1 Friday, 26 July 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.24 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus
7 Stanislav Galic.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 Before I give an opportunity to Mr. Piletta-Zanin to address the
10 Chamber and I understood that Mr. Ierace also wanted to address the
11 Chamber, I'll perhaps first deal with the exhibits of yesterday -- I
12 should say the documents tendered.
13 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. What I
15 wanted to say was -- should be chronologically before we go on to the
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] May I?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. Mr. President,
21 what we wanted to state so that it appears properly in the transcript, we
22 still believe that the hearing of this expert witness, Dr. Kovacs, should
23 not have happened -- would not have happened because looking at the
24 procedure, the way that it happened, the Defence never received
25 original --
1 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... What you told us
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, but what I wanted to say
4 was that procedurally --
5 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... If you address
6 this Chamber with a certain issue, we'll listen carefully. And it's not
7 necessary to repeat it.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. President. But
9 I'm not repeating. It's just that officially now, formally, for the
10 motives aforementioned, we want to place certification for appeal because
11 this is something we haven't done before. I don't want to take too much
12 time, but we want to formally ask for certification of appeal in
13 accordance with Rule 73(B) so that we can explain in writing next week. I
14 think the delay would be expected because it was on Saturday that we found
15 out that you have asked for a new appearance by expert witness Kovacs. So
16 this is why we're asking for certification of appeal in accordance with
17 Rule 73(B). And we would like to do it in writing. No one will waste any
18 time. That's all. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... The decision
20 that the Prosecution would be allowed to re-call the witness.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That's exactly what I wanted
22 to explain. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then perhaps we'll deal with the documents.
24 Madam Registrar, could you ...
25 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P3725A, report; Exhibit P3725A.1, English
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Microphone not activated].
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, counsel, please. Microphone.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] In relation to the report, we
6 object to the tendering of this document. The reasons why we object to it
7 are the following: The conditions under which this report was written
8 seem extraordinary, and also it seem that this witness has simply lied
9 when he was examined in court yesterday. I don't think in any case we
10 should accept the admission into evidence of this report since they are
11 the result of manipulations. I have to remind you, first of all, that the
12 witness said that -- that there was a date that was wrong and he said that
13 there were missing pages in the report. There was a lot of confusion, and
14 this should not be acceptable and it should not be accepted. Furthermore,
15 the Defence still hasn't had time to check each one of the pages of this
16 report, and therefore provisionally we cannot treat this document as
17 admissible. And in essence, the way and the conditions under which the
18 report was established, this is in opposition to the Rules. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the Chamber will decide in due
20 course on the objection.
21 Madam Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: D166, excerpt from report in Hungarian.
23 MR. STAMP: No objection really; however, it was read out in
24 evidence and was fully ventilated in court. I don't know if we want to
25 over-flood the record with unnecessary documents. But we have no
1 objections to that.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the whole text you submitted
3 to the witness has been read and the parties agreed that this was part of
4 the report. Is there any specific need why -- but if you insist, we --
5 there's no problem.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. President, I think
7 that in this case, it would be useful for your Chamber to see visually the
8 differences in the text. The official difference, formal difference, even
9 if there is a language barrier, I think that this is necessary.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The document is admitted.
11 Madam Registrar, no further documents?. Then -- Mr. Ierace, you
12 wanted to address the Chamber.
13 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, two matters, one for closed session
14 and the other for open session.
15 JUDGE ORIE: But then first turn into closed session if that's
16 your following order.
17 Could we do with private session, because that would save us
18 closing off seven curtains.
19 MR. IERACE: I don't recall the distinction, Mr. President. I'd
20 be grateful if you could remind me.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, everyone can still see us but not hear us any
23 MR. IERACE: No problem.
24 JUDGE ORIE: If we're in private session.
25 MR. IERACE: No problem.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me turn not into closed session but into
2 private session.
3 [Private session]
13 Page 12424 – redacted – private session
13 Page 12425 – redacted – private session
1 [Open session]
2 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session again.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We are going to examine this,
6 but until when? What I mean is when would you like us to intervene on
7 this issue?
8 JUDGE ORIE: What the Chamber will do is to read this document
9 during the first break. And then of course we can identify -- but now we
10 are dealing in open session with an issue. I would say during the first
11 break we'll try to understand what it is. If the Defence could do the
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you very
15 JUDGE ORIE: I would appreciate that.
16 Mr. Ierace.
17 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the Prosecution is in considerable
18 difficulty in finishing its case by next Friday. As matters stand at the
19 moment, we have some nine witnesses left to call in six hearing days. The
20 factors which have contributed to this situation are more than one.
21 At this stage, unless you wish otherwise, I won't go into those
22 factors. Wherever blame lies for those factors, the end result is that
23 the Prosecution and the Prosecution alone pays the price. Whoever is
24 responsible for the delays, that time inevitably comes off what time the
25 Prosecution has to complete its case.
1 Mr. President, one simple remedy in part, although not in full,
2 would be if it was possible for us to sit longer next week, perhaps
3 starting earlier and sitting later. I understand, for instance, that the
4 trial that normally takes place in this Trial Chamber will not sit again
5 for four weeks.
6 Mr. President, there are other steps that perhaps can be taken.
7 And of course there is the usual step, that the Prosecution cuts its own
8 case. In relation to the evidence that the Prosecution sought to lead
9 from Zoran Lesic, for instance, I indicated two days ago --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, if I may interrupt you. If you are
11 finished with what you are telling us, it was my intention to give two
12 oral decisions. And perhaps it might assist you if you knew already about
13 them by now.
14 There is a suggestion, at least, made by the Prosecution to
15 re-call the witness Philipps in respect of what I call the GPS issue. That
16 request will be denied. Then there is another request, which would be to
17 re-call Mr. Lesic, in respect of markings on the map. So I'm not talking
18 about a 92 bis Lesic statement but I am talking about re-call of Lesic in
19 view of these maps. That request will be denied as well.
20 So if that would influence what you're going to tell us, but at
21 least that you know -- I'll give you the reasons after you've finished,
22 unless you would like to know them now. Then I could first start to give
23 these decisions in more detail and ...
24 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I note that the Defence filed some
25 argument in relation to our request to re-call Mr. Lesic.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. IERACE: And the Prosecution did not have an opportunity to
3 respond to that. I also note that it leaves the Prosecution in this
4 position --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But Mr. Ierace, of course there is always an
6 possibility that the Chamber will reconsider decisions. But we received
7 many, many, many requests just very shortly before the conclusion of the
8 presentation of the Prosecution's case. And we have to take decisions. I
9 mean, I don't think that the Prosecution would have been very happy if we
10 would have come with these decisions next Friday at 2.00. But perhaps if
11 you say, well, I could give the decisions later on, then I'll first let
12 you continue. If you say, "No, I'd rather hear now the reasons also why,"
13 then I could give you the reasons.
14 MR. IERACE: Well, Mr. President, if you are able to give the
15 reasons as to why Mr. Lesic is not permitted, or rather, as to why the
16 Prosecution is not permitted to call Mr. Lesic to confirm the positions of
17 the victims when hit, I would be grateful for that.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. IERACE: Because it may be of assistance to the Prosecution in
20 reformulating its evidence in that regard.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The reason for not to allow the Prosecution to
22 re-call Mr. Lesic for the reasons given is that the evidence as it is now,
23 that is, a lot of maps, videos, 360-degrees photographs, oral testimony,
24 et cetera, is in the view of the Chamber sufficient to enable the Chamber
25 to make the determination of where the victims were when there was an
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 impact. So whether someone -- I mean, if we would have a blank map, we
2 could almost put the dots on them ourselves. Apart from that, there's of
3 course -- and that cannot be changed by Mr. Lesic -- whenever there has
4 been any dispute about whether the witness was left of the pedestrian
5 crossings or to the right of the pedestrian crossings, of course a dot on
6 the map could not resolve that issue. So therefore, where there is
7 anything in dispute, it cannot be cured in whatever way by pointing at red
8 dots on maps. And where it's not in dispute, it's -- it's no trouble for
9 the Chamber to locate the -- the places where the victims were. And more
10 or less the same is true for the re-call of Mr. Philipps. GPS, if there
11 were any mistakes, until now no one has ever talked about the GPS any
12 more. And the GPS locations could not resolve any dispute - there were
13 hardly any, but there were a few - and that could not be resolved by GPS.
14 So what we are doing is a very -- what the Prosecution invites the Chamber
15 to do is to make a lot of effort to change a few numbers which have not
16 been in dispute at this moment, which have not been used by anyone up till
17 this moment. So as it stands now - and of course I have to stress that -
18 as it stands now, also taking into consideration the position the Defence
19 has taken up to this moment on these issues, there is no need to hear that
21 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, that -- I'm grateful for the
22 opportunity to --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But perhaps I'll finish one thing because then
24 you have the whole reasons why.
25 Since the Prosecution has informed the Chamber that the GPS
1 figures are incorrect, we'll ignore them. And since it has been indicated
2 that there might be other incorrect figures as well in the statement of
3 Mr. Lesic, the Chamber would like to know what other entries in that
4 statement are incorrect so that we can see whether there's any need to
5 have them corrected or that we also just ignore them.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. IERACE: If you wish, I can do that now, Mr. President, or
8 later, at your convenience.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, perhaps if -- if it could be written down. It
10 takes a lot of time in court.
11 MR. IERACE: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And -- oh, yes, and perhaps finally I could tell you
13 that there's another request pending. That is the 92 bis request in
14 respect of Mr. Lesic. That takes us more time. We would have expected --
15 the Chamber would have expected that the Prosecution would not have just
16 indicated what documents these were but also when tendered, whether there
17 were any objections or not, because that's what we have to find out anyhow
18 before we can give a decision. And that's a lot of work. So the Lesic 92
19 bis statement request, at this moment I cannot give you a decision on
21 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, in relation to that last observation,
22 do you mean by that to refer to the opening video segments? Because if
23 that is the case --
24 JUDGE ORIE: I think there's a long list of all kind of
25 photographs, and it's not just a video but there's a lot -- a lot of
1 information attached to these statements that for each location, at what
2 time the photograph was taken, and from - but it's - these are long lists
3 with exhibit numbers, and it's not clear for all of them whether there
4 will ever be any objection to the admission into evidence and whether they
5 were finally admitted. So we'll have to check all that. And we, as a
6 matter of fact, would have expected the Prosecution to provide that
7 information immediately so that it would save time and that we could give
8 a quicker decision. But let's not discuss this at this moment.
9 MR. IERACE: As you please, Mr. President. Given what you've just
10 said, I won't take it any further.
11 Well, thank you, Mr. President. That's essentially my request,
12 that if it's possible for us to expand the sitting hours next week, that
13 would be of great assistance to the Prosecution.
14 JUDGE ORIE: We'll consider that. But first, of course, if we're
15 willing to do so have to we'll have to inquire any possibilities to that.
16 Could you -- having -- knowing now what the decisions are in
17 respect of Mr. Philipps and Mr. Lesic, as far as the re-call is concerned,
18 could you give us some indication on how much time you would need for --
19 would that be nine witnesses or would that be seven?
20 MR. IERACE: That would now be seven. And frustratingly we are
21 now unable to advance any of our witnesses into Monday. We are left with
22 only Mr. Gavrankapetanovic on Monday. I have also -- with that in mind, I
23 have also provided to the Defence yesterday evening a table of exhibits
24 which the Prosecution proposes to tender directly from the bar table.
25 Those exhibits comprise -- I think it's 17 documents and one video
1 cassette. Copies of those documents will be provided to the Defence by
2 today to assist them in coming to terms with the contents. I can indicate
3 that they are either official UN documents or VRS documents. And having
4 regard to the policy of the Registry in relation to the translations and a
5 reference by Judge Rodrigues in the pre-trial Status Conferences, to the
6 effect that exhibits could be tendered from the bar table when there is no
7 dispute as to their authenticity, I would propose to tender those
8 documents and the video at some stage during the week. Given that we do
9 not have witnesses for Monday, other than Mr. Gavrankapetanovic, I wonder
10 whether that may be a convenient time, if there is any legal argument from
11 the Defence on that issue.
12 Mr. President, as to how else we might use the time on Monday, I
13 am in your hands in that regard. Every attempt has been made to bring
14 forward other witnesses from next week to Monday, but so far
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I ask the Defence whether there is any need
17 to ask further questions to the expert witness Tabeau in respect of the
18 newly presented answers to questions.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, if I may be
20 allowed. May I first respond to the questions raised by the Prosecution
21 and then the question you yourself put, in that order, regardless of the
22 time. Yes? We have lost a quarter of an hour listening to questions that
23 could have been regulated out of court, and the Defence is not responsible
24 for this.
25 Secondly, regarding next week. You know that the Defence is
1 working very late hours and it arises early to prepare the hearings, to
2 study the documents, and it is absolutely impossible to extend working
3 hours by an hour or two.
4 Regarding the document we received today, we obviously haven't had
5 time to discuss it. We will discuss it. But I do draw the attention of
6 both the Prosecution and the Chamber to the fact that I take the plane
7 this evening and I do not wish to make somebody come at my expense, as I
8 have already done, and during the week, we will give you an answer but not
9 before Monday. That would be impossible, before then.
10 And finally, Mr. President, the last point, regarding page 14-15.
11 I think that the Defence has always contested from the very beginning the
12 GPS system, which means that we contested the system as a whole and
13 therefore also the figures. Not just one or other figure. We have always
14 challenged the admissibility of this system. And therefore, that made the
15 position of the Defence be quite clear in the transcript. Global
16 challenge of the GPS technology as such.
17 And would you please remind me of the last question that you
18 raised, because I seem to have forgotten it.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It was about expert witness Tabeau, whether
20 there was any --
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, quite. I apologise. I
22 think we still haven't seen -- received the last from expert Tabeau. And
23 when we are informed, we will be able to respond. Expert Tabeau should
24 have brought some figures to complement her expert report, and I don't
25 think that we saw them.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, if you -- it's a three-page document that
2 at least we received.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It seems that we did receive
4 them yesterday, but I personally did not see them. That is my mistake,
5 and I apologise. But we will be able to provide an answer very soon.
6 Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I -- I do understand that you -- it's
8 difficult for you to respond to many requests, but I'd like to invite the
9 Defence at least to see on the issue we dealt with closed session, but
10 whether we could have a response on that, if possible, after the break.
11 Then --
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Certainly, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Arrived at the
14 moment where your next witness could be called.
15 MR. IERACE: Yes. I call Richard Higgs.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. IERACE: While he's coming, Mr. President, you indicated at an
18 earlier time that you would have some preliminary questions for Mr. Higgs.
19 Do you wish me to qualify him first or ask those questions beforehand?
20 JUDGE ORIE: One of the issues we raised before is the factual
21 basis of the --
22 MR. IERACE: Incident number one?
23 JUDGE ORIE: I beg your pardon?
24 MR. IERACE: Incident number one, was it?
25 JUDGE ORIE: No. The statements he -- or what are the sources of
1 his factual knowledge.
2 MR. IERACE:
3 MR. IERACE: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I think that's an important issue, especially if
5 these are statements of witnesses that have not yet been in evidence.
6 MR. IERACE: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that's our first concern.
8 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
9 MR. IERACE: Again, Mr. President, whilst the witness is being
10 brought in, in relation to that issue, by reference to the expert's
11 report, I think the affected documents are on page 7 under the heading
12 "Report on incident 1, June 1993," references B and C. In relation to
13 page 8 of the report, under the heading "Report on incident 12 July 1993,"
14 Reference A, I think, is the subject of an appeal, and B -- in relation to
15 B, we -- that's an issue which hasn't yet been resolved, whether Mr.
16 Eberle will give evidence next week or not. I propose to obtain the
17 witness's opinion in such a way as to make clear what changes he would
18 make to that opinion, if it wasn't for the material from sources A and B.
19 I'll deal with the witness statements in respect of the first shelling
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 I usually wish the witnesses a safe trip home again, but perhaps I
23 should first wish them a safe trip to the courtroom.
24 MR. IERACE: We did -- we did check, Mr. President, before
25 today's -- this afternoon's sitting to ensure he was in the witness room.
1 So I don't know what's gone wrong.
2 In the interest of saving time, some documents that I intend to
3 show to the witness could perhaps be distributed, in particular MFI 5, 13,
4 14, and 15, which are the diagrams that were shown to Major Christian
5 Bergeron have been photocopied and I have those available for the Defence
6 and for Your Honours. Perhaps I could distribute those.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the problem is that usually documents are
8 distributed by the usher, who is at this moment not present.
9 MR. IERACE: I'm grateful to Madam Registrar.
10 [The witness entered court]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon. Mr. Higgs, I presume. From your
12 nodding, I take it that you do hear me in a language you understand.
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Before giving testimony in this court, the Rules of
15 Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration. The text
16 of this solemn declaration will be handed out to you now by the usher, and
17 may I invite you to make that declaration.
18 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
19 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much, Mr. Higgs. Please be seated.
21 Mr. Ierace.
22 MR. IERACE: Thank you. Mr. President.
23 WITNESS: RICHARD HIGGS
24 Examined by Mr. Ierace:
25 Q. Is your full name Richard James Higgs?
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. Were you born on the 20th of October, 1959?
3 A. Yes, I was.
4 Q. Up until two months ago, were you a member of the British army?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did you retire upon completion of 22 years of service?
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. Is that in fact a compulsory retirement requirement?
9 A. Yes, it is.
10 Q. All right.
11 MR. IERACE: Might the witness please be shown Exhibit number
13 Q. Do you recognise the document before you as being a report that
14 you prepared and signed?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. Would you please turn to page 7 of the report?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the French
19 booth is telling me that they haven't seen the report. So it would be
20 useful that they be given a copy in the interest of the clarity of the
21 French transcript.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any extra copy available for the French
24 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the Prosecution, in fact, provided
25 copies of the report to the interpreters yesterday. If they don't have
1 them today, it would seem that they haven't been passed on.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. IERACE: From the interpreters yesterday. Perhaps that might
4 be just checked.
5 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I can give you one back.
6 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Your Honour. We also have a spare copy at
7 the bar table.
8 JUDGE ORIE: We could even have some more languages then.
9 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
10 MR. IERACE:
11 Q. On page 7, do you see your subheading "Report on incident 1 June
13 MR. IERACE: I've just handed the usher another spare copy if the
14 interpreters require it.
15 Q. Do you see that subheading?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. You then list three references, the last two being certain witness
18 statements. Is that correct?
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. I would like you, for the purposes of your opinion, to disregard
21 anything that you read in those two witness statements. Do you
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. All right. I will take you now -- I will come back to that issue
25 in a moment. But in the meantime, I take you over the page.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. IERACE: Excuse me, Mr. President.
2 Q. Over the page to the subheading "Report on incident 12 July 1993,"
3 followed by three references. Do you see that?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. I would like you to disregard the sources listed as A and B. I
6 will come back to that.
7 Please now return to page 7. And I would ask you to focus on the
8 material you are left with, having disregarded witness statements B and C,
9 that is, items B and C under the subheading "References."
10 Sir, did you inspect the certain crater impact sites in the car
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What sources, if any, did you use in order to identify the
14 relevant crater impacts?
15 A. I was shown the relevant crater impacts applicable to this
16 particular incident. They were filled in with a set of material which
17 identified them as the craters, and it was from that then I could
18 determine my analysis.
19 Q. All right. Did, in addition to them being pointed out, did you
20 have access to any written material which referred to the craters as being
21 filled in with a red substance?
22 A. Yes, I did.
23 Q. What was that written material?
24 A. There was a statement made by a member of the public who was
25 present on the day.
1 Q. Do you recall his name?
2 A. I think if I remember right his name was Fazlic.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It's not an objection. That
5 is why I haven't said I object, Mr. President. I'm trying to take notes,
6 as you know. And this is going very fast and I'm not succeeding. So
7 could we ask you for your assistance.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Can we try to slow down also for the interpreters but
9 also, since the Defence must be able to make its notes.
10 MR. IERACE: I will, Mr. President.
11 Mr. President, for the benefit of the Trial Chamber, evidence to
12 the same effect as Mr. Fazlic's statement has been given, and I will now
13 provide the references to that evidence according to the LiveNote
14 transcript, that is, at pages 6620 at line 19, evidence to the effect that
15 the relevant craters were filled in with a red substance; secondly at page
16 6622 at line 22, the witness Mr. Fazlic clarified that only those two
17 crater impacts and no others were filled in with a red substance. That
18 evidence was given on the 4th of April, 2002.
19 Q. Mr. Higgs, having examined the crater impacts, did you take note
20 of the shape of them?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. All right.
23 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I'd like the witness and the Trial
24 Chamber to view two --
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this question,
1 it would be better to ask the witness what he did directly instead of
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, what would be the best way to ask
4 a question is a different thing than from whether it's admissible or not.
5 I think the question about whether the witness took note of the shape is
6 not leading to an extent which would make the question inadmissible.
7 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
8 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like the witness now
9 to view two scenes from video exhibit P3281B. For the benefit of the
10 Trial Chamber, that was a video showing Mr. Fazlic pointing out certain
11 features of the site relevant to shelling incident number 1. Perhaps the
12 witness's video could be switched to the appropriate channel so he can
13 view it as well. And once that is done, perhaps the video -- members of
14 the video unit would display the first scene, which with the assistance of
15 Mr. Sachdeva was lined up before the session began.
16 [Videotape played]
17 MR. IERACE: Stop, please. And perhaps that image could be
18 maintained on the screen. Thank you.
19 Q. Sir do you recognise the image which appears on the screen at the
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. And in particular, do you recognise the markings on the road in
23 front of the gentleman with the walking stick?
24 A. By the markings, I presume you mean the marks left by the crater?
25 Q. All right. Do those markings indicate what you recollect to be
1 the mortar impact site that was filled in with a red substance, at least
2 one of them?
3 A. Yes, they do.
4 Q. All right.
5 MR. IERACE: I wonder if we can get a stiller image on the screen.
6 Apparently we cannot. All right.
7 Q. Now, could you please tell us any features of significance in
8 relation to the pattern of that mortar impact.
9 A. From the pattern of a mortar impact, it is possible to ascertain
10 the approximate calibre of the weapon, and it's also possible to determine
11 the angle or the approximate angle of descent. And thirdly, the direction
12 from which the round came.
13 Q. What information were you able to glean from your inspection of
14 this mortar impact?
15 A. Although a long time had passed, obviously the crater is now not
16 in as good a condition as it would have been originally. It is still
17 possible to identify the direction from which the round came and still
18 possible to approximate the angle of descent.
19 Q. All right. Now, what direction did that mortar come from, that
20 is, the mortar that created those markings on the parking lot surface?
21 A. The more accurate determination of that was done, of course, at
22 the time by the investigating bodies. And when I inspected these craters,
23 there was nothing I could see which would disagree with their findings.
24 And their findings were approximately, if I can remember, 138 to 143
1 Q. As one looks at the mortar impact markings on the screen at the
2 moment, there appears to be more markings on one side than on the other.
3 Does that accord with your recollection?
4 A. Yes, it does. This is what we would normally expect to see on a
5 mortar crater when a round hits the ground at a -- an average type of
6 angle. So it's neither too shallow an angle or too steep an angle.
7 Q. When a mortar shell impacts on contact, does the shrapnel leave
8 the shell or, indeed, does the shell firstly become shrapnel?
9 A. Could you clarify that question, please.
10 Q. When the mortar shell impacts on contact, does the shell become
11 part of the shrapnel?
12 A. Yes, it does.
13 Q. And does it leave its position as part of a shell in a way which
14 radiates out from the line of the direction of fire?
15 A. Yes, that's correct.
16 Q. That being the case, if it impact at an angle, do you expect to
17 see shrapnel more on one side of the point of impact than on the other?
18 A. Yes. If the -- the round hits the ground at an average type of
19 angle, then there will be more distress on one side of the crater than the
21 Q. Having regard to your evidence and your report, is the side which
22 has the greater distress the side closest to the launching point of the
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. If the mortar comes down at 90 degrees, that is, straight down,
1 would you expect to see a symmetrical pattern having regard to that
3 A. The steeper the angle of descent, then you then expect to see a
4 more cylindrical or even pattern.
5 Q. Now, having regard to the image that was on the screen a few
6 moments ago, there appears to be more distress closer to the video camera;
7 is that correct?
8 A. Yes, it is.
9 Q. All right. Putting it simply, does that indicate that the source
10 of fire of that mortar shell was in the direction in which the video
11 camera person was standing?
12 A. Yes, it does.
13 MR. IERACE: All right. Now, I ask that the video now be
14 fast-forwarded to the second relevant portion.
15 [Videotape played]
16 MR. IERACE:
17 Q. Do you recognise what --
18 MR. IERACE: Please stop the video.
19 Q. For the benefit of the transcript, this second site -- at least,
20 the relevant image also displays a Golf motor vehicle, or at least a
21 Volkswagen motor vehicle with the number plate 582-J-593. Do you
22 recognise the markings which appear on the surface of the carpark?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. Does that accord with your recollection of the appearance of the
25 other mortar impact site that you examined and which had been filled in
1 with a red substance?
2 A. Yes, it does.
3 Q. What observations, if any, would you make about the direction of
4 fire, having regard to the impact pattern?
5 A. This pattern was similar, if not very nearly the same, as the
6 previous crater. You can see from the picture that, as we look at it, and
7 there is more distress on the right-hand side than on the left, which
8 would indicate that direction that the round came from.
9 Q. All right. Now -- I have no further questions in relation to the
11 MR. IERACE: Perhaps the witness's screen could be returned to the
12 transcript mode.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please assist the -- yes. Oh,
14 it's done from there. Yes.
15 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I ask the witness be shown some maps
16 which have been tendered. They are Exhibit P3727. To assist Madam
17 Registrar, they are the five shelling maps that were tendered through
18 Mr. Karavelic. Whilst that is happening -- I'm grateful that they're
19 ready to be shown to the witness. Thank you.
20 Q. Mr. Higgs, have you been shown copies of these maps?
21 A. Yes, I have.
22 Q. Would you please turn to map number 1. I think it contains a box
23 which reads "Shelling incident 1A-1B"; is that correct?
24 A. Yes, it does.
25 Q. All right. Now, did you also prepare a map yourself in relation
1 to this incident and some of the other incidents?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. Indeed all five shelling incidents that appear in your report; is
4 that correct?
5 A. Yes, it is.
6 MR. IERACE: I ask the witness be shown Exhibit P3644.RH. Now,
7 I'm not sure where the ELMO is in this courtroom, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I think there is an ELMO just to the left of the
10 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I would ask that the relevant part of
11 this map, that is, the right-hand part of Dobrinja, be placed on the ELMO.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, it's the lower part of the map,
13 approximately in the middle.
14 MR. IERACE:
15 Q. Mr. Higgs, we see a green line on the map. Did you plot the green
16 line on the map?
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 Q. That can be seen on the screen at the moment in the south-eastern
19 portion of Dobrinja. Did you plot the other green lines which appear in
20 various positions on the map as well?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. What do they indicate?
23 A. On the information I was given, they indicate the confrontation
24 lines at that time.
25 Q. All right. Now, I draw your attention to the part of Dobrinja
1 that you inspected, in particular the site of the two crater impact points
2 in the car park. Do you see that?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. Could you please take a -- I think it's a blue marker and place
5 the number "1" alongside that impact point.
6 Just a minute. Before you mark it --
7 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, might I give the court usher a pen
8 with a finer point than the usual one.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, as long as it is blue, Mr. Ierace.
10 MR. IERACE: Thank you.
11 A. [Marks]
12 Q. All right. Now, it seems, in relation to that incident, you have
13 plotted in red two continuous lines and two broken lines; is that correct?
14 A. It is.
15 Q. Could you tell us what they represent and on what information you
16 plotted those four lines.
17 A. The two solid lines represent the readings, were taken by the
18 investigating team at the time, which I -- if I may just refer to the
19 notes --
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. Was 138 and 143 degrees. For crater analysis, we always have a
22 factor of 5 degrees or approximately 100 mils, which we then draw on the
23 outside of these lines basically to give us that degree of error. As
24 crater analysis is not exactly precise, we always say that it is within
25 plus or minus of 5 degrees, we have to show those lines on the outside of
1 the readings that were taken.
2 Q. All right. Now, do you have with you in the -- at the witness's
3 table a copy of the report of Captain B. Houdet in relation to this
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. All right. Would you please take that out.
7 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, that document is contained in a bundle
8 of documents which is have been filed with the Trial Chamber. They are
9 identified as P3734A. And the translation is .1. And in that bundle
10 towards the end, that report appears. It's titled "Crater analysis, Annex
12 Q. Do you have that report now in front of you?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. All right. I will now take you through that report. The top line
15 reads "Subject: Mortar attack at Dobrinja, June 1st at 10H20B." Do you
16 know what that reference is, "10H20B"?
17 A. That is the time.
18 Q. How does that translate into the 12-hour clock -- sorry, 24-hour
20 A. 10H, meaning 10 hours.
21 Q. Yes.
22 A. The "20," meaning minutes. And the Bravo, meaning the zoning
23 which the time was taken, which is Bravo times, which is 2 hours plus of
24 Greenwich Mean Time.
25 Q. Thereafter we see grid references. Do those references in
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 particular refer to a series - a map being from a particular - on a
2 particular scale?
3 A. Yes, the grid -- the grid references show me the scale of map that
4 was used and their location.
5 Q. All right. Incidentally, perhaps this document should be placed
6 on the ELMO, Mr. President, if we have a copy of it.
7 I have a copy of the document so that the witness may keep his own
8 copy in front of him. Perhaps the ELMO could be enlarged. That will do.
9 Thank you.
10 Q. All right. Now, we move on to crater 1, which reads "Splinter
11 pattern indicates mortar, minimum calibre 81 MM." Firstly, did the -- did
12 your observations accord with that calibre, that is, your observations of
13 the impact site?
14 A. Yes, it does.
15 Q. Reading on: "Bearing to origin of fire: 140 degrees (2500
16 mils)." I think you mentioned earlier that you plotted the firm red lines
17 at 143 degrees and 138 degrees; is that correct? Perhaps you could give
18 that again, if I haven't stated it correctly.
19 A. Yes. The original ascertation of bearing decided from 138 to 143
20 degrees. I found nothing on my examination of the craters to disbelieve
21 that information, and those two lines marked on the map are at 138 and 143
23 Q. Reading on: "Due to macadam, there is no fuse furrow." What is
25 A. Macadam is what we would call tarmac.
1 Q. And what is a fuse furrow?
2 A. When a mortar bomb detonates, the fuse on certain types of ground
3 is forced down into the ground and produces, for want of a better word, a
4 hole. If we have this hole produced by the fuse, it can be then used to
5 determine an accurate angle of descent.
6 Q. Reading on -- recapping first: "There is no fuse furrow, so that
7 angle of descent and range cannot be determined.
8 Crater 2: Splinter pattern indicates mortar of same calibre."
9 I stop there for a moment. Did you see anything which
10 contradicted that conclusion as to the calibre of the second mortar impact
11 site -- second mortar?
12 A. No, I didn't.
13 Q. Reading on: "Bearing to origin of fire: 138 degrees (242 mils).
14 Due to macadam, there is no fuse furrow, so that angle of descent and
15 range cannot be determined."
16 Next heading: "Conclusions."
17 1: The distance between crater 1 and the roof of the buildings
18 indicates a minimum angle of descent of 40.5 degrees."
19 I pause there. Is that consistent with your observations, having
20 regard to the distance of the craters from the buildings to the east?
21 A. Yes, it is.
22 Q. Reading on: "2, under conclusions, the minimum angle of descent
23 for 81 MM and 120 MM mortars is 45, 71 degrees."
24 First of all, "45, 71," what does that indicate?
25 A. These are the minimum angle descents for those particular weapon
2 Q. Does that mean 45 degrees for an 81 millimetre and 71 degrees for
3 a 120 millimetre, or does it mean 45 degrees in 71 minutes?
4 A. From what has been written here -- the 81, it is definitely 45
5 degrees. But for 120s, some 120s have higher angles than others, and some
6 would be 70 to 71 degrees.
7 Q. All right. Now, does that -- I take it from the way you phrased
8 that answer that that accords with your understanding of the minimum
9 angles of descent of mortars. Is that the case?
10 A. Yes, that is the minimum angle of descent.
11 Q. All right. Reading on: "At that angle, the minimum range is 1120
12 metres for 81 millimetre mortar, and 1340 metres or M, I should say, for
13 120 millimetre mortar."
14 I pause. Does the "M" after the numbers indicate metres in your
16 A. Yes, they do.
17 Q. All right. Now, how do you interpret that sentence?
18 A. What he has shown in that information is that if the mortars had
19 fired on their minimum angles, then those are the ranges of which the
20 round would possibly have gone or travelled.
21 Q. All right. I'll come back to that sentence in a moment. But
22 reading on: Point 3, under conclusions: "Both bearings indicate that the
23 shells can have been fired only from Serbian side. At the minimum range,
24 the mortars were 300 M south of Lukavica barracks."
25 Point 3 consists of two sentences that I've just read. Do you
1 agree or disagree with the first of those sentences, that is, "both
2 bearings indicate that the shells can have been fired only from Serbian
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. How do the bearings assist in indicating that the shells could
6 have only been fired from the Serbian side of the confrontation line?
7 A. On the bearings that have been calculated, along that line in the
8 direction of the confrontation line, the confrontation line is
9 approximately only 270 metres away.
10 Q. All right. Now, let me just ask you to pause there.
11 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: I'm sorry, Mr. Ierace, looking at the
12 transcript. The question was: Do you agree or disagree? And the answer
13 was, "Yes, I do." You have to clarify that.
14 MR. IERACE: Yes.
15 Q. Do you agree with that sentence or do you disagree with that
17 A. I agree with it.
18 Q. All right. Now, in your answer you indicated the distance from
19 the points of impact to the confrontation line. How did you establish
20 that distance? I think you said it was 275 metres -- 270 metres.
21 A. From the locations on the confrontation lines which I was given, I
22 then measured from the mortar craters to that confrontation line along the
23 line or the bearing that was calculated to come up with that distance.
24 Q. Did you do that on a map?
25 A. Yes, I did.
1 Q. All right. Was it the map that you plotted -- the green line that
2 you used for that exercise, or was it a different map?
3 A. It was on a different map.
4 Q. All right. Was it on the first map that I showed you, that is,
5 the coloured map which had marked on it "Shelling incident 1A and 1B," or
6 a different map?
7 A. It was on that map.
8 Q. All right. And how did you obtain -- perhaps you could -- if that
9 map is still on the table somewhere, if you could put that on the ELMO so
10 that we can all see the relevant part.
11 Could you please explain to us how you calculated the distance as
12 being 270 metres.
13 A. By taking a -- a ruler, placing it along the bearing lines, as I
14 will just show on here. So placing the ruler between the points of impact
15 and then measuring from there to the confrontation line. Then taking that
16 distance and laying it across the grid intersection lines, which you can
17 just see in this area here, you have the small graduations, which are 100
18 metres apart. Lay it across there, and then read off the distance.
19 Q. All right. Now, given that the distance between the grids is one
20 kilometre, does that mean that in order to obtain an approximate
21 measurement, regardless of the extent to which a map is enlarged or
22 reduced, one can always refer the distance between two points on the map
23 to the grid in order to determine that approximate distance? Is that
25 A. Yes. Those graduations are 100 metres apart, so you can always
1 use those to calculate the distance between two points. And if your point
2 falls between two of those graduations, then you then interpolate between
3 the two points to try and give you a more accurate distance.
4 Q. All right. Now, on this map we see that the boxes are not
5 entirely square; is that correct?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. Do you understand this to be an electronic map?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. All right. Would you please now go to the map that you plotted
10 and look at these -- the grid references on that map. And having regard
11 to the image of that map on the screen, is it the position that the grids
12 are square -- are true squares, or so it appears? Is that correct?
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. All right. In other words, is it easier to plot distances
15 which -- between points which run at an angle, that is, not north-south or
16 east-west on a map such as the one on the screen at the moment which has
17 square grids?
18 A. Yes, it is more accurate.
19 Q. All right.
20 MR. IERACE: I note the time, Mr. President. Perhaps over the
21 break the witness could look at the distances on the square map.
22 Q. If you have a ruler? Do you have a ruler?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 MR. IERACE: All right. Thank you, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whenever the witness does something or looks at
1 something during the break, there should be someone present so in order to
2 make sure that he does not consult anyone. Unfortunately the legal
3 officer is not there to replace.
4 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I'd like
6 to just avail myself of this opportunity in order for the Prosecution not
7 to waste time. Since he was asked not to consider letters B, C of the
8 aforementioned incident, could we now please erase all the conclusions
9 from his report, anything that he would have drawn from B, C, and so on?
10 JUDGE ORIE: This would be, I would say, a question. Either you
11 make an objection or by suggesting that the conclusions are not right,
12 that's of course a different thing. So either you do that in
13 cross-examination or you object in another way. But suggestions as to
14 whether we could strike all the conclusions are not the way of making
15 objections. It's more a question, a suggestion. It's not quite clear to
16 me. But I feel that the Defence thinks that that should be the
17 consequence of what the witness -- the expert witness said. Is that -- am
18 I correctly understanding you?
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President. I will
20 come back to that. Just this witness was asked not to pay attention to B,
21 C of the sources; therefore, there must be something in his report that
22 has to be taken out, and I would like to propose for that to be taken out
23 during the break. But I withdraw my suggestion.
24 JUDGE ORIE: If the suggestion is withdrawn, it needs no further
25 attention. Mr. Ierace.
1 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, just to save time, might I instruct
2 the witness to make the same calculations in relation to the other four
3 incidents of the map with the square grids. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may do so.
5 We'll adjourn until twenty minutes past 4.00.
6 --- Recess taken at 3.50 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 4.25 p.m.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Before I give the opportunity to the Prosecution to
9 resume the examination of the witness, may I ask whether the Defence could
10 tell the Chamber in such a way that we don't have to go into closed
11 session whether there's an objection against the measures sought.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] You're asking us,
13 Mr. President, with respect to the documents dated the 26th, or are we
14 speaking --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Let me -- you have it in front of you. It's page
16 5997 up till 6003. That's the issue we're dealing with.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I see. Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: If there are any objections we have to turn to closed
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] There may be an objection,
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we perhaps use this last few minutes
23 before the next break to see whether we have to turn into closed session.
24 Yes. Then please, Mr. Ierace, proceed.
25 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 Q. Mr. Higgs, have you done those calculations?
2 A. Yes, I have.
3 Q. All right. In relation to shelling incident number 1, what was
4 the distance between the impact sites and the confrontation line
6 A. Along the -- the direction line, the distance comes out
7 approximately at 320 metres.
8 Q. Incident number 2?
9 A. 250 metres.
10 Q. Number 3?
11 A. 1.000 metres.
12 Q. Number 4?
13 A. 450 metres.
14 Q. And number 5?
15 A. 2320 metres.
16 Q. All right. Now, in relation to incident number 1, I take you back
17 to the report -- I withdraw that.
18 In relation to incident number 1, you've told us that when a
19 mortar descends at 90 degrees or thereabouts, you expect to see a
20 symmetrical impact pattern; is that correct?
21 A. Yes. The steeper the angle of descent towards 90 degrees, the
22 more symmetrical the pattern becomes.
23 Q. In theory, how close to an impact site can a mortar be fired? In
25 A. Mortars are capable of firing to very close ranges. It is
1 possible for a mortar to put a round down probably within 50 metres of its
2 own location.
3 Q. If that was to happen, in what direction or at what angle, I
4 should say, would the mortar tube be? Relation to the ground?
5 A. To achieve a minimum range of that dimension, the mortar barrel
6 would be at maximum elevation for that particular model of mortar.
7 Q. In other words, would it be pointing almost straight up?
8 A. Yes, it would.
9 Q. All right. Now, the trajectory of a mortar shell, what shape is
11 A. The trajectory, if a mortar, for example, is fired at
12 approximately at 45 degrees, you would expect the descent angle to be
13 slightly greater. It is not a perfect curve. The mortar bombs tend to
14 fall at a slightly steeper angle to the angle they were fired at.
15 Q. Is that something which is taken into account when analysing a
16 mortar crater impact pattern?
17 A. Yes, it is.
18 Q. All right. Now, mortars can be fired with different charges or
19 different numbers of charges according to --
20 JUDGE ORIE: May I just interfere, Mr. Ierace. Could you explain
21 how you could take this into account, or were you going to ask questions
22 about that? Could you tell us -- the question was whether the slightly
23 steeper angle on which the shell descends is taken into account when
24 analysing the impact pattern. Could you explain how you take that into
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The angles that we use are produced
2 in what are called firing tables.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And those firing tables dictate or
5 tell you the different angles. And from those tables, you can then work
6 out the ranges that that weapon would have been fired at.
7 JUDGE ORIE: So, you would say is that the slightly flatter angle
8 of firing would be taken into account when calculating, on the basis of
9 your observation of the angle of descent, the range.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it is, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So it has got nothing to do with the
12 interpretation of the pattern itself. So the pattern is used to establish
13 the angle of descent. And then for your further calculations, you use the
14 slight difference in angles of descent compared to the angle of firing.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The pattern itself --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- Is never used solely to determine
18 an angle of descent. It is only a guide --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- To calculate angle of descent
21 accurately, you need a fuse furrow.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Failing a fuse furrow, then you can
24 use tail fins for approximate angle of descent, if present.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All the pattern will show you is
2 whether it's come in at a very low descent angle.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] An average descent angle somewhere
5 in the centre or a very steep descent angle.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So it's a very global estimate of what the
7 angle would have been.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But that still does not explain how you use the
10 difference in angle of descent compared to the angle of firing.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The angle of descent is specified in
12 range tables. It is calculated by different ordnance boards or
13 ballisticians. Not by us. We use their figures that they give us, which
14 then show angles of descent in relation to angles of firing. It is not a
15 calculation that we conduct ourselves.
16 JUDGE ORIE: So it's not a matter of analysis of the pattern. But
17 once you have established a global angle of descent, then by using tables
18 or someone else using tables, you establish what would be then the
19 approximate angle of firing.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand you.
22 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
23 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Q. I take you now back to the [redacted]
25 [redacted]. Do you have that nearby?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, there's a
3 problem with the French booth. They tell me they don't have this report.
4 MR. IERACE: I have a spare copy, Mr. President.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's okay. I have one.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you or could --
7 MR. IERACE: That should be Captain Houdet, [redacted] I
8 think that probably explains the lack of report. I see shaking of heads.
9 That doesn't explain it. Excuse me, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ORIE: It is an annex to the report.
11 MR. IERACE: The report I wish the witness to refer to is Houdet,
12 H-O-U-D-E-T. Mr. President, might there [redacted]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Do you have a number, Mr. Ierace, please?
16 MR. IERACE: It is contained within Exhibit ...
17 JUDGE ORIE: P3734A.
18 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. It's the document that the
19 witness had earlier.
20 Q. All right. I take you back to the conclusions, in particular
21 conclusion 2, second sentence.
22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The confusion might be, Mr. Ierace, is that the
24 crater analysis is both an annex to Exhibit P3743A, and it seems to be a
25 single page that the witness had. I remember you asked him whether he had
1 present -- that, of course, could create some confusion. Perhaps you
2 instruct him clearly which copy or which -- which of these documents to
4 Perhaps the best way of doing it, Mr. Ierace, is that this crater
5 analysis is already admitted into evidence as Exhibit P1367. Perhaps we
6 should present that to the witness so that there's no further confusion.
7 MR. IERACE: That would be convenient, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. IERACE:
10 Q. Just before I take you to that, Mr. Higgs, in order for a mortar
11 to be fired at the minimum possible distance, would you expect it to have
12 one charge or more than one charge?
13 A. To obtain the minimum distance, you require the mortar to be fired
14 on its minimum charge.
15 Q. All right. Earlier you said that the appearance of the mortar
16 craters was consistent with the report of Captain Houdet to the effect
17 that the craters were created by mortars of a calibre of 81 millimetres.
18 What is the minimum -- what is the maximum distance that you would expect
19 an 81-millimetre mortar shell to travel on one charge?
20 A. Different manufacturers of medium mortars of 81- or 82-millimetre
21 calibre, depending on the type of ammunition, will give you different
22 ranges. Older ammunitions may have a maximum range of approximately two
23 to three thousand metres. Newer and more modern ammunition can give you
24 ranges from five to seven thousand metres.
25 Q. What is the minimum range you would expect from one charge of an
1 81-millimetre mortar?
2 A. The minimum range is normally governed by the weapon type rather
3 than ammunition, and with most mortars it's a figure of about 50 to 100
5 Q. In this case, you've told us that having regard to the report and
6 to your own observations, the angle of descent of the mortar was, I think
7 you said, within an average range or a normal angle; is that correct?
8 Perhaps you could expand on that.
9 A. The overall shape of the crater basically shows me that the angle
10 of descent was not one fired at an extremely low angle of descent, and it
11 was not one of extremely high angle of descent, as the pattern doesn't
12 show that. The shape is what you would expect to see if the round came in
13 at what we would call a normal angle, probably somewhere between 50, 55
14 degrees and 70 degrees.
15 Q. What conclusions, if any, can you draw as to the distance from
16 which the mortars were fired, having regard to that range of angles of
17 descent for an 81 -- for 81-millimetre mortars?
18 A. Using that angle of descent, even if fired on a low charge, the
19 range of the mortar would be somewhere from five or six hundred metres
21 Q. If the mortars had been fired from within, say, 320 metres, what
22 would you expect the level of the volume of sound to have been as heard
23 from the sites of impact; that is, the sound of the mortars being fired?
24 A. A firing position within 320 metres, the noise level would be
25 quite high, and you would expect even around that location where there
1 were buildings, of course for people to hear that sound.
2 Q. Would you expect maybe one or two people with sensitive hearing to
3 hear it, or would you expect people generally to hear it?
4 A. I would expect people generally to hear that.
5 Q. All right.
6 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, might the witness be shown MFI -- MFIs
7 13, 14, and 15. In particular, MFI 15. I think that is the diagram which
8 shows three parabolic curves marked A, B, and C.
9 Q. Mr. Higgs, you've told us earlier that -- I withdraw that.
10 Would you assume for the sake of this exercise that the curves on
11 the sheet of paper in front of you are trajectories of mortar shells?
12 MR. IERACE: And perhaps the diagram could be placed on the ELMO,
13 so that we can all see it.
14 Q. Now, you've told us that such trajectories are not symmetrical, in
15 other words, that the descent is more steeper than the ascent; is that
17 A. Correct. The descent is always steeper.
18 Q. All right. Now, you've also given us a range of angles of descent
19 for these two particular mortars. And having regard to the curves in
20 front of you, do any of the curves, that is, A, B, or C, approximate in
21 terms of the angle of descent that range that you earlier indicated? Do
22 they come within that range, approximately?
23 A. Out of those three curves, the one nearest to the craters in
24 question would be the curve on the screen which is B.
25 Q. Coming back to the report of Captain Houdet -- do you still have
1 that in front of you?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. All right. Now, is there anything in conclusions 2 or 3 that you
4 would disagree with?
5 A. In conclusion 2, Captain Houdet has made the point of telling us
6 the minimum range if fired at the minimum angle. What he has not done is
7 determine the range from the possible angle of descent in this case,
8 because a mortar very rarely fires on its minimum angle, and so therefore
9 you would get, obviously, a shorter range if it was fired at an angle
10 greater than 45 degrees.
11 Q. All right. If I could just come back to my question: Is there
12 anything in those four sentences, that is, the sentences in conclusions 2
13 or 3 that you would disagree with? I appreciate that you have added
14 something that you would expect to be in the report. But is there
15 anything there that you -- with which you do not concur?
16 A. The final statement where it says the mortars were 300 metres
17 south of the barracks, I think that statement is difficult to prove
18 because with the angle of descent, he has calculated that of 45 degrees,
19 which I believe to be incorrect.
20 Q. All right.
21 MR. IERACE: Excuse me, Mr. President.
22 Mr. President, some of those materials might now be returned,
23 P1367, which is the report of Captain Houdet. And perhaps the maps could
24 stay with the witness for the time being; the MFIs 13, 14, and 15 could
25 also be returned.
1 Q. Now, in relation to shelling incident number 2, you have placed
2 some markings on the map, being red unbroken lines and red broken lines.
3 Were they -- do they represent the same type of feature as in shelling
4 incident number 1?
5 A. Yes, they do.
6 Q. All right. What was your source of information in order to plot
7 those lines?
8 A. My source of information was the forensic report that was carried
9 out at the time.
10 Q. Having regard to page 8 of your report, do you mean reference
11 number A?
12 A. Yes, it would be.
13 Q. If you had to disregard the forensic report, would you
14 nevertheless be able to determine the direction of fire?
15 A. Without that information --
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We are asking this witness to
19 do something impossible. He says, "My source of information was such and
20 such," and then we're -- then he's being asked what his source of
21 information was. So the way the question has been put leads to an
22 impossible answer.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I think as a matter of fact, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that
24 the first question was what his source was, and the second question is
25 whether he could have come to the same conclusions when he would not have
1 used those sources but only other sources. I think that's, as such, not
2 an impossible question.
3 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The findings that I found in that
5 particular reference were also backed up by those in reference B.
6 MR. IERACE:
7 Q. All right. And if you had to regard both references A and B,
8 would you be left with any information which would enable you to determine
9 the direction of fire?
10 A. At this time the -- obviously the location and there was no
11 evidence left at this time, so therefore my findings were taken from those
12 two references. Without those two references, it would be very difficult,
13 if not nearly impossible, to ascertain the direction of fire at this
14 period in time.
15 Q. All right. Now, coming back to your opinion based on references A
16 and B and C, you refer in your report -- I withdraw that.
17 When you visited that site, did you observe a place which you
18 understood to have been utilised in relation to a tunnel?
19 A. I was shown that location, yes.
20 Q. Do you see that location on the map?
21 A. Yes, I can identify that location on the map.
22 Q. All right. Would you firstly with the thin blue pen place a "2"
23 alongside the impact point of the mortar in the same way as you placed a
24 "1" alongside the impact points for 1.
25 A. [Marks]
1 Q. And will you now, please, place a small cross at the point which
2 you understood to be the -- well, firstly, how was the point described to
3 you when you visited it?
4 A. I was shown the point on the ground by one of the members.
5 Q. All right. Did you understand it to be -- to be what, the
6 beginning of a tunnel or the entrance to a tunnel or a waiting point for a
7 tunnel or what?
8 A. As an entrance to a tunnel.
9 Q. All right. Will you please place a cross with the blue pen to
10 indicate the point or the place that was pointed out to you.
11 A. [Marks]
12 Q. Alongside that, would you place the capital letter "T."
13 A. [Marks]
14 Q. Now, did you, when you visited the site, measure the distance
15 between that point and the point of mortar impact for incident 2?
16 A. On the day I measured the distance as it was in a straight line,
17 straight down the road.
18 Q. What was that distance?
19 A. Approximately 120 metres.
20 Q. Now, you have plotted on this map the direction of fire with a
21 firm red line; is that correct?
22 A. That is correct.
23 Q. Was the tunnel entrance along that line of fire or direction of
24 fire if you extended it, or not?
25 A. No, it isn't. The tunnel entrance is, from the direction of fire,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 off to the right.
2 Q. What observations, if any, would you make on the theory that the
3 intended target was not the water line, but the area immediately in front
4 of the tunnel entrance?
5 A. Now, the evidence, as I have it, does not lead to that -- for me
6 to make that conclusion, as the round has missed by quite a considerable
7 distance, take into account that this is a city location and some of the
8 factors that go with that. And also, that -- then the tunnel was not
9 reengaged with a more accurate round.
10 Q. What about the difference in angle? Is that of any significance
11 or not?
12 A. The degree by which it has missed would not be one I would expect
13 to see if this target had been pre-recorded. It is too great. And for
14 that reason, it makes me believe that the round did hit its intended
16 Q. Now, more generally in relation to pre-recorded targets. Assuming
17 that for the sake of this question -- I notice Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have to ask the counsel to
20 slow down, please, and the witness. Thank you.
21 MR. IERACE: Certainly.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Higgs, if you look at the screen, as soon as the
23 text stops moving, if you then answer the question.
24 MR. IERACE:
25 Q. Mr. Higgs, I want to know whether mortars over a period of time
1 are capable of hitting pre-recorded targets accurately. And I'd like you
2 to factor in for your answer that the mortars are kept in the same
3 position, that is, with the base plates in the same position, over a
4 period of weeks and months, even years, and that the crews are constant --
5 in other words, those operating the mortars are the same individuals over
6 such periods of time. To what extent could a mortar crew, in those
7 circumstances, hit a target which they had previously hit and recorded,
8 say, weeks beforehand?
9 A. Basically, yes, they would be capable of hitting this target, but
10 there are certain factors that you need to be aware of. Normally the main
11 errors with mortar firing would be that of human error and weather
12 conditions. In a city-type location, map-reading is made easier for one
13 reason -- for one point. And if mortars were in position for such a long
14 time, their base plates would be solid in the ground, i.e. There'd be no
15 movement, they would have time to have corded charges, bearings,
16 elevations to all these points. The only factor that is left which could
17 give problems is the weather. But this can easily be taken into account
18 with either firing the mortars sometime in that particular day, earlier
19 on, or the day before in similar weather conditions, or, of course,
20 having, if available, a computer that analyses data for you. So because
21 the mortars were in position for so long, taking all those points into
22 account, it is safe to say that you would expect the accuracy of the
23 mortars to be greatly enhanced and you would not expect them to miss by
24 hundreds of metres.
25 Q. When you say "the weather can be taken into account," for
1 instance, in relation to wind speed, are there calculations available
2 which allow mortar crews to mathematically make an approximate adjustment?
3 A. If you do not have the -- the computers that do it for you, then
4 again by using range tables, in those tables there are allowances for
5 wind, by knot speed. So if you know the wind direction and its speed, you
6 can add those calculations into your information for the mortar before
8 Q. Even without such tables, where you have the same crews operating
9 from the same mortars, firing to the same targets, would you expect them
10 to develop a degree of expertise in terms of adjusting their mortars to
11 take into account variations of temperature, wind, and humidity?
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The question is hypothetical
15 and leading.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. For an expert witness hypothetical questions
17 are not excluded. And as far as whether it's leading, I would first like
18 to give an opportunity to Mr. Ierace to respond.
19 MR. IERACE: Well, Mr. President, I am seeking from this expert an
20 expert opinion. And in order to do that, I have to give him certain
21 variables to factor in. In order to give him the variables, a question
22 has to be in a leading form, but it must not suggest the answer, and the
23 question does not suggest the answer. It simply gives him specific
24 variables to factor into his response.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The objection is denied. Please proceed.
1 Perhaps you could repeat the question, Mr. Ierace, or ask the
2 witness to read it from the screen.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, your question is correct. With the same people
4 operating for such a long period of time, it would be safe to assume that
5 they will have local knowledge of how much those variables affected where
6 they were firing and therefore would be able to take them into account.
7 MR. IERACE:
8 Q. All right. I now move to incident number 3. Would you place the
9 number "3" with the thin blue pen alongside the relevant impact points.
10 A. [Marks]
11 Q. All right. In your report, you said that you visited the site.
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. And you noted that mortars of two different calibres were used.
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. And that if they "were fired as one mission" - and I am now
16 quoting from your report at page 9 -"then it appears to have a deliberate
17 attempt to kill the civilians in that area by making them run for cover
18 and then targeting the routes. If this is so then it would be a
19 deliberate-type ambush." I think they are the words that appear in your
20 report; is that correct?
21 A. Yes, they are.
22 Q. If that were so, do the crater -- do the mortar impact sites,
23 having regard to the evidence of the children and adults killed, do they
24 indicate to you any degree of precision? In other words, what degree of
25 precision does that information and your observations indicate on the part
1 of the crews responsible?
2 A. The two craters in question landed in front of the buildings at
3 varying distances from the buildings but on routes of access to those
4 buildings. The two rounds -- the distance between them was greater than
5 what I would expect to see if it was just what we call the zone of a
6 mortar, i.e., the -- the accuracy of the mortar or the -- the natural
7 spread, if you like. The distance between them would actually show either
8 pre-recording of that point or a deliberate adjustment between those two
9 points so as to fire one and then move the barrel before firing the
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I think that things are
14 going -- moving far too fast. I did not want to interrupt the witness,
15 but I'm doing it now because I must do it. It is in relation to the
16 correct quote by the Prosecution of a sentence by witness, including the
17 term "deliberate." The witness is, perhaps, an expert in weapons, but he
18 cannot speak about the intent, that is, about the deliberate character of
19 an action. So in this sense, the objection is that even if he has written
20 this, I don't think that he can be asked questions about a deliberate
21 character of something. This does not include -- is not included in his
22 technical expertise, but this is something that your Chamber is to decide
23 on. Thank you -- if this is the case. Thank you.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just trying to re-read the question, Mr. Ierace.
1 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the question makes more sense against
2 the background of the answer before it. Unfortunately we don't have
3 LiveNote here today, so I can't scroll up, because we have different
5 JUDGE ORIE: In fact, I could do that, because I asked my LiveNote
6 to be restored. So I will -- although it's quite confusing because now I
7 have other pages, since it has been installed only later.
8 MR. IERACE: I'm happy to rephrase the question, Mr. President, to
9 save time.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps you could do that, although I found it
12 Mr. Ierace, I think Mr. Piletta-Zanin is right that interpreting
13 what was in the mind of those who were firing is, I would say, not within
14 the expertise. On the other hand, which would be according to the
15 experience of a -- of an expert witness, would be rational behaviour or
16 could be explained in a rational way is a different matter. So we are
17 touching an area where we have to be very careful. I would agree with
18 that. And if you reformulate your question, we'll hear whether we --
19 whether our concern is taken away.
20 MR. IERACE: Excuse me, Mr. President.
21 [Prosecution counsel confer]
22 MR. IERACE:
23 Q. Mr. Higgs, having regard to your report, you note that
24 investigations at the time established that a mortar shell of calibre 120
25 millimetres fell behind the building; is that correct?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. And thereafter, two 82-millimetre calibre shells fell on the
3 street side of the relevant buildings; is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, you were given a witness statement which is reference C in
6 your report; is that so?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And did that witness statement make clear that as the first shell
9 fell, immediately following on the first shell falling the children who
10 were playing in the street ran to the entrances to the buildings? Is that
11 the case?
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 Q. And do you understand the evidence to be that as they did that,
14 two shells in quick succession landed near two separate entrances to the
16 A. Yes. One round landed, and then followed shortly after with the
18 Q. All right. Now, assuming, for the sake of the question that that
19 evidence is correct, does that indicate anything to you in terms of the
20 precision that the responsible mortar crews were capable of?
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, objection.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Objection. It is a leading
24 question, and it's implicating the fact -- or it's inferring that the --
25 those who targeted, those who fired were able to see, although we don't
1 even know whether they were able to see the target. And what's being
2 ruled out is the hypothesis that the firing -- they could have just landed
3 randomly. So, this is a leading question. When I say -- I don't mean
4 randomly. I meant by mistake.
5 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.
7 MR. IERACE: I would have thought it was obvious from earlier
8 evidence, but I'm happy to clarify it for my friend by asking a
9 preliminary question.
10 Q. Mr. Higgs, when a mortar crew operates, does it normally rely on
12 A. Yes, it does. But it is possible to fire without them on recorded
14 Q. When -- in other words, when you refer to recorded targets, do you
15 mean where they are ordered to hit a target which has previously been
16 recorded and fired upon?
17 A. Yes, that is correct.
18 Q. Does the normal operation of a mortar crew involve a forward
19 observer, in radio contact with the mortar crew commander directing, fire,
20 that is, either confirming the target has been hit or giving instructions
21 on what adjustment needs to be made to the fire, in terms of distance and
23 A. Yes, it does.
24 Q. All right.
25 MR. IERACE: I press the question, Mr. President, against the
1 background of that response.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is sustained, Mr. Ierace. Whether a
4 mortar crew is capable of precision firing while hitting certain targets,
5 I think it would go beyond the expertise of the expert witness to give an
6 answer to that question. If you would have asked him whether a capable
7 mortar crew might have succeeded in hitting two entrances of a building,
8 that's a different thing. But if you hit two entrances of a building and
9 you intended to hit the entrances of two other buildings, then hitting
10 these entrances would say nothing about capability, so therefore this is
11 not a question which could be answered within the expertise of this
13 MR. IERACE: I understand the reasoning, Mr. President. Thank
15 Q. Mr. Higgs, if the intended targets for the two shells that landed
16 on the street were in fact the areas where they landed, does that indicate
17 anything to you as to whether the tubes had been placed in a position
18 where they had fired in that direction or area previously? In other
19 words, if they landed where they were supposed to, having regard to your
20 earlier evidence as to the degree of accuracy that can be achieved by base
21 plates being in the same position day after day, week after week, month
22 after month, does this give any such indication?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I object
25 because, first of all, we don't know whether base plates, whether they
1 were fixed, whether they were stable. And also, again this is a very
2 hypothetical question in a sense that, in any case, if firing hits a
3 target, this could be by mistake, because it was pre-prepared, so
4 everything is open, so it doesn't lead to much.
5 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the question misunderstands -- the
6 response rather by my learned colleague misunderstands the question. The
7 question assumes that the intended targets were hit and works backwards
8 from that. Given, hypothetically, that the intended targets were hit on
9 the first shots, what conclusions, if any, can one draw as to the
10 permanency or otherwise of the positions of the mortars? And that draws
11 directly on the earlier evidence of the witness as to the degree of
12 accuracy which mortars are capable on a first shot where the base plate
13 has not been moved.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just reading and trying to better understand both
15 the objection and your response, Mr. Ierace.
16 Yes. May I ask you one question before, perhaps, conferring with
17 my colleagues. What probative value would the answer of such a question
18 have? I mean, it -- it says more or less that if you are hitting the
19 target you intended to hit, would that mean that everything should be
20 stable in order to make it possible for you to hit such a target?
21 MR. IERACE: Probative value goes beyond that. The probative
22 value of the question is whether the mortars that fired the shells had
23 been effectively pointed in that direction for an extended period of time.
24 The relevance of that, in turn, is to certain propositions which have been
25 advanced by the Defence as to the source of fire where civilians on the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 government side of the confrontation line were targeted.
2 JUDGE ORIE: But still, on the basis of the assumption that the
3 impact was on the target, which is, may say, uncertain. Let me just --
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is sustained. The Chamber sees no
6 probative value in any possible answer to this question.
7 MR. IERACE: As you please, Mr. President.
8 Would you excuse me for a moment.
9 [Prosecution counsel confer]
10 MR. IERACE:
11 Q. Mr. Higgs, when typically a mortar crew fires to hit its target,
12 fires with a particular target in mind, if the target is not hit on the
13 first round, having regard to your earlier evidence as to the use of
14 observers, what expectation, if any, can one have as to the -- the
15 positions that the subsequent mortar shells land in? Would you expect
16 them to be closer to the target or further from the intended target, or
17 the same distance from the intended target?
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I object. This
19 is an objection because we have seen a lot of things in terms of technical
20 side of firing. There are self-firing, which is very rapid. A crew
21 person would fire, and then the rounds would still be up in the air and
22 they would be fired again before the first shell lands. So if this was a
23 salvo fire, then the shell will follow the first trajectory of the
24 previous shells. So Mr. Ierace should perhaps take this into
25 consideration and rephrase his question.
1 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I think the question was clear enough.
2 And if the witness has a problem with it, perhaps he could indicate it.
3 It builds on evidence given five minutes ago.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think the objection is denied. Yes, the
5 question is admissible.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With typical mortar firing, if the
7 observer observes his first round has missed the target, he will send the
8 correction to those mortars to enable, of course, the second round to hit
9 the target and thereby achieve his aim. He would have no point in firing
10 mortar rounds in an area that he's missing the target.
11 MR. IERACE:
12 Q. Now, in relation to this incident, you indicate in your report
13 that you read a shelling report by Mr. Verdy; is that correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Was there any difference in the conclusions arrived at by him
16 compared to the other report, that is the report by Roy Thomas -- sorry,
17 the report referred to as reference A by Mr. Sabljica?
18 A. The main differences is that Verdy did his investigation at a
19 later point in time, which is never ideal. He also confused the calibre
20 of the weapon that might have been used, again because the evidence of the
21 82 at that time would not have been there, as the forensic team was,
22 obviously, already done that investigation. But his general bearing of
23 which the mortars came from does back up the forensic report.
24 Q. In relation to the calibre of the mortars, when you inspected the
25 craters on the street side, were you able to form any view as to
1 approximately what calibre the mortars which created those impacts had
3 A. Although these craters are not well preserved due to the time,
4 they are not of the size and destructive pattern that I would have
5 expected to see if they were 120 millimetre as opposed to a medium mortar.
6 Q. All right. Will you now, please, go on a map to the plottings
7 that you made in respect of incident 4 and place the number "4" alongside
8 the relevant impact points.
9 A. [Marks]
10 Q. Now, in relation to that incident, you referred to -- you referred
11 to a technical examination report. That's reference A. Did you read a
12 report or reports made by Mr. Verdy --
13 MR. IERACE: Excuse me, Mr. President.
14 [Prosecution counsel confer]
15 MR. IERACE:
16 Q. I withdraw that. In relation to this incident, did you read the
17 report by Mr. Sabljica?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. Have you also seen a report by Mr. Verdy?
20 A. Yes, I have.
21 Q. And what comment, if any, would you make about any differences
22 between those two reports?
23 A. The Verdy report, again, taken after the fact, although it differs
24 very slightly from the forensic report, the differences are consistent
25 with the sort of error I would expect to see anywhere on crater
1 examination, and the Verdy report is nearly identical to that of the
2 forensic report.
3 Q. All right. Would you please now turn to incident 5 on the map and
4 place the number "5" alongside the mortar impact point, as indicated?
5 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, might the witness be shown Exhibit 61.
6 THE REGISTRAR: D61?
7 MR. IERACE: D61, yes.
8 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
9 MR. IERACE: Perhaps now the usher could show the witness Exhibit
11 Q. After you have looked at that, Mr. Higgs, may it be placed on the
13 Mr. Higgs, assuming that the items which appear in the photograph
14 D61 come from the one object originally, are you able to discern what type
15 of shell that might have been?
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President. Mr. President,
17 objection, since we asked to obtain these objects in order to be able to
18 verify whether they come from the same source. You know that those
19 objects were mysteriously lost or they didn't want to give them to us, and
20 we cannot ask questions supposing that, as the Defence was not allowed to
21 question on these objects having them in physical existence, in their
22 hands, actually.
23 MR. IERACE: I'll rephrase the question.
24 Q. Having regard to the document in front of you, do you recognise
25 any of those objects?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. All right. Could you point -- first of all, do you recognise more
3 than one piece or just one?
4 A. More than one piece.
5 Q. All right. Would you point to one of the pieces that you
6 recognise and hold the pointer on it while you tell us what you recognise
7 it to be.
8 A. [Indicates]
9 Q. Are you pointing to a piece which is approximately U-shaped and
10 slightly lighter in colour in shades of grey than the surrounding pieces?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. What is it?
13 A. This piece here is the shape that I would expect to see of the
14 fuse adapter.
15 Q. The fuse adapter of what?
16 A. The fuse adapter of a mortar round, calibre which, of course, I
17 cannot determine from the photograph.
18 Q. All right. Could you please point to another piece that you
20 A. [Indicates]
21 Q. You point to a piece almost in the top left of the photograph.
22 What is that?
23 A. This piece is also part of a fuse adapter, again of a mortar
25 Q. Do you recognise any other pieces?
1 A. [Indicates]
2 Q. What is the one you are pointing to now?
3 A. That particular part is consistent with a part of a fuse for a
4 mortar round.
5 Q. Are there any other pieces that you recognise?
6 A. Those are the three main pieces.
7 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I have a photocopy of that exhibit. I
8 ask that it be shown to the witness and he mark on it with numbers 1, 2,
9 and 3 the pieces that he recognised and in the order in which he pointed
10 them out.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
12 Mr. Usher, could you assist.
13 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could that first be shown on the ELMO so that
15 everyone can see it.
16 Yes. I take it -- one moment, please.
17 MR. IERACE: Might I move on, Mr. President?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if you need a
19 further look at it, you could have it. But please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
21 MR. IERACE:
22 Q. Mr. Higgs, in your experience, do mortar tail fins ever end up in
23 the crater created by the mortar exploding?
24 A. Yes, they do.
25 Q. Have you ever observed a tail fin to be embedded in a crater in
1 hard ground?
2 A. Yes, I have.
3 Q. Could you tell us in what circumstances you have made that
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I stopped our expert just in
6 time not to write anything on this piece of paper. My left hand is almost
7 as quick as my right.
8 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] With the excuses of the
11 JUDGE ORIE: There's no -- nothing against again look at it,
12 Mr. Piletta-Zanin. But of course, adding anything to it won't be allowed.
13 We do understand each other.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: We cannot assume that technical experts won't always
16 know what the practice is in the court. So there's no blame expressed.
17 But happily you could prevent the expert from adding something of his
18 expertise to the -- to the drawings.
19 It would be time for a break, Mr. Ierace, if this would be a
20 suitable moment. If not, tell us how much minutes you would need.
21 MR. IERACE: This would be a convenient time. Thank you,
22 Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I then before we go into the break seek an
24 answer, if necessary in closed session, on the question I put at the
25 beginning of this.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Gladly.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] After the break or now?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Try to have a response now. If you'd say there is an
5 objection, we have to go into closed session in order to -- or at least
6 private session. I think that would do for the moment.
7 May I then ask, Mr. Usher, that you escort the expert witness out
8 of the courtroom, and may I also ask the -- your expert to leave the
9 courtroom already before giving an answer.
10 Yes. Please -- both. May I ask you the escort the expert
11 witness, Mr. Higgs, out of the courtroom. And may I at the same time ask
12 the expert assisting the Defence to leave the courtroom.
13 [The witness stands down]
14 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: We have to wait for one second. Yes.
16 Could we turn into private session.
17 [Private session]
18 --- Recess taken at 5.44 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 6.16 p.m.
13 Page 12494 – redacted – private session
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
13 Page 12496 – redacted – private session
20 [Open session]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The other issue I would like to convey to the
22 parties is that the Chamber has decided that it will seek an opportunity
23 to sit for longer hours next week. Perhaps that's not possible in -- on
24 each and every day. For example, Friday will not be possible as far as I
25 understand. Perhaps one other day not as well. So we'll have to work out
1 a schedule and we'll also have to see whether there are any claims by
2 other cases. So we first have to deal with the matter with those in
3 charge of the court calendar. But as a starting point, the Chamber is
4 willing to find a couple of more hours. Of course within certain limits.
5 But we'll try to find more time.
6 MR. IERACE: Again, Mr. President, I express my gratitude to the
7 Trial Chamber. Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. May then the witness be brought into the
9 courtroom again.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, very quickly
11 while the usher is fetching the witness. It will take one minute for us
12 to raise a technical issue at the end of the hearing. We will see whether
13 we can organise ourselves better for Monday, but I am afraid that it will
14 be very difficult, but I hope we will -- but I wish to say that we will
15 find a solution.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, please proceed.
19 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Q. Before the break, Mr. Higgs, I asked you whether, in your
21 experience, tail fins had embedded in mortar craters where the ground was
22 hard, and you said yes. And I asked you what the circumstances in your
23 experience were. Perhaps I could ask you in what part of the world did
24 you particularly notice this phenomenon.
25 A. [Microphone not activated].
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
2 A. There are two cases that immediately come to mind: Firstly, in
3 Kenya, where the ground is extremely hard. Tail fins locate into the
4 craters. And also one case I investigated in Germany, where a tarmac road
5 crosses the middle of the impact area. We had a crater there again with
6 tail fins still in the crater.
7 Q. All right. Now, when you refer to Kenya, was that your personal
8 experience or what you heard from others? Were you in Kenya at some
10 A. They were my personal experiences, as I was the senior safety
11 officer for Kenya at that time.
12 Q. All right. Now, earlier I asked you some questions about the
13 ability or otherwise of mortar crews to repeatedly successfully hit
14 pre-registered targets over a space of weeks. Where a mortar crew has a
15 pre-registered target, does that assist them or not to target other places
16 near the pre-registered target? In other words, does the pre-registered
17 target assist or not in locating other specific targets which are not
19 A. Yes, it does. A mortar observer will always try and adjust a new
20 target, where possible, going from a pre-recorded target, because that
21 pre-recorded target has already had some of the errors shot out when that
22 was recorded itself.
23 Q. All right. Now, in terms of an urban battlefield, as was the case
24 with the city of Sarajevo, what use, if any, could a mortar crew make of
25 street maps and other detailed maps in terms of adjusting their tubes with
1 the intention of hitting a specific building or intersection or other
3 A. In a city environment, the reference points which you have in map
4 reading are greatly increased. One of the human errors for inaccuracy
5 with mortars is always map reading, identifying targetry. For instance, in
6 a city where you have clear reference points on the ground which are then
7 marked on a map, it makes the map reading far more accurate and reduces
8 errors in that area.
9 Q. Now, what is the minimum angle of descent of a mortar of 120
11 A. These vary depending on the manufacturer of the mortar, but they
12 tend to be slightly greater than that of a medium mortar.
13 Q. Can you give us some range of minimum angles of descent for
14 120-millimetre mortar; in other words, making allowances for different
16 A. These would probably vary between approximately 50, up to 70
18 MR. IERACE: Excuse me, Mr. President.
19 [Prosecution counsel confer]
20 MR. IERACE: That completes the examination-in-chief,
21 Mr. President. Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ierace.
23 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, are you ready to cross-examine Mr. Higgs?
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. If I just take 30
25 seconds to tidy up my papers on the desk, I will proceed, Mr. President.
1 In the meantime, I would like to say good afternoon to the
3 Cross-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:
4 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
5 A. Good afternoon.
6 Q. Sir, I believe that you are an officer; is that correct?
7 A. I have just recently retired, but my rank was quartermaster
8 sergeant instructor, which is a rank of warrant officer.
9 Q. Yes. Very well. Sir, in order to save time, which is much more
10 precious for the Prosecution than for the Defence now, I would ask you to
11 answer clearly to my questions.
12 Very well. When did you gain this rank?
13 A. I have been a warrant officer since 1992.
14 Q. Very well.
15 Sir, you went to Sarajevo, didn't you?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. You perhaps had other contacts with -- perhaps you had some other
18 contacts with the local circumstances; yes or no?
19 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. IERACE: As translated into the witness's language, the
22 question reads: "You perhaps had other contacts with the local
23 circumstances." Perhaps the question could be clarified. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 Q. You had contacts with local life, reality?
2 MR. IERACE: I maintain my objection, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I don't know -- I don't know how it's
4 translated into English, because I immediately changed to the French
6 Yes, the question is too vague. [Previous translation
7 continues] ... If you go somewhere that you have contact with the that
8 place, of the life of that place.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Not always.
10 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... If so many
11 people have difficulties in understanding what a question is about and the
12 Chamber would like to understand it as well, please reformulate your
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Gladly.
15 Q. Sir, by contact with local reality, what I mean is you didn't just
16 go into the city of Sarajevo but you were also led somewhere else, perhaps
17 in the adjoining hills; yes or no?
18 A. While I was there, I was taken around the city and also around the
19 local area.
20 Q. Very well. Sir, did you decide by yourself to go to such and such
21 a place, or were you in some way led to a certain place?
22 A. Some of the locations I was taken to to show me certain things,
23 but on some of the locations I requested to go and see parts in the local
24 area for my own peace of mind.
25 Q. Very well. I'm talking about locations around Sarajevo, and these
1 locations which are not in the city but outside of the city. Did you ask
2 to see certain locations, or were you taken there -- or were you taken
4 A. Both of those happened. I was taken to some, and I requested to
5 go to some others.
6 Q. What are the locations that you asked to see?
7 A. One of the locations I asked to see was in respect with incident
8 5, the market incident, where I wanted to see possible locations where a
9 mortar could be fired from.
10 Q. No. I will have to interrupt you. What I meant was outside of
11 the city. That's what I asked.
12 A. This location is outside of the city. It's in the hills, to the
13 north of the city.
14 Q. I apologise. Please proceed.
15 You were taken to a location where the mortar had been fired from;
16 is that right?
17 A. This obviously could not be confirmed. We don't know exactly
18 where the mortar fired from. I wanted to see the ground where the roads,
19 woods may be so I could either confirm areas or eliminate certain areas.
20 Q. Very well.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] With the assistance of
22 Mr. Usher, could we please have a look again at the document. I believe
23 that you have it. That is, document 4010. That is, P3727. These are the
24 maps that you have in front of you. The very last page, which is in
25 relation to incident number 5, please. And perhaps place it on the ELMO,
1 please. Thank you.
2 Thank you. That is for the booths. Thank you.
3 Q. Sir, could you perhaps indicate on this map where supposedly --
4 where you were told that supposedly a mortar had been fired from.
5 Supposedly, for the Serb booth -- Serbian booth.
6 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the witness has not given that
7 evidence. The witness has said that he asked to be taken to some areas; in
8 other words, that he was doing the directing. So perhaps it first should
9 be clarified whether in fact the witness was told of certain places
10 where -- I assume my friend means the mortar had been fired from. From
11 the question, as translated, says "a mortar."
12 JUDGE ORIE: It's the second question already, Mr. Piletta-Zanin,
13 that you really distort the evidence of the witness up till that moment.
14 So, if you have -- if you seek any confirmation of the witness, would you
15 please not distort the testimony up to that moment. Please proceed.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.
17 Q. Sir, in relation to this incident, where were you taken, please,
18 outside of Sarajevo?
19 A. Working on the -- working on the information we had from the
20 reports of the line of fire, we drove into the hills and looked at various
21 areas really from approximately here and then up here and all around this
22 particular area just to see if that type of area was capable of supporting
23 mortar fire.
24 Q. Very well. And sir, could you please indicate at the same time
25 below the green line and also above the line, still in relation to the red
1 trajectories, red lines. And the site that you spoke about first, which
2 is below the green line, could you tell its -- do you know its name?
3 Could you tell it, please.
4 MR. IERACE: In my respectful submission, it would be appropriate
5 for the witness to mark on the map the area he has indicated so as to
6 record for the transcript what we have just seen.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I was about to ask the same, but I think that
8 in the next question it was incorporated, that the witness had pointed to
9 places below and above the green line but always within the boundaries of
10 the -- of the red lines.
11 MR. IERACE: As you please, Mr. President.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. There is
13 a problem of translation, since what I said was "since you have indicated
14 this area below and above." That is clear for the transcript. The
15 witness indicated one area below and one above.
16 Q. Could you tell us what is the name of the area below, please.
17 A. I cannot see the names on the map. The locations I went to, I can
18 identify on a quality map, but the names I -- I don't know.
19 Q. Witness, since you mentioned in your report some names above the
20 line, why didn't you mention certain names below the line?
21 A. In the area I went to, that part above Sarajevo, it is a -- a
22 hilly terrain or mountainous terrain. From the locations where I went and
23 working on the principle for mortar locations, you would not wish to site
24 a mortar location on a forward slope. So, normally it would be on a
25 rearward slope, out of sight of the enemy.
1 Q. No I have to interrupt you, sir. My question was: Why didn't you
2 mention the name of the areas that you visited above this line, since you
3 mention the names in relation to the area --
4 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter corrects herself.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN:
6 Q. Since you visited the areas below this line, mention the names in
7 the area above the line, please.
8 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation].
11 Q. And not the names below the line.
12 MR. IERACE: The question posed by my friend assumes that his last
13 answer was not responsive. In fact, if one looks at the reference in the
14 report, the answer was responsive. And I appreciate that Your Honours
15 have the report. I refer to page 12, first line. And on that basis, I
16 object to the question.
17 JUDGE ORIE: No, no. I think the question is why the witness did
18 mention in his report.
19 MR. IERACE: Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Locations that were below -- were above the green
21 line and did not mention any of the spots he visited below the green line.
22 MR. IERACE: Yes. And my point is that one first has to look at
23 the context in which he mentioned the places above the line, which is
24 the -- the context is, there being suitable sites to place a mortar. When
25 one then considers the witness's answer, that is what he was saying, he
1 didn't see suitable sites. So my question's friend -- I'm sorry, my --
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have to
3 interrupt. What Mr. Ierace has just done constitutes the answer to my
4 following question. If Defence had done this, this would have been dealt
5 with differently in advance.
6 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I've been interrupted. And with
7 respect to my learned colleague, what I'm saying is directly relevant to
8 the question to which I object.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied.
13 Please proceed. I'll give you the reasons at the very end of this
14 session. Yes, please proceed.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much indeed.
16 Q. Sir, I'd like you to answer clearly why was it that you did not
17 mention the name of the locations that you said that you allegedly visited
18 below the green line.
19 A. The reason for this is, in my opinion, that would be an unlikely
20 position for the mortars to be positioned, and therefore did not put them
21 into the report.
22 Q. Why didn't you mention that you visited such areas, such
23 locations, and that later on you could have said that you visited those
24 areas and that you felt that they could not -- they were unlikely to be
25 used as firing positions?
1 A. I have visited many, many areas around Sarajevo, and I have not
2 listed them all in my reports. I've only listed the ones that I feel are
3 relative or applicable to this particular case.
4 Q. Sir, you knew that in relation with this incident that some of the
5 reports believed that the two areas, that is, the area below and the area
6 above, that they were both possible areas from which the fire could have
8 A. I have seen no reports that say anything from below the line.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Me too? For the French booth.
10 I can hear it as well. What is the problem? I believe that that is
11 because I have the Serbian booth. But I can do this without the
13 Is this better? Very well. Thank you. Is this better for the
14 French booth? Thank you very much. I apologise.
15 Q. So, I'm going to re-ask my question. Sir, did you know - yes or
16 no - that there were other reports which said that the locations where the
17 fire originated from could have been to the north or to the south of the
18 green line?
19 A. No. The only reports I have seen are the forensic and the other
20 ones which I have reference to in my report.
21 Q. Very well. Sir, when you allegedly visited the area, the area
22 north of Sarajevo, south of the demarcation line, did you find still at
23 the time the roads that the army that had occupied this area had built
25 A. I was shown one of those such roads.
1 Q. Very well. This was a road which allowed mechanical equipment to
2 arrive there; is that correct?
3 A. I've got no idea of what they used the road for.
4 Q. No. I'm not talking about that, their use. I'm talking about
5 their ability, their capability. Were these roads which were -- which
6 allowed to the area for mechanised units; yes or no?
7 A. I would presume they would be used for that purpose, yes.
8 Q. Thank you very much. Witness,.
9 Did you know, that is, were you told, that the army, the so-called
10 BH Army, occupied or had under its control this area which you mentioned,
11 south of the green line?
12 A. Yes. The -- the areas as marked by the green line on the map. So
13 I was told that opposing forces were either side of this line.
14 Q. Very well. Sir, near -- in the environs near this green line on
15 this map, were you able to establish yourself the presence of rocky area,
16 of rocky terrain, or of elevations, of high ground?
17 A. Yes. There is a -- a high feature that runs along that point.
18 Some of it is steeper than others and some of it, yes, is quite rocky.
19 Q. Sir, are there more of these rocky features in this area or of
20 elevations, of high ground?
21 A. Yes, there are.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 Sir, did you go to the top of these rocky features?
24 A. Not all of them. Just some.
25 Q. On some of the rocky features that you did go to -- so we are
1 still talking about the area below the green line. We agree on that; yes?
2 A. The high features I visited, most of them were either on or above
3 the green line.
4 Q. It seems that we do not have any interpretation in Serbian. In
5 any case, that's what I'm being told.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Is the problem solved now? Yes, please proceed.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have it now.
8 JUDGE ORIE: May I also ask you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, to find a
9 suitable moment, since you asked for one or two minutes.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, I will do so.
11 Q. Sir, since you say that some of these rocky features were above
12 the line, how did you check that?
13 A. We visited some of the old positions which you can still see today
14 along the area of the green line. Below that feature, the ground drops
15 away, but above that feature, or to the north, there are still some
16 features, slightly higher in altitude. We also went up and visited those.
17 Q. How were you able to know whether this line belonged to one army
18 or the other -- although by stating that we know that in this area the
19 lines moved considerably?
20 A. These were the features pointed out to me on the ground. So their
21 precise location on a precise day, obviously I am not aware of.
22 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. We could
24 stop here, Mr. President.
25 MR. IERACE: I have something to contemplate on for Monday. My
1 learned colleague has put a proposition -- sorry, my learned colleague has
2 included a proposition to the witness, a proposition to the effect that
3 the confrontation line at that point changed frequently. I'd be grateful
4 if my learned colleague on Monday, perhaps, could give the reference for
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. I will give it. That
7 will be a map in colour that we will make copies of, and we have a key
8 which shows perfectly well the evolution of lines, or the change of lines
9 in this area, and we also have the testimony of Mr. Karavelic.
10 Mr. President, I believe that the witness could be thanked for the
12 JUDGE ORIE: I -- I was thinking before I would say something.
13 Mr. Higgs, we have to deal for a couple of minutes with other
14 issues. I do understand that you could return Monday morning at 9.00.
15 It's not sure -- for sure at this very moment that we could start right
16 away at 9.00, but we are aware that it's important for you to leave
17 The Hague by approximately 2.00, and it's the expectation of the Chamber
18 that your testimony will be concluded by then. So you are excused.
19 Mr. Usher, could you please escort Mr. Higgs out of the courtroom.
20 [The witness stands down]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. This will
23 be extremely difficult to re-organise ourselves for technical reasons, but
24 what my co-counsel is suggesting - I apologise - is that we are trying to
25 hear Mr. Kapetanovic on Monday to start with, first thing in the morning,
1 and then from then on, perhaps, we could hear Witness Higgs.
2 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... For the
4 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then I take it that the registry will inform the
8 Victims and Witnesses Unit that we do not need the witness right at 9.00
9 but that an arrival at 10.00 would do.
10 Yes. Then Mr. Ierace, I still owe you an answer to the question
11 of the -- of the witness, why we rejected your objection against the
12 question to the witness why he did not mention any of the areas below the
13 green line. I think that's exactly a matter of methodology. An expert
14 does not just indicate why he finds suitable places for mortars at a
15 certain place, but he also should tell us why he would not find any
16 suitable places in another area he inspected. Because if you do that by
17 examining the expert, you can test the methodology he used.
18 For example, if he would have said, "There were no suitable places
19 because there were so many children playing there that you could not put a
20 mortar there," then someone who would try to test the methodology of the
21 expert could have asked him whether he was sure that at the time of the
22 event there were as many children there as well. I mean, it's just a
23 matter of explaining how you come to your conclusions, not only the
24 positive ones but also the negative ones.
25 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, his answer was to that effect, but I
1 take it that your concern is that he did not say that in his report, his
2 written report.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: That's for what the question -- about whether he did
6 not reflect in his report that he visited the area and why he did not find
7 any suitable locations and on what basis.
8 Then we'll adjourn until next Monday, 9.00.
9 Madam Registrar, I take it in Courtroom II again. Yes.
10 I wish everyone a good weekend.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
12 at 7.01 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,
13 the 29th day of July, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.