1 Friday, 6 February 2004

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. If the witness could be brought in.

6 [The witness entered court]

7 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning, Ms. Peko.

8 THE WITNESS: Good morning.

9 JUDGE PARKER: I'll remind you of the affirmation you made at the

10 beginning of your evidence, which still applies.

11 Mr. Petrovic.

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

13 WITNESS: LUCIJANA PEKO [Resumed]

14 [Witness answered through interpreter]

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

16 Q. Good morning, Ms. Peko. I'm going to try and ask you some more

17 questions. I hope I'll be shorter than I said I would be yesterday.

18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] May I ask the usher -- [In English]

19 Visual contact with the witness, please. Thank you.

20 Q. [Interpretation] Mrs. Peko, just tell me briefly, please, whether

21 anybody edited or redacted the minutes and notes that you compiled.

22 A. Could you be more specific?

23 Q. Did anybody change anything in your notes on the on-site

24 investigation?

25 A. No.

1 Q. Are all the reports, or rather, all the notes, did all the notes

2 make up the preliminary report in the way that you told us about and as

3 you handed them over to the institute?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Did any of the authors of the preliminary report, or any advisors

6 that were used in compiling the report, did they look through or edit any

7 of your notes?

8 A. No.

9 Q. The day before yesterday, if I'm right, you mentioned a shell that

10 fell in Boskoviceva Street on the 23rd of October; is that right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Can you tell me when that was, exactly?

13 A. The 23rd of October, but I don't know the time.

14 Q. Do you know what house was damaged at the time?

15 A. One of the houses in the street.

16 Q. Can you tell me the number of the house, perhaps?

17 A. I think it was Boskoviceva number 3.

18 Q. Does that mean that looking at it from the plats is it on the left

19 or right?

20 A. On the left.

21 Q. At the time, were any other houses, surrounding houses, damaged?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Can you tell me which ones?

24 A. The house opposite Boskoviceva, the roofs to the houses opposite,

25 and the synagogue.

1 Q. Can you tell me what street the synagogue is in?

2 A. The synagogue is in Zudioska Street, but the structure has a

3 facade facing Boskoviceva and the other street too, Rudevska.

4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please, to look

5 through some notes.

6 May I ask the usher to show the witness the first binder of the

7 exhibit, that is to say, of the preliminary report that we have already

8 looked at. We looked at it yesterday, in fact.

9 Q. I should like, madam, to ask you to take a look at insula 6,

10 structure 10.

11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] And Your Honours, that is the ERN

12 B/C/S number 01069396 for the B/C/S version, and the English translation

13 is at L0061066.

14 Q. Have you found it?

15 A. I can't hear you properly.

16 Q. Can you hear me now?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Have you found the page number?

19 A. Page 396, the last digits?

20 Q. Yes, that's right. Take a look now, please, at this piece of

21 information, the date when the building was hit. Does it say the 6th of

22 December, 1991 there?

23 A. Yes, it does.

24 Q. Can you tell me why it wasn't necessary to say that the structure

25 was hit on the 21st of October, 1991 -- the 23rd of October, 1991.

1 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honours, before the witness gives her answer --

2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kaufman, yes.

3 MR. KAUFMAN: I would beg a certain amount of caution with respect

4 to this question since the witness said I think it was the 3rd of -- 23rd

5 -- sorry, it was number 3 Boskoviceva Street which was hit. She didn't

6 say outright that she knew it was number 3 Boskoviceva Street.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Kaufman.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, but I did not compile

9 the report, and I can't find my way around it now.

10 Now, the projectile that fell on the facade of that particular

11 structure damaged structure 1 and structure 2, and the structures on the

12 opposite side of the street as well, and they are structures in a series

13 of structures. I did not draw up the actual list, and I don't know the

14 actual place of damage, but I do know that an alcove was damaged in

15 Boskoviceva number 3. I would have to look at all this in detail to be

16 able to see where it actually was, and I can't be held responsible for

17 reports on these structures, I just know that the impressions I gained

18 from the first impact that struck that particular street.

19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Yes. Well, I'm not asking you about those reports. I'm just

21 asking you whether you might perhaps know why all the dates weren't

22 listed, why the only date is the 6th of December, 1991.

23 A. Well, I've already said that the report records all the damage

24 done up until the 6th of December, so it's very difficult, or rather, not

25 even necessary to go into when what damage was caused. Now, I can't

1 actually say now why it was written the way it was. Perhaps it was

2 omitted.

3 Q. Thank you. I'd now like you to take a look --

4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] May I take a moment to consult,

5 please.

6 [Defence counsel confer]

7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Thank you. We won't be needing the binder any more. We've

9 finished with it.

10 Can you tell me, please, whether, in the months of October,

11 November, December 1991, did you go to work?

12 A. Yes. When the general alarm was not sounded.

13 Q. Can you tell me where the headquarters, or rather, the offices of

14 your company called Arhitekt is?

15 A. Gunduliceva Poljana number 6, also in Dubrovnik in the Old Town.

16 Q. I see. Thank you. Now, at that time, or during that time, did

17 you leave the Old Town at all when the alarm was not sounded?

18 A. Very rarely, because my parents lived in Gruz, for example, and I

19 couldn't see them for three months. But yes, I went to visit two of my

20 elderly aunts, so I would go to the Placa area, where we had to wait in

21 line for food. In October, we had no food, for example. There was no

22 food in the shops.

23 Q. Could you tell me where your aunts lived.

24 A. In the area of Ilijina Glavica, and it's in the region of the

25 summer houses of Skocibuha. Boninovo is the general area. Ilijina

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Glavica is the more specific term.

2 Q. Is it near Valtazar Bogisic Street?

3 A. Well, I don't know where that street is exactly.

4 Q. Is that the part of town which we link to Bogisic Park, for

5 example, that general area?

6 A. No. It's quite a lot further. The other one is Vladimir Nazor

7 Street.

8 Q. Tell me, please: In the statement you gave to the investigators

9 on the 4th of July, 2000, you mentioned that you had heard that the

10 Croatian forces had some cannons. Is that right? Is that what you said?

11 A. It's just one sentence in my statement, in a lengthier paragraph.

12 What I was saying generally was that there were no weapons, I never saw

13 any weapons. Moreover, as an example, I said that we heard that there

14 were some weapons that were out of use, that couldn't be used. Now, the

15 way in which this was formulated wasn't the happiest solution, but I

16 didn't want to intervene. But what I wanted to say is this: In the

17 shelters, people would talk about aid and assistance daily that would be

18 coming in to us, that would be arriving. And the stories that went around

19 the shelters in most cases were geared towards debating whether we would

20 be getting any aid and assistance or not. So this was one of the stories

21 that was going around. There were different stories going around, and the

22 worst thing was to hear that there was something couldn't be used, that

23 was useless.

24 Q. Tell me, please, of those 90 days in October, November, and

25 December, how much time did you actually spend in a shelter?

1 A. At the beginning of October, when I was still residing in my

2 apartment in Zlatni Potok, we would spend part of the day in the shelter,

3 when you could hear the explosions going off. So I can't tell you exactly

4 how much time. In November, we also spent five days, or rather, we were

5 in the shelter all the time, lying down on the floor. Otherwise, we would

6 move around the apartment cautiously.

7 Q. Let's try and get through this as fast as possible. How many

8 days, was my question; five, six, seven? What would you say?

9 A. Well, I didn't count the days.

10 Q. If we had two days in October and four days in November and one

11 day in December, how many days is that altogether?

12 A. Well, you can't put it that way. We were very often taking

13 shelter in the premises we were in anyway. It's like this: If you hear

14 something hitting a roof and the roof reverberates, and you have the

15 feeling that it was a bullet, you won't be up in the attic area; you would

16 be down in the bottom of the house.

17 Q. Well, what was your experience in that way?

18 A. When I was in the building in Prijeko.

19 Q. So a bullet hit the roof; is that what you said?

20 A. Well, there was a case like that, and you have to do what you can.

21 The important thing was to survive and to protect yourself, and so we

22 spent a long time in the shelter.

23 Q. And did the bullet cause any damage, as far as you know?

24 A. That was my impression.

25 MR. KAUFMAN: Excuse me, Your Honour. Once again --

1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kaufman.

2 MR. KAUFMAN: As I remarked yesterday, just for the sake of

3 consistency, the word "bullet," I would like to check for the translation.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter says today it is "bullet."

5 MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. Thank you.

6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] This time I used the word "bullet"

7 as opposed to the word "shell," so I can confirm that and I'm sure the

8 interpretation booths can confirm that too, Mr. Kaufman.

9 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you.

10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Can you tell me who you heard about the cannons from?

12 A. No, I don't remember.

13 Q. Did you perhaps hear where those cannons were located?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Did you perhaps see when you went to visit your aunt at Ilijina

16 Glavica, did you happen to see a mortar there, perhaps, or mortars?

17 A. No. I told you yesterday that I couldn't recognise a mortar but

18 that I didn't see any weapons.

19 Q. Did you see any weapons at all at Ilijina Glavica?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Did you see any people, soldiers, civilians, anybody round about

22 that was engaged in some sort of defence business around Dubrovnik?

23 A. No.

24 Q. In your statement, you said that those cannons were not completely

25 operational. Now, could you tell me how you know that?

1 A. Well, it was within the frameworks of the same piece of news.

2 Something -- as far as I'm concerned, something either works or doesn't

3 work. So weapons are not decorative objects, for them to be able to

4 function partially or be partially operational. They either work or they

5 don't work. So these were cannons -- well, I don't know if it was cannons

6 or guns or some other type of weapon. I don't know the exact term that

7 should be applied to them. But anyway, I quoted this as an example. Yes,

8 I did hear things like that, but I heard people say that it was useless.

9 Q. Did you ever hear the Croatian artillery firing in the Dubrovnik

10 area?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Did you ever hear whether the Croatian army or Croatian defence

13 forces opened fire from the area of Dubrovnik at all?

14 A. No.

15 Q. When I say "the town of Dubrovnik," I'm not -- I don't mean the

16 Old Town nucleus only; I mean the Old Town, I mean Gruz and Lapad and

17 Boninovo, and the eastern part of town. Did you ever hear anything to

18 that effect?

19 A. As I've told you, I was mostly in the old part of town, and no, we

20 didn't discuss things like that.

21 Q. Were you interested in knowing whether your town had any defence

22 mechanisms from the attackers?

23 A. Of course we were interested in that. However, at the very

24 beginning, at the outset, we already knew that people were spontaneously

25 rising up to organise a defence for the town and were, of course, being

1 killed. That's all.

2 Q. What do you know about that? Who were the people who rose up?

3 Who were the people who were killed?

4 A. On the 7th of October, when the five of us - my husband, his

5 mother, that is to say, my mother-in-law, and his stepfather; then there

6 was Mrs. Jelena Milisic and I myself - when we arrived in town, she

7 arrived as a widow and we arrived to the building in which there was a

8 young woman with two children, she was a widow too, and her husband was

9 killed in the Zupa Dubravacka defending his own house. So I found myself

10 faced with this situation at the very outset. I had this unpleasant

11 opportunity of becoming confronted with two individuals who were in deep

12 mourning, couldn't believe what was happening to them.

13 Q. Thank you for that answer.

14 In your statement, you also say that some local men carried their

15 personal, privately owned weapons when they performed security duties

16 within the Old Town. Is that what you actually said in your statement?

17 A. Yes. I said that because I know that my husband, for instance, on

18 one occasion, was at a place within the Dubrovnik lazarets in order to

19 control what was going on, for security reasons. Because from the 1st of

20 October, there was a ban on movements, or rather, a curfew from 9.00 in

21 the evening to the morning. So you weren't allowed to move about. But in

22 the evening, nonetheless, groups of people did organise themselves to

23 control and supervise and see what was going on. And the gentleman who

24 was with him had a hunting rifle, and he had --

25 THE INTERPRETER: I think the witness said a weapon too. Could

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 she repeat that, please.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that that was within the

3 frameworks of the civilian defence system. There was no commanding.

4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Was that how it was all through those three months or did the

6 situation change?

7 A. That was once. I don't know what the date was. I think it was

8 sometime in November.

9 Q. Is your husband a military conscript?

10 A. No.

11 Q. So when you said here some of the local men did carry their

12 personal privately owned weapons when they performed security duties

13 within the Old Town, you actually meant only your husband?

14 A. Yes. My husband told me about this, and there was a man with him.

15 There was two of them.

16 Q. Were there any units of the Croatian army in the town of

17 Dubrovnik, to the best of your knowledge?

18 A. No. No.

19 Q. Do you know anybody who was in the units of the Croatian army?

20 A. I cannot remember. The Croatian army actually came into being

21 later as a firmer organisation. I mean, I don't know about these things,

22 and I don't really think about it very much.

23 Q. Did you see soldiers in uniform at Stradun or somewhere else in

24 the Old Town, soldiers of the Croatian army in uniform in Stradun in the

25 Old Town?

1 A. Well, look, at that time it wasn't the Croatian army during those

2 first months. Perhaps these were just men who were wearing some kind of

3 olive-grey clothing. But no, really, I never saw any of them armed.

4 Q. What about military-aged men? Were they allowed to leave town?

5 A. I think that men from the ages of 16 to 60 were not allowed to

6 leave town, regardless of whether they were able-bodied or not.

7 Q. Do you know why?

8 We have not recorded an answer. Could you just say yes or no.

9 A. No.

10 Q. What about your house in Zlatni Potok? Was it damaged?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Were there any positions, defence positions of the Croatian army

13 in the immediate vicinity of your house?

14 A. No. I didn't see anything like that.

15 Q. You gave this statement to the investigator on the 4th of July,

16 2000, and you said that you gave these preliminary reports that we talked

17 about over the past two or three days to the investigator; is that right?

18 A. Yes. I'm sorry. Can I add something in response to your

19 question, your previous question? You just asked me about Zlatni Potok,

20 but my husband's house and his mother's house was completely burned down.

21 That was in another area.

22 Q. We heard about that. But let's go back to the two questions I

23 still have.

24 When you spoke to the investigator, it was Mr. Michael Stephens,

25 if I'm not mistaken, you handed over to him this preliminary report that

1 we're discussing here?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. When you gave him this report, you signed it as well?

4 A. Yes. That is what I was asked to do.

5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Could I just ask one more time, the

6 very last time - and I do apologise to the Trial Chamber and everybody

7 else - just one more time, could we have the second binder shown to the

8 witness, please. The second binder.

9 Q. Could you please take a look at page 01069596. And in English it

10 is 0061482. Is that the report that you gave to the investigators?

11 A. 596 are the last digits; right?

12 Q. Yes.

13 A. Yes. Yes.

14 Q. And you signed that statement on the 4th of July, 2000; isn't that

15 right?

16 A. That's right.

17 Q. Can you see Mr. Vetma's signature here?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Can you see the date by the signature?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. How come Mr. Vetma's signature is on the copy that you handed over

22 to the investigator?

23 A. Well, look. As far as this building is concerned, and I believe

24 many others as well, we, as a three-member commission, toured these

25 buildings, and I see no reason why there would not be three signatures on

1 one page of the people who took part in this. You don't think that there

2 should be three separate pages, do you?

3 Q. But please explain this to me. If you gave this report to the

4 investigator on the 4th of July, 2000, and if Mr. Vetma signed it on the

5 30th of June - that's what it says here - how come the signature is there?

6 Did you take it to him to sign it?

7 A. No. That means that Mr. Vetma gave a similar statement on the

8 30th of July and that I gave a statement on the 4th of July.

9 THE INTERPRETER: 30th of June, interpreter's correction.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So from the report, individual

11 reports were taken. So if this was shown to me on the 4th of July and if

12 it was shown to Mr. Vetma on the 30th of June, I don't see that there's

13 any problem. Well, you see, I do not keep these reports in my bureau or

14 in my house, so the reports are at the Cultural Monuments Protection

15 Institute. So it is officials from the institute who brought these

16 reports in. These are pages that have to do with my statement. They were

17 taken out, and then I assume they were put back in to this entire set of

18 documents at the time of my statement.

19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Does that mean that you did not hand over the report to the

21 investigator, that he already had it?

22 A. Well, look, all the papers that have to do with my statement were

23 in one place, and it is only natural that I signed them. These are

24 reports about buildings that I worked on.

25 Q. But who prepared it? If you did not hand over the report, who

1 did? And why did you tell me a short while ago that you gave him the

2 report if you were not the one who gave him the report?

3 A. Look, he asked for signatures on the forms that had to do with the

4 damage sustained by individual buildings that I worked on. Now, who gave

5 who what, I think is of no relevance. But this was the set of documents

6 that this section was taken out of, the one that had to do with my own

7 work.

8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further

9 questions. Oh, I'm sorry.

10 [Defence counsel confer]

11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I have just one more question. I

12 am sorry.

13 Q. Do you know what damage was sustained by the Orthodox Church in

14 Dubrovnik? Is it true that it was destroyed, the Orthodox Church in

15 Dubrovnik?

16 A. That is absolutely untrue.

17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I just have something

18 by way of clarification that has to do with the questions I put yesterday.

19 It has to do with something that happened at 13.53, or rather, 13 hours, 0

20 minutes, 53 seconds, according to the transcript. That is the situation

21 when Mrs. Vetma -- I'm sorry, Mrs. Peko - sorry - said that perhaps I, as

22 the Defence attorney, know who was firing from Srdj. But the transcript

23 says that it was an insult addressed to Mr. Strugar. This was an insult

24 addressed to the Defence of Mr. Strugar. I was informed by the

25 interpreters yesterday that this was a mistake, and also Mrs. Peko at that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 point said that she apologised to me for what I said -- rather, what she

2 said, that she said that I was shooting from there maybe.

3 So I accept her apology, of course, and I understand that it

4 happened in the heat of the debate that we were conducting yesterday.

5 That is the only thing I wish to add in this context, and I have no

6 further questions. Thank you.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that, Mr. Petrovic. The Chamber felt

8 that there was some misunderstanding in the heat of the moment, and I'm

9 glad you acknowledge that. Yes.

10 Mr. Kaufman.

11 MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you, Your Honours.

12 Re-examined by Mr. Kaufman:

13 Q. Ms. Peko, only a few more questions. Now, in cross-examination

14 you were questioned about the 6th of December, and you told the Trial

15 Chamber that your husband had assumed that the projectile which hit the

16 house in which you were a resident on that day was a guided rocket. Those

17 are the words that appeared in the transcript. Do you know what a guided

18 rocket is?

19 A. I don't know, but I assume that it can be guided precisely.

20 Q. Have you ever seen a guided rocket in the course of your work on

21 those days?

22 A. No. No. But I saw these white traces that are allegedly used for

23 guiding rockets. I don't know.

24 Q. What do you mean by "white traces"?

25 A. Well, what I said.

1 Q. You also mentioned that four buildings were completely burned

2 down, and you didn't have an opportunity to tell the Trial Chamber which

3 those buildings were, although you wanted to. I now offer you that

4 opportunity. Please tell the Court.

5 A. It is correct that nine buildings in Dubrovnik were completely

6 destroyed in the fire. That is to say, they were hit by incendiary

7 projectiles and therefore destroyed. They burned down.

8 I had the opportunity of monitoring, as an architect, four

9 buildings. For two buildings, I made the complete project documentation,

10 so I was familiarised in detail with the damage sustained by these

11 buildings. I also worked on other buildings that were not totally

12 destroyed in town, and I can tell you exactly which ones those were.

13 Q. Well, perhaps for the sake of time alone, if you remember the

14 names of those four buildings in the Old Town upon which you worked and

15 which were completely burned down.

16 A. I did this architectural monitoring for the street in Sigurate

17 number 2, that's the address. Then Od Puca number 16, then the building

18 in Siroka Street number 5, and the building in Miha Pracata number 6.

19 These houses were completely destroyed, but the building in Siroka number

20 5 is actually part of a larger block which is called the Maineri Djordjic

21 palace. I also worked on the Sorkocevic palace by Gunduliceva Poljana. I

22 think the street is Zeljarica number 5. And the Ranjina palace.

23 Q. Now, at one point in your testimony, Ms. Peko, you talked about a

24 thousand shells falling on the Old Town on the 6th of December. And when

25 you were talking about insula number 11, you said that this was examined

1 but damaged in a minor way. Those were the words that appeared in the

2 transcript yesterday. If that was damaged in a minor way, according to

3 you, insula number 11, where was the major damage on that day?

4 A. The major damage was sustained, and you will see it on the map if

5 you have a look at it, by the central part of town. That is in parts of

6 the main street, Placa, then the blocks of buildings on the southern side

7 and on the northern side. From the east to the west, looking at the city

8 walls. That is the part of town that was affected more badly.

9 For example, the area of Pustijerna, or Karmen as we call it

10 within town, was the one that was damaged the least perhaps. But the

11 central part of town was affected very badly. I must say that it is in

12 that part of town that there is a major concentration of valuable

13 buildings like Baroque palaces and churches and monasteries like the

14 Dominican monastery and the church of St. Vlaho and the Church of Our

15 Savior that we already mentioned.

16 Q. But of course, the damage was not just confined to that particular

17 area of the Old Town.

18 A. Of course not. But that is where the projectiles fell with

19 greater frequency. Of course there was damage wherever projectiles fell.

20 Q. Thank you. Now, two more questions, Ms. Peko. The first concerns

21 the examination -- cross-examination that was made on the point of the

22 editing of your notes, or the lack of editing thereof. Now, you said that

23 after you submitted your report, none of the authors edited or looked

24 through your notes. Now, I'd like you to clarify that, perhaps. What

25 happened after you finished that report on a particular site that you had

1 been examining?

2 A. After compiling a report, I would hand it over for it to be typed

3 out, and then I would check it once again before it would be binded

4 together. It is only natural that the authors of the entire project

5 should have insight into the material that they are putting together, and

6 ultimately, they take part in drafting the map that has to do with

7 pinpointing the damage and categorising the damage. Of course they're

8 involved in this work throughout. But it was my understanding that the

9 question put to me was whether somebody edited the text that I had

10 actually written, and that is why I said no, nobody changed the text that

11 I wrote.

12 As for the report as a whole, there were just two words I really

13 wanted to say in addition to what I've already said already, so may I?

14 The preliminary report of course means that it is preliminary, that it

15 precedes something, at the moment when the most information can be

16 received about the damaged buildings. Immediately after this period, work

17 had already started on the affected buildings in order to prevent the rain

18 from harming them any further, in order to make life in these buildings

19 possible, and so on and so forth.

20 I would like to repeat once again that emphasis is laid on the

21 damage sustained by the building. I myself was personally most interested

22 in the degree of damage sustained by the buildings. I personally found it

23 hard sometimes when I had to write down that there was a lesser degree of

24 damage on a particularly valuable building, but that's the way it had to

25 be done, and it had to be evaluated in such a way.

1 Q. Ms. Peko, I thank you for that clarification, because it was not

2 clear from the way it was answered in cross-examination.

3 Now, the final matter which I want to turn to is the questions

4 that you were asked concerning the San Franciscan Monastery, and the

5 preponderance of impacts in the cloister of that San Franciscan Monastery.

6 If I may remind you, you were asked about the preponderance of impacts

7 which occurred in the southwestern corner of that cloister, and then you

8 were asked about the direction of fire. And you, using your architectural

9 abilities, stated that it came from the east. You were then

10 cross-examined, and it was put to you that you knew that because you had

11 seen the JNA in the east to north-east.

12 Now, continuing that particular vein, I would like to ask

13 Ms. Usher if she could place in front of you the first bundle and the page

14 numbered 01069074 in the B/C/S version. This is a diagram.

15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters cannot hear the witness. We're

16 sorry.

17 MR. KAUFMAN:

18 Q. Do you have page 01069074 in front of you?

19 A. Yes. Yes. Yes, I do.

20 Q. What does this portray? Perhaps you could enlighten us.

21 A. That's the map of the town, with damage sustained by the city

22 walls. Because I see that that has been marked.

23 Q. Now, looking at that, could you tell us which side of the walls

24 was damaged? The inside or the outside?

25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I object to this

3 question, for two reasons at least. One reason is that I did not open

4 this subject at all in my questions regarding the preliminary report.

5 Secondly, the lady, the witness, did not work on this at all, this

6 portion that is being shown. She did not even mention the city walls in

7 her report.

8 The third reason is that, from the map, one cannot see the points

9 that are there. There is nothing on this map that can show whether it was

10 one side of the wall or the other side of the wall. One would have to

11 read the report in order to ascertain what actually happened. Otherwise,

12 it would be impossible to tell.

13 So those are the three reasons why I think that the question that

14 my learned friend put should not be pursued any further. Thank you.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kaufman.

16 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honour, I am aware that the witness did not

17 work on this particular site, but then my learned friend himself, in

18 cross-examination, did put to the witness various sites, some of which the

19 witness did not work, and even cross-examined her on them. I take, for

20 example, the last item which was put to the witness in Boskoviceva Street

21 number 3, L0061006. Once again, that was an item which the witness

22 herself did not examine in the course of her duties for the protection of

23 institutes -- the Institute for the Protection of Monuments, and yet she

24 was cross-examined on the matter. I did not raise an objection apart from

25 wishing to caution my learned friend as to the way in which he phrased the

1 question.

2 The third point is that -- if I may address the third point that

3 Mr. Petrovic raised. There is a -- of course, a written record of this

4 particular item and it is to be found in the English translation at

5 L0061460. And if I may address the general thrust of my learned friend's

6 objection, it is Mr. Petrovic himself who opened this line of questioning

7 up in cross-examination when he tried to draw conclusions as to the

8 trajectory from the preponderance of impacts, as I explained in the

9 question, in the south-western corner of the cloister of the monastery,

10 the Franciscan Monastery, not the San Franciscan Monastery as I said

11 earlier, the Franciscan Monastery.

12 JUDGE PARKER: You put it that Mr. Petrovic tried to draw

13 conclusions. Was it not that he was questioning whether the witness could

14 draw conclusions?

15 MR. KAUFMAN: Indeed, and the witness did draw a conclusion.

16 So ...

17 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.

18 MR. KAUFMAN: If I may be allowed to pursue the same line of

19 questioning.

20 JUDGE PARKER: How do we then move from that particular site - and

21 the questioning, as I recall it, was confined to the issue of where the

22 shell or shells may have come that caused that particular damage - how do

23 we move from there in cross-examination to, for the first time, a

24 consideration of the damage to the walls of the city in re-examination?

25 MR. KAUFMAN: Well, I moved to that by asking for a certain amount

1 of liberty in the sites that I present to this witness, since Mr. Petrovic

2 himself has allowed himself a certain amount of liberty in presenting

3 sites and the Prosecution has not objected.

4 JUDGE PARKER: But I didn't understand the questioning in

5 cross-examination to be at large about the source of the shelling but the

6 point that was in issue in the point of cross-examination was the damage

7 to one particular building and one part of that damage only. You are now

8 seeking to have the witness deal with entirely different damage to other

9 structures and with no apparent connection with the point that was being

10 cross-examined. Have I misconstrued the situation?

11 MR. KAUFMAN: I hear Your Honour's point, and I take it, and I

12 shall not continue this line of questioning, and I shall continue it with

13 Dr. Kaiser when he comes next week.

14 JUDGE PARKER: I could well see that that may be a consequence,

15 but I think Mr. Petrovic's objection is well-founded at this point.

16 MR. KAUFMAN: I thank Your Honour, and I thank Ms. Peko for coming

17 to the Trial Chamber. I wonder if Your Honours have any questions of

18 Ms. Peko.

19 JUDGE PARKER: There are two that occur to me, at least.

20 Questioned by the Court:

21 JUDGE PARKER: The first: We had emphasised by you, Mrs. Peko,

22 that this is a preliminary report. Was there a final report?

23 A. I don't know, because I don't work in the Institute for

24 Protection. But of course it is normal in cases of that kind, as

25 previously when a report was done on the earthquake, that more precise

1 reports are compiled with an evaluation of the damage and possible

2 recommendations for repairs and reconstruction. So that was a preliminary

3 report. Later reports were of course far more detailed, and are always

4 far more detailed. There are certainly no facts about weapons, and they

5 will be able to be drawn up at a later stage. The first preliminary

6 report gives an overview immediately after the events of what happened.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. The second matter -- I was pausing. I

8 thought interpretation was still carrying on, but apparently not. The

9 second matter, both in cross-examination and in your evidence in chief and

10 re-examination, one matter was mentioned. I remain unclear, I'm afraid,

11 as to what you meant, and it may be that it is a matter of the way it's

12 been put in the English language rather than in yours. It's this issue of

13 white traces. Can you tell the Chamber what it is that you actually saw.

14 Can you describe it.

15 A. On the 7th of December, from the apartment we were in, I left the

16 apartment and went out into the street, and as people had already started

17 clearing up the streets, it was my wish to collect the stones that fell

18 from our building which was hit, so that we could keep those old stones

19 for future repairs and reconstruction. That's what I wanted to do. And

20 when I was doing that, I saw some white -- the word "nit" means thread or

21 strand. I think that would be the translation.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Is it a wire or cable, something of that nature?

23 A. Yes, like a very, very thin wire.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

1 JUDGE PARKER: Mrs. Peko, thank you very much for your coming to

2 assist us, more than once, from what we've been told. I'm sorry about

3 that. And thank you very much for the assistance you've given us. You

4 are now free to go and go back to your home. Thank you very much.

5 [The witness withdrew]

6 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Kaufman.

7 MR. KAUFMAN: Yes, Your Honour. One procedural matter, if I may.

8 I'll be as short as possible. I'm mindful of Your Honour's direction

9 concerning submissions as to authenticity of documents. Now, in this

10 regard, I'd like to mention, and I don't think Mr. Petrovic will disagree,

11 that prior to Ms. Peko's testifying in this matter, we had agreed between

12 us that P35 as it was then known - now, as it is, the preliminary report,

13 if I may, as it is now known - would be submitted by way of agreement.

14 And on the day of the hearing itself, Mr. Petrovic, as I understand,

15 requested to change his agreement to the fact that he was only agreeing to

16 the parts -- to submit the parts that Ms. Peko had worked on.

17 That's Mr. Petrovic's right, of course. But I would like to state

18 that this was mentioned to us at the very last minute. And I would like

19 to know if Mr. Petrovic is intending to challenge the admissibility of

20 this document even when Dr. Kaiser comes. Because if that is the case, it

21 has been done at the very last minute and we would perhaps have to seek an

22 additional witness in order to tender this document. I would hope it

23 would not come to that. I don't think it should come to that because

24 Dr. Kaiser can speak to the whole document. But I'd like to know where

25 Mr. Petrovic is going with this matter.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, can you assist?

2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I should like to ask

3 your indulgence, and might I be allowed to answer the question on Monday

4 morning when we reconvene in this courtroom? Because he's not the next

5 witness, the one that we're discussing at the moment.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Will that be convenient, Mr. Kaufman, or is there

7 some time urgency?

8 MR. KAUFMAN: There is a matter of time urgency, Your Honour,

9 because Dr. Kaiser is due to arrive on Saturday and he'll be proofed in

10 advance of his evidence next week. So we would like to know where we

11 stand in this matter.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Perhaps you might give some consideration to the

13 matter over the next break, Mr. Petrovic, and we'll raise it again

14 following the break.

15 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I'll do my best, Your Honour.

16 Thank you.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Now, while you're on your feet, Mr. Petrovic: The

18 question of the photograph which was tendered earlier but in a very, very

19 poor quality form, and which has now been provided in a better quality

20 form, can you indicate how you see the position in respect of that?

21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your indulgence,

22 may my colleague Mr. Rodic address the Court on the matter?

23 JUDGE PARKER: Indeed. I was probably in error in not turning to

24 Mr. Rodic. Yes.

25 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. The new

1 photograph, the one we've just been provided, as far as I can see, is just

2 a slightly lighter version of the previous photograph. However, as the

3 Defence has already stressed, it is very important to us to obtain a

4 colour photograph, especially in order to be able to identify the locality

5 where this was taken. So apart from the people that can be seen in the

6 photograph, we can't identify the other necessary elements, the colour and

7 background, in order to be able to determine where the photograph was

8 actually taken. So I would like to ask that, if at all possible, we

9 receive the photograph itself that Mr. Doyle said he had in his

10 possession.

11 As for the second document, related to an illegible copy of the

12 military districts, showing the military districts, on the document that I

13 have just received, this is clearer. You can see Sarajevo and Trebinje

14 better, and we can see that they are military districts. I can just

15 discern that up where it says "Sarajevo," it says the 2nd. I'm not sure

16 whether it is the 4th Military District on this other document, but you

17 can assess that for yourselves. So I will accept your decision on the

18 matter. Thank you.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Before you sit, Mr. Rodic, I agree this is not in

20 colour, but it seems that this is a very much different quality of print

21 from the one which was before us when the witness was here, and I must say

22 that it seems to me that it quite clearly depicts the general locality in

23 which this photograph was taken. It seems very clear that there is a

24 glass structure, a panel, with a door, an unusual architectural shaping

25 behind the three people that can be seen in some detail, and that is

1 repeated further back in the room, as one can see looking at the

2 photograph, with a brick wall to the right. And I'm a little unclear why

3 you say that you cannot identify from this sufficiently the location where

4 the photograph was taken.

5 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I agree with the

6 description you've just given us. However, at the same time, we can

7 notice that behind Mr. Doyle is a fairly important portion of the

8 photograph, which is dark. That's one point.

9 And the second point: Whether the brick is yellow in colour, red,

10 or some other colour, we do not know from this photograph, because

11 different types of bricks are, of course, used in construction work. So

12 it would be important for identification purposes and also because of the

13 other elements, and also the rank of the accused, to which Mr. Doyle

14 pointed. It is difficult to discern anything about that here, whereas we

15 can see that on the chest, on the left side of the chest, there is

16 something there. So I'm sure that a colour photograph would help us to

17 clarify that point.

18 JUDGE PARKER: The colour may or may not -- colour is one issue;

19 clarity is another. I'd have thought from this black-and-white

20 presentation, it is clear that the bricks are light in colour, because the

21 mortar is contrasting and dark. I agree, we cannot know the precise

22 colour of the bricks, but at least it would appear they are light bricks.

23 And the point is that you are unlikely to be able to identify a building

24 just from the colour of a brick wall. It is necessary to see a brick wall

25 in conjunction with the other features that appear in the photograph. And

1 the glass partition and door appears to be a quite distinctive item,

2 especially as it is repeated further down in the room, and I'd have

3 thought that was a very significant architectural feature that ought to

4 have assisted considerably in your identification of the location.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE PARKER: It's just been pointed out, of course, that light

7 is clearly coming in from the left-hand side of the photograph, because it

8 slants across the photograph. The assistant to Colonel Doyle, who is on

9 the left, the light comes across his face, but it comes across the chest

10 and the waist of your client in the middle, if you can see the slanting

11 light. So that would assist with the location of the windows. Now, a

12 colour photograph is not going to show us any more of the building. It

13 would simply add colour to what is here.

14 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the final decision is

15 yours, of course, but I think that because of what I said earlier on --

16 yes, I'm clear on what you say about the window. That is clearly visible.

17 But the portion behind Mr. Doyle is dark, so that I have no identification

18 there. It is the position of the Defence that a colour photograph would

19 be much more helpful to us, but of course the final decision rests with

20 you.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

22 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE PARKER: In view of the time, rather than commencing a new

25 witness now, we think it would be more practical to have the break a

1 little early, and during that break we can give consideration to this

2 question of the photograph.

3 We will break now for the usual morning break.

4 --- Recess taken at 10.17 a.m.

5 --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.

6 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber would mention the matter of the

7 photograph which came into evidence through the witness Colonel Doyle and

8 which had been the subject of submissions in which the Chamber took the

9 view that the Defence's concern at the quality of that which was before us

10 during the evidence were well-founded and that there was justification for

11 attempts to be made to obtain the original or a better quality, bearing in

12 mind that the need for the original had not been apparent to the Defence

13 earlier, and had arisen, it seems, only during the course of the evidence

14 of Colonel Doyle, and the colonel's understanding that the original was,

15 he thought, although not entirely confidently, was stored in his attic in

16 Ireland, a home which he had left to move to New York, so that it would be

17 of considerable inconvenience for him to have to try and find it.

18 The Chamber has been provided with a far better quality

19 reproduction of that photograph by the Office of the Prosecutor and has

20 heard the submissions of Mr. Rodic concerning this. The Chamber is of the

21 view that the quality of that which is now provided is most significantly

22 better than the version we had during the evidence of Colonel Doyle, and

23 it is our view that this quality is sufficient to meet the concerns which

24 had persuaded the Chamber earlier that further efforts should be made by

25 the Office of the Prosecutor to obtain either the original or a better

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 quality.

2 For that reason, we would regard what has now been provided as an

3 adequate discharge of the request we made to the Office of the Prosecutor

4 about the photograph and would not require further efforts to be made. We

5 are conscious of what Mr. Rodic has said, but in the course of his

6 submissions, views were put to him by me which express generally the view

7 of the Chamber that the photograph copy now available to the Defence

8 should be reasonably adequate for the purpose that has been indicated to

9 us by Mr. Rodic.

10 That having been said, clearly I can take it that the Office of

11 the Prosecutor would be aware that if by chance it happened that Colonel

12 Doyle were in Ireland, he would be encouraged to seek to provide the

13 original, but we see that the interests of justice do not require that we

14 make any formal order or request to that effect.

15 Now, the next witness.

16 MS. SOMERS: The Prosecution's next witness to be examined by

17 Mr. Re is Mr. Mato Valjalo.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. If the witness could be called.

19 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, may I just inquire: There was another

20 matter pending that was to be deliberated upon by Defence during the

21 break. Mr. Kaufman is remaining for that. Shall we --

22 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.

23 MS. SOMERS: Thank you.

24 JUDGE PARKER: I'm sorry. I overlooked that.

25 Mr. Petrovic, the question of the report.

1 [The witness entered court]

2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'll try as concisely

3 as possible --

4 JUDGE PARKER: Would you mind just waiting one moment? I'm having

5 -- just be seated, please, while counsel puts a submission.

6 Yes, Mr. Petrovic.

7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I should like to try

8 to elaborate on the problem and to bring up several aspects of it.

9 The first point, something I'm sure you're well aware of, the

10 indictment against my client is composed of precisely defined 500

11 structures, approximately, which were allegedly damaged or destroyed on

12 the 6th of December, 1991. About 500 structures were specifically

13 mentioned. The time of damage was recorded, the degree of damage, the

14 exact addresses, and the purposes those structures or buildings served.

15 And, Your Honour, as you know full well, that is in attachment 2 that goes

16 with the indictment.

17 Now, how many damaged structures in this attachment, the same

18 number of reports exists on damages, and these have been collected in the

19 preliminary report that we have been discussing over the past few days.

20 And as we were able to hear from the previous witness, each report is

21 separate, each one was compiled by one of the individuals charged by the

22 Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments, it was looked through

23 and signed individually by the person who wrote the report. The

24 preliminary report itself is none other than a collection of individual

25 notes or minutes about the damage sustained. So it is not something that

1 is a synthetic product. It is not something that somebody looked at

2 together and drew conclusions on that basis. It is just a collection of

3 individual, autonomous reports, and each of the reports states the name of

4 the person who compiled them.

5 Theoretically speaking, Your Honour, the Defence team of

6 Mr. Strugar, in view of the fact that we're dealing with individually

7 stated structures which have been individually listed in the indictment,

8 the Defence of General Strugar, and I hope you share my opinion,

9 theoretically speaking, of course, would have the right, reason, and

10 grounds for examining each of those 500 structures and challenging them.

11 I emphasise the word "theoretical" because of course we are mindful of

12 time, and that is the concern of the Trial Chamber and our concern as

13 well, as well as all the other participants in these proceedings.

14 So what is all this about, Your Honour? As I said, it is a

15 collection of reports. Mr. Kaiser is one of the individuals who, in the

16 same way, just like the lady who was here to testify a moment ago,

17 compiled individual notes on the damages sustained. Now, what is

18 important in this regard must be said. Mr. Kaiser is not the author.

19 Mr. Kaiser is a counsellor, an advisor. He's not somebody who represents

20 the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments. And you can see

21 for yourselves in the introduction of the report itself, in B/C/S, the

22 page is 01069061, or rather, in the English-language version, the number

23 is as follows: Page L0061414. So that, then, is the introduction to this

24 collection of individual reports and notes on the damages sustained. You

25 can see who stands behind the preliminary report there. So it is the

1 director of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments. That

2 is the man who signed it and wrote the introduction which was presented to

3 the Trial Chamber for review.

4 In addition to this, on page 0106969058, you can see who the

5 authors are of that preliminary report, although let me emphasise once

6 again that this is something that is not a synthetic product; it is a

7 collection of individual activities on the part of individual people. So

8 the last page I mentioned in the English translation is 0061412.

9 Therefore, Mr. Kaiser neither represents an institution, nor is he one of

10 the authors. Mr. Kaiser himself, and that is what the Defence can accept,

11 can come here to testify about something he himself did. So he can

12 testify about those notes and minutes and reports that he himself signed.

13 Mrs. Peko told her [as interpreted], and I asked her precisely, because of

14 what is happening here now, she said quite simply that what she wrote,

15 what she saw, was not controlled by anybody, it was not redacted by

16 anybody or edited; it is quite simply something that she herself wrote,

17 and in that form submitted for the preliminary report without influence

18 from anyone, from any side.

19 Now, for all these reasons, I don't think that Mr. Kaiser can be

20 an individual who will take it upon himself to testify about the entire

21 report, whereas he actually -- what he actually saw and testifies about is

22 only a segment of that report. You have dozens of pages signed by Mr.

23 Kaiser within that report, but also, Your Honours, you have several

24 hundred pages where no mention is made of Mr. Kaiser at all. And so in

25 the interests of justice, in our opinion, the evidence that is introduced

1 through Mr. Kaiser must be restricted and limited to his actual part and

2 his reporter notes on the investigations he conducted and verified by

3 placing his signature to those pages.

4 I apologise for taking so much of the Court's time, but I do

5 believe that this will help you in your deliberations. Thank you.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.

7 Mr. Kaufman.

8 MR. KAUFMAN: Your Honour, having heard my learned friend's

9 submissions, I cannot help but notice that there seems to be a certain

10 amount of internal, illogical argument. Whilst Mr. Petrovic says that he

11 wishes to save time and avoid calling each and every author of each and

12 every site in the report, which would take a lot of time -- it can be

13 done, but it would take an immense amount of time, he also says, on the

14 other hand, that Dr. Kaiser can only testify to the actual parts of the

15 report that he signed and witnessed.

16 Now, Dr. Kaiser is registered in the list of people appended to

17 the beginning of this document as a consultant. There are four authors,

18 and those authors may be brought, if necessary. I would submit it is not

19 necessary to bring these authors, and I would submit furthermore that it

20 is sufficient to allow Dr. Kaiser to deal with the document as a whole and

21 allow the document to be it admitted as an exhibit through Dr. Kaiser as a

22 whole. According to the precedent of this Tribunal, there is no need for

23 Dr. Kaiser to be an author, I would submit, and furthermore, that

24 familiarity with the contents of the document - and in this matter I mean

25 Dr. Kaiser's intimate familiarity with the documents - is sufficient.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Dr. Kaiser oversaw the conduct of the whole of this operation. As

2 Your Honours heard from the last witness, Ms. Peko, they were working to a

3 time schedule. Dr. Kaiser was there from the outset, from when the

4 methodology was instituted. He was the person who instituted the

5 methodology, along with Dr. Bruno Carnez, who will not be testifying, and

6 he oversaw the conduct of this operation from its inception to its

7 conclusion. And to that extent, I would submit that he is familiar with

8 the contents of the report and it should be permissible to allow that

9 document to be submitted as an exhibit through Dr. Kaiser. Otherwise, we

10 will indeed need to call a large number of witnesses in order to submit

11 each and every report in separate, in a separate manner.

12 I would like to furthermore mention that my learned friend has

13 mentioned that the indictment includes in its annex a list of

14 approximately 500 buildings, for which there are 500 reports, but the

15 Defence, as far as I understood it, and from a perusal of the Defence

16 pre-trial brief, although it is not evidence, but a perusal of the Defence

17 pre-trial brief does not deny that considerable damage was caused to the

18 Old Town on the 6th of December. So I would submit that the legal

19 requirements of proving the damage should not be too difficult to fulfil

20 in this case, proving damage, and not just damage but extensive damage,

21 for the purposes of the counts alleged in the indictment.

22 However, having said that, I will return to my initial submission

23 and beg that Dr. Kaiser be allowed to admit this report in its entirety

24 and that it be admitted as an exhibit through him.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic.

1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, very briefly in

2 relation to what my learned friend said. The Defence totally challenges

3 the annex to the indictment, and that is quite clear from our pre-trial

4 motion. So lest there be any misunderstanding or lack of clarity on that

5 part, it is important to mention that.

6 General Strugar is being indicted for each and every individual

7 building, and individual reports, separate reports, were filed for each

8 and every building. I believe that you will agree with me that,

9 theoretically speaking, in relation to each and every building, General

10 Strugar is entitled to put questions with regard to every one of these

11 individual buildings. And this feeling is only heightened after having

12 heard the previous witness.

13 In our opinion, we therefore have the right to express this

14 concern, which is great in terms of the accuracy of what these reports

15 contain. I'm not going to infer anything now on the basis of what the

16 previous witness said, but I will just say that there is heightened

17 concern on our part in terms of the methodology in which all of this was

18 done.

19 Your Honours, all of this should be held against our client then,

20 and we simply cannot allow Mr. Strugar to be accountable for all of that,

21 for each and every individual building and all that damage sustained.

22 Perhaps my learned friends will smile or laugh at what I say now, but,

23 Your Honours, this entire problem could be redressed easily if, quite

24 simply, if we were to talk about those buildings that were destroyed,

25 without going into 500 different buildings. Let them eliminate annex 2 to

1 the indictment and then it will be much easier to discuss it. I'm sure

2 they are going to only laugh about this. But if they do away with that,

3 we are going to save an enormous amount of time.

4 Thank you, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Petrovic, what has changed about this? The

6 question of damage was well known to you for some time, and as I

7 understand it from Mr. Kaufman, you were prepared earlier to agree to the

8 tendering of the whole document. Is there some new development in the

9 case which has caused you to change your approach?

10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Your Honour, in relation to

11 what you've said just now, I take upon myself this responsibility. I

12 talked to Mr. Kaufman without having discussed it beforehand with other

13 members of the team.

14 So what is this all about? It seemed to me at one point in time

15 that it was more practical, because of the photographs that I presented to

16 you on several occasions, that this should perhaps be marked for

17 identification purposes or in some other way, so that it would be

18 accessible to you, so when I refer to a particular photograph, I can make

19 easy reference to it. Because I copied all of this. You did not accept

20 it. You did not admit it into evidence. It created confusion, what I was

21 doing with the witnesses. So, quite simply, often you did not have the

22 opportunity of seeing this properly, the way you see exhibits. When we

23 looked at the report in detail, both my colleague and I, when we analysed

24 everything that the report contains, when we received a report from our

25 advisor - and I talked to Mr. Kaufman only 10 or 15 days ago, and in the

1 meantime we talked to our advisor too - and then we came to the conclusion

2 that this was quite unacceptable. So this confusion that I caused when

3 talking to Mr. Kaufman some 10 days ago is something that I fully take

4 upon myself, but today we are in a position to take the stand we are

5 taking now.

6 The witness you heard over the past three days has precisely

7 corroborated our position with regard to this particular matter. Thank

8 you.

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE PARKER: There are two aspects to the question of the report

11 presently marked for identification as 51. One is its technical

12 admissibility. The second is the weight which the Chamber in due course

13 might attach to the report as a whole or to individual elements of it.

14 With respect to admissibility, which is the issue presently before

15 the Chamber, if it proves to be the case, as Mr. Kaufman has anticipated,

16 that the proposed witness Mr. Kaiser will be able to indicate that he had

17 oversight of the preparation of the whole of the report, the Chamber would

18 be prepared to admit the report on that basis. Just what weight would

19 then be attached to individual components of it will be a matter for the

20 future consideration of the Chamber, in light of the whole of the evidence

21 as to damage.

22 It is clear in this matter that the position of the Defence is

23 developing, changing, as the trial proceeds. We would -- in view of some

24 comments made by Mr. Petrovic, we would encourage discussions between

25 Defence and Prosecuting counsel over this question of damage. It appears

1 to the Chamber that it may well be that common ground can be reached.

2 There may be areas where there can be mutual agreement, certainty about

3 damage, and if that can be done, it might avoid a great deal of time and

4 work, both for Defence and Prosecution, and enable that aspect of the case

5 to be put to one side so that some of the bigger issues that are more

6 critical can be concentrated on.

7 So we would encourage further consideration to those matters and

8 discussion between counsel for both sides.

9 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, may I just address that issue? In

10 fairness to both parties. Earlier last week, I did address with

11 Mr. Petrovic perhaps the wisdom of trying to arrive at some stipulations

12 based on a review of the pre-trial brief, and he had indicated willingness

13 to sit down and do so. So the dialogue is open and perhaps it may be able

14 to materialise. We can't guarantee that anything will come out of it, but

15 the dialogue is certainly open.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Well, anything the Chamber can do to encourage

17 that, please understand, we support and encourage it fully.

18 Now, sir, I thank you for waiting patiently while we dealt with

19 that matter. If you would please stand and take the affirmation.

20 WITNESS: MATO VALJALO

21 [Witness answered through interpreter]

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

23 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Please be seated now.

25 Mr. Re.

1 MR. RE: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Examined by Mr. Re:

3 Q. Can you please give the Trial Chamber your full name.

4 A. Mato Valjalo.

5 Q. What is your date of birth, Mr. Valjalo?

6 A. The 18th of May, 1948.

7 Q. And do you live in the Old Town of Dubrovnik?

8 A. I was born in Konavle, and I live in the Old Town of Dubrovnik.

9 Q. And did you live in the Old Town of Dubrovnik in 1991?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. What was the address in the Old Town of Dubrovnik where you lived

12 in 1991?

13 A. Prijeko, number 19.

14 Q. Did you do JNA military service; and if so, when?

15 A. Yes. I did my service in Dubrovnik while the army was there. It

16 was between 1967 and 1969. In 1970, the army left Dubrovnik. Excuse me.

17 The army left Dubrovnik and went to Trebinje.

18 Q. What is your occupation today, Mr. Valjalo?

19 A. I'm a driver in the Dubrovacko Neretvanska district, and I drive

20 the head of district, as a matter of fact.

21 Q. Is that the municipal authority or the local council, and is the

22 person you drive for the mayor?

23 A. No. It's different now. Before there was this different system

24 that involved municipalities, whereas now there are towns and districts.

25 So I work for the district and the head of the district. So it

1 encompasses a broader region, from Prevlaka to Ploce.

2 Q. For how long have you been driving for local officials connected

3 with the municipality or the larger area?

4 A. In 1981 I came to the Municipal Assembly, and I've been there ever

5 since.

6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please be

7 asked to speak up.

8 MR. RE:

9 Q. Mr. Valjalo, would you be able to speak a little bit more loudly

10 so that the interpreters can hear you and translate your words into

11 English for the non-Croatian speakers in the Court.

12 A. Thank you.

13 Q. Were you in the military in 1991?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Were you a civilian?

16 A. Yes, I was, a civilian.

17 Q. You said --

18 A. And I had the same job that I have today. But at that time, this

19 big district did not exist. At that time, I drove the president of the

20 Executive Council of the town.

21 Q. And what was his name?

22 A. Mr. Zeljko Sikic.

23 Q. What were your duties in driving Mr. Sikic? What did you do?

24 A. Well, before the war broke out, of course, we did what was done.

25 I drove these officials in different areas, in towns, two different towns,

1 whatever was necessary. There were also other high officials who came to

2 Dubrovnik, and I was even involved in the protocol that dealt with foreign

3 visitors too, and I was actually driving them as well.

4 Q. Are you saying that that was in the Old Town and the town of --

5 the larger town of Dubrovnik and the surrounding area?

6 A. Well, the Old Town and the entire town of Dubrovnik, and also the

7 airport at Cilipi. I would drive someone to the airport or meet them

8 there. And also, different meetings were held in other municipalities,

9 and when it was necessary to drive people there, I did.

10 Q. Were you mobilised during the war, that is, in 1991, 1992, 1993,

11 and so on?

12 A. My work obligation was again that of a driver attached to the

13 Executive Council, without any weapons, without a rifle.

14 Q. What about a uniform? Did you wear civilian clothes or a uniform

15 in your duties driving Mr. Sikic around?

16 A. Civilian. Civilian.

17 Q. You made a statement to the -- an Office of the Prosecutor

18 investigator on the 20th of May, 2000.

19 MR. RE: And I'm correcting something for the record which I have

20 advised my learned friends of before, which we found out in proofing when

21 we were conferring yesterday.

22 Q. In that statement, you described Mr. Sikic as the president of the

23 Territorial Defence. Was that a correct description of his duties in your

24 statement?

25 A. No. The Territorial Defence was something different. That's not

1 what Mr. Sikic was. He was president of the Executive Council. And at

2 that time, he was also president of the Crisis Staff.

3 Q. Were you -- are you aware of where the headquarters of the

4 Territorial Defence were located in 1991?

5 A. The Territorial Defence, the National Defence? Well, you see, I

6 think that was near the medical centre in Lapad. That's where the

7 military department was during the former Yugoslavia, and then the

8 Territorial Defence was down there too.

9 Q. Were you aware of any Territorial Defence facilities being located

10 in the Old Town of Dubrovnik in September, October, November, or December

11 1991?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Were you present in Dubrovnik during shelling in September,

14 October, November, or December 1991?

15 A. I was, until I was wounded on the 6th of December.

16 Q. Are you able to tell the Trial Chamber where the Serb positions

17 were during the shelling in that period?

18 A. They were above the town, in Zarkovica, Bosanka, on the other

19 side. I don't know. On the Imperijal Fortress, on Mount Srdj, that is

20 where our army was. Underneath that hill there was a bunker, a bunker

21 where the enemy army was. The town itself was free below the highway, and

22 all the way up to Sustjepan. Sustjepan was the defence front line when

23 they had already taken Mokosica, the western part, I mean.

24 Q. Mr. Valjalo, can I just ask you to keep your voice up again and

25 just go back a moment. A moment ago I referred to Serb positions. What I

1 actually meant to say was JNA positions, and I apologise for that. In

2 your answer, were you referring to JNA positions?

3 A. JNA positions that I could see from town were on the hill of

4 Zarkovica, where a cannon could be seen that was shooting at the Old Town.

5 There were bunkers underneath Mount Srdj, the Imperijal Fortress, about

6 100 to 200 metres away there were soldiers. There was ammunition also on

7 the hill of Zarkovica, then also they were on Bosanka.

8 Q. That's the JNA positions. What about the Croat positions? Where

9 were they?

10 A. The Croat positions were on the fortress of Srdj, the Imperijal

11 Fortress, as it is called, on Srdj. And perhaps below the highway. I

12 don't know. And on the other side, I can only say that they were in

13 Sustjepan.

14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Valjalo. I want to ask you about the 6th of

15 December, 1991. Where were you on the 6th of December, 1991?

16 A. On the 6th of December I was at the Municipal Assembly. In the

17 early morning hours -- I don't know the exact time when the attack began,

18 but it did start from the eastern side, coming from the eastern side, not

19 the west, I'm sorry. And we --

20 Q. I'm sorry. I'll just take you back. Where did you spend the

21 night of the 5th of December, 1991?

22 A. I spent the night at the Municipal Assembly of Dubrovnik. I was

23 on duty there, by the telephone, and the attack had already started

24 against Konavle. Konavle was already attacked by Montenegro and I was in

25 the Municipal Assembly that morning too.

1 Q. You said an attack occurred. How did you come to know that an

2 attack occurred?

3 A. Detonations were heard. My relatives from Konavle had already

4 moved to Dubrovnik. They were staying at my apartment. So I called them

5 immediately and I said that I hoped it wouldn't be that way. And I went

6 up to the top of the building of the Municipal Assembly to see where the

7 shells were coming from and where they were falling. I saw that they were

8 targeting the highway and also below the highway, the old road leading to

9 the highway. I'm sorry. Can you repeat what you said just now?

10 Q. What I want to ask you about is the 6th of December, 1991. Now,

11 I'll just stop there. You said something about your relatives. You had a

12 wife and children in 1991?

13 A. Yes. I had a wife and children. Unfortunately, they were

14 supposed to go because we were left without electricity, water, a

15 telephone. There were relatives there, small children.

16 Q. Mr. Valjalo, were your wife and children living with you in the

17 Old Town of Dubrovnik; and if so, until when?

18 A. They were living there, but as Dubrovnik was constantly being

19 shelled, you couldn't stay there with the small children any more. There

20 was no electricity, we had nothing to eat, and so they had to leave town.

21 And they went by ship. I don't remember the exact date. And all my

22 relatives left as well, and they ended up at Rabac. My wife and my

23 children were there.

24 Q. All right. Not too many details on this. What I want you to tell

25 the Trial Chamber is, to the best of your recollection, when did they

1 leave for Rabac, leaving you in the Old Town of Dubrovnik?

2 A. The month was October, but I can't remember the exact date.

3 Q. Thank you. Now, you remained behind in the Old Town. Did you

4 remain behind in your house or flat?

5 A. I remained behind in the Old Town, and my house was also damaged.

6 The windows were shattered.

7 Q. Mr. Valjalo, what I want you to do is listen very carefully to the

8 question I'm asking you, and just please for the moment concentrate on

9 that one and I'll move to the other part in a moment. Now, what I want

10 you to tell me is: You stayed behind. Who, if anyone, did you stay

11 behind with after your family went to Rabac?

12 A. The person who stayed behind with me, he is deceased now, was my

13 father-in-law, my wife's father.

14 Q. And he stayed behind with you, and did you continue working for

15 Mr. Sikic, driving him, after your family left for Rabac?

16 A. Yes. I continued working. I drove Mr. Sikic least, actually,

17 because if anybody came to town, foreigners and others, like Mr. Kuchner,

18 for example, I would drive them. I've forgotten all the other names but

19 when any dignitary came to town, I would drive them.

20 Q. And were you staying with your father-in-law in December; that's

21 the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th of December, 1991, in your apartment in the

22 Old Town of Dubrovnik?

23 A. Yes. When there was no shooting. But when shells were falling,

24 then we took to the shelter, and the shelter was a school in the centre of

25 town, in fact.

1 Q. I want to ask you about a specific attack on the 6th of December,

2 1991. Where was your father-in-law in the early hours of the 6th of

3 December, 1991? That's before about 5.00, 6.00 in the morning.

4 A. On that day, we were in my apartment. We spent the night there,

5 and in the morning when we got up, I shaved, we heard the shells falling,

6 and from my own house you can see Mount Srdj and I saw shells falling at

7 the Imperijal Fortress on Mount Srdj.

8 Q. And I'll just stop you. About what time was that, approximately?

9 A. That was approximately -- well, I think it began at 6.00 a.m.,

10 perhaps a little before that.

11 Q. And what did you do? I'm sorry. I withdraw that. What did your

12 father-in-law do when the shelling began?

13 A. After the shelling, the alarm sounded for general danger, and my

14 father-in-law went to the shelter, and the shelter was in the Institute

15 for the Reconstruction of Dubrovnik. I myself stayed behind a few minutes

16 after him, because I think I was shaving or doing something like that, and

17 then I went to work as I did every day.

18 I went outside, onto Stradun. I heard some terrible shooting

19 around town, and I wasn't conscious of what was going on, but I rushed --

20 I started running. And after I had taken several steps, a shell fell

21 right behind me. It landed some 50 or 40 metres behind me. I was

22 seriously wounded as a result, from the impact of the blow. I felt

23 terrible -- a terrible headache. I thought my head had been shattered. I

24 felt some shrapnel hitting me in my legs, and I had a piece of shrapnel in

25 my head, and I lost consciousness as a result. But I was aware -- I came

1 to when I started getting up from the pavement of Stradun, and I realised

2 that it was a shell. I felt something warm over my leg, and I put my hand

3 down to feel that point, and my hand was all bloody. I felt a warm

4 sensation behind my neck, and I put my hand to that place, and it was all

5 bloody too.

6 But luckily, I was able to get to my feet and run away and reach

7 the town cafe, the central cafe in town. And I told them there that I had

8 been wounded. They bandaged my wounds, my leg, stopped the bleeding, as

9 far as they were able to, and they had a spray which they sprayed my neck

10 with to stop the bleeding. And from the Municipal Assembly, they learnt

11 straight away that I had been wounded, they called the ambulance, the

12 emergency service. But as the shells were still falling, the ambulance

13 wasn't able to reach me.

14 When I entered the central coffee bar, the shells began falling

15 onto the Old Town one after another. And the church of St. Blaise was

16 damaged too, and the shrapnels were flying into the central cafe. Many of

17 the buildings in town were damaged.

18 Q. Can I stop you there? You went to the cafe and you were wounded,

19 and there was no ambulance. Where did you go after that?

20 A. Yes. As I said, the ambulance wasn't able to arrive, so I stood

21 there for about an hour. My friends kept me from losing consciousness.

22 They gave me some lemon juice. And then two gentlemen wearing camouflage

23 uniform, they were going round town and collecting up the dead and

24 wounded.

25 When I myself was wounded, a man behind me was killed, the late

1 Mr. Urban, and this happened in the Old Town. He was killed while filming

2 the war going on. These two men picked me up and they took me to

3 hospital, despite all the shells that were falling, and the hospital is at

4 Medarevo, that is to say, on the opposite side of town, of Lapad.

5 I was admitted.

6 Q. I just want to stop you there for a moment. You mentioned Pavo

7 Urban, Mr. Urban, and you said he was killed while filming in a similar

8 vicinity to you. Did you actually see, witness his death?

9 A. I wasn't an eyewitness of his death, because when the first shell

10 fell - I think it was on Stradun - I was wounded by that first shell

11 falling. And I managed to reach the central cafe. And when those two men

12 arrived, the waiter from the cafe went outside, and he heard a car

13 arriving. He thought it was the ambulance. It wasn't the ambulance, it

14 was these two men with a van who went around collecting -- what they were

15 doing. And he said: Sir, leave him alone. He's dead. I didn't know who

16 they meant at that point. But they said: There's a man who's seriously

17 wounded here, so try and save his life, please.

18 Q. A moment ago, before I stopped you, you were telling the Trial

19 Chamber about going to the hospital. What treatment did you receive at

20 the hospital?

21 A. They x-rayed me at the hospital and said they had managed to

22 extract some of the shrapnel, although I had a lot of fragments. The one

23 that lodged in my head, actually, the neurosurgeon wasn't in Dubrovnik at

24 the time so they weren't able to extract that piece of shrapnel. Many

25 wounded people came into the hospital that day, 15 or 16. There were 19

1 dead on the 6th of December, so they were kept busy --

2 Q. So can you please tell the Trial Chamber what injuries you

3 received and what was treated at the hospital. You've mentioned shrapnel

4 in your leg and the back of your head. Can you please summarise for the

5 Trial Chamber where you were hit and what the doctors did.

6 A. I was hit -- can I get up to show you?

7 Q. Certainly.

8 MR. RE: Your Honours have no objection?

9 A. I was hit in my right leg. I had two pieces of shrapnel here, and

10 you can see the scars, if you want to look. There's one on this side

11 here, two in my back, one pierced my chest and another lodged in --

12 another damaged my muscle here, head muscle. It was three centimetres and

13 they extracted that at the hospital in Rijeka.

14 Q. And just so we get it on the transcript, can you please remain

15 standing for a moment, Mr. Valjalo.

16 A. Thank you.

17 Q. Just so the transcript is accurate. You were indicating with your

18 hand your right knee area and the back of your thigh on the right side,

19 and also the back -- you put your hand on the back of the right side of

20 your back, and also touched the back of your head and your front

21 right-hand side. Were those the places you just touched? Because when

22 you said "here," we don't pick that up in the transcript.

23 A. Yes. Those are the spots. And I have the diagnosis and findings

24 from the hospital, and it says exactly where those spots were. The muscle

25 in my thigh, the lower leg, another one in my thigh, one or two in my

1 back, right shoulder, and one of them pierced my chest, and there was

2 another to the back of my head, the top of my spine. And I have the

3 release form or discharge papers from the hospital.

4 Q. Were you operated on at the hospital in Dubrovnik? You can sit

5 down.

6 A. Thank you.

7 Q. Were you operated on at the hospital in Dubrovnik?

8 A. No. I was on the table while they were x-raying me. They didn't

9 operate. They did take out, extract certain fragments from my leg.

10 Others remained lodged there. And they said that they couldn't extract

11 the other one because they were afraid of damaging me. And then I was

12 sent on for further treatment to the hospital in Rijeka, with the second

13 convoy that arrived in Dubrovnik.

14 Q. Do you remember when that was that you were transferred to Rijeka?

15 A. I think it was the 14th of February, the second convoy. President

16 Mesic and the rest were in the first convoy. The second convoy that

17 arrived, when it went back, I think that was sometime -- actually, it was

18 a Friday. I think the date was the 14th. I'm not quite sure. I'm not

19 sure of the date.

20 Q. I'll come back to that in a moment.

21 You've described the injuries you received. Did they affect your

22 life after you were hit by the shrapnel? Are there any things that you

23 could do before that you can't do now?

24 A. Of course there are. When I came back from the treatment at the

25 Rijeka hospital, I carried on working straight away, because we had more

1 work, as the county was being set up. The shrapnel caused me quite a lot

2 of problems and I felt poorly for quite some time. So I went to Zagreb

3 for a check-up. They examined me there. And in Zagreb, they found

4 another piece of shrapnel lodged in my lungs, which I knew nothing about.

5 And I still feel pain in my leg. There is a certain amount of

6 swelling. I suffer headaches frequently. Until I was wounded, I never

7 took five aspirins for a headache before in my life. Now I have to take

8 medication twice a week. And I mostly react to changes in the weather,

9 when my neck hurts, because I think that my circulation in that part of my

10 neck is poor, and that's where one of the nerves was damaged as a result

11 of the shrapnel.

12 Q. You said you still feel pain in your leg. Have the injuries

13 affected your mobility in any way? That is, are there things you could do

14 before that you can't do -- you couldn't do afterwards or can't do now?

15 A. Yes, there are. I used to run before. I can't run any more, at

16 least just for brief periods when I feel pain. And it's risky business

17 having the fragments of shrapnel extracted now.

18 Q. Do you know how long you were unconscious for in Stradun after the

19 shell struck or exploded behind you?

20 A. After the shell exploded, I felt this impact on my legs.

21 Actually, I felt something warm. And when I fell, I probably knocked my

22 head on the paving, because my nose was bruised. But I regained

23 consciousness fairly quickly. Had I stayed down for another minute or

24 two, I probably wouldn't have been able to get up, because there was

25 shelling all the time. One shell after another, all over town. I don't

1 know whether there was a single spot where the shells didn't fall. The

2 palace where the summer games were held and Boskovic's house was shelled,

3 and I wasn't able to see anything after that. I just listened to the

4 radio broadcasts while I was in hospital. They said what was on fire.

5 They asked Italy's assistance. They asked for helicopters to be sent in

6 to put out the fires.

7 Q. A moment ago you just mentioned the palace where the summer games

8 were held. Did you mean by that the Festival Palace?

9 A. No. They were their offices on Stradun.

10 Q. Okay. Thank you. I want you to describe or tell the Trial

11 Chamber what your feelings were or how you felt as you were walking down

12 Stradun and hearing shelling on the 6th of December, 1991. What was going

13 on in your mind?

14 A. On the 6th of December, yes. Well, I don't know. But I never

15 thought the Old Town would come under attack. I know that there was

16 shooting up there, but unfortunately, I didn't think right because I fared

17 badly.

18 Q. Were you scared when you were walking down Stradun on the morning

19 of the 6th of December, 1991?

20 A. Well, yes, I was. As soon as I saw so much shelling up at Srdj,

21 Mount Srdj, I thought one of them fell closer to town, but I couldn't

22 actually see. But that was the first time that I was running out of fear;

23 I was running because I was afraid. And while I was running -- actually,

24 I didn't manage to take two or three steps when the shell hit me. I

25 thought that it had blown my head off. And I know where the hole is to

1 this day, although there are no remnants of it, but I know exactly where

2 it was. I thought my eardrums had exploded.

3 Q. Were you surprised, Mr. Valjalo, that there was shelling on the

4 6th of December?

5 A. I was surprised from the very first day. I was surprised, because

6 we didn't deserve that.

7 Q. You've described the injuries you -- I'm sorry, you wish to

8 continue your answer?

9 A. Later on, later on I saw that nothing should take me by surprise,

10 because the shells fell over everything and everyone. Children,

11 grandmothers, schools, hospitals, none of them were saved. I saw the

12 Belvedere Hotel in flames, I saw the old Imperijal Hotel up in flames, so

13 I wasn't surprised by anything, because nobody was spared.

14 Q. When you said "later on," were you referring to the 6th of

15 December or another time?

16 A. Well, even before the 6th of December, and after that, when I

17 returned from Rijeka, from my treatment and rehabilitation there, that was

18 February, I think the 26th of February, I started working again in March,

19 right up to May there were still shells falling and shooting coming from

20 all sides, from planes, aircraft. They shelled the fortress straight

21 away, the fortress at Mount Srdj. That was on the 6th of December. No.

22 Not the 6th of December. On the 1st of October. I apologise. On the 1st

23 of October when that all started.

24 Q. You referred to your treatment at the Dubrovnik hospital in

25 Rijeka. Did you also receive treatment at the thalassotherapy in Opatija?

1 A. Yes, that's right. Luckily, I was treated by an excellent

2 neurosurgeon at the hospital in Rijeka, and I was given injections two or

3 three times a day to clear the wound. And they then sent me for

4 thalassotherapy rehabilitation because I wasn't able to walk. While my

5 wounds were still hot I was able to run, but once everything cooled down I

6 wasn't able to rise from my bed. The whole of my right side went rigid.

7 Q. Were you at that hospital from the 9th of January, 1992, until the

8 26th of February, 1992?

9 A. Yes, that's right.

10 MR. RE: What time are Your Honours intending taking the break? I

11 just noticed it's midday.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Not for a quarter of an hour or longer, Mr. Re.

13 MR. RE: If it please Your Honours.

14 Q. Mr. Valjalo, you've described injuries to yourself. What about

15 your house? Was your house damaged in the shelling attack on the 6th of

16 December, 1991?

17 A. On the 6th of December, 1991, my house was damaged, and so was my

18 neighbour's house. Because, actually, it's a semi-detached house, a

19 half-half, so our houses were damaged, and my car that was parked outside

20 the town walls, in a place called Buza, I had a Volkswagen, and that was

21 destroyed too.

22 Q. Okay. Just concentrate on your house at the moment. Can you

23 describe the damage to your house from the shelling on the 6th of

24 December, 1991.

25 A. Unfortunately, I cannot, because I wasn't able to go back to my

1 house and see it. My friends just covered it up to prevent the rain from

2 coming in, covered the windows up. But the damage isn't that bad. The

3 damage wasn't that bad. My neighbour's house was damaged more badly.

4 Q. What did your friends cover up to prevent the rain coming in? Was

5 that the roof?

6 A. They covered the roof. They covered it with some kind of plastic

7 sheets or something thin. But of course that wouldn't last long, so then

8 again something had to be done about the roof.

9 Q. How do you know that your roof was damaged on the 6th of December,

10 1991?

11 A. Because my father-in-law came to my house every day. I even had a

12 parakeet that they fed every day throughout the war, and it's alive still.

13 So every day, even under the shells, we took food to the parakeet.

14 Q. Are you saying your father-in-law told you the house or the roof

15 of the house was damaged from shelling on the 6th of December, 1991?

16 A. Yes. Yes. That's what my father-in-law said to me. There were

17 other damages too. Should I mention all of it? Two or three times I had

18 to change all the window panes. Also the water installations were

19 destroyed. Shells fell on the other street above Stradun, called Prijeko.

20 Q. When was that?

21 A. It was also on the 6th of December. Some shells fell on other

22 days too, but it's hard for a person to remember all of that now.

23 Q. When -- doing your best, to your best recollection, when did you

24 have to replace the glass in your windows as a result of shelling in the

25 area?

1 A. Well, I think it was after the month of May.

2 Q. What year?

3 A. 1992. Because my wife and children weren't at the apartment yet.

4 Q. You also mentioned that your Volkswagen was destroyed that was

5 parked outside the Old Town, I think you said in Buza. When was it

6 destroyed and how was it destroyed?

7 A. Again, my friends told me about this. The car was in the street,

8 and they said to me: Your car was totally damaged. It was hit by lots of

9 shrapnel. And other cars were damaged too. Some of them had even burned

10 down. This was in the northern part of town.

11 Q. You've told us -- you've told the Trial Chamber that you lived in

12 the Old Town in September, October -- sorry, lived and worked in the Old

13 Town of Dubrovnik in September, October, November, and the first six days

14 of December 1991. In that period, did you see any Croatian artillery or

15 armaments in the Old Town?

16 A. No, not then or not before that, not in the Old Town.

17 Q. What about armed Croatian soldiers? Did you ever see any armed

18 Croatian soldiers in the Old Town in that period?

19 A. Armed? No. Perhaps two or three times I saw soldiers in

20 camouflage uniform who had a pistol on their belts or something like that.

21 Q. And what were they doing?

22 A. These were probably the ones who were at the positions elsewhere,

23 and then they would come home to change or to bathe, using sea water,

24 though.

25 Q. Was there ever any outgoing fire from the Old Town towards JNA

1 positions when you were living and working there in September, October,

2 November, and the first few days of December 1991?

3 A. No, never.

4 Q. Were there any Croatian military institutions located in the Old

5 Town when you were living and working there in 1991?

6 A. No. As far as I know, no. I did not see any such thing.

7 Q. I just want to clarify something earlier. I may have missed it.

8 When I asked you about Mr. Sikic's position, did you say it was the

9 president of the Executive Council of the Crisis Staff or the president of

10 the Crisis Staff?

11 A. He was president of the Executive Council. That was the actual

12 office he held. But before the army was formed, there was a Crisis Staff,

13 and this position of president of Crisis Staff was held by the president

14 of the Executive Council.

15 Q. Now, to conclude your evidence in chief, Mr. Valjalo, I wish to

16 show you some photographs, two photographs and a map, and ask you to mark

17 on them. I also wish to show you three medical -- three of your medical

18 records.

19 MR. RE: I intend to show the witness copies of Exhibits P18, P12,

20 and P17. That's a photograph of Stradun, a photograph of -- overhead

21 photograph of the Old Town, and a map of the Old Town of Dubrovnik.

22 First I'm showing the -- I'm first showing the witness a copy of

23 P17. I'm sorry. Lest there be any confusion, if that is the original, I

24 intend to show the witness a Prosecution copy which we'll have the witness

25 mark. It's an identical copy of the same photograph.

1 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may we first take a look

2 at this map? Can we just see the original, briefly, the one given to the

3 witness?

4 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Rodic.

5 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. No, not that

6 one. The one that you are putting there now.

7 Thank you, Your Honour.

8 MR. RE:

9 Q. Mr. Valjalo, if you can just turn to your left, you'll see a

10 photograph on an overhead projector we call the ELMO. Can you please take

11 the blue marker pen, and I want you to circle, firstly, your -- firstly,

12 can you find and see your house in that photograph?

13 A. Well, I can't do it very precisely, but it's here, within these

14 two streets.

15 Q. What I'll get you to do firstly is just point to it on the screen

16 and then maybe you can put it in front of you and write on it. It might

17 be easier. First can you point out -- just point to where your house is.

18 Don't do it on that screen; no one can see you.

19 A. Can you see it here now?

20 Q. Yes. We can see that now. Just I wish you -- I want you to point

21 out where the Municipal Assembly is.

22 A. [Indicates]

23 Q. Thank you. Thirdly, I wish you to point out where the spot where

24 you were hit by the shrapnel is in Stradun.

25 A. [Indicates]

1 Q. And the fourth thing I wish you to point out is where your car was

2 when it was destroyed.

3 A. [Indicates]

4 Q. All right. Now, I want you to take the pen and draw a circle, and

5 in the circles, mark 1, 2, 3, and 4. 1 is for your house; 2 is --

6 JUDGE PARKER: Take it step by step, I would suggest, Mr. Re.

7 MR. RE: I will do, Your Honour.

8 Q. Mr. Valjalo, if you want to take it off and get a better picture

9 of it, please do so.

10 A. Thank you.

11 Q. You've marked "1" on it?

12 A. 1 is the house.

13 Q. Thank you. 2, I want you to mark a circle with a "2" in it on the

14 Municipal Assembly building.

15 A. On this side, here, in this area. Well, it's not exactly

16 accurate.

17 Q. 3, the spot -- the approximate spot where you were hit.

18 Have you marked "3" on, Mr. Valjalo?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And 4, can you just mark in with a circle and a "4" inside it the

21 spot where your car was parked.

22 A. Can it be seen now?

23 Q. Not until you put it onto the overhead projector. We can see

24 that.

25 Now, I just want you to do a legend on the side. In the left-hand

1 side, on the border, can you write 1, 2, 3, 4. 1, house; 2, town hall --

2 JUDGE PARKER: Could I suggest, Mr. Re, that the Court Officer

3 might do that, now that the markings are on the map. It will make it

4 easier for the witness if the officer did it.

5 We're waiting for your indication, Mr. Re. Are you happy with

6 that?

7 MR. RE: If Your Honour is asking me if I have any objection to

8 the usher, certainly not. I just can't see what's going on because it's

9 not on the overhead projector. But if the usher wishes, please write --

10 JUDGE PARKER: I think it would be a lot less confusing for the

11 witness if the Court Officer did it. Thank you.

12 Number 1 -- the usher hasn't heard me. Would you be able to write

13 in the margin of the exhibit "1" in a circle. If you'd take over, Mr. Re.

14 MR. RE: Will do.

15 House. Just on the side, in the white border on the left. Tiny

16 little letters. Number 2, Municipal Assembly. Number 3, place of

17 injury. Number 4, car.

18 THE USHER: [Marks]

19 MR. RE: And can you please give it back to the witness.

20 Q. And Mr. Valjalo, can you please just write your name and sign it

21 at the bottom and put your date, which is the 6th of February, 2004.

22 A. 6th? What's the date today?

23 Q. The 6th February 2004.

24 A. [Marks]

25 Q. Yes. Thank you.

1 The next one I wish to show you is a copy of P12, which is the map

2 we've been using.

3 JUDGE PARKER: While that's being set up, the first one will be

4 received as an exhibit.

5 MR. RE: Thank you, Your Honour. Could that perhaps remain with

6 the witness while he marks the next one?

7 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit P53.

8 MR. RE:

9 Q. Again with the same blue pen, I want you to perform the same

10 exercise on that map, a circle with a "1" in it for your house.

11 A. [Marks]

12 Q. Number 2 for the Municipal Assembly.

13 Have you marked the number "2" on?

14 A. No. I'm looking at this map. I find it different. Go ahead.

15 Q. Number 3 for the spot where you were hit by the shrapnel.

16 A. [Marks]

17 Q. And number 4 for the spot where your Volkswagen was parked when it

18 was destroyed, a circle with a "4" in it.

19 A. [Marks]

20 Q. Thank you.

21 MR. RE: And could the usher please do the same thing, write 1, 2,

22 3, and 4 in the margins. If you could do it identically to the one you've

23 just marked before, please.

24 THE USHER: [Marks]

25 MR. RE:

1 Q. Mr. Valjalo, can you please also sign -- put your name and sign

2 and date the bottom of that -- of the map, please.

3 A. [Marks]

4 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Rodic.

5 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the marked map was on the

6 ELMO only for a split second. Could we please have it placed on the ELMO

7 again so that we could actually see the markings properly.

8 Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you.

9 MR. RE: May that also be tendered into evidence, please, Your

10 Honour.

11 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

12 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit P54.

13 MR. RE: I also wish to show the witness a copy of Prosecution

14 Exhibit P18.

15 Q. Can you please look at that photo, Mr. Valjalo. What is that a

16 photograph of?

17 A. I wouldn't know what is actually on this photo. I was injured. I

18 was wounded there. The late Pavo was here. Maybe it's his photograph

19 too. I don't know.

20 Q. You just said you were injured: "I was wounded there," and you

21 were pointing to a spot on the photograph. Is that a photograph of the

22 place on Stradun where you were when you were injured by shrapnel from the

23 shell?

24 A. Yes, yes, this is Stradun. Yes. I was hit in the middle of

25 Stradun.

1 Q. Can you see the spot on the map, or the place on the map where you

2 were when you were hit?

3 A. Approximately here.

4 Q. All right. When you say "here," can you again please take that

5 blue pen and mark a large circle with an "X" in the middle, large so that

6 it is quite -- large enough for everyone to see, and put an "X" in the

7 middle of the circle.

8 A. I think that this is the way it was.

9 Q. All right. Can you also, please, sign your name on the bottom and

10 put your date on the bottom of this photograph as well.

11 A. [Marks]

12 MR. RE: Would it be appropriate for the usher to mark on the side

13 "place of injury," so that the exhibit never becomes lost.

14 THE USHER: [Marks]

15 JUDGE PARKER: May that go on the ELMO so that it can be seen by

16 Mr. Rodic.

17 You tender that as well, Mr. Re?

18 MR. RE: I do, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE PARKER: That will be received.

20 Is this a convenient moment for a break?

21 MR. RE: I only have the three medical records to tender, but if

22 Your Honours wish to break now ...

23 JUDGE PARKER: If you identify and tender those.

24 MR. RE:

25 Q. The usher will show you your three medical records. Can you

1 please just identify for the record that I'm showing you three medical

2 records, one from the -- the first one is from the clinical hospital in

3 Rijeka --

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. -- the second one is from the thalassotherapy --

6 A. That's correct, yes.

7 Q. -- and that's dated the 9th --

8 A. Opatija --

9 Q. Just for the record, release form dated 9th of January, 1992. The

10 second one is a record from the thalassotherapy of Opatija, dated the 26th

11 of February, 1992. Will you just identify that that is the record in your

12 hand.

13 A. That's it. These are those documents exactly.

14 Q. And the third one is a release form from the General Hospital in

15 Zagreb, which appears to be undated but relates to treatment in 1994.

16 A. Yes, exactly.

17 MR. RE: If Your Honours wish me to read them on to the record and

18 tender them formally after the break, I can do that.

19 JUDGE PARKER: They can be received as documents, perhaps as one

20 combined exhibit.

21 MR. RE: I note for the record I've -- we've handed up the English

22 and the B/C/S originals at the same time.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

24 MR. RE: That concludes the examination-in-chief, Your Honours.

25 JUDGE PARKER: And the exhibit number is?

1 THE REGISTRAR: The photograph marked by the witness as

2 Prosecution Exhibit P55; the medical records, P56.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Re. We will have a 20-minute break

4 now.

5 --- Recess taken at 12.33 p.m.

6 --- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic.

8 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

9 Cross-examined by Mr. Rodic:

10 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Valjalo. I am the counsel

11 Rodic, and I'm going to ask you some questions with respect to your

12 testimony. Before I start, let me tell you that we're very sorry for the

13 injuries you sustained in 1991, and our sympathies on behalf of the

14 Defence team.

15 A. Thank you.

16 Q. In response to a question from the Prosecution, you said that you

17 live in Dubrovnik, in the Old Town, and that you've lived there since

18 1970; is that right?

19 A. Yes, in Dubrovnik, but not since 1970 -- not the same address. I

20 am in the Old Town, Prijeko number 19 is the street, and I've lived there

21 since 1988.

22 Q. Since 1988, you say?

23 A. Well, I can't remember exactly when I was given the flat, but I

24 did live in several apartments. For a time I didn't have an apartment and

25 had to move around, but I think that would be it.

1 Q. Tell me, please: Before that particular address, Prijeko Street,

2 did you also live in the Old Town?

3 A. Yes, that's right.

4 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I should like to ask the usher for

5 Exhibit P56, which is the discharge papers, the medical documents.

6 Q. Would you take a look at that document, and in paragraph 2, it

7 says Valjalo Mato, from Dubrovnik, Domina 28 is the address on the release

8 form from the Rijeka Clinical Hospital Centre, dated the 9th of January,

9 1992.

10 A. Where is that? I apologise.

11 Q. On page 1 of the release form, the Clinical Hospital at Rijeka,

12 the date is Rijeka, January 9th, and the address says Od Domina.

13 A. That's a mistake, and I've just realised that. They filled that

14 in -- actually, the employees of the Rijeka hospital filled that in, yes.

15 Q. Well, how were they able to record this particular address, Od

16 Domina Street number 28?

17 A. I was a tenant there. The flat didn't belong to me. But perhaps

18 it's an old address on my ID card. Perhaps it was my old ID card with

19 this old address.

20 Q. When were you a tenant at that particular address?

21 A. I can't remember. Certainly 1985, or rather, from the 1980s

22 onwards.

23 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher show the witness

24 Exhibit P12, a map.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know what this address

1 is. I've just noticed it here, realised what it says.

2 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Take a look at that, please. Number 1 on the map is what you

4 marked in Prijeko Street, where you lived; is that right?

5 A. Yes. That is my apartment.

6 Q. Can you indicate to the Trial Chamber where Od Domina Street is,

7 which has been registered in the form as being your address.

8 A. This is it here.

9 Q. So it's opposite Prijeko Street, right the other end?

10 A. Yes, that's right. But as I say, the mistake was made by the

11 person filling in the address on the form, on the release form.

12 Q. Thank you. That will do for the time being.

13 And at the clinical hospital in Rijeka, how were the employees

14 able to write down that address there then?

15 A. I really don't know. I don't know where they got it from.

16 Q. Did somebody know you at the hospital in Rijeka?

17 A. No, nobody knew me, either in the hospital or at the centre for

18 thalassotherapy.

19 Q. Well, could they have -- could you have given that piece of data

20 yourself or from your identification card, I assume, your ID?

21 A. Well, yes. They probably found it on one of my documents. Now,

22 what document it was, I can't say. Maybe it was my old, expired ID card.

23 I didn't change it. Perhaps that's where it was. But I can prove

24 ownership of the apartment I live in and the date I have been living

25 there.

1 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, with respect to the medical

2 documents, on that first piece of paper, we see that the 9th of January,

3 1992, Rijeka, is the date; is that right? So that first document relates

4 to Rijeka, with the date of the 9th of January, 1992; is that correct?

5 A. The 9th of January, yes. I hope it's correct. They wrote in the

6 date.

7 Q. The title of the document is "Release Form," and it includes the

8 information that, from the 16th of December, 1991 to the 9th of January,

9 1992, you were undergoing treatment at the neurological clinic; is that

10 right?

11 A. Yes, probably, if that's what they've put there.

12 Q. Now turn to page 2, please. This is a document from the special

13 thalassotherapy hospital in Opatija. It is another release form from that

14 institution. And on that document, the date is the 26th of February,

15 1992. In the upper right-hand corner, that's what it says.

16 A. Yes, I see that.

17 Q. Underneath, it says your name, your surname, it says "Dubrovnik,"

18 and then the address, Prijeko Street number 19.

19 A. Yes, that's correct, all of it.

20 Q. Is it also correct that in the first paragraph of the release

21 form, it says that you were treated at that hospital from the 9th of

22 January to the 26th of February, 1992?

23 A. Well, I assume it's true and correct. I don't suppose they

24 falsified that. They issued the form, so they filled it in and they must

25 know the dates. I can't remember myself, but it must be right, yes.

1 Because I left the Rijeka clinical hospital and went to -- for

2 rehabilitation treatment there.

3 Q. And you were there from the 9th of January to the 26th of January

4 [as interpreted] 1992, recuperating; is that right?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And the address given here is Prijeko Street number 19; is that

7 right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. How can you then explain the fact that during the entire time

10 spent in Rijeka and Opatija, without having returned to Dubrovnik during

11 that period of time, that you have two recorded addresses?

12 A. I can't explain that. I don't know where they got the second

13 address from and where it has come from. All I can say is that the

14 Prijeko 19 one is the correct address.

15 Q. Well, what indicates that the first address is incorrect?

16 A. Well, I was a tenant in that flat, ten years ago, ten years prior

17 to that.

18 Q. Did somebody know that at the hospital in Rijeka, that you were a

19 tenant, that you were subletting?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Thank you. Now, the third document is the release form from the

22 third hospital, that is to say, the General Hospital in Zagreb, and in

23 paragraph 1 it says that you were there undergoing treatment from the 3rd

24 of March to the 25th of March, 1994; is that right?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Now let's go back to the first document, the Rijeka document.

2 Take a look at that now, please. It says there that on the 16th of

3 December, you arrived at the hospital in Rijeka. Is that right?

4 A. Well, probably. I don't remember the date, but it must be correct

5 if they entered it onto the form. I got to Rijeka on a Saturday, or

6 rather, Sunday morning was when I arrived. I spent the night at Rabac,

7 which is where my wife and children were, and on Monday morning I went to

8 the clinical hospital in Rijeka. Now, what date that was, it must be the

9 date recorded there in 1991.

10 Q. Is it true that among the medical documentation there is not a

11 single document which relates to the 6th of December, 1991, which is the

12 day of your alleged wounding; is that right? And there is not a single

13 medical document dated the 6th of December from Dubrovnik, the Dubrovnik

14 Hospital at Medarevo either.

15 A. Let me check. I would have to check here.

16 Q. Check where?

17 A. There's something missing here, the one from Dubrovnik.

18 Q. Does your lawyer have that? Who is your lawyer, in fact?

19 A. I didn't mean lawyer. I mean the person I gave the papers to.

20 Q. Well, who did you give the papers to? Can you tell us who you

21 gave the papers to?

22 A. Well, I don't know.

23 Q. You just have the three documents we mentioned and the

24 translations into English. So what I'm asking you about is not contained

25 amongst those documents. Isn't that right?

1 A. Well, I think I had it, and I think I handed it over.

2 Q. Do you possess a document like that at all?

3 A. If not here, then it's in Dubrovnik.

4 Q. Well, why didn't you hand it over, why didn't you hand that

5 document over, because it should have been the first document, judging by

6 its importance. We even have documents dated to 1994 that have been

7 attached to the documents submitted, and yet we have no document dated the

8 6th of December which would confirm that you were wounded in Dubrovnik and

9 that you were treated first in Dubrovnik. Isn't that right?

10 A. That is right, yes, but then they didn't write it down here, those

11 who should have. I have it in Dubrovnik, that's for sure. That's

12 certain. Because I went to Rijeka from Dubrovnik, from the Dubrovnik

13 Hospital, and I went -- travelled with the second convoy, and I think that

14 was the 14th of February -- or the 14th of November, rather.

15 THE INTERPRETER: The witness mentions 14 and 11. Interpreter's

16 note.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, but I haven't got the

18 document.

19 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. The documents that you're looking at now, that you have before

21 you, did you hand them over when you came to The Hague to testify or was

22 that earlier? Did that take place earlier?

23 A. I didn't hand over anything now. Probably before, when the people

24 who were with me contacted me, the colleagues that contacted me. I don't

25 know.

1 Q. Can you remember who it was who contacted you, and when?

2 A. I can't, no.

3 Q. Did you give anybody a statement of any kind?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Do you remember when and to whom?

6 A. Two or three years ago, but I forget the names and I haven't got

7 them written down.

8 Q. The person you talked to, how did he introduce himself?

9 A. The investigators introduced themselves.

10 Q. Were they investigators from the OTP of the Tribunal?

11 A. Probably.

12 Q. On that occasion, did you make a statement to the investigators?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Might that be the statement dated the 20th of May, 2000, and that

15 you conducted your conversation with Dirk Hoojikaas in Dubrovnik? Would

16 that be right, Dirk Hoojikaas?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And after the interview and giving the statement, did you read

19 through the statement and sign it?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And did you agree with everything it says in the statement?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Let me try and jog your memory. In that statement, you say that

24 on the 12th of December, 1991, or around that date, you were taken to

25 Rijeka by ship. On the 27th of December, you say: I was operated on for

1 injuries to my head.

2 A. Yes, that's right.

3 Q. "I have provided Investigator Hoojikaas with a photocopy of a

4 release letter which explains my injuries. I have also provided him with

5 therapy statement dated the 26th of February, 1992 and a follow-up

6 statement of a control examination because of problems I was encountering

7 in 1994." And it says: "I stayed in the hospital in Rijeka until the

8 26th of February, 1992."

9 The 26th of February, I think you mean. You made a slip of the

10 tongue and said March. It's the third month?

11 A. No. "Veljaca" is the second month, February.

12 Q. I do apologise. Yes, I meant the 26th of February, 1992; is that

13 right?

14 A. Yes. I can't remember all the dates exactly, but if it says so in

15 the document, then it's right.

16 Q. The medical forms and documents that you have before you

17 correspond to the statement you made in your 2000 statement, and so do the

18 medical findings that you handed over to the investigator. When you

19 compare that to the statement and the findings you have before you, they

20 are identical. That's right, isn't it?

21 A. All of that is correct, but I don't know where this release form

22 from Dubrovnik is, and also I don't know about this address, how it got

23 into this.

24 Q. From the medical documents you're holding your hands, and also

25 from the statement from the year 2000, in which it is stated what the

1 medical documents that you gave to the investigator were; also, in your

2 statement it cannot be seen that you had any kind of document in your

3 possession from the medical centre in Dubrovnik, dated the 6th of

4 December, 1991, or that you handed such a document over to the

5 investigator. Isn't that right?

6 A. Well, maybe I didn't hand it over. I don't know. I just know

7 that this is correct, that that is 100 per cent sure, this wounding of

8 mine. In Dubrovnik, I was in the hospital, and then to the hospital in

9 Rijeka, and then the thalassotherapy in Opatija, and then I felt quite

10 sick, and that's when I went to Zagreb, to the hospital there.

11 Q. I fully agree with what you said just now. Can we agree that

12 right now in this courtroom there is not a single document related to your

13 alleged wounding on the 6th of December, 1991 in Dubrovnik? Isn't that

14 right?

15 Mr. Valjalo, I'm not challenging the fact that you had been

16 wounded. I'm just stating that there is not a single document - I mean,

17 we don't have it - that it was on the 6th of December that you were

18 wounded in Dubrovnik, that is to say, under the circumstances that you

19 described here before the Court; is that right?

20 A. Can you just read this here, on page 2? "The patient was wounded

21 by shrapnel in different parts of the body. The first surgical treatment

22 was received in Dubrovnik. Treatment continued in Rijeka. And then

23 further treated by physical therapy. His general state at the time of

24 release was improved. Surgical and psychiatric check-up recommended."

25 That is what it says here, except that I haven't got the release

1 form here from Dubrovnik.

2 Q. It is correct that there is mention of Dubrovnik, but the date of

3 your wounding and the place of your wounding are not mentioned

4 specifically at all. It only says Dubrovnik. Dubrovnik is a very broad

5 term, isn't it?

6 A. Well, I can provide it, if necessary.

7 Q. Why didn't you do that in 2000?

8 A. Well, in 2000 I had it, and I still have it at my home. I'm sure

9 I do. I gave it at so many places.

10 Q. Was there any special reason why you would not give the

11 investigator that document? Please just wait for me to finish my question

12 and then answer it, because if there's this kind of overlapping, then the

13 interpreters can't do their work. You and I understand each other, of

14 course.

15 So was there any special reason why this initial document was not

16 handed over to the investigator in 2000, or why did you not give it to the

17 Prosecution now when you came to testify in The Hague?

18 A. There was no special reason.

19 Q. So why was this not done? This is elementary proof, the basic

20 proof of your wounding on the 6th of December, as you had mentioned.

21 A. I would have brought it along with me if I realised that they

22 didn't have it.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Re.

24 MR. RE: I object to my learned friend's question, which of course

25 was answered before I could object, which was, "This is elementary proof,

1 the basic proof of your wounding on the 6th of December as you had

2 mentioned." That proposition is just wrong in fact and in law. Your

3 Honours have heard the witness's testimony. That's the proof of it. I

4 don't object to the -- to my friend obviously challenging the witness, but

5 not in that form. I'm objecting to the form of the question.

6 JUDGE PARKER: The point is made, Mr. Rodic. We have the evidence

7 of the witness that it occurred on the 6th. Your point is that there is

8 no hospital record that confirms that. And we have that noted now, so

9 perhaps you might like to move on.

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

11 Q. Mr. Valjalo, tell me: Where did you exactly do your military

12 service?

13 A. I did my military service in Dubrovnik.

14 Q. Did you spend your entire military service in Dubrovnik?

15 A. No. I cannot remember exactly how much time I spent in Trebinje,

16 because I was supposed to take the military driver's examination. That

17 perhaps took three or four weeks, I don't know, but the rest of my term I

18 spent in Dubrovnik.

19 Q. And where did you serve in the military?

20 A. In the navy, infantry -- well, naval infantry. I don't know now.

21 What do you call it? The marines, I think. Later on I was transferred to

22 an automobile unit.

23 Q. Were you transferred to the Trebinje Brigade, and is that where

24 you completed this course, this driver's course; and if so, which category

25 did you get?

1 A. I had C category from my civilian life, so I only took the

2 military driver's exam in Trebinje.

3 Q. Tell me, please: You finished your military service in 1969, so

4 did you go on working as a driver, a professional driver?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Can you tell me where you started working then as a driver after

7 completing your military service?

8 A. First I was briefly employed in Konavle, in the field of Konavle.

9 That's where I drove a tractor, did the plowing. That was for about half

10 a year. And then in 1970 I transferred to Dubrovnik.

11 Q. All right. Tell me: After completing your military service, were

12 you registered as a reservist with some military office?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Where?

15 A. In Dubrovnik.

16 Q. In which unit? In which reserve unit of the Territorial Defence

17 were you?

18 A. I don't know. I was in an auto unit, an automobile unit.

19 Q. Did this unit have a name? Was it more specifically designated?

20 Also, what was the strength of the unit?

21 A. I can't say. When they'd call me up for these reserve activities,

22 then it was some kind of an accompanying battalion or whatever it was

23 called.

24 Q. Were you called up for military exercises within the reserve

25 before 1991?

1 A. Yes, I was, several times.

2 Q. Was this only around Dubrovnik or was it elsewhere too?

3 A. For the most part, it was up there at Grab and Tula. I mean,

4 there was Rudina too. That is part of the Dubrovnik coast. And once I

5 was probably in Herceg-Novi. No, not Herceg-Novi. There was some kind of

6 exercise. I can't remember its name.

7 Q. All right. Never mind.

8 Tell me: In 1991, when the war broke out, you were 43 years old;

9 isn't that right?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. That is still military age, isn't it?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Could you just speak up a bit.

14 A. Yes, that's right.

15 Q. Did you have any war assignment in 1991?

16 A. I did not.

17 Q. Were you free from your military obligation?

18 A. No, I wasn't.

19 Q. Was there any mobilisation in 1991?

20 A. No, there wasn't.

21 Q. Until the end of 1991, was there any mobilisation in Croatia?

22 A. I wouldn't know. I don't think so. I wouldn't know, though.

23 Q. Were there any public calls for a general mobilisation in Croatia

24 in 1991?

25 A. I can't say. I can't say that either. I don't think so.

1 Q. You said that you listened to the radio during 1991 in Dubrovnik,

2 and general mobilisation was proclaimed over the radio too, among other

3 things.

4 A. I didn't hear that.

5 Q. Can you tell me briefly, because you said that during your career

6 you drove high officials. Could you tell us briefly who it was that you

7 drove in this period from 1970 onwards? So whose driver were you? Who

8 did you drive?

9 A. The presidents of the Executive Council. There were three -- four

10 of them, until the war broke out. Do you want their names?

11 Q. No need for that.

12 Tell me: Did you drive the mayor, Petar Poljanic?

13 A. No. He had a different driver.

14 Q. Tell me: When did you become the driver of the head of district

15 of the Dubrovacko Neretvanska district?

16 A. When it was established.

17 Q. When was that, approximately?

18 A. I don't know.

19 Q. In your line of work, could that be considered as a promotion in

20 relation to the status of municipality and district, county?

21 A. Well, yes, in a way, because I imagine that the head of district

22 or county is a higher-ranking position.

23 Q. Tell me: Your family is from Dubrovnik, or rather, fled from

24 Dubrovnik together with your relatives. Do you remember the period when

25 this took place?

1 A. I don't remember the exact date. Perhaps other people could

2 remember that. Because there were these ships that were transporting our

3 refugees. They were all examined, these ships were. They even went to

4 Zelenika for this kind of screening. My wife and children were lucky

5 enough not to have to go to Zelenika. They went straight to Rijeka

6 because the Jugo wind was so strong that I imagine they didn't have a

7 chance to screen them.

8 Q. Did you leave Dubrovnik?

9 A. I could have, but I didn't want to leave my town. My wife didn't

10 want to leave either, but we did that for the sake of our young children.

11 They are still traumatised until the present day.

12 Q. What about other men of your age? Could they leave Dubrovnik

13 freely?

14 A. Well, no. Those who were able-bodied for military service.

15 Q. If they could not because they were of military age and

16 able-bodied, does that mean that you could not have left?

17 A. Well, that's not what I was saying. Perhaps I could not have left

18 if I wanted to leave, but then I didn't want to leave in the first place.

19 Q. All right. In September 1991, what were your exact duties? What

20 was your exact position?

21 A. Could you please repeat that question.

22 Q. In the month of September, in 1991, what were your exact duties?

23 What was your exact position?

24 A. I was driver of the president of the Executive Council of the

25 municipality of Dubrovnik.

1 Q. Do you know Nikola Obuljen?

2 A. I do.

3 Q. What was he at the time?

4 A. I think that he went to negotiate.

5 Q. It is true that he went to negotiate, but that is one of the

6 things he did. But what was he? Was he in the government or in the party

7 structure? What do you know about that?

8 A. He was mayor. I mean, my mind stopped just now. He was mayor of

9 Dubrovnik. I don't know. I'm not sure whether it was at that time or

10 not, when Petar Poljanic was mayor exactly.

11 Q. Do you know who went to negotiate then?

12 A. I know, but I forgot. I used to know. I know that Nikola Obuljen

13 went. I think Tonko Karaman. I don't know. I'm not sure. I don't know

14 whether Djuro Kolic went. I don't know. I can't remember now.

15 Q. You've already said that Zeljko Sikic went to the negotiations; is

16 that correct?

17 A. No, I don't think that Zeljko Sikic went to negotiate. He went

18 only once, before the war broke out, before the attack on Konavle was

19 launched. He went to Prevlaka then.

20 Q. All right. Tell me. Tonko Karaman, in what capacity did he

21 attend the negotiations?

22 A. I don't know. I can't really tell you about that because I didn't

23 talk to them, and I don't know. How should I know who they talked to and

24 what they negotiated about?

25 Q. Do you know Karaman?

1 A. I do.

2 Q. Was Karaman a member of the Croatian army?

3 A. As far as I know, no. I don't know.

4 Q. At that time, when he went to negotiate, was he a member of the

5 Croatian army?

6 A. I don't know.

7 Q. Is it correct that, as a professional driver, and since you often

8 drove high officials, you often went to the actual venues where the

9 meetings took place? Do you talk to these officials during the drive? Do

10 you know where they're going to? Do you have that kind of information?

11 A. I do not talk about such matters while I drive, and I'm not

12 interested in who is going where.

13 Q. Isn't that contrary to the good practices and customs from the

14 former SFRY? Drivers usually knew --

15 A. No. Everybody said that a driver could write a book, but no, that

16 is not for us to do or say.

17 Q. All right. Where did you drive Zeljko Sikic in that period, in

18 September 1991, for instance?

19 A. You mean September?

20 Q. Yes.

21 A. I only drove him around town, and towards the end -- I don't know

22 what the exact date was, but towards the end of September, we went to

23 Prevlaka. I don't know who he had a brief meeting with.

24 Q. Tell me: Do you know where Zeljko Sikic lived?

25 A. In town. I don't know the exact address. I think it was Bana

1 Jelacica Street. I don't know the exact house number.

2 Q. Was this outside the Old Town?

3 A. Yes, outside the Old Town. I mean, that was his apartment, the

4 apartment he had.

5 Q. During October, November, and December, before you were wounded,

6 did you see him often? Did you drive him often?

7 A. I saw him every day, because he was in the building of the

8 municipality. He didn't go anywhere, only around town, only if he'd go

9 somewhere around town, go home and back.

10 Q. Did you ever drive him to his home where he slept?

11 A. I don't remember. I don't think so.

12 Q. Did you ever drive him from his home to his office?

13 A. No. Perhaps once, or not at all. I don't remember. He would

14 always go on his own.

15 Q. During those three months of 1991, October, November, and

16 December, did you drive Zeljko Sikic at all, or any other official; and if

17 so, how often?

18 A. Unfortunately, we couldn't drive because it wasn't safe. We

19 didn't have anybody to drive. I would drive for the hotel mostly, the

20 Hotel Argentina, in fact, which is where the observers were, the monitors.

21 Q. And who did you drive most often to the Hotel Argentina?

22 A. I don't know their names. There were some foreigners too.

23 Q. Do you know Miso Mihocevic?

24 A. Yes, I do.

25 Q. Did you drive him?

1 A. No, I did not. He was a translator.

2 Q. Was he a liaison officer, perhaps?

3 A. Liaison officer? I really can't say. I don't know.

4 Q. Tell me, please: Do you know somebody called Franka Babic?

5 Actually, she was a Franciscan nun, and she was in the monastery.

6 A. No.

7 Q. The Sigurate Monastery.

8 A. No.

9 Q. Do you know that Zeljko Sikic, from mid-October 1991, that is to

10 say from mid-October 1991 to January 1992, he was in the Sigurate

11 Monastery in the Old Town?

12 A. No, I don't know about that.

13 Q. Are you saying that he never told you that, as his driver, or that

14 you ever drove him over there, or waited for him by the monastery?

15 A. He never told me that. I don't know, nor did he drive me there.

16 Q. Did anybody else mention that?

17 A. No.

18 Q. If I tell you that Franka Babic, the Roman Catholic nun, says that

19 he lived at the Sigurate Monastery during that period of time, what would

20 you have to say to that?

21 A. Well, what could I say?

22 Q. Was that possible or not?

23 A. Well, I can't tell you anything. I don't know. I can't tell you

24 anything about other people.

25 Q. Do you know Zeljko Sikic well?

1 A. Well, I don't know him that well, but of course I know him. I was

2 his chauffeur.

3 Q. Are you on good terms with him?

4 A. Yes, I am. But he never told me that. I just went to his

5 apartment to Ban Jelacic once. I don't know the number, but he had an

6 apartment there.

7 Q. And did his family stay on in Dubrovnik or did they leave

8 Dubrovnik like your own family did?

9 A. I think -- I'm not quite sure, but I think his family left later

10 too. His wife. But I'm not sure.

11 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, is it time to break? Is

12 my time up?

13 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Rodic. We will resume, then, on Monday.

14 I'm afraid I must ask you to return on Monday to continue your

15 evidence. Thank you.

16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.

17 to be reconvened on Monday, the 9th day of February

18 2004, at 9.00 a.m.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25