Dubrovnik Damage Detailed

Hearings in the case against General Pavle Strugar, the former Yugoslav army commander charged with six counts of war crimes for his role in the 1991 shelling of Dubrovnik, continued this week with testimony about the damage caused to the historic Croatian city.

In the witness seat on May 4 to 7 was architect Slobodan Vukovic who, in the weeks following the bombardment of December 6, 1991, inspected Dubrovnik's Old Town - a UNESCO World Heritage site - to determine the extent of the destruction.

Vukovic testified that he and his colleagues, working through the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments, conducted their work at a time when "we didn't know whether the shelling would start again or not".

They travelled the town with notepads, building plans, and forms on which to record the damage systematically.

The team based their conclusions on "information provided by tenants or neighbours, and what we could see with our own eyes", he told the chamber.

Explaining why such first-hand accounts were so valuable, the witness said simply, "Every shell that fell on Dubrovnik first hit the hearts of our people before exploding, so they knew well what happened, and how."

Prosecution lawyer David Re presented Vukovic with two videos of the Old Town, stopping the tapes frequently to ask the witness to identify a particular building or street.

The degree of detail provided appeared at times to be overwhelming - even to the tribunal. "A lot of this detail seems closer than appears to us to be necessary," presiding judge Kevin Parker told Re.

On cross-examination, defence lawyer Vladimir Petrovic sought to call into question the reliability of both Vukovic's memory and his reports. "How can we believe you?" asked Petrovic at one point.

Several questions focused on where exactly the witness's mother lived - a fact Vukovic repeatedly explained was hard to pinpoint because her street number had changed.

Others centred on the dates and times of various inspections - an issue because the report suggested that the witness was present in several different locations simultaneously. Vukovic responded to such questions by insisting the information included typographical errors.

On May 6, the hearing began not with further witness testimony, but with a discussion of Strugar's capacity to stand trial.

Defence lawyer Petrovic stressed - as he has done repeatedly - that Strugar is "a person with very serious health problems" who is "not fit to follow the proceedings".

Petrovic insisted that his client suffers from dementia, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic kidney disease and spondyloarthritis - all of which affect Strugar's memory, attention span, and ability to plan and conceive his defence, among other things.

He continued by saying that while the defendant was not completely lacking in awareness of the proceedings, his illness could prevent him from receiving fair treatment.

"It is not in dispute that General Pavle Strugar knows what the UN is," said Petrovic. But with thousands of pieces of information involved in the case, Petrovic questioned whether Strugar could "testify without falling into a trap which could make his procedural position more difficult".

Prosecution lawyer Re replied that although Strugar has some level of vascular dementia, it is "so mild it does not impair his abilities".

"The accused has the necessary cognitive functions to stand trial," he insisted.

Judge Parker said the chamber would decide about Strugar's fitness "at the earliest opportunity".

Rachel S. Taylor is an IWPR editor in The Hague.