1 Wednesday, 22 August 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: In the absence of Judge Mindua, we sit pursuant
7 to the provisions of Rule 15 bis.
8 Mr. Tapuskovic, you're to continue your examination.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Good
11 WITNESS: IVAN STAMENOV [Resumed]
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 Examination by Mr. Tapuskovic: [Continued]
14 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Stamenov, good morning.
15 A. Good morning.
16 Q. You'll remember that yesterday we began the examination-in-chief
17 and that the report that you had compiled was assigned a number for
18 identification. That is being loaded into the electronic system.
19 My first question would be and -- would be to kindly ask, explain
20 to the Judges, in what way you carried out this examination of the
21 incidents and how you analysed them as presented in your report.
22 A. I carried out this analysis on the basis of the available
23 documents that the Prosecutor's Office had submitted and disclosed to the
24 Defence. Having studied the available documents, I presented my
25 conclusions, as you can see in my report.
1 Q. From all these documents that you have analysed, which particular
2 documents were the main foundation for your conclusions and which you
3 could not have avoided in the course of your work?
4 A. The basic documents that I used and that were the crucial ones
5 were the documents compiled by the police and the medical records
6 containing information about the victims, the site of the incident, and
7 the type of the injuries sustained. The major problem that I faced was
8 the lack of medical records and I also mentioned that in the conclusions
9 of my report.
10 Q. Did you ever try to analyse anything relating to witness
11 statements or did you believe that that was beyond the scope of your
13 A. I tried and I did analyse the witness statements. I also tried to
14 carry out an analysis thereof. However, due to contradictory witness
15 statements between their statements, because some of the witnesses gave
16 one, two, or even three statements, their evidence does not correspond.
17 Q. After you had reached this conclusion, did you think that this was
18 something that should have been done by someone else?
19 A. I thought that it was not my job to determine which statement was
20 accurate and true. I believe that this is the -- under the jurisdiction
21 of this Tribunal and therefore I didn't deal with these matters.
22 Q. I have to complete this examination within a specified time limit,
23 Mr. Stamenov. We will not be able to repeat everything that you wrote
24 down in your report, and this is largely going to be the subject of the
25 cross-examination by the Prosecution. However, I would like to raise a
1 number of questions that could be of assistance to the Trial Chamber and
2 that perhaps have not been fully explained in your report.
3 One of these issues, very specific issues, that may be of
4 relevance is the weapons that you mentioned as the ones that could
5 possibly have been used in the conflict and which are depicted in your
6 report. Can you tell us what kind of weapons, among the ones mentioned,
7 was not at the disposal of the Yugoslav army and of which you are not able
8 to confirm whether it was in the possession of the VRS?
9 A. According to the information that I had, and still have, the
10 Yugoslav People's Army did not have a 7.62-millimetre Dragunov rifle,
11 sniper rifle, because this particular weapon was still in the process of
12 development. As for the information whether this weapon was at the
13 disposal of the VRS, I have no such information. And I know that the
14 factory in Kragujevac called Zastava had not started the production of
15 this particular weapon.
16 Q. Thank you. What is the origin of this Dragunov rifle? Which army
17 did it have?
18 A. It was made in Russia, or rather, in the Soviet Union.
19 Q. Can you tell us now because it's been discussed widely something
20 about 7.9 bullet? What kind of infantry weapons are used - interpreter's
21 correction - what weapons use these bullets?
22 A. The 7.9-millimetre bullets can be used by light machine-guns;
23 machine-guns; M-53, 7.9 millimetres; and a semi-automatic rifle, M-76, 7.9
25 Q. Thank you. On page 5 of the B/C/S version --
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] But before that, can we please
2 have the document MFI-360, and that's DD00-4689, be brought up. And if we
3 can go to page 5 in the B/C/S version and also page 5 in the English
5 Q. Well, actually, in order for me to be able to ask you the question
6 that I want to ask you, we have to turn to the next page in both
8 In these pictures numbered 3 to 8, what do they depict?
9 A. These photographs numbered 3 to 8 depict the view through the
10 sight, through the optical sight of a sniper rifle M-76. One can see the
11 view of a person's figure at the distance ranging between 100 and 600
13 Q. Thank you. This first picture shows, on page 5, shows us what
15 A. The first picture on page 5 shows the view of a human figure as
16 seen from the distance of 100 metres. The hand or the arm has number 1,
17 and each subsequent photograph, this person that was within the field of
18 view is holding a cardboard with a number which indicates the distance.
19 Q. Thank you. In order not to go through all these photographs, can
20 we now look at the last one on page -- I'm sorry. Actually, page 8 in the
21 B/C/S version. That's photograph number 7 or 8. Doesn't matter. Let's
22 look at photograph 8. What does it show? What is the range, and if you
23 can explain us further?
24 A. Photograph number 7 shows the view of a human figure at the
25 distance of 500 metres, and photograph 8 shows the same view, only from
1 the distance of 600 metres. However, in photograph number 8, the figure
2 is already in the shadow and therefore it cannot be easily discernible.
3 Q. If we look at photograph number 7 and all the previous
4 photographs, what would be the optimum conditions in which these
5 photographs were made?
6 A. These photographs were made under nearly ideal weather
7 conditions. It was sunny and the visibility was excellent. The view
8 through the optical sight is real and there is no magnification. The
9 camera was placed in the position of the eye looking through the optical
10 sight, and these were real photographs corresponding to what a person
11 actually can see if looking through an optical sight.
12 Q. Thank you. Can you please explain to the Judges why you made
13 these photographs. First of all, tell me, did you take them yourself?
14 A. I did it along with my assistant.
15 Q. Thank you. Why did you do that in relation to these distances
16 and then you stopped at the range of 600 metres? Why was that?
17 A. In this particular situation, what I wanted to do was to show, in
18 practical terms, how a marksman sees a human figure through an optical
19 sight and that in the ranges in excess of 600 metres, given that an
20 optical sight can provide a quadruple magnification, it is already
21 difficult to spot the target of the size of a human figure. In excess of
22 600 metres, it is difficult to see and it is difficult to select this
23 particular target.
24 Q. If you had had an opportunity to make these kind of photographs
25 from a particular location - I won't mention any specific location
1 relating to this case - and if we assume that this was the place from
2 which a shot came, would you have been able to say that it was possible
3 at all to fire at any specific target?
4 A. Had an exact place been determined from which a shot was fired,
5 an optical sight could have been placed there and we could then try and
6 simulate that situation by placing a person at the very spot. Given such
7 conditions, one would have been able to see the appearance of such a
8 human figure as viewed through an optical sight and we would have been
9 able to check whether fire could have been opened from that location.
10 In any case, had I been given an opportunity, I would have done
11 that in order to verify the assertions in place as to whether there was a
12 possibility to open fire from that location.
13 Q. I have to ask you the following: Did you give any thought to do
14 that, as a matter of fact?
15 A. I contemplated the idea. I put that idea forth to the Defence;
16 however, the response I was given was that it cannot be done for several
17 reasons. Therefore, I gave up on the idea and I submitted these
18 photographs instead just to illustrate that such an exercise can actually
19 be carried out.
20 Q. I'd like to be more specific since, for example, you know that
21 what is mentioned here is inter alia as the place from which sniper fire
22 was opened was the marketplace, and that is specifically mentioned in the
23 indictment against Dragomir Milosevic. The location referred to there is
24 Spicaste Stijena, or Sharpstone.
25 Had you been able to go to the very ridge of what in this case is
1 called Spicaste Stijena, would that have been of any use in order to make
2 photographs of this nature in order to try and shed some light on one or
3 several of the incidents you had the opportunity to analyse?
4 A. Yes. From that location one could make similar photographs,
5 similar to these, on which we would be able to see what and at what
6 distance can be seen through this type of sight belonging to a sniper
7 rifle. As I said, the magnification is quadruple. In any case, had
8 there been a possibility, I would have done that.
9 Q. It seems to me that in your report you don't deal -- well, this
10 is the optical sight. What other sights are there?
11 A. This sniper rifle can be equipped with two other types of sights.
12 The basic one is the mechanical one. There is also the possibility to
13 mount a passive night-sight which is not in the regular combat kit that
14 goes with this rifle.
15 I apologise, I forgot to turn my mobile off. I apologise to the
16 Court. I forgot to turn it off.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's finally off.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've finally managed. Thank you.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Do I need to remind you of the question?
21 A. As I was saying, this sniper rifle has two additional sights, the
22 mechanical one as the basic type, and the passive or night-sight as an
23 additional sight that can be used.
24 Q. Speaking of those sights, they are not the same as this optical
25 sight. I'm asking you all this because I'd like you to explain to the
1 Chamber, or perhaps if you can sketch that for us, to show us what the
2 situation looked like. That would be of some importance, I believe. What
3 is the situation when one uses only the mechanical sight? Can you sketch
4 that for us briefly?
5 A. I understand the gist of your question. The mechanical sight can
6 be used only once the optical sight is removed from the mount. As for
7 using the mechanical sight to aim, it is somewhat different compared to
8 the optical sight. And yes, I can draw a sketch for you.
9 Q. Please do and then provide us with a brief explanation. I think
10 you can do this exercise quickly.
11 A. The mechanical sight consists of two elements, the cross-hairs and
12 the rear part of the sight. This is the view from the marksman's
13 position. If we are trying to fire from such a weapon at an aim which is
14 100 metres away, and if it is a human figure, its width is approximately
15 50 to 60 centimetres. At a distance of 100 metres, this is more or less
16 what it looks like. This is the view of the human figure and the position
17 of the cross-hairs and the rear. At the distance of 200 metres, the view
18 is like this. At 300 metres, this is the view. 400 metres, something
19 like this. This is a comparison of a view of the human figure. Something
20 similar would go for the optical sight, but this would depict the use of a
21 mechanical one.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'd like to have
23 this admitted as a Defence exhibit. I will seek some further
24 clarification, though.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit it.
1 THE REGISTRAR: As D361, Your Honours.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation].
3 Q. If we keep increasing the distance, since you stopped here, but if
4 we go on to 4, 5, 600 metres, I believe the reduction would be
5 correspondent to the ones shown here, reduction in size, that is.
6 A. Yes, certainly. The larger the distance, the target is smaller.
7 Q. And by using the mechanical sight, what would be the ability of
8 that marksman to hit the target in terms of direct fire?
9 A. With this type of mechanical sight, which can be mounted on both
10 the sniper rifle and the automatic rifle and the light machine-gun, that
11 is, all of the types of weapons mentioned in the incidents, well, with
12 such a sight, anything beyond 200 metres is difficult. As you can see, as
13 of 200 metres, it is very difficult to line up the rear and the front
14 sight and the target is far smaller than the front part of the sight.
15 With that mechanical sight, one can aim successfully between 50 and 100
16 metres. The rest is quite imprecise.
17 Q. You described to us the ideal conditions - good visibility, plenty
18 of sunlight - but regardless of whether we use the optical or the
19 mechanical sight, what impact do such conditions have on aiming,
20 irrespective of distance?
21 A. Weather conditions do have an impact when aiming with an optical
22 and a mechanical sight. That impact is the same as would be with a
23 regular observer. If there is fog and low visibility, we cannot see
24 things well with the naked eye. The same goes for any type of aiming. It
25 is far more difficult in such conditions.
1 Q. Well, let us leave fog aside or such extreme conditions which make
2 any aiming impossible. But if there are heavy clouds, to what extent does
3 it hinder the precise system of shooting?
4 A. Heavy clouds, well, I don't know exactly what you mean by "heavy
5 clouds," but in any case it reduces visibility and it certainly makes any
6 observation more difficult, the viewing of the target, and hence the
7 aiming is more difficult as well.
8 Q. As regards any of the incidents mentioned, and I think there are
9 12, did you have any data on some of those incidents as to the visibility
10 on that day when they took place? Did you have such precise information?
11 A. I received some information from the NATO command that was in
12 charge of the Butmir airport and the Sarajevo airport. I had reports
13 concerning five out of 12 incidents. These are the incidents: Number 1,
14 it was rainy and foggy. The incident number 14, rain in the morning and
15 poor visibility. The incident number 2, before 9.00 poor visibility;
16 later on, cloudy. The incident number - excuse me - 18, poor visibility
17 and cloudy. And according to a witness statement in the case of the
18 incident number 10, visibility was poor and there was fog; however, that
19 is not NATO information. As for the other incidents, I had no reports.
20 Q. Thank you. I want to show you DD00-4389. It is a NATO report for
21 the 16th of January of 2007 relating to the autumn of 1994. When drafting
22 the report, did you have this NATO report before you, since it pertained
23 to the situation as it was at the airport at the time? They drafted that
24 for their own purposes and now we have it at our disposal. Did you take
25 that report into account as well as its contents concerning the dates you
2 A. I have the cover page of the document before me. The data
3 contained follows and I consulted it when drafting the report.
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like this document,
5 DD00-4389, would be admitted as a Defence exhibit.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit it.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As D362, Your Honours.
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Can you tell us something about the mechanism of ricochet? You
10 mentioned that at page 20 in the B/C/S. In the English I think it is page
12 A. Yes. I mentioned the term of ricochet briefly. A definition is
13 given. I wanted to say that a projectile that has ricochetted receives an
14 undefined trajectory which cannot be determined in any way, it cannot be
15 foreseen, since such a projectile, depending on the type of surface it
16 hit, can even go back in a straight line. What is particularly
17 interesting is that such a projectile does not have a defined ballistic
18 trajectory that could be analysed. Such a projectile is undefined in
19 terms of trajectory. It can also contain only parts of projectile. And
20 it is very difficult to establish the line of fire viewed from the
21 position of the victim.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] My colleague is telling me that
24 the interpretation is incorrect, and it's very important. Maybe my
25 colleague can explain.
1 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. A moment ago the
2 expert used an expression for the bullet which ricochetted, and in B/C/S
3 the word was "tumbati." In fact, those are two words, "tumba," from the
4 verb "tumbati," which has an impact on the determination of the trajectory
5 of the bullet. Therefore, I'd like to ask that we correct the English
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: What are you saying it should be? It's not clear
8 to me exactly what you are saying.
9 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, the expert used
10 a term for the bullet ricochetting, an expression in B/C/S. I myself do
11 not know what the English word is. This is on page 11, line 11. And this
12 is a word that's missing in the interpretation and it's an important
13 term. He said the bullet, and the verb in B/C/S is "tumba." I don't know
14 what the exact word is in English, and I myself do not know what this term
15 is but it's very important.
16 My colleague has just said that what this means is that basically
17 after the ricochet, the bullet bounces and spins, it spins. And if you
18 were to describe the movement, that's what it is. It's a spinning
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: So it's the idea of the spinning movement that is
21 missing in the English.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The closest translation
23 would be rolling over --
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's hear the interpreter.
25 THE INTERPRETER: The closest translation would be rolling over or
1 turning over, tumbling. Tumbling.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Tumbling. Very well. Thank you.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. While we're still dealing with your report, I would like to ask
5 you a general question that you mentioned at the very end of your report
6 relating to the analysis of the activities - that's page 22 in B/C/S and
7 page 13 in the English version - where you say a few things about this
8 issue. Could you please explain to the Judges: Is it possible at all in
9 an urban environment and on the basis of a shot fired from an infantry
10 weapon to determine the origin of fire or the direction from which the
11 shot came?
12 A. In an urban environment it is extremely difficult to establish the
13 direction from which a shot was fired based on the sound that the shot
14 produces, for the simple reason that in an urban environment there is
15 multiple deflection of the sound and it bounces against the walls of the
16 buildings. Therefore, one has a feeling that one has heard the sound
17 coming from the right-hand side where in actual fact the shot was fired
18 from a completely different location. Therefore, it is extremely
19 difficult based on the sound to determine the direction from which a shot
20 was fired.
21 Q. Thank you. When you were preparing your report, you also studied
22 an expert report who provided his opinion for the Prosecution. I'm
23 talking about Mr. Van der Weijden. What you said just now in this context
24 and in response to my question is the same thing contained in Mr. Van der
25 Weijden's report in relation to any of the incidents.
1 A. Yes. I have studied Mr. Van der Weijden's report, and in one of
2 the incidents he offered a conclusion saying that probably due to the
3 urban environment and the bouncing off, it was very difficult to determine
4 the location from which fire was opened. I don't remember exactly which
5 number this incident has, but I do remember that this gentleman mentioned
6 this in his report and I fully agree with him.
7 Q. Thank you. One more question relating to these general matters
8 and it is not directly related to your report. You have described sniping
9 activities and on the previous page you spoke in general terms about how
10 snipers operate. What I'm interested to hear from you is, does every
11 army - let us now disregard the warring parties here - does every army
12 have a sniper squad? That is to say, that every army, I presume, has a
13 sniping squad equipped with rifles.
14 A. You asked me if every army has a sniper squad. Sniper squads do
15 not exist as such. It depends on the formation of the army where snipers
16 are going to be positioned and they have different names. Sometimes it's
17 a sniper; sometimes there are pairs of snipers. And it depends on the
18 establishment of the army in question. Therefore, snipers and sniper
19 rifles exist in every army; only it depends how they deploy them and that
20 depends on the structure of the army.
21 Q. The reason I'm asking you this - and I will show in the course of
22 the day the relevance of my question - is it customary for all armies in
23 the world to make preparations and training, as they do for all other
24 kinds of weaponry, and that that should also include the training of
1 A. It's a common practice because members of the army are being
2 trained for every kind of weapons that they are using, including sniper
4 Q. And under what circumstances are snipers being used? I'm talking
5 about a regular situation, but I'm also talking about the situations where
6 there are certain combat activities. You did explain this to a certain
7 extent in your report, but I would like to hear it from you anyway.
8 A. In my report, I explained the notion of a sniper, the origin of
9 it, and what it entails, what kind of assignments a sniper carries out.
10 Q. Thank you. We are not going to dwell on this any longer. The
11 time is passing by very quickly. I have a few more important issues to
12 discuss with you.
13 In response to one of the questions posed by Mr. Docherty when he
14 examined Mr. Van der Weijden - and that's on page 4328 of the transcript,
15 lines 14 to 18 - what is the role or the significance of medical records
16 in determining the origin of fire? In response to that question,
17 Mr. Van der Weijden said: "If it is possible to establish the entry and
18 exit wound on the victim and the exact position of the victim, it is
19 possible to determine where the shot came from."
20 What is your position on this? You already mentioned something in
21 this context, but what is your position regarding this? What is the
22 usefulness in addition to the position of the body of the victim, and what
23 is the significance of medical records in order to provide a highly likely
24 determination of the origin of fire in specific terms?
25 A. I fully agree with this statement of Mr. Van der Weijden because
1 that is the basis for establishing the origin and direction of fire. I
2 also stated these three elements in my report as well and I particularly
3 emphasised the importance of medical records as one of the crucial links
4 in the whole process of determining the origin of fire.
5 Q. Speaking of ballistics, and if we are going to use medical jargon,
6 are there any specific terms that describe the direction? How do you call
7 these wounds that are found on victims and which can serve as a benchmark
8 for determining the direction of fire?
9 A. You can have a gunshot and an entry and exit wound on the victim,
10 and the path through which the bullet passes is called the tunnel or the
11 canal and it is extremely important for determining the direction of fire.
12 Q. With regard to the 12 incidents that you had an opportunity to
13 study, how many incidents did you have this particular piece of
15 A. Of the 12 incidents that I studied and analysed, only in one
16 incident did I have this kind of information.
17 Q. Please, please, at this point can you tell me just the number of
18 the incident that you're referring to, because we are going to have to
19 deal with a number of other incidents as well.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Docherty.
21 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour, the Prosecution earlier made a written
22 submission objecting to the witness testifying about these matters of
23 death investigation and I want to renew for the record our objection to
24 these questions and answers which, in the Prosecution's submission, are
25 beyond the colonel's expertise. He is not a physician; he is not trained
1 in death investigations. His expertise is in shooting and in weaponry.
2 And therefore, we renew at this time the objection previously made in
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is your response, Mr. Tapuskovic?
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] My response is that is absolutely
6 identical, what Mr. Docherty said. I'm not going to ask the witness to go
7 into any analysis relating to this issue. This is something that perhaps
8 will be addressed by a medical expert. All I wanted to hear from him, in
9 how many incidents that he had analysed was this specific piece of
10 information provided that could be of assistance in dealing with this
11 matter. Very quickly, I'm going to ask him in a proper manner about these
12 issues totally irrespective and regardless of the medical records. My
13 intention solely was to hear that, out of the total of 12 incidents, only
14 in one instance was this autopsy report provided showing that -- what kind
15 of wound was involved and what kind of direction was involved, and nothing
16 beyond that. The witness says that this was the case in only one
18 Q. And the number of the incident is?
19 A. It's incident number 5.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Incident number 5.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Docherty, the Chamber does not take the view
23 that the witness is being asked, or will be asked, about medical matters
24 beyond his expertise. We'll allow the question and we'll monitor -- we'll
25 monitor it very carefully, however.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I wanted
2 to get that one single answer from the witness corresponding to what was
3 the number of the incident which had to do with an entry/exit wound.
4 Q. Can you just tell me where that incident occurred, and nothing
6 A. It happened in the incident number 5.
7 Q. Thank you. I want to ask you something that had to do with
8 Mr. Van der Weijden as well concerning the place, the position, and
9 medical reports. If there's any of those missing and if there were
10 factors that could not have been established beyond any reasonable doubt,
11 what is the only thing that one can conclude?
12 A. Since the projectile trajectory fired from a certain weapon is not
13 concluded once it impacts the victim but rather it extends through the
14 victim by causing a degree of destruction, in order for us to establish
15 the direction of fire, it is of crucial importance to know the exact spot
16 where the victim was at the moment when he or she got hit. The victim's
17 position is crucial, as is the canal I mentioned, with an entry or an
18 entry/exit wound, since it is an extension of the trajectory. Without
19 that, one cannot determine the line of fire.
20 Q. Thank you. You mentioned something and that is why I was asking
21 you all these questions, since all that is already described in your
22 report. But at page 19 in the B/C/S, which is page 10 and 11 in the
23 English, you mentioned there the trajectory. Could we go to that page
24 first, please, and I'd like to see the drawing you had made. I will ask
25 you to sketch something for us again. But before that, could you please
1 explain to us the existing trajectory. What does that curve represent?
2 A. A projectile fired from any type of weapon in any given direction
3 does not move horizontally and in a straight line. It moves along a
4 certain ballistic curve. Its shape and size depend on the distance at
5 which that projectile was fired. The further the target, the more
6 horizontal the curve.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The further the
8 target, the bigger the curve.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Excuse me. I think there is
10 something with the transcript that we need to correct.
11 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to draw your
12 attention to this response. On page 19, lines 4 to 8, I think we need to
13 check because the expert stated in B/C/S that the further away the target
14 is, and the transcript says "the further the target and then the more
15 horizontal the curve," that was a quotation. In fact, it was the
16 opposite. It was that the curve is more horizontal if the target is
17 closer, whereas the transcript said the opposite.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: So it should be, if I understand you correctly,
19 the nearer the target, the more horizontal the curve? Yes, all right.
20 Thank you.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to thank my learned
22 friend and perhaps we should clarify this further, since we are discussing
23 direct firing here.
24 Q. Did I understand correctly? Initially the trajectory is
25 horizontal; is that so?
1 A. The initial stage of the trajectory is a straight line.
2 Q. Thank you. What is the length of that initial stage in which the
3 line is straight?
4 A. It is not ideally straight in terms of ballistics. But up to,
5 say, 500 metres it is almost straight.
6 Q. You did not link your sketch and the curve to certain distances in
7 your report on this page. Therefore, could you sketch that for us briefly
9 A. Yes, I can do that, but I would need a pen. I will show you three
10 different distances here. We'll take the maximum distance of 1.200
11 metres, then another distance of 500 metres, and let's say 300 metres.
12 The trajectory for the distance of 1.200 metres has the initial
13 part of the trajectory and the descending part of the trajectory. Since
14 this is a ballistics curve, the angle of elevation is approximately 10
15 metres above ground.
16 At the distance of 500 metres, the elevation is between 86 and 90
18 At a distance of 300 metres, the trajectory is almost horizontal.
19 The elevation there is about 26 centimetres. This is what I tried to
20 explain. The shorter the distance, the more horizontal the curve; and the
21 bigger the distance, the bigger the curve.
22 Q. How does that impact on precision?
23 A. The closer the target, the higher probability of hitting it. Of
24 course, I'm discussing a sniper rifle here. This is from the firing
25 tables for a sniper rifle, M-76. That rifle is very successful for the
1 distances up to 500 metres, since an average person is 175 centimetres
2 tall and we have up to 90 centimetres of elevation. Up to some 500
3 metres, it is more -- it is easier to target such targets. At large
4 distances, the elevation is around 10 metres. Therefore, the probability
5 of hitting such targets is very low.
6 Q. If we discuss the targeting of such aims at certain distances with
7 a mechanical sight, since you mentioned a figure of 50.
8 A. With a mechanical sight, well, as regards the projectile
9 ballistics, it is the same for the optical and the mechanical sight.
10 However, it is far more difficult to aim with a mechanical sight, hence
11 the degree of success of hitting the target is lower and it is best at the
12 distances of 50 to 100 metres when talking about a mechanical sight.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to have this admitted,
14 Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's admitted.
16 THE REGISTRAR: As D363, Your Honours.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. A few moments ago I asked you about medical reports. I will not
19 use such documentation since it has no link to your expertise. But given
20 that it was established that an entry and an exit wound can be indicative
21 of the line parallel ... and if that canal corresponds to the line --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please phrase his question
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, the interpreter is asking you to
25 repeat the question.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. What I said is if - if- there is a situation at hand in which a
3 projectile went through a body by showing or exhibiting a trajectory
4 parallel to the ground, in that case if the height is 120 centimetres,
5 what would have to be the line of fire of the projectile? Could you draw
6 that for us. Perhaps you can draw a person and draw a line through the
7 area where the stomach should be parallel to the ground, and then I will
8 ask additional questions. Since I can see that you can draw pretty well
9 and pretty quickly, I'd like you to do that. Draw a person first and
10 follow up with what I've asked you to.
11 A. I think I understand your question. This is the figure of a
13 Q. And the ground?
14 A. There you go. You also said that the wound exhibited a canal
15 parallel to the ground.
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. I mentioned a while ago that the ballistic trajectory of a bullet
18 fired from a weapon corresponds to a ballistic curve which is not
19 completed at the point of hitting the target but moves on, as shown here.
20 If the height at this point is 1 metre, as you said, from the ground and
21 if it is parallel, therefore, at the point of entry it is also 1 metre, I
22 suppose - I don't know where the bullet came from exactly - if this is the
23 point of entry and the point of exit --
24 Q. Pause there, please. Let us not discuss whether it entered from
25 one side and went out through the other side. But I want to stress the
1 following: If the canal is parallel to the ground, irrespective of where
2 the place of entry was.
3 A. In that case I did not understand your question. I understood
4 that the projectile was fired also from the height of 1 metre. In that
5 case the firing position could be at the height of 1 metre, independently
6 of whether it was through the left or through the right. If a firing
7 position was different, if it was from a building or elsewhere ...
8 Q. I don't want to mention any buildings, but let's say the shot was
9 fired from the height of 15 metres. What would be the trajectory?
10 A. If it came from an elevation, let's say this is the position of
11 the marksman, and if this was the height, that trajectory would have been
12 completely different. And as I said, the trajectory goes through the
13 victim and it would exhibit a different angle compared to the ground.
14 Q. Let me hear that again. If the canal was parallel to the ground
15 and if the parallel line drawn on this silhouette and if it was at the
16 height of 1 or 100 -- 1 metre or 1.3 metres, what was the height from
17 which the bullet came?
18 A. Judging by the trajectory, the height would have been the same,
19 independently of what side the bullet came from.
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to have this admitted,
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As D364, Your Honours.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like a number of
25 photographs now to be shown and I will try to cover another two topics
1 before I finish my examination. These are the photographs taken from the
2 set of photographs made by the Tribunal, C10, and let's take, for example,
3 photograph number 1.
4 Q. Could you say that you have studied both this photograph and other
5 documents relating to this incident? Which incident are we talking about
6 here? Is that incident number 2?
7 A. This is precisely incident number 2 and this is the picture
8 showing the view of the passage between the buildings, or rather, a tunnel
9 under the building.
10 Q. You are aware of what the indictment says with regard to this
11 incident; is that correct?
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 Q. You also know that it's being claimed that the fire came from the
14 school for the blind and that's the building, the contour or the shape of
15 which you can see in the background of the photograph; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Would you be able to deny or dispute that there is visibility and
18 that there is a field of vision here with respect to the roof of this
20 A. If you look at the spot from which the photograph was taken, it
21 shows that there is certainly visibility, including all the buildings that
22 one can see through this passage. You can see a few buildings; therefore,
23 there is visibility in existence.
24 Q. In order for me to be able to ask you certain questions, I would
25 like the Prosecution to show us the video which we are not able to show.
1 After we've seen this photograph, I have further questions.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And that's document P172, which
3 was used in the examination of Witness W-62. And if we can pause the
4 video at a certain point.
5 [Videotape played]
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Docherty.
7 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. President, the individual in this video is a
8 protected witness. I would ask that we go into private session. I would
9 also ask that this portion be redacted and that I think we're in time to
10 stop it from being broadcast due to the delay.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Private session.
12 [Private session]
11 Page 9046 redacted. Private session.
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Sir, you have seen this video and the photograph as well. You
5 have already confirmed that the roof of the building from which the shot
6 allegedly came from was within the field of vision from the spot where the
7 witness showed the position of the boy who was shot on that day. Would it
8 be of any assistance if you had known what the field of vision looked like
9 from the roof, or approximately from the roof, of the building from which
10 the shot supposedly came?
11 A. Yes. As I said earlier, it would have been useful to have the
12 view from the position from which it is believed that the shot was fired.
13 Q. Would accurate information about the height of the building would
14 also be significant and useful for what you would be able to say about
15 this incident?
16 A. That would be one of the elements that is necessary for
17 establishing the actual situation, and in this instance it is particularly
18 interesting in terms of the canal of the entry and exit wound on this
20 Q. If the victim was on the ground as shown by the witness and if
21 fire came from the roof of any of the buildings, including the one
22 mentioned here, and supposing that it has certain sight - correction -
23 height, and I'm not going to go into that, how would that trajectory look
24 like in that case? Would you be able to determine the trajectory in any
25 way, since there is a significant difference in height between the ground
1 and the height of the building from which the shot supposedly came?
2 A. Yes. Certainly the area that one can see through the passage and
3 the position of the victim as shown by the witness indicates that the
4 projectile may have been fired from any building within this field of
5 vision. And for that reason it is very important to have the information
6 about the position of the entry and exit wound, because this is the wound
7 that was inflicted in this particular incident which would serve as a
8 basis, and the angle of the wound could tell us more about the position
9 from which the shot came.
10 Q. My question was if the victim was standing on the ground and the
11 person shooting was either on the roof or at an elevation which is 10 or
12 12 metres above the ground, what trajectory would look like? Would it be
13 horizontal? Would it be -- go from top to bottom, et cetera?
14 A. It would go from top to bottom. As I showed in the drawing that I
15 made, this trajectory would go from top to bottom.
16 Q. I didn't make any reference to any incidents and, in principle,
17 whether this would be useful and purposeful in any incident, we'll go into
18 that later. I'm asking you about this specific incident. Does that mean
19 that the trajectory would be descending from up, down?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Is that why it was necessary, as you mentioned, to know about the
22 entry wound?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. I already asked you this and you explained it to me, that a
25 gunshot has an entry wound and an exit wound. If the shot came from above
1 in a descending line, how would this wound canal look like? Would the
2 canal have, in principle, to correspond to the trajectory of the gunshot?
3 A. Essentially the canal is an extension of the trajectory of a
4 projectile and it practically shows the direction of the shot. And it is,
5 as I said, an extension of the trajectory.
6 Q. You didn't have any of these measurements and parameters.
7 A. No, I didn't.
8 Q. You said that this person could have been shot from any building
9 situated in the direction and with regard to the spot from which the shot
10 was claimed to have come.
11 A. Yes. One can see that from the photograph.
12 Q. After you've seen this photograph indicating that the person was
13 outside the passage, and approximately, based on the photograph, would you
14 say, was the person hit from the passage? And I'm saying "approximately"
15 because we don't have that measurement either.
16 A. I tried, while the film was going on, to make a comparison between
17 the video and the photograph in which you can see these cobbles or
18 flagstones on the ground, and I presume that they're about 40 centimetres
19 in length. The video shows the passage shot from about, as I was able to
20 calculate from the distance measured, 25 or 30 flagstones, whereas I
21 wasn't able to do that on the video. If we suppose that there are 30
22 flagstones, the total distance from the passage would be around 12
23 metres. That's my rough estimate.
24 Q. All these measurements that you have just mentioned and the
25 information about what can be seen from the roof and all other parameters
1 relevant for the distance, would all of this be relevant for establishing
2 the exact path and the trajectory, since there is an assessment made that
3 the distance was about 320 metres? And therefore would one be able to say
4 that this person was -- could have been shot from the roof of this
6 A. It is very interesting to look at the exact position of the
7 victim, and that is why we are talking about these measurements, how far
8 the victim was from the passage and what position he was in, and that is
9 why these measurements would be useful. As for other measurements, they
10 would be useful in the process of analysis of the incident itself.
11 Q. You said 10 to 12 metres. Apart from the possibility for shooting
12 the person from the passage, there is still space outside the passage, in
13 front of this car. Was it possible for this victim to be shot from some
14 different direction?
15 A. According to the footage and the photograph, the victim could have
16 been shot from its right-hand side and from its left-hand side. It could
17 have been shot from direction of the building, though, having in mind the
18 body position. It could have been hit -- could not have been hit from the
19 ground floor, from the shop shown there.
20 Q. In such cases would the canal of the entry and exit wound be of
21 any use?
22 A. In any case such a canal of the entry and exit wound is of crucial
23 importance, independently of what the environment is like.
24 Q. There are several other photographs concerning the incidents
25 regarding street-cars. These are the incidents 1, 6, 8, 13 and 14. I
1 would like to show you something about that and then I would conclude.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] This is a 65 ter photograph 2825.
3 Q. While we're waiting for the photograph, I wanted to ask you this,
4 since it has something to do with the tram incidents: Is there a rifle
5 bullet with a fragmentation effect? Is there a projectile made in such a
6 way that it would break up into fragments? Have you ever heard of such a
8 A. With the weaponry used in these incidents, these being sniping
9 rifles, automatic rifles, and light machine-guns, there is no such bullet
10 which would have the fragmentation effect. We only have the classical
11 bullet; then we have a marker bullet, an armour bullet and incendiary
12 bullet, and this is all for the 7.62-millimetre calibre.
13 Q. When a bullet is being fragmented, is it due to some other
14 circumstances and not because it was envisaged for that bullet to become
16 A. Precisely so. The classical or universal bullet has the charge
17 and the casing. At the moment of impact, if the surface is hard, the two
18 can separate and then what can occur is fragmentation. But this is not
19 intentional. That is because of the hardness of the surface.
20 Q. Can you see the photograph?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. I mentioned a number of incidents that had to do with street-cars,
23 if I may call them that. These are 1, 6, 8, 13 and 14. Were there any
24 indications that in any of the cases that the street-car in question was
25 stationary when hit?
1 A. No. They were all in movement.
2 Q. Very well. When you look at this photograph, what is
3 characteristic as to the tram lines that can be seen?
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please zoom in on the
5 lower part of the photograph.
6 Q. I guess you can see it better now. If you can, and I will
7 conclude shortly, although I have some photographs still to show, but
8 could you tell us something about the lines at the place where they cross
9 the road. Perhaps you can sketch it for us and explain a couple of things
10 to us, then. On a piece of paper, not on the photograph.
11 A. In the photograph I can see tram lines. If we look at the
12 right-hand side of the photograph, that's in the direction of Novo
13 Sarajevo moving towards old town and Marin Dvor. This is an intersection,
14 or rather, a place where the line crosses the street in front of the
15 Holiday Inn to the right-hand side of the road towards the school of
16 philosophy, in the direction of Marin Dvor. You asked me about the
17 position of the lines when crossing the road; is that correct?
18 Q. Yes. In any of the incidents you studied was the exact place
19 where the street-car was hit established at the moment when people were
21 A. In the incidents I studied, according to the witness statements
22 which, on several occasions, were actually contradictory --
23 Q. Do not go into that, please.
24 A. The incidents happened between Pofalici and the school of
25 philosophy. That's the stretch. But I never had at my disposal the exact
1 position of any given street-car.
2 Q. If we consider an articulated street-car, what would its movement
3 be just before it turns the bend? What would be its position?
4 A. If I understand you correctly, you mean an articulated street-car
5 when it starts turning. Therefore, it is coming along the straight patch
6 and then turning and it would look something like this.
7 Q. And once it is in the bend?
8 A. Well, I'll draw that with a dotted line. This would be one
9 portion of the street-car and the other portion would be here,
10 approximately. We can mark this position with an A and this with a B.
11 The position B is the street-car at the moment of entering the bend.
12 Q. In that situation certain parts of the tram would be pointing in
13 another direction.
14 A. Yes. There would be an angle between the front and the rear part
15 of the street-car, depending on the width of the tracks.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to have this sketch
17 admitted as a Defence exhibit, please.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
19 THE REGISTRAR: As D365, Your Honours.
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to show an additional
21 two photographs from the set -- from a set of court documents. The
22 photographs are C14, photograph 22.
23 Q. What is discussed is that the street-cars were hit, but can you
24 tell us from what direction?
25 A. In these incidents, the Metalka building is usually mentioned.
1 Q. You have seen all these photographs. You've studied the footage.
2 When a street-car is at this position, can you see the Metalka building
3 from that place at all? Can you see it from the street-car?
4 A. This photograph shows the place where the street-car cuts across
5 the road, and from this position shown on the photograph, one cannot see
6 the Metalka building.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't think it is necessary to
9 admit this yet again, since it is an exhibit already.
10 Could we please see photograph 25 from the same set of documents.
11 Q. Concerning the Metalka building, what can you tell us about this
12 photograph? What is the relation between the tracks shown here and the
13 Metalka building?
14 A. This photograph shows the place where the tracks move through the
15 middle of the road towards the Holiday Inn. We can see the left and the
16 right side of the street. The tracks are in between, cutting across. The
17 Metalka building is visible from the direction of the Holiday Inn.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I want to show one last
19 photograph before I conclude. This is from the photographic set C23.
20 Let's have a look at that photograph, although there are others as well,
21 and then I'll have a couple of questions. I apologise, C3, photograph
22 number 1.
23 Q. From this place, well, we can see the buildings that are visible
24 on the photograph. If one were on the Metalka roof or at one of the
25 windows, what would that person be able to see here?
1 A. This is a panoramic view. I presume it was taken from the Metalka
2 building roof or from the building itself. Through the branches you can
3 see parts of the Zmaja Od Bosne Street and the Holiday Inn.
4 Q. You mentioned the branches, hence my last question: Were there
5 any branches in the direction of the three other buildings and the Holiday
6 Inn? Can you see that from the photograph, or perhaps you cannot say?
7 A. I didn't understand the question. What branches? In what
8 direction? What buildings?
9 Q. The three tall buildings to the right-hand side and we can see the
10 Holiday Inn far in the background.
11 A. Yes. That's the direction of Zmaja Od Bosne Street and it goes on
12 further towards Marin Dvor.
13 Q. Thank you. It is a matter of some other assessments. I would
14 like to thank you.
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And I'd like to conclude my
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you as well.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Docherty.
19 MR. DOCHERTY: Your Honour.
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Docherty:
21 Q. Good morning, sir.
22 A. Good morning, Mr. Docherty.
23 Q. Do you prefer to be addressed as mister or as colonel?
24 A. Doesn't matter. You can address me as sir, as I appear here as a
1 Q. Okay. Sir, I'm going to do the following this morning: I'm going
2 to have some questions about your career and your background. I'm going
3 to have some questions then about the methodology that you used in
4 preparing your report. I'll have a few questions about one or two of the
5 specific incidents that Mr. Tapuskovic asked you about. And then I'll
6 conclude by asking you some questions as a military officer about a topic
7 that I know as rules of engagement and then I'll be done. I don't think
8 this will take very long. And if you have any questions or if my question
9 is not clear, please ask me to clarify it because I do want us to
10 communicate well.
11 You are currently a colonel in the Serbian army; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And before it was the Serbian army, you were an officer in the
14 Yugoslavian People's Army; is that also correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. How long have you been a military officer? How many years?
17 A. Since 1979.
18 Q. And in looking through your curriculum vitae, I noted that you
19 have a good deal of experience in competitive shooting and in fact have
20 even judged that at a very high international level; is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Among the list of your professional accomplishments and
23 qualifications, I did not see that you had ever undergone sniper
24 training. Is that an accurate statement?
25 A. I had this training as part of the curriculum in the secondary
1 military school and at the military academy. That's one of the subjects
2 that is being taught and that is the sniper activities.
3 Q. Both the Yugoslavian People's Army and the Serbian army, though,
4 have training for soldiers who are actually going to work as snipers; is
5 that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you yourself are not a sniper now, nor have you worked as a
8 sniper at any time in your military career; is that also correct?
9 A. No, I was never a professional sniper.
10 Q. Nor have you ever been a police officer; is that correct?
11 A. I wasn't a police officer, but I did provide instruction at the
12 police academy to police officers relating to the use of weaponry.
13 Q. So you were teaching the police the sort of things that you've
14 been testifying to here today; is that fair?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You have never investigated a murder, have you?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Does that mean yes, you have, or yes, I'm right, you have not
21 investigated a murder?
22 A. I haven't conducted any murder investigations.
23 Q. In addition, moving now to the second topic that I want to cover,
24 which is the way you went about preparing your report, in answer to some
25 questions from Mr. Tapuskovic, you said it sounded like a little bit of
1 frustration that you hadn't gotten to Sarajevo and seen these sites
2 yourself? And that's true, isn't it? You didn't go to Sarajevo and look
3 on the ground at these sites where these sniping incidents occurred, did
5 A. I am not frustrated. I just stated that it would have been useful
6 for photographs to be taken on the spot.
7 Q. So it would have been useful but it is not something that you did
8 in preparing your report. Fair statement?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. I just want to clear up one point about the report itself. At the
11 beginning of your testimony, you said that the - and I may mispronounce
12 this - the Dragunov weapon was not available at the time of these events.
13 Is that -- am I remembering your testimony accurately?
14 A. I said that it was not in the arsenal of the Yugoslav People's
16 Q. And just so we are clear, that is not the only weapon that fires a
17 7.62-millimetre round, is it? There are others.
18 A. Speaking about 7.62-millimetre calibre, it can be used by
19 automatic rifles, Kalashnikov, and there is also PKT 7.62-millimetre, they
20 are used by light machine-guns and machine-guns M-84. And the same
21 calibre is used by M-76 sniper Dragunov.
22 Q. And other than the last weapon you mentioned, the Dragunov, all of
23 these weapons were available at the time of the events in question, that
24 is, 1994, 1995; correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And in fact, in your own report, on page 10 of the English version
2 and page 19 of the B/C/S version, you describe the 7.62-millimetre round
3 as the most common weapon used in Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, I want to ask you about some of the specific events that
6 Mr. Tapuskovic was questioning you on and I'm going to begin by talking
7 about ranges, which is something you talked about at the -- in your
8 testimony, and you'll remember we saw these pictures taken through a
10 Are you aware -- you testified about it being difficult to hit
11 targets, and I think the farthest out you went was about 600 metres. Are
12 you aware from reviewing Mr. Van der Weijden's report that the distance
13 from the Metalka building to the tram tracks is 312 metres?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And do you have any reason to doubt that that's a reasonably
16 accurate figure, 312 metres?
17 A. I checked it on the map and on the internet and this distance is
19 Q. It might be 310, it might be 320, but it's about that. Okay. And
20 are you also aware that the distance from the school for the blind to the
21 Vemeks department store or the victim of sniping 2 was shot is also about
22 250, 300 metres. Does that sound accurate to you?
23 A. I also took this figure from Van der Weijden report who provided
24 this measurement, so approximately it is 250 to 300 metres.
25 Q. Now, the difference from Sharpstone down into Sedrenik is quite a
1 bit longer. That's about a thousand metres; correct?
2 A. There are several numbers, 900 to 1.200 metres, because it's a
3 different position vis-a-vis Sedrenik.
4 Q. Correct. And people are shot in different areas and so it
5 varies. But between 900 and 1.200 metres; correct?
6 A. According to Mr. Weijden's report, and these measurements were
7 also taken on the map, and this is the range within which they are stated.
8 Q. All right. And you are also aware that Mr. Van der Weijden, who
9 is a sniper and has been one for some years, testified that there was not
10 a difficulty in taking this shot from Sharpstone into Sedrenik. Are you
11 aware of that?
12 A. Yes, I am aware of his testimony. I have studied it.
13 Q. And although you are not a sniper, as a military officer, do you
14 have any reason to quibble with the idea that a properly trained sniper
15 can hit a target at ranges of between 900 and 1.200 metres, given the
16 proper equipment?
17 A. You're absolutely right when you say that it is conditional for
18 him to have proper gear. The rifle that we are talking about, that is, an
19 M-76 sniper rifle, does not have these features and due to that I provided
20 photographs, because its optical sight allows for zooming in. To put it
21 simply, the sight can magnify the view four times and that's a constant
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Isailovic.
24 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Your Honour, but
25 something needs to be changed and modified in the English version of what
1 was said. At line 24, "because its optical sight allows for zooming in,"
2 it's the opposite that was said in Serbian.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It doesn't allow.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it does not allow for zooming in. Thanks
5 very much.
6 MR. DOCHERTY:
7 Q. And you are aware that --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
9 MR. DOCHERTY: Sorry.
10 Q. You're aware both from your own military career and from
11 Mr. Van der Weijden's report that snipers usually operate in teams;
12 snipers generally do not work alone. Is that correct?
13 A. As a rule snipers around the world in general and in the JNA in
14 particular are supposed to operate in pairs. But as per establishment,
15 this is not envisaged as a given. It's just an optional category.
16 Q. All right. There has been a document introduced in this trial -
17 it is -- well, I'll get it in just a moment - but ordering certain
18 individuals to go to sniper school and it's got General Milosevic's name
19 on it as the person giving the order. The training in the JNA would have
20 been for snipers to operate in these sniper/spotter pairs; is that
21 correct? That is the preferred way for snipers to operate.
22 MR. DOCHERTY: Oh, and I'm talking, Mr. President, about Exhibit
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] This document was submitted to me
2 and what my learned friend Mr. Docherty mentioned, that they operate in
3 pairs, I wasn't able to see any such statement in any of the documents. I
4 would like this document to be shown to the witness. There was mention of
5 training but there was no mention of training them to operate in pairs. I
6 wasn't able to see that anywhere and I would like this to be shown to the
7 witness. Maybe it is an omission on my part, though.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Docherty, is this set out in the document --.
9 MR. DOCHERTY: No.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- to which we referred?
11 MR. DOCHERTY: No. And I never thought that it was. It's a
12 document that says, Take these people and send them to sniper school. And
13 now my question is, since the man has been in the JNA and the Serbian army
14 for some years, what do they learn in sniper school? And I think the
15 answer is they learn to operate in pairs but we'll see what the witness
16 says. But no, it's not in the document. The document just says, Go to
17 sniper school.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well.
19 MR. DOCHERTY:
20 Q. All right. So we've got this document, Exhibit P684, that says
21 the following named people are to go to sniper school, and my question
22 is: From your experience in the Serbian army and the Yugoslavian People's
23 Army, at sniper school aren't people taught to work in pairs, a
24 sniper/spotter team?
25 A. According to the JNA rules, the training was conducted in such a
1 way to train snipers to operate individually. Sometime after the 1990s
2 when I was transferred or when I joined the Serbian army, or rather, the
3 army of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, I studied some foreign
4 experiences and on the basis of that we introduced the training of snipers
5 to operate in pairs. Before that the JNA only trained them to operate
7 Q. And that change occurred, you said, during the -- was it the early
9 A. Mid-1990s, and I'm talking about the time when I was in the
10 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
11 Q. All right. So before or after the events that we're talking about
12 in this case this morning?
13 A. After the events.
14 Q. All right. The sight that you were talking about was a mechanical
15 sight that does not magnify, but there are also sights available to do
16 magnify, aren't there? Two times, four times, and even higher numbers;
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. All right. Another factor that would affect a sniper, and you
20 talked about this, is the weather, and you talked about looking at the
21 NATO weather reports. Do you remember that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And those weather reports are in evidence as Defence Exhibit 362.
24 MR. DOCHERTY: Could we just take a look at them just now.
25 Q. And what I'm going to be asking you about, sir, is there is a
1 column on these weather reports marked "visibility" and I'm going to ask
2 you to take a look at those numbers.
3 MR. DOCHERTY: Mr. Usher, could we move forward two or three pages
4 and get to a page that's got some numbers on it. It would be a grid.
5 That one will do fine. And then if we can zoom it up a bit so we can see
7 Q. And do you see, sir, the - I'm going to count, one, two, three,
8 four, five, six - the seventh set of numbers? The top one there says
9 2.000. Do you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Is that the visibility in metres?
12 A. I don't know. I only received a translation of this table and the
13 only translation I have is just "visibility" or "poor visibility." I
14 cannot comment, therefore, on the numbers.
15 Q. Okay.
16 MR. DOCHERTY: Could we go to the next page, please. All right.
17 Q. And again -- well, I put it to you that these numbers never drop
18 below 2.000. I mean, I don't want to take the time to look at every page
19 of the report. But if those numbers do not drop below 2.000, then -- and
20 the longest shot here is the Sharpstone-to-Sedrenik shot, that would mean
21 the visibility throughout is always greater than the longest shot at
22 issue. That was sort of a complicated question, but do you understand
23 what I'm asking and can you answer it? Let me try again.
24 The longest shot that we've been talking about is one of 1.200
25 metres; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. The lowest value for visibility in the NATO weather reports is
3 2.000 metres. And we can take the time and go through every page if we
4 want to or you can accept my representation.
5 A. I'm unable to comment on what you said because these figures as
6 shown in the terms that they are stated in are not clear to me and
7 therefore I cannot make any comments.
8 Q. All right. Well, this document is in evidence and we can perhaps
9 direct attention to a page in which these -- in which these numbers are
10 listed, and while that's being looked at we'll continue.
11 You talked a bit about determining origin of fire, where a shot
12 came from, and you remember you started off talking about how in an urban
13 environment, because of the echoes and the reverberations, it can be
14 difficult to tell the origin of fire. Do you recall that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And before I move on, we now have a page, do you see it on the
17 screen in front of you?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. This is in English, but I saw from your curriculum vitae that you
20 had at least some English language training in the army. And do you see
21 that the column I've been referring to is "VSBY" and then in
22 parentheses "metres"?
23 A. I didn't have a language course in the army. I paid for it
24 myself. But I haven't had an opportunity to complete it, so I kindly ask
25 you for your understanding.
1 Q. No, I'm sorry. The misunderstanding was mine. But in any event
2 the column is headed in a way that appears to be the English
3 word "visibility" and the measurement is "metres."
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this interpretation
6 offered by the Prosecution does not exist in the document. What the
7 Prosecutor is saying is not in the document. There is not an expanded
8 abbreviation anywhere in the document.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Could you point us to what you've just said,
10 Mr. Docherty?
11 MR. DOCHERTY: All I'm saying is the column, counting from the
12 left, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, says --
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: It says "VSBY" and then "M" in brackets.
14 MR. DOCHERTY: And I'm putting it to the witness that given the
15 numbers here and that is a weather report, the most sensible
16 interpretation is that that is the visibility measured in metres, and the
17 witness can say yes or can say no. That's all.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is it, Mr. Tapuskovic? You haven't seen it.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] We have seen it, Your Honours,
20 and this does not mean what is being said. That's not what is written
21 anywhere in the legend, what my learned friend Mr. Docherty is talking
22 about, that it's the distance. These are the things in this document,
23 because this document refers to the conditions prevailing at the airport
24 that have to be very accurate, whereas the incident happened in close
25 proximity of the airport. For that reason we used this document to check
1 the visibility, and as it is stated in the introductory part of this
2 document, we would be able to find out whether it was foggy or cloudy and
3 we use these terms that were explicitly used in the document. We didn't
4 offer any other interpretations apart from where it is being explicitly
5 said that the weather was sunny, that it was cloudy or foggy. That's what
6 we used without inputting any of our assessments or interpretations, apart
7 from these basic data, such as fog, sunny weather or cloudy weather, as it
8 is written in the document itself.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not sure I understand the point.
10 Witness, do you agree with counsel's proposition that, given the
11 numbers set out in that column, that this is a weather report and it is a
12 measurement of the visibility in metres?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's not clear to me
14 and therefore I cannot say either yes or no because I don't know what I
15 would be talking about.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
17 MR. DOCHERTY:
18 Q. Going back, then, to echoes and reverberations, all of the items
19 of analysis that you use in trying to determine origin of fire have their
20 limitations; isn't that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. All right. All of them tell you some things but don't tell you
23 some other things; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And in working out origin of fire, isn't it true that you've got
1 to use all of the information at your disposal, being aware of what it can
2 and cannot tell you?
3 A. I was precisely analysing the available documentation from
4 different angles.
5 Q. All right. And in fact you testified a fair amount about angles
6 and in particular about the path that bullets take through human bodies;
8 A. I only mentioned the path that goes through a human body, but I
9 didn't base my analysis on what happened in the section of that path. I
10 only observed it as an integral part of a trajectory of a bullet passing
11 through a human body.
12 Q. And I understood it that way. And one of the reasons you didn't
13 analyse it was because, as you testified, in many cases it wasn't there to
14 be analysed, was it? It wasn't among the documentation.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. All right. And you noted that absence and let's talk for a few
17 minutes about what exactly is absent when this, as you called it, canal is
18 not documented.
19 First of all, you need to know very precisely the position of the
20 person when the bullet struck them, don't you, in order for this canal to
21 give you useful information about origin of fire?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. All right. If I turn slightly to the right or slightly to the
24 left, we're going to get different answers, aren't we?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Or if I bend over even just a little bit, we're going to get a
2 different answer, aren't we?
3 A. Yes, different.
4 Q. When bullets hit things, they often deflect, don't they?
5 A. Depending on the place of impact. However, the trajectory is not
6 a straight line in any case.
7 Q. And in fact the report that you read about sniping incident 2, the
8 shot through the tunnel, indicated that the victim had been shot, I
9 believe, in the shoulder; is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Shoulders have bones in them, don't they?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. If a bullet hits a bone, then this canal through the body is not
14 going to give you much useful information, is it?
15 A. If it hits a hard surface --
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute.
17 Mr. Tapuskovic.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we are back in the
19 situation in which this witness is asked to tell us about things that only
20 a physician could, an expert. I did not examine him on anything that had
21 to do with the medical science. I didn't examine him on anything that
22 falls within the scope of a medical expert. Now the witness is being
23 asked to explain the behaviour of a bullet when hitting shoulder bones.
24 This is completely beyond the scope of testimony of this witness and I ask
25 you not to allow it.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Docherty, what do you say to that?
2 MR. DOCHERTY: Well, the witness presents himself - excuse me -
3 presents by the Defence as an expert in ballistics, in the behaviour of
4 bullets, and I can change the question to ask what happens when bullets
5 hit things that are hard and rely on everyone's common sense to know that
6 bones are hard, if that would satisfy Mr. Tapuskovic. But I'm simply --
7 he testified about the canal through the body on his direct examination
8 and I think I'm entitled to cross-examine about the limits of the
9 information that we can learn from looking at the canal through the body
10 made by a bullet.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, I'm afraid you opened the witness
12 up to that kind of examination by leading evidence about the canal, and
13 I'm going to allow the question but as reformulated by you, Mr. Docherty.
14 MR. DOCHERTY: All right.
15 Q. So I'll put the question again as reformulated. When bullets hit
16 things that are hard, their trajectory often changes; isn't that true?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And if the bullets point -- if the bullet is deflected by hitting
19 something hard, then the canal through the body is going to not give you
20 accurate information about origin of fire, is it?
21 A. I can't tell you anything about that since it concerns the
22 behaviour of a projectile through the body. I am not competent to testify
23 on that part of trajectory. I am interested in the position of the entry
24 and exit location. As to what happens in between, I cannot tell you.
25 Q. So you're interested in the position of the entry and the exit.
1 You're aware that sometimes between the entry and the exit, if the bullet
2 hits something hard which we won't call a bone, it's going to change its
3 trajectory, and you must be aware that if the trajectory changes, you're
4 not going to be able to draw a straight line back to the origin of fire,
5 aren't you, Colonel? You're aware of that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. In addition to using all the different bits and pieces of
8 information that are available and in addition to knowing the limitations
9 of each bit of information, it's important when determining origin of fire
10 also to use your common sense, isn't it?
11 A. Of course.
12 Q. And so when we're talking about determining origin of fire, some
13 of the things you might be interested in knowing are where are the
14 confrontation lines between the two opposing armies. That could be useful
15 to your analysis, couldn't it?
16 A. In any case we have to know where the separation lines are between
17 the two sides.
18 Q. You need to know which buildings have got -- have been documented
19 as having sniping positions in them, don't you?
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. DOCHERTY: And if we, to take a concrete example, could please
22 see e-court 10 --
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Sorry, Mr. Tapuskovic is on his feet.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we're still in the
25 process of establishing that. It has not been established, the thing
1 referred to by Mr. Docherty.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: What's that? Be more explicit.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The place from which there was
4 firing, the firing position.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: What Mr. Docherty asked is whether in any case
6 it's necessary to know where the separation lines are between the two
7 sides, and the witness answered, "You need to know which buildings --" oh,
8 that's the -- this is the question. The question is: "You need to know
9 which buildings have got -- what buildings have sniping positions in
10 them," and the answer is yes. And your point is what?
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] How can the witness deal with
12 that? By what means? Other than -- well, I don't want to lead. But in
13 general how can this witness respond to such a question? That question is
14 difficult to understand. Perhaps it can be reformulated. How can the
15 witness tell us anything about the location of firing positions and which
16 buildings housed such positions, so that that would be a useful piece of
17 information for us to be able to establish anything beyond that.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Docherty.
19 MR. DOCHERTY: I haven't asked him to tell us which -- oh, I'm
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's an example that's being given. I don't see
23 any problem with the question.
24 MR. DOCHERTY: Perhaps the question wasn't clear, so let me make
25 it more specific.
1 Q. If a Canadian and a French officer saw in a particular building a
2 position that looked to them as though it had been used for sniping, that
3 is, it had sandbags, it had little holes cut in the wall for rifles, if
4 you're trying to work out origin of fire, wouldn't you want to know where
5 that building was? Isn't that one of the bits of information you'd like
6 to have?
7 A. You mentioned the example of a Canadian or French soldier
8 observing, but I don't understand the thrust of your question. I cannot
9 provide an answer.
10 Q. Let's try one last time and then we'll give up and move on. We're
11 talking about the things that are useful to know when you're trying to
12 work out where the shooter was who just shot this person who is lying in
13 the street, okay? And I'm putting it to you: If one of the things, one
14 of the bits of information that's out there is the documented existence of
15 a sniper's position in a building, is that something you'd like to know?
16 A. If I were given a document, but I don't have such a thing. You
17 mentioned sandbags. There are things to camouflage one's position, but it
18 doesn't necessarily mean that that particular place used to be a sniper
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe these are
22 matters that are to be contemplated by the Bench itself and not by this
23 witness. It includes certain facts that have not been ascertained yet and
24 this witness cannot provide us with any useful information on that. This
25 area falls within your remit once you set about deciding on the matters at
1 hand. What we have here is an assertion of the existence of a position
2 from which there was firing.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: The question was put on a hypothetical basis and
4 the witness has answered.
5 Please move on.
6 MR. DOCHERTY: Could we see court exhibit 10, e-court page number
7 3, please. All right.
8 Q. On the screen in front of you, sir, is a photograph. It's a
9 closer view of one that you were looking at on direct examination. Do you
10 know which building in that photograph is the school for the blind?
11 A. Yes. In this photograph it is the one with the slanted roof.
12 That's the house for the blind, the school for the blind.
13 Q. In working out your origin of fire on this sniping incident number
14 2, would it matter to you that on the side of that building that we're
15 looking at in this photograph there are patched holes suitable for putting
16 a rifle through; one at the very top and one, one floor down?
17 A. These are assumptions. I didn't see that and I cannot answer.
18 Q. If there is evidence in this case to that effect, or - change the
19 question - assume for purposes of this question, assume that these holes
20 exist. Useful information in working out origin of fire?
21 A. For me it is still an assumption. We are dealing here with exact
22 facts. I do not wish to make use of any assumptions.
23 Q. I know you don't wish to make use of them and I know you wouldn't
24 ever do this professionally, make an assumption. But I'm asking you for
25 purposes of this proceeding to make the assumption and tell us whether the
1 existence of such holes would be useful to you in determining origin of
3 A. I don't know the position and the situation underneath the roof,
4 whether anyone can actually position themselves below the roof, and I
5 don't know what the exact height is, what the height of the wall is.
6 Therefore, I do not have a specific answer for you.
7 Q. Well, let's try something else. And this relates to shooting
8 trams in the S curve.
9 MR. DOCHERTY: And Mr. President, for purposes of the record, I'm
10 going to be referring to testimony from a Defence witness at transcript
11 pages 7273 and 7274 -- 7.273 and 7.274.
12 Q. In working out origin of fire, would it be important for you to
13 know that a Defence witness has testified that the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps
14 had 12-man sniper units in high-rise buildings in the Grbavica area of
15 Sarajevo? I mean, when you're trying to work out origin of fire, would it
16 help you to know that there are actually snipers in buildings that have a
17 line of sight onto the place where the person or the tram was shot?
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] How can one ask such a question,
21 and who can answer such a question?
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's a perfectly ordinary question in a
23 proceeding of this kind. There's nothing wrong with it at all. It's the
24 kind of question that is to be asked. If the witness can't answer it,
25 then he can't answer it.
1 MR. DOCHERTY:
2 Q. Do you remember the question, sir, or do you want me to ask it
4 A. Please repeat it and try to make it shorter, since it contained a
5 lot of information.
6 Q. I'll do my best. I'll break it down into several questions. If a
7 Defence witness has testified and that witness has knowledge of the
8 location of snipers, would you want to know what those locations were?
9 A. I don't know such a witness. Oh, I guess you're asking me whether
10 I would be interested in knowing what the locations are?
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. I am still missing the thrust of your question. I don't know why
13 you're asking me whether I would like to know the locations of the sniping
15 Q. Let me back up a little bit and then we'll move on one way or
16 another. You're trying to work out where the gunman was who shot a tram
17 in the S curve, okay? Take that as the starting point. Then take the
18 further step that there's a witness who will say there were sniper teams
19 in high-rise buildings with a line of sight to where the tram was shot,
20 okay? Now, you've testified that it's important to use your common sense
21 when doing an origin-of-fire analysis. Do you remember saying that?
22 Okay. So do you want to know where the snipers are?
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] During the Defence case there
25 were no witnesses who confirmed that he saw any sniping positions. There
1 is no such a witness who was able to see what is now being put to this
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Docherty.
4 MR. DOCHERTY: I'm just looking for the citation, Your Honour. I
5 had it a moment ago. I am referring to the testimony of Defence witness
6 Radomir Visnjic. The transcript cite is page 7273 and transcript page
7 7274. On cross-examination this witness testified that he observed 12-man
8 sniping teams with scoped rifles going into high-rise buildings in
9 Grbavica. That's the basis for the question. I submit that it gives me a
10 good-faith basis for asking the witness the question I just put to him.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it does. We're going to take the break.
12 You can have a look, Mr. Tapuskovic, at the citation given during the
13 break. And I have to say I don't understand the objections you have been
14 making. In cross-examination it is quite natural for the cross-examiner
15 to put questions on the basis either of his case or the case of the other
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I understand that, Your Honour.
18 But if anyone is being quoted, we should be given the reference. There
19 was never a witness who said that there was a street-car being fired upon
20 and this is what is now being put to the witness. Anything can be put to
21 a witness, but it has to have been told by someone else. That witness
22 never said he saw any street-cars being fired upon.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, the issue really is whether the
25 knowledge of the position of a sniper is a relevant factor to be taken
1 into account. That is what -- that is the issue.
2 We'll take the break and get back to it.
3 --- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 12.43 p.m.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Docherty.
6 MR. DOCHERTY: Okay.
7 Q. Just a few more questions, Colonel, and then we'll be finished.
8 You testified about the S curve in the tram line and about what
9 could be -- from where that S curve could be seen. Do you remember that
10 with Mr. Tapuskovic?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, trams move slowly in the S curve; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. But trams will also move slowly as they are slowing down to enter
15 the S curve, won't they?
16 A. I suppose so.
17 Q. And would you also suppose that as a tram is leaving the S curve
18 it takes some distance to accelerate and pick up speed again?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So the area over which the tram is moving slowly is greater than
21 just the S curve itself; correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Over a range of 312 metres it is not possible to mistake a tram
24 for any kind of legitimate military target, is it?
25 A. If the tram is clearly visible, then yes, certainly.
1 Q. And if some sort of horrible mistake was made and that horrible
2 mistake was widely publicised, and by "horrible mistake" I mean a tram is
3 mistaken for a military target and shot, one would not expect the horrible
4 mistake to be made again, would one?
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Don't answer that. You don't need to answer
6 that. I think that's speculative.
7 MR. DOCHERTY: All right.
8 Q. You indicated that you have read Mr. Van der Weijden's report
9 quite carefully, didn't you?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You therefore know that in each of the 12 specific incidents
12 discussed in Mr. Van der Weijden's report, Mr. Van der Weijden found that
13 in no case should the shot have been taken because it was not possible to
14 classify the target as military. Do you remember that conclusion to each
15 of the incidents?
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] We have one opinion in the form
18 of an assumption and then we have an expert opinion and now we're looking
19 for another expert opinion from this witness. Now he's supposed to give
20 his opinion on another expert's opinion concerning the matter, referring
21 to the most important facts.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't think a substantial question has yet been
24 What's the question that you're going to pose?
25 MR. DOCHERTY: I'm going to then have the witness affirm that in
1 his report he did not contradict Mr. Van der Weijden on this point.
2 That's all.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: What do you say to that?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not mean to dispute or confirm
5 Mr. Van der Weijden's analysis. I only studied his analysis somewhat. I
6 am a ballistics expert. And as for the other thing, it is an assumption.
7 I am a ballistics expert and I have no answer to this question.
8 MR. DOCHERTY:
9 Q. You are aware through your military career of when it is that
10 soldiers may legitimately open fire on a target; correct?
11 A. Could you please repeat the question. I didn't understand it
13 Q. You are aware from your military career that there are rules about
14 when soldiers may legitimately open fire on a target; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You saw in Mr. Van der Weijden's report his conclusion that each
17 and every one of these shots was illegitimate, didn't you?
18 A. As I said, it was his conclusion. I studied it and I don't wish
19 to provide any comments on Mr. Van der Weijden's analysis.
20 Q. And from that I take it that I am correct that nowhere in your
21 report do you contradict Mr. Van der Weijden's conclusion on that point?
22 A. As regards that, I did not contest it, nor did I dwell on those
23 assertions any further.
24 MR. DOCHERTY: With that, Mr. President, I have no further
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
2 Mr. Tapuskovic.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have but a few
5 First of all, since I omitted to do that, I'd like us to look at
6 an MFI document, 3 -- D360, or rather, I'd like to have that admitted.
7 That is the expert report which until now used to be MFI D360. Now it
8 should be assigned an exhibit number.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the document identified as D360 will
11 now be admitted as D360.
12 Re-examination by Mr. Tapuskovic:
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Stamenov, in answering one of the
14 Prosecutor's questions, you said that you did not visit the location of
15 the individual incidents; is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. How many years have you lived in Sarajevo and worked there as a
19 A. I was in Sarajevo for 16 years.
20 Q. When asked by Mr. Docherty about whether you were frustrated or
21 not, did you at a certain point really deem it necessary to go there and
22 take photographs the way you did through the optical sight?
23 A. It was one of my opinions and I put it forth to the Defence.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, first of all, I
25 need to tell you what I told the witness when we discussed this. We would
1 have tried to do that, but after the Court's visit to the location and
2 given the conditions which we could not secure for us to be there safely,
3 for example, at Spicaste Stijena or to get on top of the school for the
4 blind or to go anywhere else from which it is alleged that there was
5 firing, and it was simply not feasible for us. We could not risk it. We
6 could not try to do anything of the sort.
7 Q. I don't know whether I put that to you, Witness, as well.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. On one of Mr. Docherty's questions you said -- well, first of all,
10 he asked you whether you were a sniper shooter and you also mentioned your
11 sport activities as regards marksmanship. But tell us again, please, what
12 is the basic task of you as a lecturer at the academy at which you used to
13 teach? What were you tasked with conveying to your cadets and to your
15 A. At the beginning of the testimony I said that in addition to the
16 theoretical part of the lecture, I also trained my cadets to use sidearms,
17 rifles, and sniper rifles. We also carried out shooting exercises. And
18 before they start shooting I demonstrate how to handle and shoot from a
19 sniper rifle. I am well trained in handling one so that I could train my
21 Q. And you never conducted a murder investigation. However, as
22 regards weapons, sniper rifles, trajectories, and everything you mentioned
23 in the report, is there a secret of sorts that you would be unfamiliar
25 A. As regards this weaponry, in addition to the theoretical part
1 which I teach to the students, I also do research. I test such weaponry
2 just before they are put in operational use. Therefore, I had the
3 opportunity to test the weapons mentioned.
4 Q. Regarding the incident of firing from the school for the blind,
5 were you ever told a piece of information by which it would be stated that
6 the bullet which hit the victim hit any of the bones?
7 A. No.
8 Q. A bone in itself, what sort of an obstacle is it? Are there any
9 other obstacles similar in nature to bones? What is the behaviour of a
10 bullet hitting a bone or a similar surface?
11 MR. DOCHERTY: Excuse me.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot provide you with an answer.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us hear counsel first.
14 MR. DOCHERTY: This is the very question that when I put to the
15 witness Mr. Tapuskovic objected and was sustained on, so I object. It
16 calls for medical expertise. Those were the grounds upon which
17 Mr. Tapuskovic made the same objection.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, you appear to be asking -- in
19 fact, you are asking the witness what sort of obstacle does a bone
20 constitute. Does that not require medical knowledge?
21 The other question, Mr. Docherty, "What is the behaviour of a
22 bullet hitting a bone or similar surface" may not require medical
23 knowledge, but the first one would appear to.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Precisely, Your Honour, Judge
25 Robinson, this was by way of introduction. What I'm interested in is the
1 following: Once a bullet hits a bone or a hard surface, what is its
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, the witness can answer that.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as the bullet hitting a bone,
5 I'm not capable of giving you an answer. As for other obstacles, it
6 depends on the hardness and the bullet may behave differently. It may
7 pierce it, it may break into two, it may be stopped, so there are
8 different outcomes.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Can it bounce off?
11 A. Yes, of course. That's what I said at the beginning when I was
12 talking about ricochetting. It can even bounce back.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
14 questions for this witness. But I have to tell you that I'm feeling
15 rather under the weather. I will try to continue. I have some stomach
16 problems, but I will try and do my best to continue the proceedings. I
17 will try to continue my work and I'm not going to stop for sure.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, if you're ill, you're ill, and I would not
19 pressure you to continue if you are ill. But that's a decision for you.
20 Judge Harhoff has a question.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir.
22 Questioned by the Court:
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: I would just like to revert to one specific answer
24 you gave to a question, I believe it was by the Prosecution, in relation
25 to fragmentation bullets. The reason I'm asking is that we have had in
1 this case some indication of the possibility that fragmentation bullets
2 could have been used.
3 Now, in your answer to the question you said that with the
4 weaponry, and I'm quoting from your testimony just a while ago, "with the
5 weaponry used in these incidents" - and this is on page 31, line
6 12 - "these being sniping rifles, automatic rifles, and light
7 machine-guns, there is no such bullet which would have the fragmentation
8 effect. We only have the classical bullet; then we have a marker bullet,
9 an armour bullet, and incendiary bullet, and this is all for the
10 7.62-millimetre calibre." That was your answer.
11 My question, therefore, is: Would fragmentation bullets be
12 applied in the conflict in Bosnia with other calibre weapons? Were there,
13 in other words, other weapons in use during the conflict other than
14 7.62-millimetre calibre which could use fragmentation bullets?
15 A. According to my information, there were none of these
16 fragmentation bullet calibres in the arsenal, either for rifle or
17 machine-guns. There were no fragmentation bullets in the arsenal of
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: I understand you to say that there were no
20 weaponry that could shoot fragmentation bullets, not 7.62 nor any other
21 weaponry. Is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: That concludes your evidence, Mr. Stamenov, and I
25 thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give it. You may now leave.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 [The witness withdrew]
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, you mentioned your health, that
5 you are not feeling well, and I'm mindful of that, so it's really for you
6 to determine whether you wish to continue. The Chamber is quite prepared
7 to take account of that and we believe that we still have enough time to
8 get through our work. The work of the Tribunal is, of course, of
9 paramount importance but so is your health.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President, and
11 this is precisely why I was thinking about this. I think I can hardly
12 continue with full concentration and I would kindly ask you to allow us to
13 continue tomorrow. I believe that we have enough time, especially since
14 this next witness shouldn't take too long. We still have about 40 or 50
15 minutes, and if it is possible, I would kindly ask you to allow for an
16 adjournment now.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: In light of the special circumstances and the
18 representations made by Mr. Tapuskovic about his health, the Chamber
19 determines that we'll break now and resume tomorrow in the hope that the
20 time available to you will allow you to recover, Mr. Tapuskovic.
21 We'll adjourn.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.06 p.m.,
23 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 23rd day of
24 August, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.