¹⁷⁸²²

Thursday, 13 March 2003

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour.

WITNESS: ZANA BACA [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] Examined by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff: [Continued]

Q. Ms. Baca, on Tuesday you concluded by telling us that you worked on a daily basis together with the UNESCO observers from end of November onwards. Did the institute, together with UNESCO observers, develop an action plan to organise damage assessment?

A. Yes, that's right. We did develop an action plan together.

Q. Did you set up damage assessment teams; and if so, what was their composition?

A. Yes, we did set up teams, and we did distribute them throughout parts of town. We divided up the town for this to be easier, and the teams were made up, for the most part, of two individuals; one was an art historian and the other being an architect. So it was a two-man team, and it comprised all the different professional aspects.

Q. And how many teams did you have?

A. About eight. I can't tell you the exact number, but thereabouts.

Q. And did you develop a particular reporting system, and how was it ¹⁷⁸²³ different from what you did in October and November?

A. Yes, we did develop a particular methodology, in fact, for registering and recording the damages at the proposal and in cooperation with the gentlemen from UNESCO. This differed from the previous reports that had been done and the reporting system because it was far more decisive. That is to say -- let me quote an example to illustrate this. We had the exact time, description of the damage, the day and date of the shelling, and the categorisation of the damages. This was very important because, as far as was possible at that time, this gave us a concrete evaluation of the damages incurred with the categories of the damages themselves.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, attached to the proofing summaries we have actually submitted two sets of these reports. They do not need to be exhibited separately because they are actually part of the big report that we would like to tender under tab 16. But the witness could explain certain matters along these two reports. Can the witness have these two examples.

Q. Ms. Baca, we have first the church of Sigurata, or monastery of Sigurata, and you have here the date of your inspection and the date of the incident, and there is actually a very precise time when this monastery was hit. Can you explain how you could be so sure about the time.

A. For the simple reason that this information was supplied us by the nuns themselves from the monastery who, at the time of the shelling, were in the monastery and they were able to tell us the exact time. This, of ¹⁷⁸²⁴ course, wasn't what happened with all the lists that we filled in, but in this case it was correct.

Q. This report actually is -- was done by yourself?

A. Yes, that's right. I and my colleague Nikola, an architect.

Q. And you have listed here the type of projectiles, and you have given a very precise figure here. How could you do that? How were you able to distinguish between the calibres of the mortars?

A. At the request and under the organisation of the representative of UNESCO, Mr. Bruno Carnez and Colin Kaiser, in our conservation department they organised a lecture for us with a professional, one professional, and that professional explained the four or five types of projectiles and how we could differentiate between them and recognise them. And how did we know exactly was your question. Well, sometimes we didn't. For example, there's one case here where we list three direct hits. We describe two, but the third projectile, we didn't know what kind it was, whereas the bullet parts would be found by some people and they would keep them, or we found them on the spot. So there were different types of projectiles.

Q. And you also -- in this report you mention direct hits, and in the next report we will discuss you also mentioned indirect hits. How could you distinguish between those two types?

A. Well, direct hits cause a great amount of damage, and it's quite clear when you look at it. Indirect hits are, for the most part, superficial damages which were caused by -- damages caused by parts of the projectile or shrapnel. So we were able to distinguish between them; the ¹⁷⁸²⁵ strength of the impact and the type of damage incurred.

Q. And including -- included in this church of Sigurata little bundle, there is also a page showing mortar shells. Was that something you were explained when you had your training? I know it's a little bit further in this.

A. Yes. These were examples that they showed us during our training sessions, yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, this page with the various shells, that's actually part of tab 14. We come to this later on.

Q. And in this same -- in this same document, we have also a few different additional pages, the last two, actually. They refer to 1992 shellings. Was that same church shelled also in 1992?

A. Yes, that's right. It was shelled on the 29th of May, 1992. It was very serious damage to the roof construction of the church, and in fact, there's a large hole on -- in the very arch of the church.

Q. And this --

A. The vault.

Q. This last page -- these two last pages, are these actually parts of a UNESCO report that was compiled later on?

A. Yes, that's right. That is a report of the damages caused in 1992 in May and June, and it is a component part of the UNESCO report as well.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, these two pages actually belong to tab 15, and we come to this document later on.

Q. And you have also -- from this huge report, you have also picked the damage done to the Franciscan monastery. How many hits did this ¹⁷⁸²⁶ monastery get in October, November, December 1991?

A. Thirty-seven direct hits.

Q. In the report there is mention of where the monastery was hit. Was also, in addition to that, damage done to the interior; the furniture, and sculptures and those kind of things?

A. Yes, that's right. Damage was done to the interior, and the very valuable monastery library was affected and the very valuable furniture inside it. Damage was also done to the stone carvings dating back to the fourteenth and beginning of the fifteenth century, the decorative stonework and carvings of the monastery.

Q. In this report that actually consists of various separate sections related to sections in the building, you have also mentioned the damage, the severe damage to the balustrade. Why is that something to stress?

A. We laid emphasis on this because this type of architectural carvings are particularly difficult to reconstruct. So it was an original balustrade, original carvings, and the reconstruction of this would be highly complex because all the details have to be identical to the original, they have to be carved from the same type of stone, and of course they require the best possible professionals and artists, which means a serious undertaking, serious methodology, top-level professionals and cooperation among all the different professional profiles. That would be needed if we were to construct it all.

Q. When was your survey of the damage completed?

A. The first report, the preliminary report on the damages up until June -- the 6th of December, 1991. And on the 6th of January was when it ¹⁷⁸²⁷ was actually completed, in 1992. So it began in December and was completed in January.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the Prosecution would like to tender this preliminary report. It's tab 16. And I will discuss a few matters in this report with the witness.

It's actually three binders, and the first binder with the English version has a summary at the beginning and then actually the compilation of all these separate reports, building by building.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, it looks as though we will have to go into special training to be able to lift these binders.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, I will only deal with the witness with the first 12 pages. The rest is actually just the details that could be checked if one wanted to do that.

Can the witness have the first -- just the summary.

Q. Witness, on the first page - actually, it's page 2 in the English version - there are listed all the participants in the survey, and after a photo there is an introduction part where the cooperation with UNESCO representatives is discussed. You have already mentioned that, and we wouldn't have to repeat it.

On page 6 in the English version, there is also the dates -- there are the methods applied and the dates of the shelling. You have already mentioned these dates to us.

And on page 8 in the English version, there are the categories, listed the categories of damage. Is that a general worldwide category or was that something developed together with UNESCO for Dubrovnik itself? ¹⁷⁸²⁸

A. Yes, that is something that we developed together with UNESCO for Dubrovnik itself, that's right, this categorisation.

Q. And these categories 1 to 4 we will also find in the damage reports for each building?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. And you have also on that same page, you have the four basic types of damage that you always looked for and mention in the reports; is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And following then are maps, and I would like to have these maps now put to you and on the ELMO. It's the map that's already actually tendered, and it's Exhibit 326, tab 25. It's the map where all the hits are indicated.

Was this map developed by your institute?

A. Yes, it was. We did develop the map.

Q. And there are nine buildings indicated here as totally destroyed. Can you tell us what kind of buildings were totally destroyed? And you should, with the help -- with the pointer, with the help of the pointer point them out to us.

A. A total of nine damaged buildings, burnt. Two were residential facilities; 1 and 2. These are residential buildings. All the other buildings were, in fact, baroque palaces.

The buildings which have just been outlined means that they were partially burnt buildings.

JUDGE KWON: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, I'd like to remind you that this ¹⁷⁸²⁹ tab hasn't been exhibited.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. I was just reminded that it would be tab 25.

Q. Yes. The other -- the other markings are the hits on other buildings. Yes.

And then I would like to put to you another map, and it is actually Exhibit -- it would become Exhibit 326, tab 26. Can you explain this map to us: What -- who made the map and what do the different colours indicate?

A. The map was made by our institute. The categories or, rather, the colours indicate the category of damage. Black stands for a completely burnt down building; the orange colour indicates serious constructive damage both to the roof and the walls; and the yellow indicates constructive damage of either the roof or the walls; and the green indicates non-constructive damage.

Q. Yes. Thank you. That should be sufficient.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Baca, could you tell me, is it everything, every building in the old Dubrovnik that was protected by UNESCO, not just some buildings, some parts? Am I right? Did you understand the question?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you are right. Dubrovnik is protected as a whole and all the buildings within it, including the walls.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. Ms. Baca, looking at actually the colour -- the maps with the various categories, it looks as if almost -- yes, the majority of the ¹⁷⁸³⁰ buildings were hit. Could you give us these general figures? How many buildings altogether were in these categories, in these four categories? Do you have the figures, the overall figures?

A. I don't know those figures by heart. If the Court would permit, I would refer to a document, because I -- it is very difficult for me to give you the exact figures by heart.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, certainly, if you've got a document there that can deal with it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. The first category of burnt palaces, there was a total of nine. Serious damage, structural damage was suffered by 92 buildings. Structural damage was suffered by 218 buildings, and non-structural damage, 144 buildings. It should be noted that in the historical nucleus of the city there is a total of 824 buildings within the entire urban entity.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. Yes. Thank you, Ms. Baca.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the witness brought this document that was provided by her institute, but we think it's enough to have just the figures.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So from that, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, we could make a deduction as to the percentage.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

Q. Do you, by chance, have the percentages, Ms. Baca?

A. Seventy per cent of the roofs were damaged. And as to the buildings, about 60 -- 55.6 per cent at that point in time. We're talking ^{17831 BLANK PAGE 17832} about damage covered by the preliminary report and not the damage inflicted in 1992. That is not included.

Q. Thank you. Did the members of the UNESCO prepare a separate report related to that same period, that is November, December 1991, and are you aware of this report?

A. Yes, I am aware that such a report exists.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, it's tab 11, tab 11 of the Exhibit 408.

Q. And in relation to this report, I would just like to refer to page 34 where actually you find that same figures that the witness just gave, the nine buildings burned, the 92 buildings serious structural damage, 218 buildings category 3, and 144 buildings category 4. And here you also have the percentages. You find them on page 34.

And these -- these findings in the UNESCO reports, is that based on your cooperation?

A. Yes. They are based on our cooperation, and the documentation that we had prepared was used for those reports.

Q. And on page 22 of this report, there is a mentioning of smoke being seen after shelling did happen.

Are you aware whether any tyres were burned to produce an image of a burning town? Did you ever see something like this or hear anything like this?

A. No, I am not aware of any such thing. Ships were set on fire, cars were hit by grenades and burnt, but I have no knowledge about tyres.

Q. Your institute, did it also assess damage to cultural property in ¹⁷⁸³³ other parts of Dubrovnik, and did you prepare reports of that kind? Other than the old town.

A. When we completed the report on the historical nucleus of the town, we continued listing damage inflicted on cultural property throughout the territory of the town.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the -- can the usher please put the city map to the witness, and it's -- this is a map that's already in evidence. It's Exhibit 326, tab 23, and it gives us the town -- the town in its entirety.

Q. And could you point out the regions where there were also cultural monuments that were hit and damaged. Just the regions and maybe briefly say what kind of buildings were damaged.

A. I can point it out. There was Gruz. This part of the town where certain important buildings from the sixteenth and seventeenth century are situated, with an architecture that is typical of our area and that of Italy. These were holiday homes.

Similar damage was inflicted again on two summer homes from the same period in this area and in the immediate vicinity of the old town. So this is something that needs to be pointed out, that extremely valuable buildings protected by law were also seriously damaged.

Q. Was the university library destroyed, do you know, or damaged?

A. It was completely burnt.

Q. And where would that be?

A. It is exactly here. I am pointing it out.

Q. The witness is pointing right from the park, between the park and ¹⁷⁸³⁴ the old town. Yes.

Are you aware that the UNESCO observers also prepared a report mentioned -- entitled "Dubrovnik 1991-1992," including now the damage done in summer 1992?

A. Yes, I am aware of that.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, that's tab 14. And in relation to this report, this report has on page 10 an explanation regarding the conventions. It's on page 13. Historical data. And there you also find on page 24 this page with the mortars mentioned.

Q. And are you also familiar with a UNESCO report in relation to the damage now adding figures, costs of restoration? Are you aware of such a report?

A. Yes. It is part of their report, both the costs of restoration and the 1992 damage and a plan or, rather, the order of priorities for the reconstruction. And in that respect, it differs from the -- our reports up until then.

Q. Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, that's tab 15 of Exhibit 408.

Q. You already mentioned, and it is also said here in this report, that the town was shelled in May, June 1992. What was ongoing in relation to the JNA or, rather, the VJ at that time?

A. The 26th of May the army started to withdraw from the western part of Dubrovnik, and also it withdrew from the immediate surroundings of the town. And three days later, after that withdrawal, on the 29th of May the historical nucleus of the town was shelled, then again on the 8th of June, ¹⁷⁸³⁵ and again on the 19th of June. So there were three shellings of the historical nucleus of the city after the withdrawal. This time, these were shells of greater strength because obviously the distance from which the shelling came was greater. So that the damage inflicted in that period was extremely grave. Very serious structural damage was done.

Q. Did you review a video when you came here and we prepared your testimony, did you review a video related to the shelling of the 6th of December and the extent of the damage?

A. Yes, that is true.

Q. And what you saw on the video, did that cover your own observations when you went through the town immediately after the shelling?

A. Perhaps there were fewer people, but the observation was the same. That day when I was coming into town, there were more people. There were -- the fire brigades were out. There were many people who were crying and people rushing to work. So it was far more crowded than shown on the picture, but the damage is the same.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, we have put together five minutes that actually show the totally destroyed palaces and also the monastery that the witness referred to. We would like to show it, but if you think it's not time for doing so, we wouldn't insist.

JUDGE MAY: If it's five minutes, I think we might see that. It'll be five minutes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you. It's tab 19, and tab 19 is actually the entire video. ¹⁷⁸³⁶

Q. And you may -- if you could assist us when you see it, just telling us which palace it is that is destroyed. Thank you.

[Videotape played]

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the destroyed palace in the Siroka Street. The street is called Siroka or Brod. It is a baroque palace.

This is the next burnt palace, also a baroque palace, in another street. It is known as the Martinusic palace.

And we're in the same street known as Od Kuca Street. This is the St. Josef church. And right next to it is the next baroque palace that was burnt down.

The Orthodox church in Dubrovnik. The cross on Mount Srdj that was shelled.

Another palace, another baroque palace. This is the internal decorative plaster, the decorations over the doors, the gates, the cupboards, and the staircase as it used to be.

Here you see the Franciscan monastery and the damage on the roof. The Minceta tower with the UNESCO flag on it. And again, this is the UNESCO flag and the damage to the roof below. The whole complex of the Franciscan monastery dates back to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Parts of it are even older. This is another direct hit in the very corner between the church and the rest of the monastery, a direct hit of the roof of a part of the monastery, and the damage to architectural plasterwork. This is a direct hit on the floor and the Gothic Renaissance ¹⁷⁸³⁷ balustrade that was completely destroyed. So it is very difficult to reconstruct it including all the details and using the same kind of stone.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, this concludes the examination-in-chief. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Baca, you have stated on the last page of your statement and in the last paragraph that you are a member of the HDZ since 1990. Is that right?

A. Yes, that is right, and that is my private affair.

Q. I'm not saying whether that is your private affair or not. I'm just referring to your membership in a political party which came into power in 1990.

JUDGE MAY: What's the question?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did you regularly attend HDZ meetings?

A. I've already said that I was not an active member.

Q. I didn't hear you. You were not an active -- no. You said that you were not an official.

A. That is not true.

Q. I hope a member is an active member by being a member. But tell me, please, do you know when your party started the preparations and plans for the activities, the military activities, in connection with Dubrovnik?

A. I have absolutely no information about that. Anyway, that is not the subject of my testimony. ¹⁷⁸³⁸

Q. The subject of your testimony is certainly your statement, Ms. Baca. So please bear that in mind. And I'm asking you questions within that context as well as about what you told us a moment ago. On page 2 of your statement, in paragraph 6, you say that tension increased in 1991 -- "As the tension increased in 1991, I increasingly feared that the JNA would attack Dubrovnik." Is that what you said?

A. That is correct.

Q. And when did you start to fear that the JNA would attack Dubrovnik?

A. When we saw what was going on throughout Croatia at that time.

Q. Was this the time when the JNA barracks were blocked all over Croatia? Is that what we're talking about?

A. We're talking about the month of August 1991, to be precise.

Q. What was the basis for your fears? Why did you think that the JNA would attack Dubrovnik? You said you're talking about the month of August.

JUDGE MAY: What is causing this? Yes. We'll try again. Can we find what the trouble is that's making this noise. It's quite impossible to continue.

JUDGE KWON: While we are waiting, I would like to emphasise the paragraph numbers should be numbered in the same way. I note that this is para number 5 in English, and the accused referred to number 6.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Is everything all right now?

JUDGE MAY: The problem which the usher is sorting out has to do with your headset which you won't wear. But we'll put it -- ¹⁷⁸³⁹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There's nothing unusual today in relation to any other day, Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: There obviously is.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Everything is the same.

JUDGE MAY: There obviously is because of this interference which is coming over. But let's see how we come along. Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: In just in relation to Judge Kwon's question, actually it is the same numbering and the accused has misspoken. It's paragraph 5.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Shall I answer the question? I heard it in spite of the noise. May I answer the question?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So the reports of the Ministry of Culture that were sent to us spoke of certain damage already done in the north of Croatia to cultural property covered by The Hague convention. And the activities and the order that arrived from the Ministry of Culture prompted us to start to mark cultural property under The Hague Convention, and it became clear to me then what could be done.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You are claiming -- and let me not give the wrong number of the paragraph again. You're claiming on the second page, 2, that the director of the institute at the time, Dora Valjalo-Kondres, in July and August ¹⁷⁸⁴⁰ 1991 called you and your colleagues back from annual leave for you to protect the most important historical monuments in and around Dubrovnik; is that right?

A. That's right.

Q. So in July and August, you're called back from your holiday to protect the monuments in Dubrovnik and its environs. Now, why, please tell me, you put up scaffolding, wooden planks and so on when in those months no one was attacking, not Dubrovnik but even the surroundings nor in that area was there any kind of intimation of any conflicts breaking out?

A. First of all, the order came from the Ministry of Culture.

Q. Oh, I see. So an order arrived.

A. And secondly, I already said that the situation in other parts of Croatia had in fact prompted such an order to be issued.

Q. But you know, Ms. Baca, that in the area of Dubrovnik over the last 20-year period, there were no military personnel except, of course, for the holiday homes for them which were not any sources that could provoke any fears or apprehensions.

A. Yes, that is true, but the question is: Why was Dubrovnik attacked at all?

Q. Let me ask you, then: You're a local from Dubrovnik, you're familiar with all the people there, at least those in leading positions; does the name Martin Vukorep mean anything to you?

A. Yes, I know it.

Q. And he was head of the staff of the Territorial Defence of ^{17841 BLANK PAGE 17842} Dubrovnik, wasn't he?

A. I know the name; I don't know his position.

Q. Very well. You know the name but you don't know exactly what position he held. You don't know that he was chief of the Territorial Defence in Dubrovnik?

A. I didn't have to know that.

Q. I'm not saying that you necessarily had to know that. I'm just asking you whether you knew that.

A. No.

Q. Fine. July 1991 was certainly not a month in which there were any intimations of any kind of an attack on Dubrovnik. Isn't that right, Ms. Baca?

A. As far as I can recollect, there were no such intimations.

Q. Could you then please read out, aloud, what that gentleman, Mr. Vukorep, says in a letter he sent to the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia personally to Minister Simo Djodan, and in person to --

JUDGE MAY: What is this witness going to know about what this man sent to the Ministry of Defence? This witness has come here to talk about the damage. You want to read something out which is totally irrelevant to her evidence. Now, move on to something else.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May. It is highly relevant for the testimony, the fact that in July, the month of July, there was absolutely no danger from the Yugoslav People's Army in the surrounding parts of Dubrovnik in any way whatsoever. And it is quite ¹⁷⁸⁴³ obvious, if we look at the statement by this witness, that in July and August, preparations were already under way to fortify those buildings, to build up protective barriers and so on.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Now, Mr. Milosevic, we all know your case. What you can ask the witness is what she saw. You can ask her that, of course, whether she saw any preparations for war, whether there was any building in the old town, whether there were guns moved in. Of course you can ask questions like that if that's your case. What she saw and heard herself, you can ask her that. What you can't ask her about is some letters passing between third parties about which she'll know absolutely nothing. If you want put the evidence before us, I've said it many times, you can do so when it's your turn to give evidence and put evidence before us. But you can't waste time asking this witness about things about which she knows nothing.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I think that my question was a pertinent one and that as its foundations we have the fact that the witness explained that there were no military forces in Dubrovnik, and that is why, following on from that statement of hers. Because she was asked in fact by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff about this, I assume that I too have the right to ask my question during the cross-examination. So could we have your comments, please.

JUDGE MAY: What you cannot do is put a letter passing between two third parties to her. If there is something concrete in the letter that you want to put, then you can put it. Did you see forces being moved in? Something of that sort. Did you see armament in the Hotel Excelsior, or ¹⁷⁸⁴⁴ whatever it is. You can put that. But you can't put this letter to her and try and get her to read it out. It's an abuse of the process. Now, move on, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Fine, Mr. May. I really don't wish to abuse the witness in any way or impose letter-reading on her. But on the 23rd of June, 1991, the Chief of Staff says that reviewing the overall situation within the Dubrovnik defence --

JUDGE MAY: You can tell us about it. At the moment, you're asking this witness questions. You can tell us all about it when you come to give your evidence, but for the moment, you're confined to asking this witness questions.

Now, if you've got no other questions to ask her, we will let her go rather than detaining her and wasting everybody's time. Now, I've told you can't read out the letter to her or get her to read it out. Now, move on to something else.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, please. Can we get one thing clear? It says here that the man is tendering his resignation because he doesn't want to be at the beck and call on the 116th Guards Corps of Dubrovnik, which means that in June --

JUDGE MAY: Look, I'm going to now consult with my colleagues as to whether we should stop this. You're not paying attention to the rulings. The ruling is very simple: You cannot put this letter about somebody else to her. She's nothing to do with the guards division or anything like that. Now, either you move on or I stop the cross-examination. It's very simple. ¹⁷⁸⁴⁵

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Baca, do you know that at that time, that is to say already in June, in Dubrovnik there was a brigade of the Croatian National Guards Corps in place?

A. I know nothing about that. I'm an art historian.

Q. Right. You don't know anything about that. Fine. But you do know, and we've seen that here, we were shown a big binder full of documents, UNESCO documents, which by the way, that same SFRY drew up with UNESCO quite a number of years beforehand, where Mrs. Retzlaff quoted in particular the positions taken by The Hague Convention.

[Trial Chamber confers]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I resume, Mr. May?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. As I was saying, we have seen here many documents. Mrs. Retzlaff quoted in particular The Hague Convention provisions which relate to the protection of localities and the obligation to refrain from any use of localities for military purposes. Therefore, Mrs. Baca, on the one hand you have the presence of the Croatian National Guards Corps, which was treated in Yugoslavia as a paramilitary formation at that time. It was in Dubrovnik. And to such an intensity that the organs of Dubrovnik reacted themselves.

On the other hand, you were ordered to fortify and protect the town. So Dubrovnik --

JUDGE MAY: Fortify? To fortify the town? That wasn't the ¹⁷⁸⁴⁶ witness's evidence. They were simply -- or are you suggesting she was fortifying it in some way?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. What I meant was to protect the buildings in the town in preparation, quite obviously, for some expected combat that nobody could have known about in the month of June. So that's what I'm pointing to here, Mr. May. I am pointing out the obvious preparations that went on to protect -- to use Dubrovnik as a protected town for provocations, because in June, July, and August, there was absolutely no --

JUDGE MAY: We'll put that to the witness. As far as she knows, she can deal with that.

From what you saw and from the work that you were doing marking the buildings and the like, did it appear to you that the town was being prepared for a provocation? Did it ever occur to you that that -- or did anybody say, "This is the plan," something of that sort?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, never. And as far as the applications of The Hague Convention are concerned, if you read it carefully - and I'm sure that you know this - that the preparations for the protection of cultural heritage is conducted during peacetime.

JUDGE MAY: What did you think you were doing? What did you think the purpose of what you were doing, marking the buildings, was.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The purpose of it was to prevent damage to cultural sites, or to prevent them from being used for military purposes, in conformity with the provisions of The Hague Convention, to the letter. ¹⁷⁸⁴⁷

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, just to clear this matter up. I don't mind if you're going to give me a yes or no answer, all I wish is to get an answer from you. Do you consider that it is not contested in view of the -- your activities to protect the monuments and in view of the presence of the 116th Brigade of the Croatian National Guards Corps and the activities of the TO of Dubrovnik, that the Croatian authorities already in June, July, and August 1991 were preparing themselves from something -- for something in the military sense? Is that quite obvious or not?

A. It is not in my field of expertise and competence to answer that question.

Q. All right. Then just give me a brief answer. In July or August of that year, was any attack launched on Dubrovnik and its environs?

A. I can't remember any attack taking place.

Q. So despite the fact that nobody was actually attacking Dubrovnik and that in its vicinity in July there was no fighting going on, you and the Dubrovnik authorities were taking steps which intimate the advent of shelling of the town and conflicts in the old town proper; is that right?

A. No, that is not right. We were acting according to instructions and in keeping with the Ministry of Culture. Our Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage, in keeping with the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia, working together.

Q. Well, I don't doubt that you were given instructions by the Ministry of Culture, and rest assured, Mrs. Baca, that I don't consider ¹⁷⁸⁴⁸ you yourself to be a participant in any of these events at all, the ones that I'm talking about and referring to. But with respect to your testimony, one can draw certain conclusions.

Have you heard of the name of Ivan Varenina at all?

A. No.

Q. Then I won't ask you anything about him in that case. Just tell me this: You spent your whole life in Dubrovnik, since you were born almost. Do you know that that man is a local from Dubrovnik? Have you heard of him at all?

A. No. No, I haven't heard of him. I just don't know who he is.

Q. Fine. But you did know the townsfolk of Dubrovnik, people who were natives of Dubrovnik, born there, practically all of them.

A. Well, I can't say I knew all of them. I can't know everybody in town. Maybe I knew them by sight, but to know somebody closer, I can't say.

Q. Well, I thought Dubrovnik was a small town and people born in Dubrovnik would know each other.

But anyway, on page 2, paragraph 7, you say that you spent your working days in Dubrovnik. "I was living during the working week in Dubrovnik and spent the weekends at Cavtat with my parents and my sister." Is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. So during the time of preparation for this alleged defence of Dubrovnik, you went to Cavtat for your weekends unimpeded, and you went to and from Dubrovnik and Cavtat; is that right? ¹⁷⁸⁴⁹

A. Yes, of course. That's Croatian territory. Why should I be impeded?

Q. Well, I'm not questioning, Mrs. Baca, that Dubrovnik and Cavtat are in the territory of Croatia. All I'm saying is that during the time these preparations went on to defend and protect Dubrovnik, you were nevertheless free to travel from Dubrovnik to Cavtat and back. So does that mean and is it true that during those preparations for this alleged defence, neither in Dubrovnik or in Cavtat - which is how many kilometres in the southerly direction from Dubrovnik? - or around those two towns either or on the road between the two towns, there was no JNA presence at all. Isn't that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. But Dubrovnik was preparing for its defence; right? So tell me where the office is, the headquarters of your institute. Where were they in the old town?

A. Right next to the Dominican monastery.

Q. Fine. On page 2, paragraph 8, you say that: "Shortly after 8.00 a.m. on the 1st of October, the shelling commenced." Right?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you saying that nothing came before this, happened before this? Just quite suddenly somebody started shelling the town? Is that what you're saying?

A. Well, I don't know what events took place before that. I don't know what the forerunner was.

Q. But then, out of the blue, somebody started shelling the town. Is ¹⁷⁸⁵⁰ that it? Was that your impression?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Fine. And then you go on to say that on that same day - and there's a correction here - you say around noon, that is to say before the expulsion -- your office hours were over, you were allowed to leave; right?

A. Yes.

Q. So the town started to be shelled at 8.00 a.m., you stayed on the job at your workplace, and then sometime around noon you were allowed to leave the premises. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. So despite the shelling, you spent more than half your working day at the institute in your offices; right?

A. Our offices were on the ground floor, and that's where we were. We took refuge there.

Q. So you didn't spend that morning working at your workplace, but you went to a shelter of some kind, did you?

A. It was part of our office premises.

Q. What did you say?

A. It was part of the building that we otherwise worked in.

Q. Well, did you spend the time in your own office, working in your own office?

A. Part of the time, yes; part of the time not.

Q. What did you say?

A. Depending on the intensity of the attack. ^{17851 BLANK PAGE 17852}

Q. All right. If it was an all-out attack, why didn't you leave your workplace? Because you weren't in the health service or the fire brigade or anything of that kind, and you have your own family, wouldn't it have been logical to have left your workplace, left your job and gone home because you were perhaps worried and anxious about your family members, your household, your relatives? Why didn't you leave your workplace before that?

A. We had a director. She -- it was a lady, and she decided who was to stay, who was to leave, when we could stay, and when we could leave. We had our work obligations to fulfil.

Q. Well, did she let you go home at noon?

A. Of course.

Q. Does that mean that up until then she prevented you from leaving your institute?

A. Well, nobody even asked to leave, actually.

Q. All right. You say you went to your uncle's apartment when you left. And as you noticed planes shelling Srdj at the time, military planes selling Srdj. That's what you said.

A. That's right.

Q. All right. Now, you say that the shelling began at 8.00 a.m., and after 12.00, when you went to your uncle's apartment, this was probably 2.00 or 3.00 p.m., and you saw that air force planes were shelling Srdj. What had been shelled before that? What was shelled?

A. Well, I don't know. Everything all around. We could see smoke. I don't know actually what was shelled. The historical nucleus of the ¹⁷⁸⁵³ town was not at that time, that's all I can say.

Q. I didn't hear you; what did you say?

A. The historical nucleus of the town was not shelled at that particular time. It was Mount Srdj that was shelled from the planes, but what happened otherwise, I don't know. We saw smoke around the town.

Q. Did you happen to hear that somebody opened fire from Dubrovnik, with respect to what you said when you said that the old town was not shelled but what was shelled was something else? This something else that was shelled, were those the positions occupied by the members of the National Guard Corps?

A. I really don't know anything about that.

Q. What did you say?

A. Well, I don't know anything about that. I'm not a military expert, and I don't have any knowledge about this. I'm an art historian.

Q. Very well. You say that the old town was shelled for the first time on the 23rd and 24th of October. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And this happened on the 1st of October.

A. That's correct.

Q. So for those 23 days, you knew nothing at all about any kind of actions taken by these units from Dubrovnik against the JNA positions, before that period of 23 days or during that 23-day period?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. And on that day, according to your statement, quite a lot was damaged. Quite a number of buildings were damaged. That's what you say, ¹⁷⁸⁵⁴ don't you?

A. Yes.

Q. And you've listed the buildings that were damaged. We've now seen the videotape of one building. And tell me, what was the damage on the other buildings?

A. I've provided all my reports with the categories of damage, the number of buildings damaged and all the other details contained in the reports.

Q. Yes. But on that day, you prepared just a brief report on the damage and an evaluation of the damage and sent it to Zagreb, to the Ministry of Culture; is that right?

A. Yes, correct.

Q. Is it true that you prepared a more thorough estimate of the damage after the 7th of December that same year?

A. Yes.

Q. And when exactly did you do that?

A. From the 7th of December 1991 up until -- if you're talking about the details and if you're thinking of the damage after the 23rd and 24th of October, then we prepared that report the very next day.

Q. You say that Dubrovnik was actually heavily shelled on the 6th of December, 1991. No. It's not what you say, but several other witnesses have told us that. Would you agree with that?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me now, after this heavier shelling of Dubrovnik that occurred on the 6th of December, could you carry out a thorough evaluation ¹⁷⁸⁵⁵ of the damage in the old town that occurred on the 23rd and 24th of October, a month and a half prior to that?

A. First of all, we had taken note of all the damage made. And secondly, we prepared for each building an estimate. The buildings were not abandoned; people were living inside.

Q. Tell me, do you or your institute have any video documents of the damage that was done on the 23rd and 24th of October?

A. There are photo documents, not video documents.

Q. Why didn't you prepare a videotape?

A. We don't have a video camera.

Q. I see that for this other side or -- you did have one.

JUDGE MAY: Can you tell us where the video camera -- do you know where the film came from on the 6th of December? Perhaps Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff can help us.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the film was not provided by the institute. It's actually the film provided by a witness that we will talk about later on, and the witness just reviewed it and confirmed that it's what she saw herself. It's from another witness.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me, please, do you remember the 11th of November, 1991? Was this a date that sticks in your memory for any reason at all?

A. From the 8th to the 13th of November, Dubrovnik was shelled. For five consecutive days there was an exchange of fire.

Q. Very well. Do you know that members of the National Guards Corps from Dubrovnik - I suppose you will remember that because you were in ¹⁷⁸⁵⁶ Dubrovnik then - on the 11th of November managed to hit an ammunition depot of the JNA at Zarkovica?

A. I have no knowledge about that. I have no knowledge about that at all.

Q. But this was quite a loud explosion, and you know nothing about it. We watched a videotape of an English reporter on which he says they have hit the warehouse, and then as a result of the explosion, the shells, fragments scattered over the old town. Don't you think that the damage on the roof of the Franciscan monastery, for instance, on the tiles of the roof, don't really appear to be direct hits but possible damage caused by fragments of shells after the ammunition depot was hit? Because if that had been a direct hit, then surely there should a crater or larger damage within the monastery itself as a result. Do you know anything at all about the damage caused as a result of the fragmentation of shells that hit the ammunition depot, fired by the National Guards Corps, and the resulting explosion?

A. All I can assert is that our list of damage, our preliminary reports, are extremely accurate and reliable. As for this, I have no idea about it.

Q. Very well. I see that you don't wish to know anything about these things, though I think --

JUDGE MAY: That is not a proper comment. The witness says she doesn't know. She doesn't know the cause.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Do you have -- ¹⁷⁸⁵⁷

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] She don't know about something that was so loud and spectacular that every citizen of Dubrovnik must have known.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But tell me, please, do you have any report about damage done on the 11th of November? Do you have that report?

A. For the historical nucleus of the town, yes.

Q. Well, what was the damage done on the 11th of November on those historical buildings? Could you tell us, briefly?

A. Just the same as on the 6th of December, only of less scope, lesser scope.

Q. So when these numerous shells went off and scattered all over Dubrovnik, the damage was of a lower intensity than on other days. Are you claiming that according to your reports, on the 11th of November the damage was lesser than on the other days?

A. No. I'm claiming exactly what is contained in the reports.

Q. And what does it say in your report for the 11th of November?

A. We didn't cover just one date but the period from the 8th to the 13th of November, 1991.

Q. Why, then, do you claim that on that day the damage was less?

A. I didn't say on that day. I said during that period.

Q. So between the 8th and the 13th of November, the damage done to Dubrovnik was of the least intensity.

Please tell me, did you then say that from the 8th to the 13th, which is the period to which your report refers, the damage done to ¹⁷⁸⁵⁸ Dubrovnik was least?

A. No.

Q. Well, what then did you say? I didn't understand you.

A. What I said, and I am repeating, is that the first attack on the historical nucleus of the town of Dubrovnik occurred on the 23rd and the 24th of October, 1991.

Q. Yes. We established that.

A. The second attack was from the 8th to the 13th of November, 1992, and the third on the 6th of December. Every following one was of greater intensity. The attack on the 23rd and the 24th of October was of the lowest intensity, as can be confirmed by the documentation, as can everything else, the documentation prepared by the Institute for the Protection of Monuments in Dubrovnik.

Q. So the intensity was considerable at the time when this warehouse of ammunition was blown up. That is the period from the 8th to the 13th of November. Isn't that so?

A. I've said everything I know about the damage and everything that is written about the damage in the period from the 8th to the 13th of November, 1991.

JUDGE MAY: The time has come to adjourn. We will adjourn now for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: You've got 20 minutes more, Mr. Milosevic, if you want it, with this witness. ¹⁷⁸⁵⁹

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did you tell the investigators, Ms. Baca, that it seemed to you when speaking about the 6th of December, when you say that the shelling was intensive, that it seemed to you that most of the shells were falling on the old town or its immediate vicinity?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. And what you assumed is something that you also heard on the radio.

A. Correct.

Q. Tell me why, in spite of such heavy shelling, you spent the whole day in town. Why didn't you seek shelter?

A. Simply we found the safest places within our own houses.

Q. On that day, about 1.00 p.m., as you say, you were standing in front of the town and you saw somebody shelling Srdj; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was shelling Srdj?

A. I'm not sure.

Q. Is it true that you heard several explosions in Lapad and saw shells coming from Lapad hitting Srdj?

A. What I said in my statement was my personal impression, and I stand by what I said.

Q. I understand that that is your personal impression. You say on page 4 that Srdj was being shelled and that it was being shelled from around Lapad. Did the JNA have any positions at Lapad in those days? ¹⁷⁸⁶⁰

A. I don't know. I think it did not.

Q. So you don't think it did. Well, who had positions at Lapad?

A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know that forces of the ZNG had positions at Lapad? You don't know that?

A. Possibly. I don't know that.

Q. But Lapad is in Dubrovnik, is it not?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Tell me, please, did you record by video the damage done to buildings in the old town on the 6th of December? Because you say that that was the fiercest attack. Did you record that by video?

A. The conservation department in Dubrovnik doesn't have a video camera, but we corroborated everything with photo documents, and we have those photographs in our department.

Q. Tell me, when was the damage repaired?

A. The damage is being repaired to this day.

Q. Do you have any video document about the reconstruction and the repairs to that damage? As you say, this is going on to the present day. Do you have videotapes of that?

A. We have photo documents, I must repeat. We still don't have a video recorder. But all other relevant documents do exist in the conservation department, such as photographs of the sites, exploratory work, architectural documents, and so on.

Q. Is the damage still recognisable on all the buildings that you mention in your written reports? ^{17861 BLANK PAGE 17862}

A. They were documented. In some cases, they're not recognisable.

Q. I see. So in some cases they're not recognisable. You certainly know Zvonimir Franic.

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Do you know that he, too, was going to testify about the destruction you're testifying about?

A. I don't know that.

Q. Would you be kind enough to look at his report. He was director of your institute, wasn't he, for a brief time?

A. No.

Q. But that is what it said in his CV.

A. He was never director of the conservation department in Dubrovnik.

Q. Would you be kind enough to look at his report and photographs of damage, for instance, on the chapel of Navjestenje, the Chapel of the Annunciation.

JUDGE MAY: Show us the photographs that you want the witness to see.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Please give her this photograph.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now show me, please, the damage that he refers to in his report on this chapel.

A. It must be described in an accompanying document.

JUDGE MAY: The witness can't answer what's in somebody else's report unless she's seen it. Perhaps, Mr. Milosevic, you'd tell us what ¹⁷⁸⁶³ the point of the question is. What is it you want dealt with?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] These are photographs that were produced here as evidence of the damage in Dubrovnik, and that is the same chapel, the Benedictine monastery, the Benedictine nunnery.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And here you have those two photographs as well. This is the Institute for the Protection of Monuments of Culture and Natural Heritage in Dubrovnik, and I'm asking the witness where the damage is.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. It may be very difficult to see on a photograph of this sort which is of poor quality. It's a photocopy. If there is some point arising, there is another report which shows that buildings weren't damaged, it may well be that we can get that admitted in some other way. It's very difficult for the witness to deal with it.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, there is no separate report of Mr. Franic, to our knowledge, because Mr. Franic was part of the team that documented this huge report that we have now exhibited, and this is probably one building, a report referring to one separate building.

JUDGE MAY: The accused is entitled to ask about it. It sounds as though, Mr. Milosevic, it's the same report. Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, it may be that you could help since it was your witness who produced this. Can you tell us where this is likely to have come from?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We are trying to find that separate little ¹⁷⁸⁶⁴ report.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, it was attached to the statement of Zvonimir Franic, who was here on the list of witnesses and was replaced by this witness. Will you look at these photographs as well. They have all been marked by the other side.

JUDGE MAY: Let us deal with it in this way: We will find out which the report is. You've referred to this as a chapel. Now, tell us what the other two photographs that you're wanting the witness to look at are, and we'll put them in front of the witness. It will be very difficult for her, but we may ask her if she can see any damage or not, if that's the point.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, please. I have here several photographs. Mr. Franic signed this report on the 10th of July, 2000. That is what it says here.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But please look at the photographs --

JUDGE MAY: No. Hand them back. Mr. Milosevic, will you tell us, for the record, what the photographs are of, please, the buildings, so we've got it on the transcript.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On one is the Benedictine monastery, the western wing or facade, probably, because it's not legible. And then the easterly facade. So it has been photographed from all sides. And in his report, he speaks of damages, and these are the photographs that he ¹⁷⁸⁶⁵ attaches to indicate this. So I wish to ask the witness to indicate where the damages on these buildings are because she worked with these buildings in detail.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So you can hand that to the witness.

JUDGE MAY: We will put them to the witness. The witness can have a look, and if she can see any damage, she can point it out, or if not, we can look at the report.

Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, if we could get the ERN number on top of the document, we could easily find it, but without it's very hard to pick a photo.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness see it first and then it can go to the Prosecution.

Now, Ms. Baca, can you see any damage or not? That's really the point.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I can say is that these are very poor quality copies and that it's very difficult for me to see anything on them. Not only the damage but everything else is indistinct. As for the first photograph, on that I can notice --

JUDGE MAY: If you can point to it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- damages along this part here, along the roof structure, by the absidia and the roof structure. That's where the damage lies, and you can see the difference compared to the rest of the walls. ¹⁷⁸⁶⁶

JUDGE MAY: Just help us -- before we lose that one, the chapel, which chapel was it? It's got a name on it but it's not on the ELMO. Could you tell us, please, Ms. Baca.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The chapel is Navjestenje. That's what it says.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. So we have it for the record. If you'd like to look at the other photographs to see whether you can see anything or not.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I've already said these are very poor quality photocopies, and it's very difficult for me to see the facade and the damages and the windows. There are some white blemishes here. I can't say with any certainty what they are, but let me repeat that along with these photographs, there must be an accompanying text which locates the damages that are talked about.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. If you'd like to look at the other photograph too. Then we'll get them handed to the Prosecution. Is there anything you can see on that you want to point out?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't see that here. All I can see is a white space here.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Very well.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what they mean, these white spaces or empty areas. I can't say either way, one way or the other, unless I have the documents attached to it and everything necessary for a report.

JUDGE MAY: Ms. Baca, don't worry. We will get the report out, ¹⁷⁸⁶⁷ and we can look at that. But the accused is entitled to put these matters to you.

Would you hand them to the Prosecution and then we'll identify where the report is.

Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, if you'd let us know in due course where it is.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I assume that you are bearing in mind the fact that I received those documents with Mr. Franic's statement from the other side over there. So the quality of the photographs and all the rest of it is something that they must be responsible for. But quite obviously you can see that we -- damages cannot be ascertained on those copies.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me, please, do you know when the photographs were taken? Perhaps you know that.

A. Well, it says in the report.

JUDGE MAY: When normally were the photographs taken? Can you tell us generally how you went about photographing them? Did you do it at the same time as you made the report?

A. Mostly it was done at the same time, but as there were eight different teams working simultaneously to register and record the war damages, sometimes what would happen was that a plan of the damages would be handed over to a photographer, and then he might take the photographs subsequently, afterwards, on the basis of the plan, because it wasn't -- ¹⁷⁸⁶⁸ it wasn't possible for the photographers to go around with each of the teams. Sometimes the photographs would be taken by the representatives of UNESCO, Colin Kaiser and Bruno Carnez, actually. They had their own cameras so they sometimes took the photographs.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. On page 5 of your statement, Mrs. Baca, you make mention of a report in the compiling of which you took part, and you say you signed it too; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Is it true that you attached those documents here for us to see?

A. All the reports or, rather, the buildings that I dealt with are within the general documents handed over to the Tribunal.

Q. On page 5, paragraph 8, you say that the report represents a copy of the authentic original reports.

A. That's right.

Q. And tell me, when did these come into being, these copied-out reports?

A. In the morning. As soon as we got to work we would start making lists of the damages.

Q. I'm asking you something else.

A. May I be allowed to finish my answer? We would go back to our conservation department and then would write this out again or, rather, type then out on ordinary mechanical typewriters - we had no electricity - and then these forms were handed over to our director, the lady, and she ¹⁷⁸⁶⁹ would in turn hand them over to the gentlemen from UNESCO who would enter it into their joint collective documentation.

Q. As you say that this represents the exact copy of the source documents, tell me, please, where the source documents are, the original documents.

A. The source documents are in our documentary files. But as I say, everything was copied out the moment it was done, half an hour afterwards or an hour later, as soon as we arrived back in our offices in the conservation department.

Q. And who authenticated and certificated the copies to say that they were true to the original?

A. They were certified by Bruno and Colin, the UNESCO representatives. They were also certified by our director and two other colleagues who were in charge of the documents, Mr. Matko Betma, and Mrs. Bozena Popic, that is to say the team that coordinated and dovetailed all the material. If anything was left unclear, then this would be checked out and a final version made.

Q. You will remember the damages that you describe in your own report as you are the author of that report; isn't that right?

A. Well, 13 years have gone by since that time, but yes, I do confirm the truthfulness of my written word.

Q. All right. Tell me, for example, were there any damages in the old town from Siroka Street to the Church of Saint Blaise? Can you tell us-- can you tell us, please, the Saint Blaise church -- from Siroka Street to Saint Blaise church, what were the damages? ¹⁷⁸⁷⁰

A. I know that the facade was damaged as well as the eastern balustrade, the eastern part of the balustrade, by direct hit and that the eastern relief carvings and decorations were damaged, underneath the eastern window or on the window which bore The Hague Convention mark. And I don't know how many other direct hits to the roof structure. So all that has been recorded in diagram and in description of that, but I don't want to make any mistakes as to the number.

Q. Now, you told us that they -- you attended a short ballistics course of some kind. How were such minor damages able to be incurred by direct hits? Because you say that there was a slight damage next to the window and on the balustrade, et cetera. So how is it possible that if there were direct hits by artillery pieces the damage would have been so slight, of the type that you describe?

A. Well, I'm not an expert in that area. I'll leave it to the forensic experts and the others. We did what we could to the best of our professional capabilities.

Q. Now, all these damages, were they reconstructed in the period that followed?

A. On the Saint Blaise church, yes, they were, everything was reconstructed. But the static construction of the church itself, of the Saint Blaise church, is still under way.

Q. Can you see the difference today between the undamaged portions and the reconstructed portions of the buildings that you're talking about? Generally speaking, to a professional.

A. Well, to professionals, yes, that would be quite obvious and ^{17871 BLANK PAGE 17872} evident. You can see the difference. A trained eye would be able to see the difference, and we have the documents to prove it, because those things were no longer done by the same hand, the same artist in the same century that the monument was originally built. But of course the methodology and our profession, based on materials, a detailed selection of identical types of stone, we have done our best to make it as close to the original as possible.

As to the carvings on Saint Blaise church, I can tell you that French experts were involved on that. And they were recommended to us by the UNESCO experts. So it was these French reconstruction professionals who worked on the church.

Q. Can I take it from that very extensive explanation that you have just given us that it was -- that it is possible to compare the damages, the reconstructions, with your reports and the authentic documents?

A. Yes. Everything was documented, and you would be able to find everything in our files.

Q. You said that you assessed the calibre of the projectiles that caused the direct hit damages.

A. Yes, as far as we were able to. As far as our knowledge allowed us to.

Q. And that on the basis of the course you attended, the training course?

A. Well, the training course wasn't that important. What was important were the fragments of the projectiles that we found either on the spot or that the people who found them had saved. ¹⁷⁸⁷³

Q. So whose professional opinions are contained in your reports? I assume not your own but other ballistic experts; right? Am I right if I assume that -- in assuming that?

A. To the best of our ability, we incorporated what we learnt on the basis of our training course. What we were not sure of we didn't mention in our report.

Q. Now, you mention 120-millimetre calibres of mortars, shells, and so on. Did you receive this information? Do you know what kind of damage a 120-millimetre mortar shell would cause with a direct hit on a building built three or four centuries ago, and a stone building at that?

A. We were able to see that on the spot, to learn that on the spot. And once again, let me repeat: This can be seen from the report itself.

Q. Was Zvonimir Franic, did he attend that short ballistics course?

A. All our professional associates from the conservation department in Dubrovnik attended the course.

Q. Well, on these photographs, the photographs that he attached showing the damages, can we conclude that any type of damage -- well, I wasn't able, actually, to see any damages, but you say that some are visible. Could he say that some -- this was caused by shells targeting the buildings?

A. Well, I don't think you should ask me about reports compiled by others.

Q. Tell me, Mrs. Baca, is it your conviction that this whole affair was abused quite a lot by the media, or taken advantage of by the media?

A. Our conservation department told the truth and nothing but the ¹⁷⁸⁷⁴ truth. So in that sense, these reports were compiled on that basis.

Q. All right. And tell me this: In view of the fact that you were born and bred in Dubrovnik and that you were present when all the events took place, do you consider that anything of what you had described -- anything would have come of it had this 116th Brigade of the National Guards Corps had been there that targeted the JNA positions around Dubrovnik? Would any of this had happened had not that brigade been there?

JUDGE MAY: Don't answer that. That's not a matter for the witness. It may be a matter for us in due course to answer, but not for the witness.

Now, Mr. Milosevic, you've had your time.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just have one more question.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, you can ask one more question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Baca, you're a professional in the subject of the history of art and art in general, I assume. You're a professional and you know what "kitsch", the term "kitsch" means.

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Well, do you not feel, in the media sense, that this whole Dubrovnik affair or incident could be referred to as "Dubrovnik kitsch"?

JUDGE MAY: No. That's not a proper question.

A. No.

MR. KAY: I have no questions, Your Honour.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I just want to clarify these ¹⁷⁸⁷⁵ photos that were given to the witness. We have actually located it and it is not an exhibit.

Re-examined by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff:

Q. Witness, you mentioned during the examination-in-chief that your institute also documented damage outside of the old town, all over the Dubrovnik city. Is that -- is that correct?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. And did you also visit the island of Lokrum and also document damages at that island?

A. No. Not -- not me personally, no.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I would like now to show the witness the complete report. It's from Mr. Franic, and it's related to the island of Lokrum. And it has nothing to do with the old town and was not tendered therefore.

JUDGE MAY: But it plainly is part of the damage, so --

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: But it's not --

JUDGE MAY: Part of Dubrovnik.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, But it's not part of the report handed to you.

JUDGE MAY: It's a separate report. It may be that the accused will want it exhibited.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. And we have here the B/C/S version of Lokrum. Two buildings, actually, of Lokrum.

Q. If you would please look at this. And does that assist you in assessing the damage of these two buildings? ¹⁷⁸⁷⁶

A. Well, just like the ones so far, we come to the assessment of damages, and under Miscellaneous, with the damage assessment, at the end of each report it says the following, whether they were serious damages to the structure, whether they were surface structural damages, less severe structural damages. So we have an assessment of the damages, the evaluation.

Q. And what is the evaluation in relation to these two buildings? What category of damage is it?

A. The chapel of the Navjestenje, lesser structural damage to the roof construction than the Lugar house. Serious structural damage to the walls and roof structure, and the stability of the building has seriously been impaired.

The Benedictine monastery: Grave structural impairment to the bearing walls and part of the roof structure, load-bearing walls. And then we have a diagram with the buildings as they are located and a list of the hits, showing the hits.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the Prosecution would like to tender this whole report.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. What we'll do is we'll hand back the photographs which the accused handed in, and we'll exhibit the report containing the photographs but also the material. The question is, where do we put it? It may be more convenient to put it in the binder that we've got already and make -- give it another tab number.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Prosecutor's Exhibit 408, tab 20. Also, Your Honour, we have Prosecutor's Exhibit 326, tab 24 and tab 25. ¹⁷⁸⁷⁷

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Your Honour, these are the questions that would conclude.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, I --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. --

THE REGISTRAR: The correction, Your Honour, is Prosecutor's Exhibit 326, tab 25 and tab 26. 24 is already admitted. Questioned by the Court:

JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Baca, I believe you said somewhere between 60 to 70 per cent of the buildings were damaged. Do you have an estimate of the cost, in financial terms, of the damage?

A. We didn't have at the time, but subsequently, after a separate commission was set up attached to the Ministry of Culture for making up lists and assessing the war damages, there are exact figures or financial indicators about the damage.

As to the reconstruction work, the exact information on that, once again, exists for everything that has already been reconstructed and the funds used to finance -- funds and resources used to finance that reconstruction. Documents exist on all that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You don't have that information at hand?

A. Not at hand, no. But for the entire Dubrovnik region, the Ministry of Culture does have the -- it has 14 binders of documents. It has already been taped on CDs. And the complete documentation of the reports relating to war damages for the whole of the territory of Croatia has been handed over to the government of Croatia by the Ministry of Culture. ¹⁷⁸⁷⁸

JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, it would seem to me, in the interests of completeness, this is information that you should get.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, first of all, in the -- in the document from UNESCO that we had handed in, and it's tab 15, there is actually -- in the beginning there is, on pages 2 to -- going through to page 5, there is an estimate for each building, and there is, unfortunately, not a calculation giving the global estimate, but there is -- for each building there is an estimate. And we actually have listed among the 92 bis witnesses a witness that would -- was supposed to address this issue.

JUDGE MAY: Page 5 seems to have a global estimate. I'm not sure if it's in -- I don't know what the figures are in.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour. It's a global estimate for the ramparts. It's not a global estimate for the entire --

JUDGE MAY: Very well. That's for the ramparts.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: No doubt somebody can add these figures up at some stage and give them to us.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. We actually would prefer that, because then we could drop the witness, the additional 92 bis witness if we could just do that.

JUDGE MAY: Whatever way, we obviously would want this evidence put in front of us.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Also, I wanted to find out from Ms. Baca whether the repair work that is now going on, when will it be completed? ¹⁷⁸⁷⁹

A. Some repair work will go on for years and years to come, dozens of years. Some of them have already been completed. Depending on the complexity of the repair work required and the financial resources available.

For example, we are still repairing the complete Franciscan monastery. Some of it has been completed. Most of the baroque palaces have been repaired, most of them. So the restoration work will be an ongoing process, continuous, depending on the funds and resources available to Croatia, because everything is based on donations, small donations, larger ones, and everything is, of course, financed by the Republic of Croatia and predominantly the Minister of Culture within it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is there any -- an assessment from you or the experts that once the restoration is complete the old town will be restored to its former glory and status as a cultural icon?

A. The town will not lose its status of cultural heritage. However, the damages on the original buildings and the restoration of those buildings will always be visible and evident regardless of the fact that we use old ancient technologies, the same sorts of materials. It will never be the work of one author and one hand. So it will be a cultural heritage. That status will not be lost, or feature. However, the damages and the documents show and make it clear -- will make it clear how far the buildings are original and how far they have been repaired and restored.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Ms. Baca, that concludes your evidence. Thank you for coming to the International Tribunal to give it. You are free to go. ¹⁷⁸⁸⁰

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE MAY: We return to deal with the outstanding 92 bis applications, the admissibility of written statements, and I said we would begin with the three remaining Vukovar statements. We have not yet, I should say, got the amici's observations on the transcript evidence. It's somewhere in the machinery and it's coming through to us.

MR. KAY: Right.

JUDGE MAY: So we're not really in a position to deal with that. Briefly, what is your position about these transcripts, just to help us?

MR. KAY: The Dokmanovic transcripts we're referring to now.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. KAY: The issue there is perhaps JNA involvement. It can be properly described globally as not going to acts and conduct of the accused. The issue at the end of the day is whether he should be allowed to question, to deal with those allegations concerning the JNA. The Prosecution motion seeks admission under 92 bis (D) without questioning under 92 bis (E).

It's at the discretion of the Trial Chamber whether those transcripts are admitted, but in view of the conduct of the defence by the accused and the issues that concern him, we set out a number of points that are of obvious importance to him in the conduct of his case in challenging the evidence. And if the Trial Chamber uses its discretion, the live issue then remains as to questioning upon the issues of the JNA.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. We're not going to determine the issue as ^{17881 BLANK PAGE 17882} to the transcripts. We will return to that next week. I think you're not going to be here, was it, on Monday?

MR. KAY: That's right, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will deal with it after that. But we will give everybody the opportunity to address us upon it.

MR. KAY: If I can just mention that one of these witnesses in the Dokmanovic transcripts also appears in the 92 bis written. I see Judge Kwon nodding. He probably has found that already. 1171.

JUDGE KWON: 1171.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll obviously leave that one out for the moment. But let us consider the two statements that we reserved. That was C-1071, C-1164, C-1149, all connected with Vukovar, and remind ourselves.

1149, I think I raised this before, I had a recollection that this witness gave evidence in Dokmanovic, but I think that the Prosecution assured me that wasn't so. This witness describes the shelling. He was detained in Stajicevo camp where he was able to fulfil a function. Yes. Perhaps, Mr. Kay, you first and the Prosecution can respond.

MR. KAY: Yes. Having read this statement, we found the summary highly inaccurate as to the content of the statement. We found it very difficult to reconcile. And in the schedule that we filed, we have made those observations. And the terms of his statement we found very unclear as to the specifics as to where he was.

JUDGE MAY: So what is your submission in relation to that? ¹⁷⁸⁸³

MR. KAY: It's a problem statement. I am unable to say to the Court that it fits into the pattern that's being alleged because it is very imprecise as to its detail.

JUDGE MAY: So you would oppose letting it in at all.

MR. KAY: Yes. It's very difficult to reconcile. Perhaps it's one that should be left out of the picture.

JUDGE MAY: Then let us go on to deal with, while we're at it and you're on your feet, the other two.

1071, this is a statement -- it seems to me it deals very largely, as I said earlier, with the efforts of someone to find their spouse who has disappeared. It really didn't seem to me to be controversial, but I may be wrong.

MR. KAY: No. It's cumulative and uncontroversial, as Your Honour describes. It deals with a specific area referred to as Rupe, but it's not something that I could specifically point out to the Trial Chamber that contains difficulties. There is passing reference to the JNA.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, just dealing with those two, if you would.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. I would only deal with C-1144, Mr. Mala. The fact that a witness doesn't mention a certain date but refers to an incident in Borovo Selo during which policemen were killed, I mean, there is no inconsistency or no vagueness about it because we know which incident we -- is talked about, and that the witness doesn't mention the date, I mean, there is no doubt it's the incident where the Croatian ¹⁷⁸⁸⁴ policemen were killed in Borovo Selo.

JUDGE KWON: Are we dealing with 1144 now?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: 1144 -- 1149. Sorry. 1149. And the other point that the witness doesn't know the exact name of the camp he was in, but from the context it's clear that it is the Stajicevo camp, I don't see that there is any confusion or vagueness in the statement as such. The name and the exact date is not what the witness is really testifying about.

JUDGE MAY: He didn't give evidence in Dokmanovic, this one.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, he did not. He did not.

JUDGE MAY: All right. We must remember that. Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: But he refers to events that, even when the date is missing or an exact location name is missing, they were clear and were addressed by various witnesses, including Mr. Mesic, Mr. Anastasijevic, Mr. Grujic, and first of all, Ms. Bosanac.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Let us deal with that first one. We think, having looked at the statement, if there are doubts about it or it's said that it's not clear, those are matters which can be clarified in cross-examination, so we'll admit with cross-examination. It meets the criteria otherwise.

Now, would you deal with 1071, please, which I've referred to already.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I think I have already given the position of the Prosecution earlier when we talked about this. There is nothing that ¹⁷⁸⁸⁵ in our opinion would make it necessary to have a cross-examination of the witness. And the fact that witnesses refer to the JNA, that does not per se mean there needs to be cross-examination, particularly not in light of the fact that other witnesses who speak about the situations already mentioned JNA.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the value of this evidence?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's actually the Lovas farm incident, and the husband of this witness is a victim of it. It gives additional facts in relation to the Lovas farm.

JUDGE MAY: It's another -- a further area. Not, of course, the minefield incident.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No.

JUDGE MAY: But another camp.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's the farm, yes.

JUDGE MAY: Farm/camp.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We will admit. We think the accused should have the ability to cross-examine.

Mr. Milosevic, I've overlooked your submission. If you want to say anything about those two witnesses, you can. What we're inclined to do is to admit them without -- with cross-examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, may I say something about all these proposals which have been given under 92 bis?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I assume that it is quite logical ¹⁷⁸⁸⁶ that you realise that for me to be able to establish whether this is what you call cumulative statements and implement these rules of yours I would need to be able to read through all those statements to be able to say anything about them at all.

So will you please place on the ELMO the report you told me to look at. I received it the day before yesterday. And if it was given and put in one of my associates' lockers a couple of weeks ago, it doesn't change anything.

So will you please put this on the ELMO, the report that you received at your request from the other side in connection with the documents that I have received, and you will see what it looks like, what my situation is like.

JUDGE MAY: We have to deal with these statements. Now, we have to deal with them now. You were given warning last week and again this morning -- I mean again this week that we would be dealing with these statements. So you or your associates have had the opportunity to look at them and make specific submissions. Now, do you want to say anything about these two statements?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, under the 92 bis statements, not only is it suggested that they be admitted whereby the possibility for me to cross-examine is radically being curtailed, but also all the additional exhibits related to those statements should be admitted. And if the cross-examination is reduced to an hour or so that you allow me is reduced to something absurd. And you have heard Mr. Nice say several times, for instance -- for instance, "The accused has not ¹⁷⁸⁸⁷ challenged this or that." Now, whether I challenge something is no explanation for challenging or not challenging, because I challenge the whole indictment. It's a question of time.

In one of the documents he has filed, for instance, he said in the opening statements did he not challenge Foca. Now, just imagine that. In the opening statement for which you gave me three hours relating to two civil wars, and he comes to the conclusion that I didn't mention Foca, whereas in fact, I had to select the most important general issues. So what are we talking about? On the one hand, we are flooded with documents, even though you won't put it on the ELMO. It is close to 350.000, according to my estimate 400.000, not counting the thousands of video and audiotapes. And under those circumstances and ever since the beginning, up until February last year when the Kosovo case started, just look. There's almost nothing. And then suddenly, as soon as Kosovo case developed and we were focusing on it, then suddenly we get this enormous pile, going up to 330 or 40 thousand pages, according to their estimate.

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop you now. We are not discussing that report. We will come to discuss it in due course. What we're discussing are these statements.

Now, as to your point as to time for cross-examination, that will be set. But of course, it will vary if there are many documents or exhibits. These witnesses, for instance, I don't think produce any exhibits at all. If a witness does produce exhibits, particularly a voluminous number, why, then, we'll give you a longer time. But that is not a matter which is of importance at the moment. It may be. ¹⁷⁸⁸⁸ Now, we'll admit these with cross-examination, and we'll go on to one more, I think, from Vukovar, which is 1164. The witness deals with the shelling of Vukovar. She was arrested by JNA reservists, she was in one of the camps.

I suspect that the Trial Chamber may be minded to admit with cross-examination.

Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Yes. Within the rules it's cumulative, and that point has been made by us, but there is reference within the statement to the JNA, which is an important issue to the accused in the conduct of his case, and in those circumstances, we've got no further observations to make because it deals with Vukovar in the same form as other witnesses.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, do you want to say anything about this one?

THE INTERPRETER: No microphone, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Didn't get you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Do I -- I understand you correctly that you're not challenging my right to cross-examine?

JUDGE MAY: Not in this case at the moment, although we've got to hear from the Prosecution, of course.

Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. We request admitting this statement without cross-examination, because it's -- it's just cumulative evidence, and the fact that the JNA is mentioned, a lot of witnesses mention the involvement of the JNA in the fighting in Vukovar, and I doubt ¹⁷⁸⁸⁹ that this is in dispute.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. There are issues which arise in the Vukovar part of the case to do with the role of the JNA, and we therefore think it right that the accused should have the opportunity to cross-examine. On the other hand, clearly this is a statement which is cumulative, fits within the requirements of Rule 92 bis, so we will admit it with cross-examination.

The next two statements which I said we would deal with are contained in an addendum dated the 26th of February, the fourth addendum, and that involves a Mr. Josipovic who deals with the attack on Dubica. C-1156 dealing again with Vukovar.

Yes.

MR. KAY: Your Honour, we made a specific filing in relation to this on the 5th of March, dealing with both witnesses and the matters raised by the Prosecution in their application. It may be helpful for the Trial Chamber, if it needs it, just to read those submissions, because there's quite a bit of detail in relation to the one Josipovic.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, we have read them, but it may be helpful just to summarise them briefly for the purpose of the oral argument so that everyone has them.

MR. KAY: Yes. The basis of the Prosecution is that this was testimony by Josipovic that was cumulative of evidence given by the witness Babic, and the basis for that was that Babic had been an eyewitness to particular events that were happening in Bacin. ¹⁷⁸⁹⁰ We went back to the original transcript of Babic's evidence, and I have set out in the reply by us his specific evidence on this issue, which I submit makes the point that he wasn't declaring himself to be an eyewitness but this was an assumption by the questioner, if the transcript is studied. And in those circumstances, there has been no evidence on this matter before the Trial Chamber in an acceptable form that can cause the cumulative phrase to be used, and in our submission, this witness should be called in the usual way.

As for Mesic, the same point cannot be made in relation to that witness, and there are no observations to be made to pick that out in any particular way.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, anything you want to say about these two?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, it's quite obvious that the arguments put forward, according to which you can't accept them as 92 bis, are sufficient. If the other side wishes to present the witness, the witness has to come in here and testify and not to be included, according to this rule of yours, as some kind of cumulative witness. And secondly, I don't think you bear in mind the fact that when we proceed with your rules, Rule 92 bis, then we have several witnesses in one day, which would require far greater -- a far greater need to have all the documents reviewed rather than when we just have one witness or a witness per day, a witness live here per day.

So this is the road to curtailing the possibility of telling the truth in this courtroom here, this inundation with papers, flooding us ^{17891 BLANK PAGE 17892} with papers and formal explanations about events that took place in the civil war in Bosnia, in Croatia, which have been shown to be highly biased, prejudiced and one-sided. And that is where the sense of this false indictment lies, this false indictment bringing forth this kind of witness.

So all my comments are in objection to what you have been discussing. And as you yourselves are professional legal men, will be able to conclude and decide whether there is even an "F" of the fair play between the two parties let alone the equality of arms and other principles that you're very proud of pursuing.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, first of all, Mr. Babic was not the only one who mentioned what happened in Dubica. We had here the Witness C-1141, Mr. Kucak, who also described the events in Dubica before the attack and after the attack, but he was not present during the attack and therefore could not give the details of this sequence. In addition, we had Mr. Grujic who mentioned also the results of the attacks here, the killing of the people that are part of the indictment, and we will also hear today and tomorrow Dr. Strinovic who will also refer to the events in Dubica.

Therefore, I think it is cumulative for most of its part and, therefore, the Prosecution would request to admit this witness 92 bis, but we would say that cross-examination should be allowed because there are a lot of details that he would be the only one to speak about. In relation to the Witness C-1156, I mean there is no objection to ¹⁷⁸⁹³ have him come in 92 bis, but we believe that, given the fact that it is fully cumulative, it should be without cross-examination.

JUDGE MAY: Just, if you would, look at page 11 of his statement, top paragraph.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Of Mr. Mesic?

JUDGE KWON: Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: He gives -- it may be that the details of what happened at Ovcara are not really in dispute, they don't seem to be, but he does refer there to admissions made by others, it's got to be said, about what happened there. It's a question of whether cross-examination should be allowed on that or not.

JUDGE KWON: Is he not the first JNA officer who appears before this trial telling the Vukovar story?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, this would be the first witness who appears here who is from the JNA in relation to Vukovar. We have some more under the 92 bis (D) motion, but he would indeed be the first.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We will admit both. We think that both of them are cumulative. Certainly the Vukovar witness and indeed the first witness is cumulative of these alleged killings. We've had evidence of them. Whether it's the very precise location it seems to me doesn't really matter. It's the general nature and tone of the evidence, which it has to be cumulative.

But in any event, we will admit but with cross-examination in both ¹⁷⁸⁹⁴ cases.

Just help me, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff -- it's almost time for the break. There's one -- the other witness that you have, how long do you anticipate being with him?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I would think one and a half -- one hour and a half for the most.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: That would be maximum. I assume it could be faster, but he has to address a lot of crime scenes, and he has actually compiled photos so that he can explain the cause of death for certain people. So my estimate would be one and a half hours.

JUDGE MAY: We would be able, if we didn't start him until tomorrow morning, we'd be able to -- we'd be able to finish him tomorrow, which should be the objective.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: But I don't know -- I saw yesterday, of course, the detailed questioning of Ms. Ranta, and if really people would like to go into details of the exhumation reports, it would take later -- longer, but I do not really expect this because it's a different situation.

JUDGE MAY: Well, perhaps the sensible thing would be -- I would like to make a start on these Dubrovnik witnesses, because we've got so many to cover, and if we don't make a start, I don't know when we'll get back to it. It may be a sensible idea to take half the next session on Dubrovnik and then call the witness, start his evidence off, and then, if necessary, we could finish tomorrow. ¹⁷⁸⁹⁵ You won't be here tomorrow. That's the problem.

MR. KAY: No.

JUDGE MAY: All right. We'll see how we get on. We'll take the break now and we'll see how much progress we can make through Dubrovnik. But obviously we have to make sure that we get the witness in.

--- Recess taken at 12.12 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.36 p.m.

JUDGE MAY: We'll make what progress we can through these Dubrovnik witnesses for half an hour or so and then we'll have the witness in in order that we can be sure of completing him. It may be we could begin by dealing with them in numerical order, if that's convenient, as convenient as any way of dealing with them. 1066 is the first one I have, deals with the shelling of Mlini, the looting of a shop, and his detention in Morinje camp. 1082 is the pathologist for the Dubrovnik area who performed autopsies on 36, it seems.

1083 deals with the shelling of Dubrovnik on the 1st to the 6th of October.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, can I interrupt you?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It may be helpful if I would tell you which request we withdraw, because then you wouldn't need to address these. And actually, the first one is C-1083. We would not -- we want to drop him.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And the next person we want to drop is ¹⁷⁸⁹⁶ C-1095, Mr. Draskovic. The next person to drop is C-1105, Mr. Ferlan. The next person, 1122, Mr. Ivic. And actually we had considered to also drop, and he was not on the list of numbers you gave, C-1227, Mr. Vierda, but that seems to be actually the person that the Judges would be interested in because he is the director of the Institute for Restoration, and he gave a number of 9 million -- 9 billion -- million -- no. 9.657.000 US dollars, and he also could speak about the current situation in relation to restoration. If the Judges are interested in this, Your Honours, we would keep him; otherwise, our idea was to drop this person.

JUDGE MAY: Well, I think we might be. Perhaps we could deal with him as a separate issue. He's the director, you say, of the Institute of Restoration, and he deals with the costs.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. But I dealt with 1066, 1082. 1088 is -- deals with the shelling in October 1991. The damage, I think he says, to a number of churches. I forget. He deals with the damage shown in Cavtat; is that right, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff? Make sure I've got the right one.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: And as we have dropped 1095, he would be the only one to give details on Cavtat.

JUDGE MAY: And 1092, may we deal with that batch together. 1092 is -- he is the museum director, I think in Konavle. I may be wrong about that. He is the museum director. Perhaps again you could help me where he is director.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. It's a she, and she is the museum director, and she is actually the person who would speak about the ¹⁷⁸⁹⁷ cultural monuments that were destroyed in the entire Konavle region.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: Konavle is the name of a region. Is Dubrovnik included there?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, it's the entire region south of Dubrovnik but it's part of the Dubrovnik municipality.

JUDGE KWON: Including Cavtat and the airport, et cetera.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Shall we deal with that group, Mr. Kay, the 1066, who was the shelling of Mlini, if I've pronounced it right, and the looting of a shop.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: It deals with the detention also.

MR. KAY: The detention being a new issue, cumulative on the Dubrovnik shelling. There is a passing reference to the accused but not in any specific or precise way. It's just a general reference which -- "We smelled the trouble in 1989 with the speech of Milosevic in Kosovo." I don't think that that's a matter of any importance in relation to the evidence if the Trial Chamber agreed.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. It would seem to me, or we could strike it out, simply edit that sentence out.

MR. KAY: Yes. There is reference to the JNA, as indeed in all of them, and the role of the JNA.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. ¹⁷⁸⁹⁸

MR. KAY: So if the Court was to exercise its discretion on the basis of the cumulative nature of the evidence, we would make the point that cross-examination should be permitted as a result of those references to the JNA, which is an important issue within the case.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: The next one is 1082, the pathologist. Any objection to admitting that? Any need for any cross-examination that you can see?

MR. KAY: No. This is cumulative in relation to the evidence that is to be heard from the witness Strinovic.

JUDGE MAY: He simply deals with the autopsies of a number of bodies; 36 in all.

MR. KAY: Yes.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Let's deal, if we may, Mr. Kay, with the next two. We've got the pathologist, and then we've got 1088, details of damage in Cavtat. 1092, the museum director who deals with the damage of Konavle. If you would deal with those two.

MR. KAY: Again, cumulative on the evidence concerning Dubrovnik and the region, but references to the JNA. In 1088, it's JNA entering Cavtat.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. And the other one?

MR. KAY: On 1092, we've heard quite a bit of evidence of the damage to buildings, but this is specific to the area of Konavle and damage to Cilipi.

One of the difficulties is that attached reports are not in ¹⁷⁸⁹⁹ English. They are in B/C/S. I'm not sure if translations have been served of those documents to date. I have not been able to trace them if they have. I think I'm right in still asserting that.

JUDGE MAY: Well, let's clear that up now. Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, can you help with that?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Ms. Dicklich has to check that first.

JUDGE MAY: Well, let's --

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I'm not aware. I can't answer that now.

JUDGE MAY: Clearly there should be a document served in English.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, ultimately what is your position?

MR. KAY: The position is that there is fresh evidence concerning cultural destruction in Konavle and Cilipi which the Court may want to hear about. This is all around the area of Dubrovnik.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That goes to the witness being called live.

MR. KAY: Yes. There are references to the JNA which would go to the issue of cross-examination, in my submission.

JUDGE KWON: Mrs. Uertz-Retzlaff, what happened in Konavle and Cavtat? Is it included in the indictment?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, it is, Your Honour.

JUDGE KWON: Could you give me the paragraph number?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. There is a paragraph listing all the villages. It's paragraph 81. And actually, Mr. Poljanic, the witness Poljanic had testified to the destruction in these places and has actually discussed a huge amount of exhibits related to destruction in these ¹⁷⁹⁰⁰ places. So it would be cumulative. It -- because we had these reports, these police reports documenting damage and giving also the pictures of damaged buildings in these regions.

JUDGE KWON: But it's not included in Dubrovnik shelling, beginning with paragraph 73.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: It's -- it's the last paragraph, actually. It's the region giving three regions and then specific places in the regions.

JUDGE MAY: Have we got an answer on whether the English is available?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, the English is available, and -- it should have been. It should have been disclosed. I'm sorry if it wasn't done, but it will be done right away.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Have we mentioned the museum director? I think we have.

MR. KAY: We have. That's 1092.

JUDGE MAY: Now, Mr. Milosevic, you've got three witnesses here -- four witnesses. They include the pathologist. If there is any reason why you should cross-examine him, we'll hear what you say the reason is. Then we'll have the museum director from Konavle, and a man -- or a witness, rather, from Cavtat who gives details of the damage. Now, is there any reason why you need to cross-examine any of those? Is there anything in issue as far as they're concerned?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I don't know whether there ^{17901 BLANK PAGE 17902} is any point of us discussing this. You keep avoiding the basic issue, which is the time required for preparation. A moment ago, you wouldn't even consider all the documents that have been served on me. How can I answer the question whether there's any reason to cross-examine when I don't know? Nor did I have any physical possibility to examine these documents. I think this is a farce and nothing more than that. You have told me that you would allow me the right to defence, but you are preventing that right by not giving me adequate time to at least read through the documents that are being produced in large numbers on a daily basis. So there's no point in asking me this.

JUDGE MAY: You had notice earlier this week and last week, indeed, that we were going to deal with these specific witnesses. Now, that gives you time to get out these statements and look at them, and you had it.

Now, you haven't chosen to take that opportunity. We will consider the position.

As for the question of the amount of documentation, I can assure you that is a matter to which we will be returning in due course. But as you will appreciate, there are a number of other issues which we have to deal with in this case.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But that issue cannot be separated from this one. That's the whole point, Mr. May.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. By a majority of 2 to 1, the Trial Chamber will admit the evidence of the pathologist, Judge Robinson dissenting. The ¹⁷⁹⁰³ view of the majority is this: That this is a totally non-controversial witness who merely examines bodies. The accused has had every opportunity to read these statements and has declined to do so and no injustice to him will be caused by the -- not cross-examining the witness, there being no issue raised about what he says, as indeed the amici have suggested. In relation to 1066, we will admit under Rule 92 bis but we accept that there are issues there of controversy concerned with the JNA and we will therefore allow cross-examination.

We will reserve 1088 and 1092. Now, we'll try and do some more. 1227. Let us look at 1227, who is the director of restoration who you were thinking of withdrawing, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, but you say that the Trial Chamber may find it useful to have that witness's evidence.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: So it's either a question of -- you would say it's either a question that we admit it or it will be withdrawn. So we'll have -- he deals -- he's the director of the Institute for Restoration. He deals with shelling and destruction and the costs of restoration and the time for completion. So these were issues which the Trial Chamber was raising this morning.

Mr. Kay, can you help us as to that one?

MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honour. There is reference to the JNA within this statement.

JUDGE MAY: Well, suppose we cut out the reference to the JNA, just edit the statement and deal with the costs of restoration, which ¹⁷⁹⁰⁴ can't be controversial.

MR. KAY: I can't see a problem with that then.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Very well. We'll -- we'll have him withdrawn. But thank you for raising the matter. He can be withdrawn, 1227. Now, that leaves - in ten minutes - 1122. We'll look at that, which is -- was he withdrawn? I thought it was 1112.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour, 1122. 1122.

JUDGE MAY: And what about 1112?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We would like to keep him. He's a priest.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. I marked the wrong one then.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: He is a priest who will speak about the effect on the churches in Dubrovnik. And he also had a conversation with an officer, a JNA officer, about this shelling campaign.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kay, can you help us with 1112?

MR. KAY: Yes, at tab 22. Fitting cumulative within the Dubrovnik area, but there is the JNA issue which, in our submission, should entitle the accused to cross-examination, if the Trial Chamber is minded to admit the statement under 92 bis.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We will reserve on this one.

MR. KAY: Just the other issue that I should have mentioned on that, and I apologise as it slipped my mind. There was the issue of whether there were any weapons within Dubrovnik, which is on the last page of this witness's statement. ¹⁷⁹⁰⁵

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will reserve on that. 1127, he's something to do with the summer festival, but his evidence includes the use of civilian targets and sniper fire. Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: And the JNA navy is referred to within this statement at page 4. Very strong issues there we would say that the accused should have a right to challenge to in viva voce testimony.

JUDGE MAY: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, in relation to these references to the JNA, I think the situation in Dubrovnik is a different one from the one in Vukovar, because in Vukovar it is a question to which extent the JNA did participate. But in relation to Dubrovnik, there is no dispute, as far as I understand it, that they were the one conducting the campaign.

JUDGE MAY: Nature of the campaign which is said to be in issue and who started it.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, but that's not actually something the witnesses refer to. They simply say what the JNA did, and that is -- seems to be not in dispute. It's only the question whether Dubrovnik and the region was a military target, a legitimate military target.

MR. KAY: I would point out to the Trial Chamber at page 3, it's referred to as "JNA aggression."

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We will reserve on this one. 1133. I think we can perhaps do two more.

This is a member of the defence of a village, deals with the JNA ¹⁷⁹⁰⁶ attack, little resistance. He was detained. It deals with his mistreatment.

Yes, Mr. Kay. Is the fact that he was a member of the defence relevant?

MR. KAY: Yes, and the issue here is the JNA occupation of his village, as it's described, within his statement at page 4. A very detailed statement dealing with the conflict between the two opposing sides. The Dubrovnik issue is -- in relation to its shelling, is cumulative, but it's the surrounding issues and the JNA attack on Slano. There was also a translation issue in relation to certain of the documents that were annexed that still need to be included.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will admit this but with cross-examination. 1139. My note is this witness was part of the Croatian naval defence, deals with the shelling of the old town, the JNA controlling -- gaining control of the area, deals with the military presence, Croat military presence. Again, it would appear to be one which should be admitted but with cross-examination.

Would you agree?

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Admit with cross-examination. We will do one more. 1159, a reserve policeman, JNA occupation of the village, detained and mistreated. The amicus says it's fresh evidence which should be given live. It seems that's another for admission with cross-examination. ¹⁷⁹⁰⁷

MR. KAY: Yes. Gromaca was the fresh evidence so far as we were able to find.

JUDGE MAY: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff. I'm sorry, I haven't given you a chance. What would you like to say about this?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: If Gromaca is the point that would make cross-examination necessary, we would actually say that the paragraphs 7 and 8 of the statement could be withdrawn, because Gromaca is actually not a place mentioned in the indictment. So we allow for that. But if -- but we would, of course, still request admittance without cross-examination.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We will reserve on that one. 1173 would be the last one. Yes. We could perhaps deal with that quickly.

Yes, Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Former deputy mayor of Dubrovnik, so may well be issues here relating to what he would know or had taken part in in relation to these events. Very clear allegations about the JNA, beatings between Dubrovnik defenders.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, didn't we hear from the mayor already?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We actually had the mayor here, and this is actually the second -- the person second, more or less, in the position -- in rank in Dubrovnik.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Do we need him? What does he add? ¹⁷⁹⁰⁸

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: What he adds is he was -- took part in most of the negotiations. While Mr. Poljanic only participated in the beginning, this man was actually present during all the negotiations with the JNA.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. Okay.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We will admit him but with cross-examination. Those negotiations were subject to cross-examination, and the accused should have the benefit to do that.

Very well. We'll --

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, there is an oversight. There is one more witness related to Dubrovnik in the 92 bis submissions, and that is number 1221, Bozidar Trklja. He is a camp -- he is a detainee. He is from the region, and he was detained in various camps, and he was also maltreated seriously. He is also from Dubrovnik.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. And he's not in good health. I seem to have made a note. I've got a note that he says he's in poor health.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I'm not aware of this at the moment.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. I think you'll find it if you read the statement.

Yes, Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: If I can just turn to that.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, of course.

MR. KAY: Yes. This witness dealt with the Dubrovnik Crisis Committee and weapons that they had being anti-aircraft weapons and the ¹⁷⁹⁰⁹ fact that they were used. Dealing very much with the JNA attack. So there are issues here in relation to his involvement. He was directed to drive to the harbour to pick up two anti-aircraft cannons. So clear issues here that the accused may -- may well want to deal with in cross-examination.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We will reserve this one. We must have the witness in now. I've got three more which I've noted which seem to be connected with -- three more connected with Dubrovnik; C-1210, C-1197. Perhaps we can return to them. And also one about which I have a query, which is C-1213, a Mr. Stringer, and I can't remember whether you said anything in relation to him, whether there were any comments about him and whether you were going to call him. I can't remember.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I'm not sure of this now, but I don't think so.

JUDGE MAY: You don't think so. Well, it may be that I've confused him with somebody else. Anyway, we will try and discuss those three in the next -- well, perhaps next week sometime when Mr. Kay is back.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I just checked. We actually have dropped this witness. We have not included him in our submission, and we don't want to call him, Mr. Stringer.

JUDGE MAY: Somehow I had that in the back of my mind but I couldn't put my finger on it. Very well. So he's withdrawn. Can we have the witness, please. ¹⁷⁹¹⁰

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. If the witness would take the declaration.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

JUDGE MAY: If you'd like to take a seat.

WITNESS: DAVOR STRINOVIC

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Thank you, Your Honour. Examined by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff:

Q. Dr. Strinovic, would you please state your name for the record.

A. Davor Strinovic.

Q. What is your profession and current position?

A. I'm a specialist of forensic medicine at the Institute for Forensic Medicine at the University in Zagreb, and also I am an associate professor at the faculty of medicine of Zagreb University.

Q. You have been a forensic pathologist since 1980; is that correct?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. And you have submitted a written report on your findings related to the conflict in Croatia in 1991 and the following years?

A. Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honours, the Prosecution would like to tender this report, this expert report, and its attachments.

JUDGE MAY: Where am I finding this?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: This was actually filed with the Registry and ^{17911 BLANK PAGE 17912} was submitted on the 5th of February, 2003.

JUDGE MAY: Was it filed as an expert report?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. It was an expert report of Dr. Strinovic, dealing with the forensic findings.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll get the next exhibit number.

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecutor's Exhibit number 409, Your Honour.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:

Q. In your expert report, in paragraph 1, you mentioned publications and books that you wrote. Are there any books or papers in these publications dealing with exhumations and identification?

A. In addition to the books listed here, in two of those books, one for students of forensic medicine and for jurists, there is a chapter on identification. And under that heading, there is also a heading of mass -- large-scale disasters covering identification under wartime conditions. Furthermore, I would like to point out that, together with other colleagues, I have issued more than 20 scientific papers on victims of war and identification. I participated at international congresses, and I would also add that three weeks ago a large conference ended in Geneva, organised by the International Red Cross, linked to missing persons. And 87 countries were represented at this conference, and most of them had the same problem of missing persons.

I should like to note that in preparation for that conference that I attended, a paper was prepared which in fact represents a proposal as to how missing persons should be processed in the future, including the question of identification and the establishment of the cause of death. ¹⁷⁹¹³ And this is the most recent event linked to the International Red Cross and recommendations issued by that institution regarding missing persons in the world.

Q. And you mention in paragraph 4 of your report that since 1991 until the present day, you participated in the work of the government Commission for Detained and Missing People, and that's the same office that Colonel Grujic is the head of, is that so?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. What was your task within this commission?

A. My task was to coordinate a medical team in the process of exhumation and identification so that after being informed of a planned exhumation of a gravesite, I organised a medical team that would be present at each exhumation, and I also organised a team of medical experts to engage in identification on site or later on, subsequently.

Q. In relation to your work throughout the years, from 1991 to today, was there any difference in your work regarding the time period before 1995 and after?

A. Yes, certainly. Until 1995, my job in the government commission consisted of attending meetings and preparing meetings for detained and missing persons, both on the Serbian and on the Croatian side. And many problems were reviewed at those meetings linked to the war situation. In that period, that is from 1991 until 1995, there were very few exhumations and identifications, so that the work mostly consisted of meetings and preparations for the work that would be done later on.

Q. And from 1995 onwards, you then were more involved in the ¹⁷⁹¹⁴ exhumation?

A. Yes, that is right.

Q. You mentioned that -- that you worked with a similar commission from Yugoslavia. Since when were talks with commissions from Yugoslavia held?

A. As far as I know, those negotiations started in December 1991. And I attended such a meeting for the first time at the beginning of 1992. The negotiations were first held in Pecuh, in Hungary, and later on in Budapest, also in Hungary.

Q. Can you describe the cooperation with the SFRY or FRY personnel in relation to exhumations, autopsies, and identification, just very briefly how this cooperation functioned and whether you applied the same methodology.

A. As I've already said, the cooperation started in 1991 to 1995, when we met to solve problems linked to missing persons, that is to say, the information we had. And after 1995, the business of exhumations started, larger exhumations took place, and our cooperation continued. And I can tell you, for example, in the case of Ovcara, that cooperation consisted of the fact that the representatives of Croatia and Serbia were present during the entire exhumation process, which lasted about 45 days in all. And after that, because this job was done by the international experts for the needs of The Hague Tribunal, both sides were present when the autopsies took place and this overall procedure, which was ongoing for the next three months.

So as I say, cooperation in these cases was related to monitoring. ¹⁷⁹¹⁵ We monitored what the international experts were doing, and I mentioned the Ovcara example in particular.

Q. I actually wanted to know whether this cooperation was fruitful or whether you had disputes about methodology or results. Is there -- can you tell us?

A. Well, I would put it this way: The problems were mostly linked to organisational matters, rather, the lists of missing persons, the quest for the graves, the search for graves and so on. That's where the job went more slowly. But as to the professional expertise and identification and methodology used there, we didn't have any problems in that regard. That is to say that experts in both our two countries agreed that the methods applied were the suitable methods that were usually used, so cooperation was good. No problems there.

Q. Did you also take part in exhumations and identifications conducted by international teams; and if so, was this the same methodology that you also applied?

A. Yes. As I've already said, we did take part in the sense of monitoring. We monitored the international experts performing exhumations at different gravesites linked to Croatia, and the methods that they applied were the methods that we applied too when we do our work in Croatia. So we did have cooperation, and I can say that our cooperation with the international organisations and experts was very good, and the methods that they applied were methods that we use as well in our own country.

Q. In paragraph 10 of your report, you stress the use of forensic ¹⁷⁹¹⁶ pathologists, and I would like to know why did you emphasise this fact.

A. The question was the use of pathologists in the process of exhumation and identification, and I stressed that in my country, this work wasn't done by strict pathologists but that they were forensic pathologists, forensic medical men who deal with violent deaths, sudden death, and death in natural disasters such as aeroplane crashes and so on and so forth where there are a large number of casualties. So that is why I stress that this work linked to war casualties came under the area of what a forensic scientist did.

Q. In paragraph 11 you mentioned that the identification is significantly more difficult in war situations, and my question is: These difficulties, do they have an effect on the time you need for identification?

A. Yes. As I stated, these are specific cases linked to wartime where there are alleviating circumstances which make the cases so complex and complicated. And of course, situations of this kind require additional time and effort to be invested in order to identify a corpse and everything else that the Court would be interested in.

Q. In paragraph 17 of your report, you refer to the involvement of anthropologists from 1995 onwards. Why was that necessary?

A. In our work where we have to identify the persons that were killed during a war, as time goes by the role of the anthropologist becomes more important because, if we're dealing with individuals who, immediately after death were brought to the mortuary, then those bodies are fairly intact and then an anthropologist would not have much to do there because ¹⁷⁹¹⁷ the autopsy can be carried out by a forensic pathologist - the cause of death, the identification of the body, et cetera - but with the passage of time, as more time elapses - and this is a case of five years or more - the corpse disintegrates more and more which means there is less and less soft tissue and it is more or less the skeleton that remains. And as an anthropologist's job is to study bones, old bones, bones that can be several years old or hundreds and thousands of years old, the anthropologist is the proper person to read what the bones tell us, to give us relevant information on the basis of the bones studied, the ones that are important to us to ascertain the cause of death and the circumstances under which a person died. So it will be the anthropologist who will study the bones. When -- in cases where we have parts of skeletons, parts of bones, parts of burnt bones, he will be able to reconstruct the skeleton and answer questions that we need to fill out the protocols and to answer the questions that courts would be interested in.

Q. With your report, you provided tables related to certain localities, and before you came to testify, did the Prosecution request you to examine your documentation as they relate to the schedules in the indictment and did you then organise new tables?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And were you asked by the Prosecution to review your documentation in Zagreb related to specific victims and did you accordingly provide -- organise this information?

A. I did, yes.

Q. On the basis of the review of your documentation, did you make ¹⁷⁹¹⁸ special findings related to these victims and did you add these findings in the schedules?

A. Yes.

Q. The underlying documentation is -- as such, is it available in Zagreb and could it be reviewed if the court or the parties would like to do so?

A. Yes.

Q. After your arrival in The Hague this week, did you in addition review exhumation reports the Prosecution had in-house and already tendered through Mr. Grujic?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did you assist in putting together packages for crime scenes, including your findings and underlying materials?

A. Yes.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the Prosecution together with the witness has organised four binders. The small binder, the first binder is actually the summary results, and the other three binders are the exhumation reports and other reports related to the victims, and we would like to tender this into evidence. It is -- mostly it's not new material. It's material disclosed a long time ago, but we have organised it now that it's easier to find specific victims. And we have also produced an index of the binders which is on top of the first binder.

JUDGE MAY: It would be convenient to put it into one exhibit. We will have the next number.

THE REGISTRAR: It's Prosecution Exhibit number 410. ¹⁷⁹¹⁹

JUDGE MAY: And we have the summary, I take it, and --

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. This is actually the summary findings of Dr. Strinovic going from one crime base to the next, with tables and photographs. And in the other three binders are actually the supporting documentation, mostly exhumation reports or court reports and the like.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, those should be -- if they haven't been, they should be handed in, and we'll -- yes. They have an exhibit number. But we don't have the big binders at the moment. I don't know whether you want to hand such in. We've simply got the summaries. It may be we can work from them.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. I would actually not address any of the underlying materials. It is with the registrar.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Were these four binders presented to me earlier on, the ones I've just been given?

JUDGE MAY: So we're told. If you could confirm that, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes. Actually, the new binder is -- number 1 is actually a new binder in which we have organised the schedules of the witness, and we would go now through the schedules with the witness, and the witness had presented to us when he came to The Hague photos related to certain crime scenes, and we would go through those photos with the Witness. These are actually -- these are materials that were not ¹⁷⁹²⁰ disclosed in -- last summer, but they were partly part of the report of the witness with his additional changes.

JUDGE MAY: So in order that Mr. Milosevic can prepare for cross-examination, if he looks at the report, he will find the essential material in there --

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: -- which he has had for some time. If he looks at the summary, he will see what you intend to go through tomorrow; is that right, to find that?

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Exactly.

JUDGE MAY: But the material has been disclosed before, is that right? In different form.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: In different form and except for -- the witness had provided with his report tables related to locations, and he has now subdivided some of these tables into crime scenes. For instance, if you have in a village like Skabrnja three different crime scenes, he has now three different tables. So it's easier to split it now into the paragraphs of the indictment. And what is completely new and which was not disclosed earlier are some photos that the witness just brought with him when he came to The Hague. But we would address those photos one by one, and it's actually a help to explain the methodology which is actually described in the report.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll go on to that tomorrow. Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think that it is ^{17921 BLANK PAGE 17922} well nigh impossible if what my colleague the Prosecutor says, that there is a number of photographs here which are being exhibited for the first time here today, then we -- the question really does arise as to whether anybody can deal with things that have been put forward today. I looked through it carefully, and I seem to see that these are things that are quite new. And now the Prosecutor has confirmed that. She says that they are quite new. Perhaps there's nothing to be challenged there, but one would have to study it first.

JUDGE MAY: You can have a chance overnight to have a look.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: In addition, I just want to mention, the Ovcara photos -- the biggest issue is Ovcara and the exhumation in Ovcara. The Ovcara photos were disclosed or were part of the Ovcara documentation that was disclosed last summer. Only a few additional photos the witness has brought with him from documentation he has in Zagreb, and he elected these photos to explain the different -- how he made his findings as to cause of death. He will point out certain specifics that explain his findings.

JUDGE MAY: We will see how we get on tomorrow. If it's necessary to exclude anything, we will. But if it's merely explicatory material, then there may be less dispute about it.

MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Very well, we'll adjourn now. Dr. Strinovic, would be back, please, at 9.00 tomorrow morning when we will continue with your evidence. And will you remember this; not to speak to anybody about your evidence until it's over, and that does include the members of the ¹⁷⁹²³ Prosecution team.

Nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday, the 14th day of March, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.