that you have put to the witness

2 that you should have explored it already. But let's stay away from that.

3 Certainly if the question is, Have you given notice that it does not

4 apply or does not apply anymore, then the previous question should be, On

5 what basis would one accept that it did apply up till such a withdrawal.

6 Please proceed.

7 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

8 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, you heard His Honour. Can you assist us in

9 what he would like to know? Do you know whether the protocol was

10 applied, implemented, before your arrival or after your departure?

11 A. Before my arrival, well, I can't tell you anything, and I'm sure

12 that you will understand that.

13 After my arrival, I noticed that the weapons had been withdrawn

14 from the WCPs, not after the Bosnian Muslim attacks, but when NATO

15 started its air-strikes.

16 When the weapons were withdrawn after the cease-fire, and I said

17 it already, Mr. Lugonja recalled that point and insisted on the fact that

18 this point should be drawn to the attention of all parties.

19 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Could I just ask that for clarification when

20 we're referring to protocols, that we say which protocol it is that we're

21 referring to, whether it's the protocol that's labelled that the -- the

22 back of the Defence exhibit that's labelled "Protocol of Understanding

23 Between the Civilian and Military Representatives of the Republika Srpska

24 and UNPROFOR," that's the unsigned part of the -- the Defence document or

25 some other protocol? Because I think there seems to be some completion.

Page 7234

1 MR. LUKIC: I think we called the document 1D557 and that's

2 exactly the protocol we are addressing.

3 JUDGE ORIE: That is the fourth and the fifth page of the

4 document.

5 MR. LUKIC: It's one document. That's how we received it from

6 the Prosecution. And, actually, now we'd like to tender this document.

7 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honour, it is -- it is a document that we

8 provided and as such I don't have any objection to its as admission based

9 on its authenticity or derivation. Obviously I -- I -- I'm not acceding

10 to the idea that this last protocol is a signed document that was -- that

11 was ever put into force.

12 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be.

13 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D557 receives number D135,

14 Your Honours.

15 JUDGE ORIE: D135 is admitted.

16 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I'm sorry, Judge. I was just handed a note that

17 says that it's already in evidence as D112. I don't know if that's the

18 case.

19 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...

20 MR. LUKIC: But I have never tendered it. Is it?

21 JUDGE ORIE: I will have a look at it.

22 MR. LUKIC: Yes, it is. I apologise.

23 THE REGISTRAR: Not in e-court under this number, this 65 ter

24 number.

25 MR. LUKIC: I'll move on and I hope we will clarify it later.

Page 7237

1 MR. LUKIC: In the transcript, it's P112. It should be D112.

2 JUDGE ORIE: The point is made, Mr. Lukic.

3 MR. LUKIC: And I hope it's finally clear.

4 Q. [Interpretation] Again, we go back to this document of the 16th

5 of August, 1994, sent by Mr. Akashi to Mr. Annan.

6 We need page 2 of the document, paragraph number 3.

7 I'll read it out so that we are familiar with the topic itself.

8 [In English] I quote:

9 "The protocol to the Sarajevo WCP Agreement of 14 February 1994

10 (attached) recognises the BSA's legitimate right of self-defence. If the

11 BSA comes under more pressure from the B and H, their demand to have

12 access to their weapons could become a more pressing reality, under the

13 protocol referred to above. There are several scenarios that could

14 prevail, and the staff at BH Command and UNPROFOR HQ are examining

15 these."

16 [Interpretation] Sir, were you ever informed, in totality, of the

17 protocol discussed herein by Mr. Akashi?

18 A. Well, I do remember this document that is here. The two pages

19 are rather clear in my memory. This is what I remember.

20 Q. Do you seem to recall a protocol, particularly the one mentioned

21 in this letter?

22 A. Well, in reality, no. Would my memory not serve? Well, I'm

23 sorry. I couldn't give you a more specific answer.

24 Q. Was it clear to you then that there was a protocol, and you say

25 you saw these two pages. There was a protocol recognising the right of

Page 7238

1 the Army of Bosnian Serbs to take those weapons which had been assembled

2 at the WCPs, or Weapons Collection Points?

3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, if you say it grants the right or --

4 could you please be very precise and put the relevant portion of the

5 protocol on the screen or read it to the witness.

6 MR. LUKIC: I read the protocol to the witness and he said that

7 he does not remember that protocol but that's the protocol we saw before.

8 It's the protocol attached to this letter mentioned in this point 3 of

9 Mr. Akashi's --

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Are you referring to recognising the right of

11 the Army of the Bosnian Serbs?

12 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In this protocol?

14 MR. LUKIC: In this protocol, yes.

15 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see then. Is it in 1?

16 MR. LUKIC: In 1, yes.

17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In 1, it reads, and perhaps we could have it

18 on the screen.

19 MR. LUKIC: Yes, it's page 4.

20 JUDGE ORIE: It's page 4 of the document:

21 "The BSA reserves the right to redeploy its weapons and increase

22 troop levels, if ..." that is not exactly the same as what you put to the

23 witness.

24 MR. LUKIC: That's why I asked the witness whether he remembers

25 any other protocol.

Page 7239

1 JUDGE ORIE: No. Let me see ...

2 MR. LUKIC: There must be a protocol. Either this one or another

3 one. We have this one attached to the letter. If there is another one,

4 we would be happy to see the other one as well. But for now we have to

5 work with this one.

6 JUDGE ORIE: But the only thing I'm -- we can work with this one.

7 You characterised the document by saying, There was a protocol

8 recognising the right of the army of the Bosnian Serbs to take those

9 weapons. What I'm drawing your attention, this protocol doesn't say the

10 Bosnian Serbs have the right but the Bosnian Serbs reserve the right,

11 which is not the same. To redeploy.

12 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated]

13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But if I reserve a right, it first has to be

14 established that I have that right.

15 MR. LUKIC: Yes. But in case the right was mentioned before. If

16 the -- [Overlapping speakers] ... withdraws --

17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's --

18 MR. LUKIC: -- or Muslim must -- in case of Muslim attack.

19 It's --

20 JUDGE ORIE: They reserve the right.

21 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

22 JUDGE ORIE: Let's not -- perhaps it's a matter more of argument

23 more --

24 MR. LUKIC: [Indiscernible], yes.

25 JUDGE ORIE: -- whether the language used here to reserve a right

Page 7240

1 is the same as that a right is acknowledged by whomever who would be a

2 party to this protocol, whether that would be the UN, whether that would

3 be the Muslim --

4 MR. LUKIC: Attack.

5 JUDGE ORIE: -- forces. But to reserve a right is a claim to a

6 right, a right acknowledged is a right accepted. I wanted -- the only

7 thing I wanted to do is to make a clear linguistic distinction between

8 acknowledge a right and to reserve a right.

9 Please proceed.

10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

11 Q. I apologise, I don't remember receiving an answer. Were you able

12 to see another protocol attached to this letter, or did you see any other

13 protocols in general? Dealing with this topic.

14 A. Well, as far as I am concerned, I remember clearly the text that

15 I saw earlier. I do not recall, I didn't see in my memory or I do not

16 recall, having seen this protocol nor other protocols at the time.

17 Q. Thank you. Concerning this matter, I wanted to ask you this: It

18 was ordered that Serb positions be bombed. The reason for the order on

19 bombardment which began on the 30th of August, 1995 was what, if you

20 could tell us?

21 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I just wonder whether if this is an area where

22 we might go into private session, if the witness thinks it's necessary.

23 MR. LUKIC: Out of cautious --

24 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.

25 [Private session]

Page 7246

1 had Hum under their control?"

2 And you provided an answer, and you said:

3 "If, again, memory serves, Hum was under the responsibility of

4 the 105th Brigade. And the 111th Brigade deployed on the eastern side of

5 the city was supposed to control, if memory serves, between the crest,

6 the Grdonj hill, and more to the south."

7 So I'd like to ask, please, you testified -- you gave that

8 testimony yesterday without the benefit of a map. So I would like to

9 ask, please, if, first, I could draw your attention to where you see 111

10 on the screen on the left.

11 A. Yes, of course.

12 Q. If you go over one square to the right and one down from that

13 designation. If we could zoom in on that. There's the area and I'm

14 pointing to the area that's marked "Hum," just a little bit further over.

15 Right there. Yep.

16 So it's the lower and to the right. Can you locate the

17 designation Hum? And does that refresh your recollection that hill was

18 actually in the -- under the auspices of the 111th Brigade and not the

19 105th?

20 A. Yes, indeed. Apparently I wrongly mistook this -- both brigades.

21 But as far as I remember, the 105th one was in the north and the 111th in

22 the west, but the map says the other way around. I'm sorry, I didn't

23 have the map in front of me.

24 Q. And I think you've just given us the answer to my next question

25 would be -- which was does looking at the map, and if we could move now

Page 7247

1 focus in on the designation "105 bbr." And just above it, where the area

2 of Grdonj is marked, and I think you have just given us that answer

3 already, but does that refresh your recollection as to the brigade that

4 covered the area of Grdonj being the 105th?

5 A. Okay.

6 Q. And, sir, just for clarity's sake, this is -- you were only

7 speaking, when you testified about the brigades and their different areas

8 of responsibility, you were testifying specifically about which brigades

9 were responsible in those areas during your tenure in the region; is that

10 correct?

11 A. Absolutely.

12 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honour, I would like to tender this,

13 10996A. Unfortunately with the exhibit that -- the large exhibit, as

14 it's already in, if you zoom-in on it, it pixelates, so you wouldn't be

15 able to do the same with just the exhibit that's already in evidence.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would say therefore we need this

17 additional copy as a separate exhibit.

18 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Yes, correct.

19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Document 10996A becomes Exhibit P753,

21 Your Honours.

22 JUDGE ORIE: P753 is admitted into evidence. It's an optical

23 improvement rather than anything else.

24 Please proceed.

25 MS. HOCHHAUSER: If we could please have 65 ter 10036 on the

Page 7248

1 monitor. And specifically page 2 in the English but it remains 1 in the

2 other languages.

3 Q. Now, in the transcript starting at page 7128, at approximately

4 line 1, you were asked questions about this document. And in your

5 statement you say in the English at page 12, B/C/S page 22, and French

6 16, that this type of report is typical of a type of report that you

7 would receive.

8 Now, I'm looking at -- looking at page 2 where it begins - and if

9 we could scroll down, please - I'm sorry. If you could focus in where it

10 begins:

11 "As soon as the shot was fired, Lieutenant Charette," and then it

12 names the command post, "set up protective measures for the entire

13 personnel, launched an investigation, and deployed a protection unit."

14 Goes on in the next paragraph: The commanding officer arrived,

15 names the time, became acquainted with the situation at the same time as

16 the SP staff engaged in investigation. Three Vab wield armoured vehicles

17 were deployed to secure the northern junction, and then there's a

18 question mark where I think it is meant to say it's illegible, of the SP

19 overlooking the "Sniper Alley."

20 Then the document continues. Does this portion that I've read to

21 you and the document itself demonstrate accurately the protective

22 measures and investigative actions that would go into effect by UNPROFOR

23 in response to sniping during the time that you were in Sarajevo as well?

24 A. Absolutely. The process was similar, with the exception that

25 liaisons with the Bosnian Serb side did not work anymore at the time I

Page 7249

1 was in Sarajevo. Did not work or worked very badly.

2 Q. Okay.

3 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honours, I would tender this 65 ter number

4 136.

5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.

6 Mr. Lukic, I see that you're still thinking.

7 MR. LUKIC: It's 1994. Because if he tender -- if this one is

8 accepted, I will have some questions on this document as well.

9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then, of course, in --

10 MR. LUKIC: But I would rather not have it, since it's 1994.

11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hochhauser.

12 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Well, Your Honour, that was the -- the -- the

13 objection that was listed by the Defence in their response to the

14 original motion, that it was outside of the time-period. I think the

15 questioning has just, by -- by -- the witness has just stated that this

16 accurately still represents the process and the measures that were taken

17 during his time-period.

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, of course, part of it is on the record.

20 Would that trigger any need to put further questions to the witness if it

21 would not be admitted? I mean, if the subject matter is of concern to

22 you, I can imagine that you would want to put further questions to the

23 witness, irrespective of whether we admit it or not. If you want to put

24 such further questions, then we would admit so that we have a proper

25 basis for understanding the evidence.

Page 7250

1 MR. LUKIC: I can -- ah. Exactly. Okay. Let's then admit the

2 document and I will have [Overlapping Speakers] --

3 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied. Oh, it's withdrawn. Then

4 let me see. Yes.

5 Madam Registrar, I don't think you have assigned a number yet.

6 Would you please do so.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. Document 10036 becomes

8 Exhibit P754, Your Honours.

9 JUDGE ORIE: P754 is admitted into evidence.

10 And, Mr. Lukic, of course, those questions may trigger any need

11 for further questions to the witness.

12 Please proceed.

13 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

14 Q. Witness, yesterday beginning at transcript page 7144, line 24,

15 the question was asked of you:

16 "Is it correct that UNPROFOR was deployed in Sarajevo in such a

17 way that on the side that was under the control of the Muslim forces,

18 there were five battalions, namely the 2nd French Battalion, the 5th

19 French Battalion, the 4th French Battalion, the Egyptian Battalion, and

20 the Ukrainian battalion; whereas, on the Serb side, there was only the

21 Russian Battalion."

22 And you confirmed with some additional detail in your answer that

23 this was correct. And for clarity of your -- of your written evidence,

24 is it correct that this is because the Serb side would not accept any

25 battalions other than the Russian Battalion on their side?

Page 7251

1 A. I don't know when the -- whether when the battalions' deployment

2 was ordered, whether the Serbs objected to that, but I witnessed that,

3 practically speaking, it was impossible to deploy other battalions in the

4 sector under Bosnian Serb control, with the exceptions of small units

5 that were in charge of monitoring WCPs.

6 Q. When you say "practically speaking," is that because of some

7 action on the part of UNPROFOR or some action on the part of the Serb

8 forces?

9 A. When we wished to deploy other units in the sector under SRK

10 control, the request was rejected by this unit.

11 Q. Okay. I'd like to turn now to the topic of -- of Markale market.

12 Yesterday in the context of -- at -- excuse me. Yesterday in the

13 context of confirming your statement that the bombing that occurred could

14 not have been staged, and that's at transcript 7156, line 19, you were

15 directed to the image of a dead body folded -- that lays over a rail.

16 In your experience in Sarajevo, was it commonplace for civilians

17 to move or remove bodies and attempt to tend to the wounded at the scene

18 of shellings before ambulances and officials arrived?

19 A. I was never a witness nor was I given any report of bodies being

20 moved for whatever staging, if that was your question.

21 When these unfortunate events were taking place, the first reflex

22 was to stop the vehicle, to bring the victim in the vehicle to a

23 hospital. There were no -- there was no reflex, if you will, to care on

24 the spot medically this wounded person.

25 Q. In the same videotape that you were shown yesterday,

Page 7252

1 Exhibit P446, you were asked about the number 2800 that was spoken by

2 someone who appears to be a member of the French Battalion in possession

3 of a piece of measuring equipment from which he is reading that -- that

4 number.

5 On that video in the same segment that was played, and that's --

6 and I'm going to point to approximately 5 minutes 19 seconds to 5 minutes

7 29 seconds, there is other conversation in English in which it can be

8 heard a person saying, "That is not correct. That is not correct.

9 That's prior to the reading of the number."

10 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honours, I'm not relying on this for the

11 truth of the statement, so I don't think it's necessary, unless you see

12 it as necessary, to re-play that segment right now.

13 JUDGE ORIE: What do you mean -- what do you mean by not relying

14 it on for the truth of the statement?

15 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Well --

16 JUDGE ORIE: Isn't is it that you want to rely on the fact that

17 someone said, "It's not correct," and should that then not be on the

18 record that that is what can be heard in the video?

19 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Okay. We can play that section from 5 minutes

20 19 seconds to 5 minutes 29 seconds. While it's coming up --

21 Q. My question to the witness is: Do you have any personal

22 knowledge of the particular circumstances of this measurement that we see

23 being taken here or of how many times the measurement was taken?

24 [Video-clip played]

25 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Can we play that same segment again to confirm

Page 7253

1 that it's -- those words are being picked up for translation.

2 [Video-clip played]

3 "No, it's not correct.

4 "[No interpretation].

5 "No, that's the angle of impact.

6 "It's not correct.

7 "[No interpretation]."

8 JUDGE ORIE: Could -- perhaps we could resolve the matter another

9 way.

10 Would the parties agree that the words "this is not correct" are

11 spoken in English, and that they are spoken before even the person who

12 uses what seems to be a compass goes on his knees and starts measuring,

13 but that those words are spoken before he really gets down on his knees

14 and is doing this.

15 MR. LUKIC: We would stipulate that, Your Honours.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.

17 Ms. Hochhauser.

18 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Thank you. I appreciate that.

19 Q. Can you -- Witness, can you say whether you have any knowledge of

20 the particular circumstances of this measurement we see here, or, in

21 fact, how many times the measurement was taken?

22 A. As far as I know, madam, the results, the written report was

23 based on the --

24 JUDGE ORIE: Could we -- we will read all the reports and know

25 what is in there.

Page 7254

1 The question was whether you have any personal knowledge on how

2 many times measurements of this kind were taken in relation to this

3 crater? I take it, Ms. Hochhauser.

4 Do you have any personal knowledge about that?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. The measurement

6 was done by this French adjutant.

7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you've answered the question. The question

8 simply was whether you have any personal knowledge about how many times

9 it was done.

10 Of course, you'll understand, Witness, that you're not the only

11 witness who will talk about this event. There are reports, the totality

12 of the evidence may be very much.

13 Please proceed, Ms. Hochhauser.

14 MS. HOCHHAUSER: May we have 10243, please, on the monitor.

15 Q. And as it's coming up, Witness, on a number of occasions you have

16 referred to the French engineering reports, or report, which you relied

17 on and -- or for which you are taking the specific information that you

18 relaying to the Chamber.

19 Is that report what we see on the screen now?

20 MS. HOCHHAUSER: And if we could, after a moment on the first

21 page, just flip to the next, so he has an opportunity to confirm it. Or

22 deny it.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I shall confirm that this is,

24 indeed, the report of the team lead, Lieutenant-Colonel Mougey on which I

25 base myself.

Page 7255

1 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

2 Q. Now, during the cross-examination, you were asked a series of

3 questions about your recollection of what was said to you in reports, and

4 except for this engineering report no specific report was put to you. Is

5 it fair to say that if an UNPROFOR document on any of the technical

6 aspects of -- of the Markale shelling contradicted what you've testified

7 about your recollection of what the document said, you would rely on the

8 document presented and not on your memory?

9 A. There is perfect conformity between my observations and the

10 document that was written up by the specialist that I mentioned earlier.

11 Q. Now, sir, yesterday at page 7151, line 21, beginning at line 21,

12 you were asked a series of questions and gave these answers, and this is

13 beginning with:

14 "Q. But then the question was whether you have knowledge of the

15 propelling charge that was used for the projectile that landed near the

16 entrance of the Markale market.

17 And you responded:

18 "The angle of impact enables specialists who are familiar with

19 the firing tables of this piece of artillery to determine that they are

20 in the presence either of a maximum charge, charge 6, six packets of

21 propelling powder placed under the projectile of the propellant; or a

22 charge 1, one packet of powder placed under the shell. There are -- only

23 these two cases are possible and only -- it's either a minimum charge 1

24 or a maximum charge 6 which provides a proper explanation."

25 Then another question, the follow-up question:

Page 7256

1 "Do you consider yourself to have specialist knowledge on these

2 matters or are you referring to specialists other than you, you being

3 unable to verify whether it's accurate what they told you?"

4 And you responded:

5 "I have basic knowledge on mortar firing like any officer, but

6 firing tables were used by true specialists, i.e., the team of

7 investigators at the engineering unit, and this is what they specified in

8 their report."

9 And that report you've now told you us is what we see on the

10 screen at 102 -- 65 ter 10243, which remains on the screen.

11 So I'd like to go back to that specific set of questions and

12 answers. And I would ask you, you would agree, would you not, that 10243

13 does not contain any recorded information about the two possible charges,

14 minimum charge 1 or maximum charge 6, which you testified about yesterday

15 in that selection of testimony; is that correct?

16 A. Yes, it is correct.

17 Q. Can you tell us to the best of your recollection how that

18 information was relayed to you?

19 A. I -- I would assume that your question deals with the maximum and

20 minimum charges. My answer is the following. We had within our military

21 staff and within the forces specialists in artillery who went into

22 analysis of these results.

23 JUDGE ORIE: But that's not the question, Witness. The question

24 was: From where did you receive the information that it should have been

25 propelling charge, either 1 or 6, thus, excluding, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Where

Page 7257

1 that is found, where that was -- how this was conveyed to you.

2 Ms. Hochhauser, that was the question, isn't it?

3 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Yes.

4 JUDGE ORIE: Could you answer that question.

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 JUDGE ORIE: That's still not an answer to the question, Witness.

10 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Um --

11 JUDGE ORIE: The question was: How this information, which is

12 not found in the report, was conveyed to you. Not who formed that

13 opinion or who reached that conclusion, but how you received this

14 information which is not found in this report.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is a military

16 staff work around the table in an operational centre with all the

17 specialists gathered, and they talked, they confront their analysis in

18 order to get to a conclusion that would be collectively adopted by all.

19 JUDGE ORIE: That's still not an answer to the question.

20 Unfortunately, Ms. Hochhauser, I leave it your hands whether you

21 want to pursue the matter or not.

22 MS. HOCHHAUSER:

23 Q. Sir, can you tell us, was it, to the best of your recollection,

24 relayed to you orally or in writing, that information, if you have a

25 recollection information? The information about charge 1 or charge 6,

Page 7258

1 was it conveyed to by word or by -- in writing?

2 A. No. This was the result of an analysis that was done in an

3 operational -- operation room by different officers who knew their job,

4 and they were comparing their viewpoint and reached this conclusion,

5 conclusion that I took in charge myself at that time.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, were you present in that room when they

7 reached that conclusion?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. These surveys

9 were done in the operation rooming of Sector Sarajevo.

10 JUDGE ORIE: In your presence.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Most of the time, yes. And in this

12 specific case, yes.

13 JUDGE ORIE: And it was conveyed to you -- you heard them

14 discussing it, and you heard them reaching this conclusion. Is that your

15 testimony?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I gathered these individuals.

17 We analysed the conclusions. We compared, as I said earlier, compared

18 them with the data coming from the radar personnel. We saw all these

19 observations, and this enabled me to structure these solutions that I

20 have offered.

21 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Okay.

22 Q. Can you tell the Chamber, please, what was your understanding of

23 which warring party held the territory that corresponded with the firing

24 positions for this shell if the propellant charge was the minimum charge

25 1 and if it was the minimum [sic] charge 6?

Page 7259

1 A. Our understanding was that with -- in the hypothesis of the

2 maximum charge 6, the shot came from a region that was located on the

3 north side, north-east of the Mount Trebevic, which was controlled by the

4 SRK.

5 In the hypothesis of a minimum charge 1, the distance that was

6 about 1.000 metres would match a zone that was held by the SRK in

7 proximity to the confrontation line.

8 MS. HOCHHAUSER: If we can turn back into private session and

9 then I'm reaching -- it's my last subject.

10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, one additional question of this matter.

11 This is a very relevant conclusion. Do you have any explanation

12 why it's not presented in the report or do you have any knowledge of

13 these conclusions being presented in other reports?

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honour, actually, I neglected to also offer

22 that document into evidence. The engineering report. 10 --

23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.

24 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Sorry, 10243.

25 MR. LUKIC: Our opinion is that this document is too technical to

Page 7260

1 be introduced through this witness because we have to know more about the

2 background, so we think that the people who are more trained in

3 ballistics would be better to have this document introduced through.

4 So we would object to having this document introduced through

5 this witness.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hochhauser.

7 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honour, the -- the witness has commented on

8 it and it's an associated exhibit to his -- to his statement. If the

9 Court were inclined to agree with Mr. Lukic, I would say -- I would

10 request that it be entered as a bar table document, since it is closely

11 associated with this witness and there will be other people who will need

12 it during the course of their testimony, including the experts.

13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, isn't it true that you relied on the

14 report for the 68 degrees?

15 MR. LUKIC: 67.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, 67, 68. Now if you --

17 MR. LUKIC: I got it from the witness that he knows that it was

18 67.

19 JUDGE ORIE: But isn't it true that you --

20 MR. LUKIC: I leave it with Your Honours to decide.

21 JUDGE ORIE: So then the document can be admitted.

22 Madam Registrar, the number would be.

23 THE REGISTRAR: Document 10243 receives number P755,

24 Your Honours.

25 JUDGE ORIE: P755 is admitted into evidence.

Page 7271

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 [Open session]

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.

6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

7 I would like to make a few observations.

8 As far as the Markale, the second Markale incident is concerned,

9 of course, we have received the evidence of this witness, stating that it

10 should have been charges 1 and/or 6. The Chamber, to the extent there

11 exists any evidence which would further -- would shed further light on

12 these issues which are of a highly technical nature where the witness was

13 unable to give as much, the Chamber would appreciate if that, not

14 necessarily immediately but sooner or later, would become part of the

15 record so that we are better able to assess the testimony of the present

16 witness.

17 That is one.

18 And then I have another matter which I do not express on behalf

19 of the Chamber.

20 Mr. Lukic, you have put a question to this witness. I'm

21 referring you to page 36, line 14. You said -- and the witness was

22 unable to answer the question. But you said, when you were referring to

23 the statement made by - let me see or was it, Colonel Lugonja - in the

24 question preceding the answer, you said:

25 "The Serbs understood the withdrawal or collection of weapons as

Page 7272

1 follows. If they are attacked, they have the right to use those weapons.

2 So these are the same rights that envisaged by the protocol that we are

3 looking at a moment ago."

4 Now the witness said that he remembered that those words were

5 spoken.

6 What I'd like to draw your attention to is the following, that in

7 the protocol in paragraph 1, the wording is different. The first section

8 of paragraph 1 dealing with the situation that UNPROFOR withdraws for any

9 reason from mutually agreed sites for the regrouping of heavy weapons

10 without the agreement of the BSA, or that it withdraws from its

11 interposition areas between the Serb and Muslim lines, there it is

12 claimed by the BSA, or at least they reserve their right, to redeploy

13 these weapons.

14 However, for the second situation, which is about attacks, the

15 language is different. The language says that, If there are attacks that

16 cannot be immediately stopped, that the BSA reserves the right to

17 implement adequate measures of self-defence.

18 I'm pointing at this because in the way in which you put it to

19 the witness, you were talking about the use of weapons, which seems to be

20 a reference to the redeployment of the weapons, but you linked that to

21 attacks and not to the withdrawal of UNPROFOR.

22 I just wanted -- and there was no need to put it again to the

23 witness in view of his answer, but I just want to draw your attention

24 that there are two different situations described in the protocol with

25 approximately two different -- not necessarily excluding one from

Page 7273

1 another, but two different possible consequences for which the Serb

2 forces reserved their right.

3 I -- I just -- I'm making this observation in order to avoid any

4 confusion in the future about this protocol.

5 At the same time, we have dealt with the protocol in quite some

6 detail in December. We have dealt with the protocol now again, and it

7 was in all circumstances we are still troubled by what the exact status

8 was. If there would be any documentary evidence from February 1994 which

9 would shed further light on what way this protocol went, whether it was

10 approved or not, whether there are any signed copies, signed by whom,

11 that certainly would assist the Chamber in evaluating the evidence we

12 heard today and on the 12th of December.

13 Having said this -- yes, Mr. Groome.

14 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I have two matters to raise if we can

15 make use of the time.

16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, there's not much time. You mean those 40

17 seconds remaining, yes.

18 MR. GROOME: Well, from here it looks like I have two minutes

19 but ...

20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Sometimes the view of the Chamber is

21 different from the view of the parties.

22 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just with respect to scheduling I -- I

23 as well was concerned about the schedule for this week and spoke with

24 General Smith. He is available to work as late as the Chamber wishes on

25 Thursday evening. He is unable Friday evening. And is able to come back