1 Thursday, 3 March 2005
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, will you call the
6 case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Case
8 IT-01-47-T, the Prosecutor versus Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir Kubura.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar. Can
10 we have the appearances for the Prosecution, please.
11 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning,
12 Your Honours, counsel, and everyone in and around the courtroom. For the
13 Prosecution, Matthias Neuner and Daryl Mundis. We are assisted today by
14 our intern Alenka Obal and our case manager Andres Vatter.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: And the appearances for the Defence, please.
16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. President, good
17 morning, Your Honours. On behalf of General Hadzihasanovic, Edina
18 Residovic, lead counsel, and Stephane Bourgon, co-counsel.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And the other Defence team.
20 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. On
21 behalf of Mr. Kubura, Rodney Dixon, Fahrudin Ibrisimovic, and Nermin
22 Mulalic, legal assistant.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Chamber through me wishes to
24 bid good morning to all those present. I greet the representatives of the
25 Prosecution, the Defence counsel, the two accused, as well as all the
1 personnel of this courtroom. I know that for at least two of you, this is
2 your second case, that some started at 8.00 in the morning despite the
4 Today we have a hearing devoted to a witness, but before we do
5 that, there are several points to deal with. First of all, I should like
6 to refer to the fact that in the motion regarding judicial notice of
7 certain facts, the Defence has conveyed its opinions regarding the
8 response of the Prosecution a few days ago. If the Prosecution wishes to
9 respond to the submissions of the Defence, you may do so up until the end
10 of this week but not later.
11 So, Mr. Mundis, if you wish to do that, you are authorised to
12 respond. Yes, I give you the floor.
13 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. We have nothing to add at
14 this point in time. We -- if we choose to make a further filing, we will
15 do so by the end of this week. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
17 Several days ago, I raised the question of a book which a witness
18 sent to the Registry. This book was not translated, and I would like to
19 ask both parties what their position is. Do they wish the book to be
20 translated and that the full translation be tendered into evidence, or the
21 other possibility would be to simply return the document to its owner
22 through the Registry. So I have asked you to take a position about this,
23 but to this day we have not received any submissions. We would like to
24 know what your positions are.
25 Mr. Mundis.
1 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. If I recall correctly when
2 this issue arose a few days ago, the Prosecution had pointed the Trial
3 Chamber to the earlier transcripts where it seemed to us that the Trial
4 Chamber had requested us to produce translations of certain parts of that
5 book. We, as I indicated a few days ago when this arose, we do have those
6 translations and our position would be that if the Chamber wants those
7 translations we can make them available later today. I don't believe we
8 have them with us in the courtroom now.
9 With respect to the remaining portions of that book, it's unclear
10 to us whether that's the same material that the Office of the Prosecutor
11 has in its possession or additional material, and as of this point in
12 time, we have not made any arrangements with the Registrar to review that
13 material to see if in fact it's the same or if, in fact, it's a different
14 volume of the book that the -- that we have in our possession. So perhaps
15 if we could be given an opportunity to take a look at that and compare it
16 with what we do have we could certainly be in a better position to inform
17 the Chamber.
18 But again, our view with respect to the previously indicated pages
19 of that book that the Chamber wanted translated, we do have that available
20 and we can make that available to the Trial Chamber later this morning if
21 the Trial Chamber still wishes to have those portions which the Trial
22 Chamber directed us to translate.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I shall give the floor to the
24 Defence, but we ourselves don't know what's inside because the envelope
25 hasn't been opened. So we don't even know what's inside. We assume that
1 it is the book, but we haven't opened the envelope.
2 The Defence.
3 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Good
4 morning, Madam Judge; good morning, Your Honour.
5 We would take the same position as that of the Prosecution,
6 perhaps to see that envelope, open it, see what the contents are, and
7 compare with what the Prosecution has. The question is to establish
8 whether there is any additional material to what is already at our
9 disposal. Of course we will look through the material, and if it is the
10 same, we can seal the envelope and send the book back to the owner.
11 It is true we should have done this earlier on, and we thank the
12 Chamber for reminding us of this issue, and we will deal with it as soon
13 as possible.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you. The
15 other Defence.
16 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours. We would take the same
17 position that we should look at the material first. In addition to that,
18 there might be sections that we do wish to translate as well as those
19 which the Prosecution have translated in order to ensure that the full
20 context of the book is available in either English or French for
21 Your Honours.
22 I know their certain selected parts that are translated, but there
23 might be others that the Defence would wish to add to that. So if we
24 could be given a chance to look at the material first and then look at the
25 material the Prosecution has translated, then we might come back to
1 Your Honours to request that certain additional section are translated so
2 that the full picture is before Your Honours. Thank you.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Chamber, having discussed it
5 at the bench, would like to say that the envelope which is in the
6 possession of the Registry, that it should be given to the Defence and the
7 Prosecution, that they look at the documents together, and then both
8 parties will convey their observations either requiring additional
9 translations or simply returning the book to its owner.
10 The third point I wish to address has to do with the question of
11 translations. There's a memo from the CLSS of the 7th of February 2005
12 concerning P662/E. Regarding this document, the Chamber first of all
13 wishes to thank the CLSS for having done the work requested during the
14 hearing of the 16th of February, page 6.000 -- 16.045 to 16.052, but the
15 Chamber asked the CLSS to respond to two additional questions, and they
16 were the following. Will you take note Mr. Registrar:
17 One, what are the reasons due to which the CLSS prefers to
18 translate the word "odnosno" in line 3 of the English text by the
19 words "in other words" rather than the English word "and." So that is the
20 first question put to the CLSS, why they are translating "odnosno" "in
21 other words" instead of by "and."
22 And the second question, what are the reasons which prompted the
23 CLSS to translate the word "odnosno" in line 3 of the same text with the
24 words "in other words" and the word "odnosno" in line 5 of the same text
25 with the word "and."
1 So these are the two books that have -- I'm sorry, the two
2 questions that are being addressed to the CLSS, and we will await the
3 response before raising the issue once again.
4 We also have a memo from the CLSS of the 15th of February,
5 documents P811, but I'll give the floor to the registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] This document is admitted into
7 evidence as document of the Chamber, C-10, and as well as the CLSS memo of
8 the 15th of February.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I also wish to raise another
10 matter, but we'll go into private session to do that.
11 [Private session]
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session,
1 Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In open session, we have to
3 complete the issue of documents. I understand that the Defence is able to
4 provide a list. They have consulted with the Prosecution, and I give the
5 floor to the Defence.
6 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. As
7 wished by the Chamber, we can now ask for the final admission of a series
8 of documents into evidence which Professor Trnka as the constitutional
9 witness referred to during his testimony. Some of those documents are
10 still not available in English. Consequently, we will ask them to be
11 marked for identification if they have already not been admitted into
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You haven't prepared a copy for
14 the Chamber?
15 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Of course we have, Mr. President.
16 I just forgot to hand it out.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I was sure of that. As there
18 are several pages, try and be quick.
19 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] There are three columns. The first
20 column are the numbers that already exist for the documents, Defence
21 Exhibit numbers. The second column is the reference to the footnote used
22 in the expert report, and the third column are the documents that the
23 Defence would like to tender today.
24 I begin with the first document with the number 111 marked for
25 identification. This document was used in footnote at the bottom of page
1 107, and we would like it to be admitted as an exhibit.
2 Exhibit 112 marked for identification was used in footnote at the
3 bought many of the page 109 and we ask for an exhibit number.
4 Exhibit 360 ID is still not available in English, and we have no
5 request with respect to it.
6 Exhibit 364, which has not been tendered yet, is now available
7 only in B/C/S. It was used at the bottom of pages 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 16,
8 and 66 as a footnote in the expert report, and we would like it to be
9 marked for identification.
10 Document 368 belongs to the same category, which means it has
11 still not been admitted into evidence. It is not available in English.
12 It was used in footnote on page 33, and we would like it to be marked for
14 Document 370 is a document that is not in the file. It is still
15 not available in English. It was used in footnote on page 22 of the
16 expert report, and we would like it to be marked for identification.
17 Document 374 used in the footnote on page 37, we would like it to
18 be marked for identification until an English translation is available.
19 Document 375 used in footnote on page 36. We wish it to be marked
20 for identification until the translation is available.
21 Document 376 to be marked for identification, used in footnote on
22 page 28, and we would like to tend Terrace an exhibit.
23 Document 386 to be marked for identification. It is already
24 marked for identification. We wish it -- to have it admitted as an
25 exhibit. I will leave out the column regarding footnotes. We will tender
1 this document. So in order to save time, we will avoid referring to it.
2 Exhibit 387 marked for identification to be given an exhibit
4 Document 389 ID, we wish to have it admitted.
5 Exhibit 399 ID used in footnote on page 19. The translation is
6 still not available, and we have no request with regard to it.
7 Document 400 ID. We wish to tender it as an exhibit. Document 404
8 ID. We wish to have it admitted as an exhibit.
9 Document 408 ID, the translation is still not available, so we
10 have no request with regard to it.
11 Document 418 ID, we wish to have a final number.
12 Document 420 ID, we request an exhibit number.
13 Document 424 ID, we would wish to tender it as an exhibit.
14 Document 428 ID we ask for an exhibit number.
15 Number 429 ID, we wish to have an exhibit number for it.
16 Document 435 ID, tendered into as an exhibit.
17 Document 437, which has not been tendered so far, is now available
18 in both languages. We tender it into evidence as an exhibit.
19 Document 438 ID, tendered as an exhibit. Document 444, not
20 available so far, now is available in both languages and we tender it into
22 Document 445 ID tendered into evidence.
23 Document 447 ID tendered into evidence as an exhibit.
24 We are asking for the following documents to be tendered into
25 evidence: Document 461 ID; document 475 ID; document 476 ID; document 477
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 ID; document 478 ID; document 480 ID; document 500 ID; document 501 ID;
2 document 529 ID; document 759 ID; document 777 ID; document 961 ID;
3 document 994 ID. For each of those documents we would like to have final
4 exhibit numbers.
5 I will continue with document 1321, which has not been tendered.
6 It is now available only in B/C/S. So we would like it to be marked for
8 Document 1463 to be marked for identification, used in footnote at
9 the bottom of the page 83, still not available in English. We have no
10 request with regard to this document.
11 Document 1479 ID, we would like to tender it as an exhibit.
12 Document 1551 ID tendered into evidence as an exhibit.
13 Document 1556 ID tendered as an exhibit.
14 Document 1559 ID, still not available in English. No request with
15 regard to this document.
16 Document 1561 ID, an exhibit number is requested.
17 Document 1563 ID tendered as an exhibit.
18 Document 1597 ID tendered as an exhibit.
19 Document 1629, which is not part of the file, is now available in
20 both languages, so we tend it as an exhibit.
21 Document 1631, which has not been tendered so far, is available
22 only in B/C/S, and we would like it to be marked for identification.
23 Document 1632 has not been tendered. It is available only in
24 B/C/S, and we would like it to be marked for identification.
25 1633 ID, we would like an exhibit number for this document.
1 Document 1634, which was not contained in the file, is now only
2 available in B/C/S. We would like this document marked for
4 Document 1635, which was not in the file, is now available only in
5 B/C/S. We would like the document to be marked for identification.
6 Document 1636, not contained in the file, is only available in
7 B/C/S, and we would like the document to be marked for identification.
8 And now I'd like to deal with the new documents, Mr. President,
9 and I asked the Chamber's permission to use them with the expert in
10 constitutional matters.
11 The first document, which to date has no number, is a decision of
12 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The number is 63/90,
13 published in the Official Gazette of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and
14 Herzegovina, dated the 20th of June, 1990. This is a document that is
15 only available in B/C/S, and we would like it to be marked for
17 The following document is a new one. It's a report on the
18 elections held in the republic and on the election results published in
19 the Official Gazette number 82 -- number 42 - correction - /90, 19th of
20 December, 1990. This document is only available in B/C/S, and we request
21 that it be marked for identification.
22 A new document, the results of the referendum held in the republic
23 on the 6th of March, 1992, published in the Official Gazette of the
24 Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, number 7/92. This document
25 is only available in B/C/S, and we request that it be marked for
2 Another new document is an extract from the book of the expert on
3 constitutional matters, Kasim Trnka. The title is Konsitiutivnost Narodna
4 published in Sarajevo in 2000. It's only available in B/C/S. The
5 relevant excepts will be translated into English. For the moment we would
6 even like this document to be marked for identification.
7 A new document, decision of the Constitutional Court of
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina, bearing the number 16/93, dated the 8th of February,
9 1993. Similarly, the 25th of February, 1993, and the 3rd of March, 1993.
10 In fact, this document contains three decisions. It's only available in
11 B/C/S, and we would like it to be marked for identification.
12 It's necessary to make particular requests for certain documents.
13 The first one, document 414, is a document which was shown to the expert
14 in constitution the matters and was used in footnote 8 of his report.
15 This number was already contained in our list. That's number 414 referred
16 to. In this case, Mr. President, we request that the number given to this
17 document be DH2042, marked for identification. We request this number to
18 be withdrawn, and we request that document 414 be given a number marked
19 for identification.
20 A new document that was shown to the expert on the constitution is
21 a decree law. It concerned the application of the Criminal Code of the
22 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted as a republican law at a time
23 of an imminent threat of war or in time of state of war. This document is
24 dated the 1st of August, 1992, and it was published in the Official
25 Gazette number 11/92. It's available in both languages, and we request
1 that this document be given an exhibit number.
2 Document 2043 ID, we request that this document be given a
3 definitive exhibit number.
4 And finally the last document is a new one taken from the Official
5 Gazette of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, dated the 9th of June,
6 1994. It's a decree on proclaiming the law confirming decree laws and the
7 law adopted by the Presidency of the republic. This is a document that's
8 only available in B/C/S, and we request that it be marked for
10 Mr. President, this has -- means that we have dealt with all the
11 documents used for the constitutional witness. We have requested, the
12 translations of these documents. As soon as they're available they will
13 be tendered. And as far as the other documents are concerned, we will
14 make requests as soon as possible.
15 Thank you, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis.
17 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. The Prosecution only had
18 one quick query with respect to the document 414 listed on page 5. It was
19 a bit unclear to us if the document is to be known as 414 or as DH2042.
20 We're a bit confused with respect to that document. Perhaps my learned
21 colleague can clarify that point for us.
22 With respect to the documents, however, we do have no objections
23 to the documents, but at least the English transcript it's a bit unclear
24 what the number to be assigned to that document actually is.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'll give the floor to
1 Mr. Bourgon, but I have identified the problem. This document that the
2 expert refers to in footnote number 8 appears to have already been
3 admitted under number 2042, marked for identification. Defence counsel
4 has pointed out that this document was already given the number 414.
5 Defence counsel would like to delete number DH2042, marked for
6 identification, and would like to replace this number with number 414,
7 marked for identification.
8 Mr. Bourgon, is that what is in fact at issue?
9 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. The document
10 was already in the file. We tendered a second copy the week before the
11 expert on constitutional matters came. When preparing, we noted that we
12 had double copies of the document, but the document is available in both
13 languages. So we wish 414 to be given a definitive exhibit number. Thank
14 you, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So that the
16 Prosecution can have a view of the entire matter, we could provide them
17 with the document immediately.
18 Mr. Registrar, could you find document 2042 please.
19 Mr. Mundis.
20 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Actually I don't believe
21 we need to see the document, but given the fact that the witness, the
22 expert witness, referred to this in footnote 8 we also simply want to put
23 on the record then that the expert report needs to be amended, or the
24 footnote 8 needs to be amended to reflect the fact that it's now DH414
25 rather than 2042 to the extent that report refers to that document by
1 those numbers. We have no objection and there's no need for us to
2 actually look at the document.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Before I give the
4 floor to -- but, yes, Mr. Bourgon.
5 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I don't
6 want to confuse matters any more, but document 8, I have been told that
7 it's not that footnote. It's, rather, the tab. That refers to the tab
8 under which the document had been placed. I'll disclose the footnote
9 number to my colleague from the Prosecution and, if necessary, we will
10 ensure that this is contained in the file.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Number 8 on page 16,
12 line 2, in fact refers to the tab. It is not the footnote number that
13 relates to the expert witness.
14 Before I ask the registrar to perform his duties, I'd just like to
15 point out that page 11, line 17, 18 and 19, in that line we have the same
16 time, 9:30:00 seconds. This is technically impossible. I don't know why
17 these lines refer to the same time. The same seconds are referred to.
18 Perhaps the registrar can find out what the problem is during the break,
19 but I just wanted to point this out.
20 Mr. Registrar, I will now give the floor to you, which you will
21 have for a long time.
22 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We have
23 a series of 66 documents. I'll now deal with them in English.
24 [In English] Document DH111 marked for identification is now
25 entered into evidence under the reference DH111 with an English version
2 DH112 marked for identification is now tendered into evidence --
3 admitted into evidence under the reference DH112 with an English version
5 The document 360 is now marked for identification under the
6 reference DH360 ID.
7 The document 364 is marked for identification under the reference
8 DH364 ID.
9 The document 368 is now marked for identification under the
10 reference DH368 ID.
11 The document 370 is marked for identification under the reference
12 DH370 ID.
13 The document 374 is now marked for identification under the
14 reference DH374 ID.
15 The document 375 is marked for identification under the deference
16 DH375 ID.
17 The document DH376 is now - ID - is now admitted into evidence
18 under the reference DH376 with an English version DH376/E.
19 The document 386 ID is now admitted under the reference DH386 with
20 an English version 386/E.
21 The document DH387 ID is now admitted into evidence under the
22 reference DH387 with an English translation DH387/E.
23 The document DH389 ID is now admitted into evidence under the
24 reference DH389 with an English translation DH389/E.
25 The document 399 is marked for identification under the reference
1 DH399 ID.
2 The document DH400 ID is now admitted into evidence under the
3 reference DH400 with an English translation DH400/E.
4 The document DH404 ID is now admitted into evidence under the
5 reference DH404 with an English translation DH404/E.
6 The document 408 is marked for identification under the reference
7 DH408 ID.
8 The document DH418 ID is admitted into evidence under the
9 reference DH418 and the English translation DH418/E.
10 The document DH420 ID is now admitted into evidence under the
11 reference DH420 with an English translation DH420/E.
12 The document DH424 ID is admitted into evidence under the
13 reference DH424 with an English translation DH424/E.
14 The document DH428 ID is admitted into evidence under the
15 reference DH428 and with an English translation DH428/E.
16 The document DH429 ID is admitted into evidence under the
17 reference DH429 with an English translation DH429/E.
18 The document DH435 ID is admitted into evidence under the
19 reference DH435 with an English translation DH435/E.
20 The document 437 is admitted into evidence under the reference
21 DH437 with an English translation DH437/E.
22 The document DH438 ID is admitted into evidence under the
23 reference DH438 with an English translation DH438/E.
24 The document 444 is now admitted into evidence under the reference
25 DH444 with an English translation DH444/E.
1 The document DH445 ID is now admitted into evidence under the
2 reference DH445 with an English translation DH445/E.
3 The document DH447 ID is now admitted into evidence under the
4 reference DH447 with an English translation DH447/E.
5 The document 461 ID is admitted into evidence under the reference
6 DH461 with an English translation DH461/E.
7 The document DH475 ID is admitted into evidence under the
8 reference DH475 with an English translation DH475/E.
9 Document DH476 ID is admitted into evidence under the reference
10 DH476 with an English translation DH476/E.
11 The document DH477 ID is admitted into evidence under the
12 reference DH477 with an English translation DH477/E.
13 The document DH478 ID is now admitted into evidence under the
14 reference DH478 with an English translation DH478/E.
15 The document DH480 ID is admitted into evidence under the
16 reference DH480 with an English translation DH480/E.
17 The document DH500 ID is admitted into evidence under the
18 reference DH500 with an English translation DH500/E.
19 The document DH501 ID is admitted into evidence under the
20 reference DH501 with an English translation DH501/E.
21 The document DH529 ID is admitted into evidence under the
22 reference DH529 with an English translation DH529/E.
23 The document DH759 ID is admitted into evidence under the
24 reference DH759 with an English translation DH759/E.
25 The document DH777 ID is admitted into evidence under the
1 reference DH777 with an English translation DH777/E.
2 The document DH961 ID is admitted into evidence under the
3 reference DH961 with an English translation DH961/E.
4 The document DH994 ID is admitted into evidence under the
5 reference DH994 with an English translation DH994/E.
6 The document 1321 is marked for identification under the reference
7 DH1321 ID.
8 The document 1463 is marked for identification under the reference
9 DH1463 ID.
10 The document DH1479 ID is now admitted into evidence under the
11 reference DH1479 with an English translation DH1479/E.
12 The document DH1551 ID is admitted into evidence under the
13 reference DH1551 with an English translation DH1551/E.
14 The document DH1556 ID is now admitted into evidence under
15 reference DH1556 and an English translation DH1556/E.
16 The document 1559 is marked for identification under the reference
17 DH1559 ID.
18 The document DH1561 ID is now admitted into evidence under the
19 reference DH1561 and with an English translation DH1561/E.
20 The document DH1563 ID is admitted into evidence under the
21 reference DH1563 with an English translation DH1563/E.
22 The document DH1597 ID is now admitted into evidence under the
23 reference DH1597 with an English translation DH1597/E.
24 The document 1629 is now admitted into evidence under the
25 reference DH1629 with an English translation DH1629/E.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 The document 1631 is marked for identification under the reference
2 DH1631 ID.
3 The document 1632 is marked for identification under the reference
4 DH1632 ID.
5 Document DH1633 ID is now tendered -- admitted into evidence under
6 the reference DH1633 with an English translation DH1633/E and a French
7 translation DH1633/F.
8 The document 1634 is marked for identification under the reference
9 DH1634 ID.
10 The document 1635 is marked for identification under the reference
11 DH1635 ID.
12 The document DH1636 is marked for identification under the
13 reference DH1636 ID.
14 Concerning the document dated 20th of June, 1990, entitled
15 decision of the BiH Constitutional Court, internal reference number U
16 63/90, this document is marked for identification under the reference
17 DH2045 ID.
18 Concerning the document dated 19th of December, 1990, entitled
19 "Report of Republic Elections Commission on Results of Elections,"
20 Official Gazette 42/90, this document is marked for identification under
21 the reference DH2046 ID.
22 With respect to the document dated 6th of March, 1992, entitled
23 "Results of Republic Referendum" published in the Official Gazette of the
24 SRBiH 7/92, this document is marked for identification under the reference
25 DH2047 ID.
1 Concerning the document dated 2000 by Mr. Kasim Trnka entitled
2 "Konstitutivnost Narodna" this document is marked for identification
3 under the reference DH2048 ID.
4 With respect to the document with the following dates: 8th of
5 February, 1993; 25th of February, 1993; and 3rd of March, 1993, entitled
6 Constitutional Court of BiH internal number SU 16/93, this document is
7 marked for identification under the reference DH2049 ID.
8 Concerning the document DH404, yes, the issue has been resolved.
9 For the record, the DH2042 will be deleted from the Registry exhibit list
10 and DH414 is admitted into evidence as was the case previously with the
11 reference -- with an English translation DH414/E.
12 Concerning the document dated 1st of August, 1992, extract from
13 the Official Gazette of the republic of BiH, internal number 11/92, titled
14 "Decree with the Force of Law on Amendments of Decree with the Force of
15 Law on Applying Criminal Code of the Republic of BiH and SFRY; Adopted as
16 a Republican Law on Time of an Imminent Threat of War or in Time of State
17 of War," this document is admitted into evidence under the reference
18 DH2050 with an English translation DH2050/E.
19 Concerning the document DH2043 ID, this document is now admitted
20 into evidence under the reference DH2043 with an English translation
22 The document entitled "Decree on Proclamation of the Law on
23 Confirmation of Decree Laws and Law on Confirmation of the Decree Laws,"
24 extract from the Official Gazette dated 9th of June, 1994, this document
25 is marked for identification under the reference DH2051 ID.
1 [Interpretation] Mr. President, it's necessary to clarify that in
2 accordance with your decision on the CLSS memo, Chamber number C-10, the
3 memo also has a revised version for the following documents: P491/E
4 DH270/E. These two preceding versions will be replaced by a new revised
5 translation in accordance with the CLSS memo.
6 Thank you, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar, for
8 the work you have just done, which was absolutely essential. I would just
9 like to hear something from the registrar. DH2042, which has been
10 deleted, is there a new document? Will there be a new document that will
11 have number 2042 or will this number quite simply not be used?
12 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I
13 suggest that we don't use number 2042 to make sure that there is no
14 confusion in the future.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. If everyone agrees,
16 number 2042 will not be used.
17 This concludes that part of our work. I would like to thank the
18 Defence for having drafted this chart, which was very useful and helped us
19 to follow the order of the documents. As far as the next military expert
20 witness is concerned, we could proceed in the same manner. As far as
21 Defence numbers are concerned the footnote numbers and the third column
22 was a column for the final decisions on documents because I assume there
23 will be a lost documents that will be used when this witness appears. I
24 don't want to ask the Defence for too much, but if you have the time, it
25 would perhaps be useful if we had the title of the document next to the
1 numbers if possible.
2 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We will
3 do exactly as requested by the Chamber.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm going to ask the usher to
5 bring in the witness, please.
6 [The witness entered court]
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good morning, sir. Let me check
8 that you can hear in your own language what I am saying. If that is the
9 case, please tell me so.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, you ever been called as a
12 witness by the Defence for General Hadzihasanovic, and during this
13 hearing, I will ask you to read the solemn declaration, but will you first
14 tell me your first and last name, date and place of birth.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Abid Izmirlic. I was
16 born on the 13th of April, 1961, in the village of Klotjevac, municipality
17 of Srebrenica.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Do you have an occupation or
19 position today? If so, which?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am employed in the federal defence
21 ministry. I am an official in charge of the certain segments of the
22 cadaster of property of the Federation and land regulation.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A question that I put to all
24 witnesses, in 1992 and 1993, which is more than ten years ago, what was
25 your position? What were you doing in 1992, 1993?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In 1992, I was a fighter in the army
2 of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I was in the military.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did you have a rank and, if so,
4 what was it and what unit were you a member of?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had a rank in the former JNA,
6 which I left in 1992, with the rank of captain. And in the Army of Bosnia
7 and Herzegovina, I received a rank in 1997, and that was the rank of
8 major. In 2001, I opted for a non-military status, and I still enjoy that
9 status today.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You haven't quite answered my
11 question. I'm asking about 1992 and 1993. Which unit were you assigned
12 to, which headquarters, which entity?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In 1992, in April -- or, rather,
14 May, I was commander of the battalion of the Otes detachment until
15 September, and then I was redeployed to the defence ministry at the time,
16 and I stayed there until January 1993.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And after January 1993?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was officially assigned to go to
19 Zagreb to obtain geotopographic material for the army of Bosnia and
20 Herzegovina. Because of the well-known conflicts that occurred in the
21 territory of Bosnia with the members of the HVO, I was unable to return to
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I see. Have you testified
24 before in and international or national court about the events that took
25 place in your country or is this the first time for you to testify as a
1 witness in a court of law?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I have not testified before.
3 This is my first time.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Will you please read the solemn
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
7 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. You may be seated.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 WITNESS: ABID IZMIRLIC
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before giving the floor to the
13 Defence who begin with the examination-in-chief, which will be relatively
14 brief as we are due to have the break in about 20 minutes, I should like
15 to give you some explanations regarding the way in which this hearing will
16 evolve so that we can ensure the smooth functioning of the proceedings.
17 As I had said a moment ago, you have been called by the Defence to
18 contribute to some technical clarifications about certain facts that took
19 place. You will therefore be asked to answer questions that will be put
20 to you by the Defence. These questions will be quite neutral, and you
21 will be asked to provide quite detailed answers to those questions. Upon
22 the completion of this question and answer period, the Prosecution,
23 situated to your right, will also be asking you questions within what is
24 known as the cross-examination, and the duration of those questions will
25 be roughly as long as the time spent by the Defence. You will note,
1 however, that the form of the questions put to you during the
2 cross-examination will be different, because the party cross-examining may
3 ask leading questions, and the witness may answer with a yes or no.
4 Upon the completion of this stage, the Defence attorneys may have
5 some additional questions for you linked to the questions put during the
7 The three Judges in front of you, if they feel fit, may ask you
8 questions. As a rule, they have two aims, either to clarify the answers
9 you have given or because they believe that you are in a position to make
10 some useful contribution in the interest of justice, and they will have
11 questions for you along those lines.
12 During the questioning, the parties may show you documents, and if
13 they do so, you will be asked to recognise the document and perhaps
14 comment on those documents.
15 I also have to draw your attention to two points. You have taken
16 the solemn declaration to tell the truth, the whole truth, which means
17 that false testimony is excluded, and I'm sure you understand that. And
18 the second point, which is quite specific to our procedure, and that is
19 that a witness may refuse to answer a question if he feels that the answer
20 may one day be used against him to incriminate him. In that case, which
21 is something we never encountered so far, the witness may say that he
22 doesn't wish to answer, but the Chamber may request that he answer it
23 nevertheless, guaranteeing him immunity from prosecution.
24 So those would be in broad lines the instructions for the
25 proceedings. In about 20 minutes we will have a break, and we will have
1 another one in about an hour and a half. Your testimony may be completed
2 today. If not, we will continue tomorrow.
3 I also draw your attention to the fact that this is an oral
4 procedure, so we have no written documents about what you're going to say,
5 hence the importance of your answers, because they will constitute part of
6 the transcript. You will see the screen in front of you with the text in
7 English, and this becomes a part of the file.
8 Should you have any difficulty, please do not hesitate to tell us.
9 We have another 15 minutes or so until the break. I shall give the floor
10 to the Defence to begin their examination-in-chief.
11 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Mr. President, at the beginning I should like to provide certain documents
13 which I intend to use during the examination-in-chief of this witness. We
14 have copies for all the participants in the proceedings, and one copy has
15 prints in colour which should be given to the witness.
16 Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Examined by Mr. Bourgon
18 Q. [In English] Good morning, Mr. Izmirlic.
19 A. Good morning.
20 Q. We have had the opportunity to meet before your testimony today
21 before the Trial Chamber, but for the purpose of the transcript, allow me
22 to introduce myself. My name is Stephane Bourgon, and I am accompanied
23 today by my colleague Ms. Edina Residovic and as well as by a legal
24 assistant Muriel Cauvin, and together we represent the accused
25 General Hadzihasanovic.
1 Mr. Izmirlic, I would like to immediately ask you it take the
2 documents that are before you and to turn to tab number 1. Tab number 1,
3 Mr. Izmirlic, can you confirm that we have discussed this document
4 together in the presence of an interpreter yesterday?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. I only ask this question, Mr. Izmirlic, simply to go quicker into
7 the procedure so that we can get immediately into the substance. I would
8 simply like to go to page 2. I will read the information on your
9 professional experience, which is at this page --
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bourgon, just a small
11 technical matter. The document under tab 1, it has -- bears the
12 confidential stamp. If you're referring to it now, does that mean that
13 you're moving its confidentiality?
14 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I think
15 that we can lift the confidentiality of this document.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We take note of
18 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Q. [Previous translation continues] [In English] ... what was
20 included in this document with respect to your professional experience and
21 ask you to confirm whether this corresponds to your knowledge and
23 From 1980 to 1984, Mr. Abid Izmirlic attended the Belgrade
24 Military Academy. He graduated in 1984 and obtained a diploma in geodesy
25 with a speciality in topography. From 1988 to 1992, he was an instructor
1 on military topography in Sarajevo. He left the JNA in April 1992 and
2 began working for the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Bosnia and
3 Herzegovina. At the beginning of 1993, he was sent to Croatia to work
4 with the Croatian Ministry of Defence in the topography division. In
5 March 1994, he reported to the Supreme Command Staff in Sarajevo to assist
6 the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and he was sent to
7 work for the chief of staff of the ARBiH in Kakanj,
8 General Hadzihasanovic, who gave him the assignment to build the relief of
9 Bosnia and Herzegovina, a model, part of which was used in the present
10 case. In 1997, he was promoted to the rank of major and worked in the
11 Ministry of Defence in the geodesy topographic support department. In
12 2001 he authored a book on topography for the use of the army of the
13 Federation. In 2002, he retired from the army.
14 Mr. Izmirlic, I would simply ask whether this corresponds to your
15 professional background.
16 A. Almost entirely, yes, with the addition that in 1992, as I said,
17 up until September, I was a professional soldier and battalion commander
18 in the Otes detachment until I transferred to the defence ministry. And
19 finally under point 13, I chose my future status to be a civilian official
20 in the defence ministry. According to what you said, it emerged that I
21 was a retiree, but I continue to be employed in the ministry.
22 Q. Thank you, sir. I just have one more question concerning the
23 information provided in this section and with regards to your assignment
24 to Croatia in 1993. Is there a reason why you were sent to work with
25 Croatia in the topography department? Is there something you were
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 supposed to get there?
2 A. Yes. When the aggression began against Bosnia-Herzegovina in
3 1992, all the originals of topographic maps which were used up until then
4 within the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina were taken away to Belgrade
5 so that the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina was left without prints of
6 topographic maps and also without the originals from which copies could be
7 printed for the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. So I needed to get
8 either prints or originals of topographic maps.
9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Izmirlic. We move on to the subject matter of your
10 testimony today, and my first question is whether the methodology which is
11 described in this document at tab 1 and which we discussed yesterday, does
12 that correspond to what you were asked to do and what you did to
13 accomplish this task?
14 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, the --
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis.
16 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. The Prosecution has no
17 objection to leading questions with respect to the background of this
18 witness, but we do object to a procedure whereby my learned colleague
19 reads from a Defence pleading and asks the witness to comment on that. We
20 certainly believe it's important for the witness to describe his -- the
21 instructions he received and the methodology that he undertook in
22 complying with the instructions he received from the Defence, but we
23 believe this is information that should be asked in a non-leading way so
24 that the witness can fully describe to the Trial Chamber exactly what he
25 was asked to do and exactly how he did that without the benefit of a -- of
1 simply confirming what's in a written pleading that was prepared and filed
2 by the Defence.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Bourgon. The
4 Prosecution would like the witness to answer these technical matters
5 rather than you stating things and then --
6 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. My learned
7 colleague is quite right. I just wanted to save some time by going to the
8 first question, but I would like the witness to explain everything that he
9 did. I was just trying to move more quickly, but my learned friend is
10 quite right, and I have no problems with his objection.
11 Q. [In English] Mr. Izmirlic, I would like you to turn to tab number
12 2. My question concerning tab number 2 is whether this chart contains the
13 15 scenarios you were asked to assess and provide conclusions on?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. I will now proceed, Mr. Izmirlic, to ask you a few technical
16 questions before looking at exactly the work that your performed. And my
17 first question to you would be as follows: What are the factors which
18 affect the possibility for an individual to distinguish or to see a
19 person, an object, or an event from various distances?
20 A. On condition that there is optical visible between two points, any
21 two points on the ground along the line of observation, the clearness of
22 the picture obtained depends on a number of factors, and those are the
23 time of day, the season, the weather, the position and size of the object
24 being observed, the distance between the person observing the object and
25 the object, also the contrasting colours surrounding the object and the
1 visual capacity of the observer. Those are the main factors on which the
2 clearness of the picture depends. It depends -- I can elaborate on even
3 of these factors.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is 10.30. We need to have
5 our technical break. I am told that we need to have a break of at least
6 30 minutes because there are some technical matters to address. So we
7 will resume at 11.00.
8 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
9 --- On resuming at 11.09 a.m.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll now resume. I hope that
11 the technical problems have been resolved, and I hope that Mr. Bourgon's
12 computer is working properly.
13 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. My
14 colleagues will try to resolve the difficulty, but we'll continue, because
15 I won't need this equipment until the last part of my
16 examination-in-chief. Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Q. [In English] We've lost some time, so we'll try to make up for
18 that time by maybe trying to keep the answers as short as possible, and if
19 I need more, then I can ask you for more.
20 Before the break, you gave -- in response to my question, you gave
21 a series of factors which influenced the possibility for someone to see or
22 distinguish a person. Is there a difference when you see -- when you say
23 to distinguish an object and to see an object? Is there a difference
24 between these terms?
25 MR. MUNDIS: Objection, Mr. President. I'm not sure -- I'm not
1 sure this witness -- there's any foundation for this witness to be able to
2 answer any of these types of questions other than simply a general
3 knowledge that anyone in this courtroom might be able to have, and to that
4 extent I'm not sure that his testimony will bring much to us. If my
5 learned colleague can lay some kind of a foundation as to the ability of
6 this witness to answer these types of questions, I'm not sure that this
7 takes us much farther than the common knowledge that all of us have.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. But, Mr. Mundis, as far as
9 this objection is concerned, Defence counsel would like to know whether
10 the witness as a technical expert can distinguish between the distinguish
11 and see. Perhaps he could answer the question, perhaps not. And then
12 we'll see what the situation is.
13 Now, please answer the question that Defence counsel put to you.
14 Do you make a distinction between those terms or not? If not, it's not
15 necessary to waste time on an issue, on a question that can be dealt with
16 very rapidly. Please answer the question. Please answer the question.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. There is a distinction between
18 seeing an object or people. To see an object or people means to have a
19 clear view of the object observed. For example, if it's a man, part of
20 the body, the colour of the person's hair, et cetera. To distinguish
21 something means that the observer doesn't have such a clear view. It only
22 means that you can distinguish an object at a certain distance. You can
23 tell whether it's a tree or a man, but as to what the man is wearing, as
24 to the colour of his clothes, et cetera, these are things that one cannot
1 MR. BOURGON:
2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Izmirlic. My next question is simply: Is there a
3 method or a way to determine if a person was able to see an object, a
4 person, or an event from where he was located?
5 A. Yes. There are very clear scientific methods. It's not necessary
6 to be in a particular field. I wasn't in this area, the area concerned,
7 but there are methods. There's a graphic method for depicting the lie of
8 the land. Then there's the graphic method that is used by uses triangles.
9 And there's a computer method to calculate angles. It's quite possible to
10 determine scientifically whether a certain object is visible or not from a
11 certain distance.
12 Q. Thank you. Now, in response to my first question, you mentioned
13 something as to whether there was optical visibility as being the primary
14 factor before you went into the other factors. Can you explain how you go
15 about assessing this optical visibility?
16 MR. MUNDIS: Objection. Again, Mr. President, our position is
17 this -- there's no foundation for a topographer fear to be testifying
18 about optical visibility or optics. If my learned colleague can lay such
19 a foundation and show that the witness has some kind of technical
20 expertise with respect optics we have no problem with this. But the
21 witness is a topographer. He is not an optician, he is not an expert in
22 optics. At least based on the material before us which consists of a
23 pleading or a filing that my learned colleagues have put before this
24 Court. We don't have any kind of foundation for any kind of testimony on
25 it technical aspect of what the witness is being asked to testify about.
1 Topography is one thing. Optical visibility, capacity of eyesight,
2 there's no foundation whatsoever for this type of testimony coming in via
3 this witness unless my learned colleagues can lay some kind of a
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bourgon, there is an
6 objection. Could you ask the witness whether as a topographer or given
7 his military experience he had any training in optics. Try to know what
8 he knows about the field of optics, because the Prosecution claims that he
9 has no knowledge about optics. But if you have called him here it's
10 probably because you believe he has such knowledge. Please ask him the
11 appropriate questions.
12 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] For the sake of the transcript I
13 would like to state we have filed a document which quite clearly explains
14 what Mr. Izmirlic was asked about. It mentioned the questions to be put
15 to him during the examination-in-chief, and as far as the issue of optical
16 visibility is concerned, this has nothing to do with the eyes. It's a
17 topographic method that a topographer use. So this should not be a
18 problem. It shouldn't be problematic, and I would like to ask the
19 question. I'd like to put the witness -- I'd like to put the questions to
20 the witness.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have heard the Prosecution's
22 objection to your ability as a topographer to answer a question that
23 concerns optical visibility, but it appears that you're quite capable of
24 answering this question. Could you please answer the question.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Our eye forms an image, and one can
1 say metaphorically that it's an optical instrument. In all material that
2 I have had and in all schools that I attended and given all the methods I
3 have used, this is the term used, optical visibility. One tries to assess
4 whether there was optical visibility or not. What our eye can see is what
5 we call optical visibility.
6 MR. BOURGON:
7 Q. And is there a method, Mr. Izmirlic, that you can use based opened
8 your technical abilities to determine whether it was possible to see, for
9 a person to even see an object from a distance?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And can you explain briefly what this method is?
12 A. If you use a method to determine the lie of the ground, it's
13 necessary to have a topographic map. In this case, I was provided with
14 topographic maps of the territory where the observed points were located.
15 By marking the observation points and the point observed -- we marked the
16 observation points and the points observed, and then you determine the
17 height at the -- in the direction concerned. A graphic method is used to
18 determine the configuration of the land. By linking up these points, as
19 the crow flies, you have the distance as the crow flies or, rather, this
20 is the direction that the human eye looks in. This is what we call
21 optical visibility.
22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Izmirlic. I would like you to come back to the
23 issue of those 15 scenarios that you were asked to assess and I would like
24 you to say whether on the basis of this method there were any of these
25 scenarios it was not possible to see an object in these circumstances.
1 A. Yes. I don't know whether I can use the equipment.
2 Q. You can use table 3 or if you could go at tab number 3 in the
3 documents that were provided to you.
4 A. Here I have a table of basic information on the directions
5 observed. There are 15 directions that I analysed. I used the
6 already-mentioned methods, and I compiled this table.
7 In the first column you have the number of the direction in
8 question. In the second column of the direction observed, the name of the
9 observation observed. For example, under number one we have Strmac.
10 Later in the documents you will see that this direction has been marked
11 with an A. B was used to mark Gornje Cukle. Gornje Cukle. That was the
12 point that was observed.
13 The third column refers to the air distance in metres between
14 those two points. The next column is the altitude of the observation
15 point marked with H -- marked by HA. That is the altitude above sea
16 level. The next column is the altitude of the point observed marked with
17 HB. And then in the next column you have the difference in altitude
18 between those two points. If there's a minus in front of the difference
19 in altitude, this means that the observer was at a higher altitude in
20 relation to the point observed.
21 And then the following column is the altitude of the obstacle on
22 the territory if there was such an obstacle. And then finally in the last
23 column there are conclusions drawn as to whether it was possible to
24 observe in this direction or not, whether observation was possible in this
25 direction or not.
1 In the footnote, it says that air distances were measured and
2 altitude read from topographic maps the scale of which was 1:25000. And
3 these maps were adopted as a set of maps, number 5.
4 The second note states that the evaluation of the observation of
5 points was done by the method of ground profiles and by using the method
6 of triangles. That's also graphic method. And then there was also
7 calculation that was carried out of position angles in these directions.
8 I can support all of this with the literature. In the footnote it
9 says that detailed instructions for these methods or, rather, operations
10 can be found in the textbook Military Topography written by Abid Izmirlic
11 dated 2001. And then the book entitled Military Topography by Gvozden
12 Colovic, 1979.
13 Q. Thank you, Mr. Izmirlic. I look at your conclusions in the last
14 column of this chart, and I see that for the scenarios 1, 8, 9, 10, 11,
15 12, 13, 14, and 15, it says that observation was not possible. Was this a
16 conclusion based on the method that you've just described, and what does
17 that mean?
18 A. Yes. Yes. Given the methods I have mentioned for calculating the
19 ground profile in these directions, that was the case. And then there was
20 the method of triangles and the method of calculating position angles, and
21 the conclusions are identical for the directions that you have just
22 mentioned. There was no optical visibility. And this means that the
23 configuration of land was such that there were obstacles so that a
24 potential observer can't or could not see with his naked eye or an
25 instrument of any kind the points in these directions. There was no
1 observation possible in these directions.
2 Q. My next question is I would like to refer you to tab number 4, and
3 I would like you, using the ELMO which is beside you, to run through these
4 documents and explain exactly the work that was performed by yourself.
5 And if you have some charts or maps, to put them on the ELMO and everyone
6 will be able to follow in the courtroom.
7 A. This is the first direction, marked number 1, Strmac-Gornje Cukle.
8 The next attachment is a segment on excerpt from a topographic map, the
9 scale of which is 1:25000. Point A is marked on the map as I have already
10 said. That is the point of observation. And B marked the point observed
11 from the observation point.
12 The next attachment is also an excerpt from that same topographic
13 map, and we have the direction A and B. In the lower part we in fact have
14 the configuration of the land, which was obtained in the following way:
15 The horizontal line refers to the topographic distance between these two
16 points, and the scale is 1:25000 as can be seen. This means that 1
17 millimetre represents 25 metres in real life.
18 On the vertical line we have the altitude of the points on entire
19 direction. The scale is 1:10000 to make it easier to have a clear
20 picture. The entire direction also refers to the altitude. The altitude
21 of all points is marked on the entire direction, the altitude that
22 intersects our direction.
23 This is a complete profile, because the altitude of each isohypses
24 is read. An isohypses is a closed curved line which connects points at an
25 identical altitude.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 By vertically descending to altitude points and linking up these
2 points and forming an uninterrupted line, you obtain the exact
3 configuration of the land, the profile of the land, such as -- such as it
4 is on that direction. And again, when you link up this red line, when you
5 link up points A and B to form a line, you obtain the direction of
7 If there's an obstacle in this direction, this red line, so to
8 speak, cuts through the hill. In this case, it means that we have no
9 optical visibility between those two points.
10 I would also like to point out that the distance between those two
11 points is 4.200 metres.
12 The next attachment is an enlarged version of this very same
13 segment. On the Y axis we have the scale 1:20000, and the X axis or the
14 vertical line the scale is 1:8000.
15 That is the method used to calculate the configuration or profile
16 of the land, and this shows the entire configuration of the land in that
18 To confirm what I have just said, I used the method of triangles
19 or, rather, I assessed visibility by using the method of triangles. I
20 provided the altitude of point A, point B, and the altitude of the
21 obstacle on that direction, and then I provided the distance between those
22 two points, the two points of the direction and the distance to the
23 obstacle if there was an obstacle hindering visibility.
24 The triangle method is used as follows: On the horizontal,
25 rather, Y line, you take the lowest altitude as a 0 value. In this case,
1 this is -- this altitude is 610 metres. This was taken to be value 0.
2 Point A or, rather, the point from which one observed, was 330 metres
3 above this altitude point, and the scale is 1:10000. And there is a
4 vertical line, 33-millimetre vertical line heading towards another point.
5 In this case, there is an obstacle which is higher than the
6 observation -- the point observed. It was 38 metres higher than the point
8 When you link up these two extremities, these two points, A and B,
9 and B and P are linked up, you can see that the triangle at point P is
10 above the observation point. This means that you have no optical
11 visibility in this direction.
12 Again by using -- by calculating the position angles of this big
13 triangle and of the small triangle, the position angle is an angle that
14 includes the horizontal direction and the direction towards a certain
16 In this case, capital S is the local angle -- the position angle
17 of this big triangle or, rather, it's the main direction of observation.
18 And small s is the position angle in relation to the obstacle. In this
19 case, small s is bigger than capital S, and this means that in this
20 direction there is no optical visibility.
21 From everything that has been said, by using these three methods I
22 can claim with full responsibility that in the direction in question,
23 Strmac-Gornje Cukle, there was no visibility, and it wasn't possible to
24 observe with the naked eye or an instrument of any kind the point in
1 Q. I would like to refer you to this first page of this -- those
2 documents which is the map which indicates points A and B, and I would ask
3 that you place this on the ELMO, please. And my question is: In marking
4 points A and B on this map, did you use grid references, and how exactly
5 did you determine the position of the observer, the letter A, and the
6 position of the object being observed, the letter B?
7 A. In all segments or, rather, directions, I chose the most
8 favourable points for the observer, the points that are dominant, that are
9 higher in altitude than all the other points. So the most favourable
10 position for the observer. Similarly, the most favourable position for
11 point B, as can be seen from all the attachments of topographical maps
12 where the most dominant features or points were selected.
13 Q. I now refer you to tab number 11 in those documents, and I would
14 ask that you perform the same exercise with respect to scenario number 8,
15 but of course without going into as much -- as many details.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bourgon, for the benefit of
17 the Judges, we have followed very well the reasoning of the witness. On
18 map 1, could he show us with the pointer where is the obstacle at grid 640
19 metres, at an altitude of 640 metres?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Point A is the position of the
21 observer, point B that which is being observed. At a distance of 3.750
22 metres from the observer, there is an obstacle at an altitude of 648
23 metres, and the target or the point of observation is at an altitude of
24 610 metres. At this position at this place, there is the obstacle which
25 prevents visibility of the point of observation. Science tells us that to
1 the obstacle in this case one should add 10 metres to deal with certain
2 natural obstacles such as a tree, which I did not do in this case.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So will you point the pointer at
4 the point 648 metres so that we can clearly see where the obstacle is,
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Indicates].
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
8 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. [In English] We now move to tab 11 and scenario 8.
10 A. The next direction is Grahovcici-Gornje-Cukle. Again we have an
11 insert from a topographical map in the scale of 1:25000 with points A and
12 B marked on the map.
13 An excerpt from the topographical map of the direction A and B
14 with a profile of the ground calculated in the same way as I explained for
15 the previous scenario. By linking points A and B, one can see that this
16 imagined line of visibility cuts across the relief in several places,
17 which means that along this direction or axis again there is no optical
18 visibility, and it is not possible to observe anything.
19 Q. Now, out of curiosity, can you explain to the Trial Chamber why
20 would a soldier be interested in doing this type of exercise?
21 A. I am not sure I understand the question.
22 Q. What is the utility of doing this exercise for a soldier or a
24 A. Such assessments must not happen. In his office, he must first
25 prepare all possible directions of observation, because along this
1 direction you can't even establish radio communications.
2 Q. Thank you. Let's move on to your -- if you can finalise this
3 assessment with scenario number 8, and if you move to the triangle method
4 that you use.
5 A. Along this direction or axis, that is the distance between these
6 two points is 3.075 metres. The altitude of point A, the point of
7 observation, is 680 metres. Point B, which is being observed, is at an
8 altitude of 600 metres. And the highest obstacle along this direction is
9 708 metres high, which by drawing these triangles shows clearly that there
10 is no obstacle visibility along this direction. The method of angles
11 shows that small s is larger than capital S, which again confirms that
12 along this direction there's no optical visibility and it is not possible
13 to carry out any kind of observation.
14 Q. Moving on to tab number 12. Can you quickly go through scenario
15 number 9.
16 A. Yes. That is the direction Grahovcici, hamlet of Milika, and
17 Gornje Cukle.
18 On this attachment we also have points A and B marked. The next
19 attachment is an insert of the topographical map of this direction and an
20 image of the ground profile and relief of the ground providing the same
21 method, and by linking the two extreme points it is clear that the red
22 line intersects the hill in many places. So again there's no optical
23 visibility along this direction.
24 This is an enlargement of the same insert in the stale indicated,
25 1:16756 and 1:6000 along the vertical axis.
1 Again using the method of triangles, I measured another hill with
2 another triangle because there are three large obstacles along this
3 direction. I calculated three -- two triangles, I'm sorry. Point A has
4 an altitude of 725 metres, point B 605 metres, one obstacle has an
5 altitude of 705 metres, and the other one 663 metres.
6 Applying the triangle method by indicating the differences in
7 altitudes, it is visible that there's no optical visibility as confirmed
8 by calculating the angles as well.
9 Q. Moving on to tab number 13 and scenario number 10. If you can
10 just give your conclusions using only the first profile map.
11 A. [No interpretation]
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There seems to be a problem on
13 the transcript. It's working now. Please ask him the question again
14 appearing in line 4.
15 MR. BOURGON:
16 Q. Provide your conclusion with respect to scenario number 10. So I
17 have to repeat the question, but again just quickly go through the maps
18 and give your conclusions.
19 A. Yes. This is the direction Grahovcici or rather the hamlet of
20 Plavcici to Gornje Cukle, an excerpt from the topographic map, and it is
21 clear that there are one, two, three hills along this line. Our red line
22 cuts across those hills, which means that along this direction no optical
23 visibility can be achieved.
24 Also using the triangle method and the method of calculating the
25 triangles. And I claim with full responsibility that along this
1 direction, too, there is no optical visibility.
2 Q. I would now ask you to do the same exercise but again very quickly
3 with tab 14, scenario 11.
4 A. This is the line from Dusina to Lasva. That is the surroundings
5 of the school in Lasva.
6 On the map segment with the points A and B indicated. Then we
7 have the method of calculating the profiles and though the distance
8 between those two points is 1.750 metres, there is a large hill. So any
9 potential observer could not achieve optical visibility because of it.
10 This is an enlargement of the segment. And the graphic method of
11 triangles is as follows. Only if point B were to be within this large
12 triangle would there be optical visibility. This is also confirmed by
13 calculating the triangles, applying the triangle method.
14 Q. Thank you. I will now draw your attention to tab 15, and without
15 putting it on the ELMO, simply turn to the page that has the first profile
16 analysis and provide your conclusion.
17 A. Here again the direction is from Dusina, that is the cemetery, to
18 the crossroads in Lasva. The distance is 1.775 metres, and there are two
19 hills which are preventing any kind of visibility.
20 Q. And the same thing for tab 16, which corresponds to scenario 13.
21 A. The direction Nova Bila to Guca Gora, along this direction, and
22 the distance is 5.850 metres, and there is no optical visibility as can be
23 seen on this profile of the ground because the hill is obstructing the
24 view. And at this distance, it is not possible to achieve any kind of
25 visibility, and I think this is a case that is quite obvious.
1 Q. And can you do the same thing for tab 17 and scenario 14.
2 A. It's the direction between Cifluk and Donje Maline. Again by
3 using the method of profiles, we see that there are two hills standing in
4 the way at a distance of 2.700 metres, 3.050 metres. So it is not
5 possible to achieve optical visibility. And this could be confirmed by
6 applying the triangle methods and the position angle method.
7 Q. And as for tab 18, which corresponds to scenario 15.
8 A. The configuration of the land along the direction Velika
9 Bukovica-Guca Gora is such that almost immediately in front of the
10 observer there is an obstacle, a hill, so that along this direction it is
11 simply not possible to achieve optical visibility, because almost along
12 the whole length of this direction we have the red line cutting across the
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Izmirlic. My next question would be as follows:
15 For all of these scenarios that we've just covered, if a person were to
16 say that they were able to see an object at point B when they were located
17 at point A, what would be your conclusion?
18 A. My conclusion is absolutely that in all these cases, nine
19 different directions, it is not possible to achieve any visibility.
20 Q. I now refer you back to tab number 3, considering that this leaves
21 us with six scenarios, and can you tell the Trial Chamber what your
22 conclusion was for these six scenarios, and I refer to scenarios number 2,
23 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
24 A. Along these directions --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Stop, stop. The Prosecution is
1 on its feet. Mr. Mundis.
2 MR. MUNDIS: I also observe from tab 3 there are two additional
3 scenarios, that is 14 and 16, which the English version at least indicates
4 that observation was also possible.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Bourgon.
6 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I must say that it is
7 an error made at night. The two additional scenarios which are present
8 here are repetitions. So I must draw the attention of the Chamber to an
9 error in this table which needs to be corrected. We put the wrong page in
10 the binder. So scenario 14 is a repetition of 7, and so is scenario
11 number 16. Consequently, Mr. President, scenario number 14 on this table
12 can be scratched. Scenario number 15 becomes 14, and scenario 16 can also
13 be redacted. And scenario number 17 becomes 15.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So, Mr. Mundis, have you taken
15 note of this? Very well.
16 Please continue, Mr. Bourgon.
17 MR. BOURGON:
18 Q. Mr. Izmirlic, for the scenarios from 2 to 7 in which you mention
19 that -- where it says that an observation was possible, is there a way for
20 a layman to determine whether it was possible to see or to distinguish a
21 person, an object, or an event in the circumstances described in these
23 A. Yes. These same directions that you have listed were also
24 analysed and ground profiles were done for them, and it is obvious from
25 the image of the ground profile or the relief of the ground there is
1 optical visibility. Once that is established, we tried to establish what
2 it is possible to see at such a distance counting on all the factors which
3 may facilitate or complicate visibility, but along these directions there
4 is optical visibility.
5 Q. And what type of information would you use in order to determine
6 what you can see from those distances?
7 A. I used the standards or tables from literature available to me,
8 or, rather, the quoted book by Professor Gvozden Colovic from 1979 where
9 there are standards for certain scenarios as to what can be seen from
10 certain distances, and we can provide this as an attachment. Also, norms
11 taken from the rules, soldier, detachment infantry 1970 used by the former
13 Since that was not sufficient for me either, I verified those
14 tables on the ground, and true enough I did not visit these actual spots
15 that are mentioned because there was a lot of snow in Sarajevo and I
16 didn't think it necessary for me to go there, but in the surroundings of
17 Sarajevo, I carried out a test, and I asked myself some even broader
18 questions which I could read out to you or, rather, the questions that I
19 wanted to find the answers to so that I could be 100 per cent sure of what
20 I'm saying.
21 Q. I draw your attention to tab 19, and if you can explain what this
22 information is.
23 A. This is a table of possible observations on the ground. The data
24 were taken from the book military topography by Gvozden Colovic as I
25 indicated, and there's an indication of the objects that are being
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 observed as examples and the distances. Again there's a technical error
2 as can be checked with the original version of the book. This is not with
3 binoculars the distances at which objects can still be distinguished.
4 That is the original expression from the book, the book military
5 topography by Gvozden Colovic. So in this table a printing error has been
6 made it says with binoculars in the B/C/S version. But, rather, with the
7 naked eye. And then you see certain norms that show that at a distance of
8 5 kilometres that it is possible to distinguish a house, or that a lonely
9 tree can be seen at a distance of 2 kilometres.
10 Q. I would just like if you can turn to page 65 of the attachment in
11 this tab 19 and say whether this is the correct version of the book that
12 you were referring to?
13 A. Yes. This is the book translated into English, but in my own
14 language it is correct.
15 Q. Let's go further down. In your own language, page 65 of the
16 attachment in your own language.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Sorry. I will try to be more clear. You have those two pages.
19 Then there's an attachment that follows in tab 19. Do you have that?
20 There's a number, 5158, Vojna Topografija?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In this attachment, did you say what this attachment is?
23 A. This is a copy of the book Military Topography which we quote
24 from, its table of consents and the table that we're talking about.
25 Q. Can you move to tab 20 and say what this is?
1 A. This is a table of possible observation from the "Rules, Soldier,
2 Infantry Detachment" from the year 1980. And we have certain norms here.
3 For example, a soldier who is moving can be seen from a distance of 850
4 metres. For example, one can see the head of a man at -- from a distance
5 of 400 metres.
6 Q. And where does this information come from?
7 A. As I have said, this information was taken from the book Military
8 Topography by Gvozden Colovic and from the rules soldier infantry
9 detachment, and these were rules used by the former JNA.
10 Q. And the pages that follow this table, is that the book you are
11 talking about?
12 A. Yes, that's correct.
13 Q. For the record, I note that this is Defence Exhibit number 1642.
14 I now move on to tab 21, and I would like you to put this map on
15 the ELMO and explain exactly what this is.
16 A. As I have said, I was not able to see the actual directions where
17 there was optical visibility. I wasn't able to go into the field. And
18 since I didn't find all the answers to some of the questions I was
19 interested in, I made a test in the vicinity of Sarajevo, in the
20 surroundings of Sarajevo, and I asked myself a number of questions, and I
21 suggest that I read them out rapidly.
22 For example, if there's optical visibility in a given direction,
23 what can be seen from a certain distance? The questions are as follows:
24 Is it possible to see a man? Can one distinguish the sex and age of
25 people, whether someone is a boy or a girl? Is it possible to distinguish
1 between a soldier and a civilian?
2 Q. Just to indicate to everyone that that is actually the information
3 included in tab 24. Sorry, in tab 24, yes.
4 A. Furthermore, is it possible to distinguish hodja, priest, or a nun
5 in a group of people. Or soldiers? Is it possible to identify a uniform,
6 whether military or police. Is it possible to see the insignia of the
7 army or police? Is it possible to differentiate the types of weapons? Is
8 it possible to see rank markings? Is it possible to see what is being
9 carried, a mortar or a machine-gun or, for example, a television or a
10 fridge? Is it possible to distinguish a type of vehicle used, a passenger
11 car, a tractor, a truck, or a bus? Is it possible to clearly see the mark
12 of a vehicle, for example, Golf, an Opel, a Ford or a Renault? And is it
13 possible to see licence plates, the licence plate number. Is it possible
14 to identify a driver, whether the driver is a soldier, a male or female?
15 Question 14, is it possible to see what is loaded on the truck, cattle or
16 objects, for example, a sofa, a fridge, a cupboard, a TV, a video, or
17 weapons. And then 15, is it possible to distinguish the following
18 objects: Houses, stables, garages?
19 My next question: Is it possible to see items inside a building
20 through an open window? My following question: Is it possible to
21 distinguish the people in the vicinity of a building? And then the last
22 question I put to myself was whether it was possible to see fire and smoke
23 coming from the building on fire.
24 Using the norms and the literature that was available, I, as I
25 have said, put these 18 questions to myself, and I wanted to provide an
1 answer to these questions. I wanted to be able to state what one could
2 see from certain distances, certain directions where there was optical
3 visibility. I referred to distances of 850 metres, 1.400 metres, 2.550
4 metres, 2.700 metres, 2.825 metres, and 3.050 metres. These are the six
5 distances I referred to or, rather, the six areas in which we determined
6 that there was optical visibility.
7 I carried out this test in the surroundings of Sarajevo -- or,
8 rather, to be more precise, in a place called Bojnik. I climbed onto a
9 house that was being built, a house that was at a higher altitude than
10 everything else in that area, and I could clearly see the direction I was
11 observing from that point.
12 Earlier on, using a topographic map, I identified certain points
13 on this road, and I marked those points. I had previously gone there with
14 my friend and identified these points, and as you can see, here we have
15 the observation point from which I observed with my naked eye and by using
16 a pair of binoculars.
17 Q. I notice, Mr. Izmirlic, I look at this map which is on the ELMO,
18 and I look at location number 5. It says here 2.850 metres where -- and I
19 try to compare these figures with the scenarios that you had to analyse
20 and I see that scenario number 3 actually is 2.825 metres. Can you
21 explain this difference?
22 A. I apologise. The distance is 2.825 metres. That's the real
23 situation in scenario number 3 and the distance between the points is
24 2.825 metres. When I carried out my test, I selected the altitude of
25 2.800 -- the distance of 2.850 metres, and I had an item on the ground,
1 and I wanted to be certain that that was the position in question. But 25
2 metres doesn't mean much.
3 Q. You mentioned that you used binoculars to perform this test around
4 Sarajevo. Do you recall what type of binoculars you were using and what
5 this allows you to perform?
6 A. I used a 10X50 binoculars. These binoculars has a marking which
7 says 125 through 1.000 on the binoculars. That means when you use the
8 binoculars at something at a distance of a thousand metres, it's as if
9 you're looking at an object with the naked eye at a distance of 125
10 metres. So I would say that this pair of binoculars belongs to the
11 category of fairly good and high performance binoculars.
12 Q. And do you know thousand these binoculars compare with the
13 binoculars used by the warring factions during the war in 1993 in Bosnia
14 and Herzegovina?
15 A. Well, on the whole in Bosnia in the course of the war, military
16 binoculars is 6 X 30 or 7 X 40 were used, and these binoculars are not as
17 good as the ones I used.
18 Q. I refer you to tab 22, and would I like you to explain what this
20 A. These are technical instructions for hand-held binoculars, 6 X 30,
21 from the year 1969, and it contains all the technical information
22 necessary for these binoculars. And these binoculars, 6 X 30, have the
23 possibility of magnifying an image six times.
24 Q. I refer you to page 79 in the attachment in your language, which
25 corresponds to in the English translation to page 5, and ask you whether
1 this is the information that says a 6 X 30 binoculars will increase by six
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Can you now turn --
5 A. You can see that.
6 Q. -- to tab number 23 and tell us what this is. I -- just for the
7 record, I would like to state that tab number 22 was Defence Exhibit 1640.
8 A. These are the technical instructions for the RD 7 X 40 C
10 Q. And at page 2 of this instruction, and most particularly 1.2, what
11 information do we find there?
12 A. Well, you have the technical details here, and first thing
13 mentioned is that these binoculars magnify the image seven times. The
14 binoculars that I use magnified the image observed eight times.
15 Q. Thank you. We can now proceed to tab number 24 and look at the
16 chart you referred to a little earlier, and I would like to know first
17 what is meant by the plus and the minus signs in the chart. As I said, in
18 the upper horizontal table you have the distance I was interested in, 850
19 metres, 1.400 metres, 2.550 metres, 2.700 metres, 2.825 metres, and 3.050
20 metres. These are the distances used in the scenarios for directions for
21 which we established that there was optical visibility. And from these
22 distances -- for these distances I provided answers to these questions by
23 using a test, by making a test, by observing with the naked eye and with a
24 pair of binoculars. If we have a plus in the column this means that
25 visibility was possible and the answer to the question put was
1 affirmative. If we have a minus then the answer to the question put is
3 Q. And I would ask you whether you can inform the Trial Chamber
4 whether the results of your practical tests compared -- how did they
5 compare with the theory found in the books that we saw earlier and whether
6 these conclusions are a mix of both or just a practical test.
7 A. These results fully fit in with the theory that I was able to
9 Q. I now refer you to tab number 25 and ask you whether the
10 information included in this table correspond to your conclusions on the
11 15 scenarios that were put to you.
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think this is a
14 good time for a break, and after the break I'll need another 15 minutes to
15 show a few photographs that might help the witness facilitate the
16 Chamber's work.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It's half past
18 twelve. We'll have a 20- to 25-minute break, and we will resume at about
19 five to one.
20 --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bourgon, please resume.
23 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Q. [In English] Mr. Izmirlic, just before the break, you confirmed
25 that tab 25 contained your conclusions. I would like you to turn to tab
1 25, and I just have a few questions to ask you in respect of the table
2 that we found there. My first question relates to scenario number 2, and
3 in scenario number 2 there is a mention with respect to the possibility to
4 see -- possibility to see persons setting houses on fire, and what your
5 conclusion is that this is not possible with the naked eye, and then in
6 the box beside, with binoculars you say, "to distinguish yes movement only
7 but to see, no." Can you further explain what you mean by this
9 A. At a distance of 850 metres, it is possible to see people, people
10 in movement. But as to the uniforms they're wearing, the suit, the
11 clothes they're wearing, the objects that they have in their hands,
12 whether it's a rifle or a stick or a canister of some kind that is being
13 carried in order to set houses on fire, these are things that are
14 impossible to see.
15 Q. My next question relates to scenario number 3 from Strmac to
16 Brajkovici. And again the conclusion was with respect to persons. Now,
17 we see the distance here is 2.825 metres, and with respect to persons you
18 say that you cannot see a person with the naked eye, but you can see a
19 person with binoculars, and again you have to distinguish and to see. Can
20 you provide further information?
21 A. Well, I provide the same answer that I gave you to your previous
22 question. You can see people at that distance if you use a pair of
23 binoculars. It's possible to see a man from that distance. You can see
24 the outline of a man. You can see that there is someone moving, and you
25 can distinguish a man from a tree observed from the same distance, or from
1 an electricity pole. But as to the uniform or the clothes worn by that
2 person, as to what that person has in his hands, as to the weapon carried
3 by that person, these are things that one cannot see.
4 Q. My next question relates to scenario number 4 from Strmac to
5 Grahovcici in Milika, at a distance of 1.400 metres. Your conclusion with
6 respect to persons looting and persons setting houses on fire. According
7 to what this chart says, your answer is no for all of them, but I say to
8 distinguish movement, yes, with binoculars. What do you mean by this
10 A. At a distance of 1.400 metres, if you're using binoculars, a pair
11 of binoculars, a fairly powerful pair of binoculars, for example the pair
12 of binoculars that magnifies seven times, then it's as if you were
13 observing something with the naked eye from a distance of 250 metres, and
14 this means that it's possible to see the movements that people make. It's
15 possible to distinguish a person, but you can't see what the person is
16 doing. You can't see whether such a person is setting fire to a house.
17 You can see fire and smoke from such a distance, but you can't see the
18 precise act that such an individual would be involved in. You can't see
19 whether he has a rifle on him or something else, a video, for example.
20 That's impossible.
21 Q. Now, for all of these scenarios, and I'm talking about from 2 to
22 7, did you bear in mind the other factors that you mentioned at the
23 beginning of your testimony? Namely, you said the day, the season, the
24 weather. Did you take those into consideration, or are those included in
25 your conclusions?
1 A. Yes, by all means. This is a very important factor. How the
2 feature faces the observer and the position of the sun, these are very
3 important factors, and I assumed that these factors were very favourable,
4 that the conditions were ideal for an observer. That was my assumption.
5 Q. And was there a reason for doing so?
6 A. I wanted to be both objective and very strict with myself.
7 Q. Now, I have one last question with respect to the use of
8 binoculars. Is there a -- something particular about the use of
9 binoculars when it comes to seeing objects in the distance?
10 A. First of all, visibility must be good. If you turn a pair of
11 binoculars to the sun, the effect is very poor. And as I have already
12 said, if you have a 10 X 50 binoculars, you have the marking 125/1000 on
13 the binoculars. But according to that logic, if you have the distance of
14 2.000 that would be 250 through 2.000, not because of the way in which the
15 binoculars were constructed, but the mathematics I mentioned can be
16 applied for distances up to 2.000 metres. If you have greater distances,
17 these accusations are -- can no longer be applied, because if you use
18 binoculars for distances over 2.000 metres, the image you obtain is fuzzy.
19 You have a very unclear image.
20 Q. My next question, Mr. Izmirlic, is whether there are other ways to
21 make the same determinations as you have made in your conclusions, for
22 example, using a camera, or is there another way to do this?
23 A. Yes, but if you use a camera, I would say that the technical
24 equipment has made a lot of progress in this field. I couldn't prove this
25 scientifically, though, but my colleague who was supposed to -- to come
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 and testify here made an experiment with a camera, but because there was a
2 lot of snow in Sarajevo, he made this experiment in similar terrain in the
3 area of Mostar. He photographed certain features, certain people from
4 certain distances. However, I can confirm that I couldn't claim
5 scientifically that this is a hundred per cent accurate.
6 Q. I ask you to turn to tab number 26 and explain to us if you know
7 what this is.
8 A. This is an excerpt from a topographic map, the scale of which
9 was -- or is 1:50000, sector Mostar 2. And my colleague was down there,
10 as I have said. I wasn't there, but I'm fully familiar with the method
11 that was used.
12 The segment I'm now indicating is in the Mostar area at the place
13 of Podgorani. In that area, detail certain features were selected,
14 houses, auxiliary facilities, lorries, a jeep, a group of people, some of
15 whom were in military uniform, whereas others were wearing civilian
16 clothes. And a camera was used, a Olympus camera, recently manufactured
17 was used, and this camera has a zoom that can magnify the image five
19 These objects were photographed from a distance of 100, 200, 500,
20 1.000, 1.500 metres, 2.000 metres, 3.000 metres, 5.000 metres, and up to
21 7.000 metres. They went up to that distance from the objects I have
22 already mentioned. These objects were photographed twice. The first time
23 they were photographed in an ordinary manner, and the second time they
24 were photographed with this zoom that magnifies the image five times. And
25 according to the theory, if you have a zoom that magnifies an image five
1 times, you obtain an image which resembles the image you would have if you
2 observed those features with the naked eye from those distances.
3 Q. Can you turn quickly to tab number 27 and tell the Trial Chamber
4 whether this is the type of camera which was used to perform this test by
5 your colleague.
6 A. Yes, that's the camera used. You've got a photograph of the
7 camera, and you have technical instructions and technical details on the
8 camera. I've seen this camera and I was also shown photographs that were
9 provided on a CD. So if possible, I would be grateful if we could have a
10 look at those photographs too.
11 Q. Let's do that, Mr. Izmirlic. I will start with the first
12 photograph, and you can explain to the Trial Chamber what this picture
13 actually is. You can look at your screen, and you will actually see the
14 photo number 1.
15 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'll take advantage
16 of this opportunity to confirm that all the photographs, as well as all
17 the graphical analysis, are part of just one number or one Defence
18 document that has been provided to the Prosecution. I believe that the
19 number was 1978, but I'll have to confirm this because I haven't got the
20 exact number on me.
21 Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. [In English] [Previous translation continues] ... comment on this
23 first picture.
24 A. As I was saying, this is the area around Mostar. The settlement
25 is called Podgorani. A detail was selected on a relatively flat ground,
1 and two houses. One is a garage and some out-houses, a truck, a military
2 jeep, and a passenger car. Several people in a group, two of whom are in
3 uniform. Then there are also some children. And this segment appears on
4 the photographs, and this photograph was taken at a distance of 100
6 Now we will see the same image zoomed in five times. If
7 everything is all right with the equipment, this would be what the naked
8 eye can see.
9 Next photograph at a distance of 200 metres. So we can run
10 through the rest of the photographs quickly.
11 A normal photograph without a zoom at a distance of 200 metres.
12 The segments as listed a moment ago appear on the photograph in this way.
13 Zoomed in five times, this is what one gets.
14 We can move on. The same picture taken from a distance of 500
15 metres without you zooming in. Now, with the zoom, this is the result. I
16 think it is already quite clear that on this photograph already it is hard
17 to distinguish the uniforms. The truck is visible, and if one makes an
18 effort, you can see the small car. The buildings are still visible.
19 Next one, please. A photograph taken at a distance of 1.000
20 metres without zoom. Now, next one with the zoom. Here is the photograph
21 at a distance of 1.000 metres, and the visible ability of the observer at
22 certain distances. In this case, we can see the truck. And you can
23 distinguish between the big and the small car, and this was confirmed by
24 my tests. However, you can see that the people can only just be
1 Next, please. Can we have 1.500 metres, please, or 2.000?
2 This is a photograph taken from a distance of 2.000 metres without
3 the zoom. Now, with the zoom.
4 This is again a photograph without the zoom taken at a distance of
5 3.000 metres. Now, with the zoom, please. This is when we zoom in, and
6 it is still possible to distinguish the houses. It is possible to
7 identify the houses, the tables, and other out-houses.
8 A photograph from a distance of 5.000 metres without the zoom.
9 Now, with the zoom, please. It is still possible to identify the
10 buildings at a distance of 5.000 metres, and this is confirmed by theory
11 which says that at that distance it is still possible to distinguish the
13 One more, please. Yes. With an ordinary zoom you see a kind of
14 haze. This is at 7.000 metres. It is not a subject of discussion, but we
15 see from this what it is possible to see from a distance of 7.000 metres,
16 just a haze.
17 As I was saying, we wanted to show in this way, too, what one can
18 see, but I cannot assert this 100 per cent because the technology is
19 making great advances and anything is possible nowadays.
20 Q. Mr. Izmirlic, I just have one last question for you, and this is
21 simply to ask you whether on the basis of all the tests that you
22 performed, both the topographic test on the map as well as using those
23 rules found in military manuals and the own tests that you have performed
24 in the area of Sarajevo, I am not talking about the pictures, to what
25 degree can you confirm that your conclusions in the chart found in tab 24
1 are accurate? Tab 25, sorry. Tab 25 is the 15 scenarios.
2 A. On the basis of my training, on the basis of my personal
3 experience, on the basis of my research, I claim with certainty and full
4 responsibility that these indications are correct, that is that my
5 conclusions are correct.
6 Q. And one last question, Mr. Izmirlic, with respect to the pictures.
7 You concluded that this was not scientific information, but do those
8 pictures provide a good idea as to what can be seen from various distances
9 with the naked eye?
10 A. I believe they can.
11 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Izmirlic. I have no further questions.
12 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] The Defence has completed its
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The other Defence team?
15 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we have no
16 questions for this witness. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Prosecution.
18 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Cross-examined by Mr. Mundis:
20 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Izmirlic.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. My name is Daryl Mundis, and along with my colleagues here today
23 we represent the Prosecution in this case. I have a number of questions
24 that I'll be asking you. It's clear, given the time, that we won't finish
25 today, sir, but I'll at least get started.
1 Before I do that, though, let me assure you that my intention is
2 not in any way to confuse you, so I would ask if you don't understand my
3 question to simply say so and I'll rephrase the question so that you do
4 understand what it is that I'm asking you. Is that clear?
5 A. Yes, quite clear.
6 Q. Okay. Let's start out, sir, with a little bit of basics. Can you
7 just tell us a little bit about what the speciality of military topography
8 is all about?
9 A. Military topography. It doesn't have to be military
10 topography. "Topos" means a place. "Grapho" means to write. In other
11 words, a description of a place or the land.
12 Q. And what specific features of the science of topography relate to
13 the military?
14 A. The main tactical topographical categories of the land which have
15 some bearing on defensive activity, and those are, under number 1, the
16 relief of the land, hydrography, vegetation, communications, roads,
17 settlements, population, et cetera.
18 Q. Now, sir, let me ask you some questions about what it was
19 precisely that you were asked to do by the Defence in this case. Could
20 you tell us, please, what instructions you received from the Defence
21 counsel in this case with respect to the tasks that you were asked to do?
22 A. I was asked to make an assessment of observations in these
23 locations, and the scenarios 1 to 17 -- or, rather, the seventh,
24 fourteenth, and sixteenth are identical. The points of observation and
25 the objects of observation are the same, so we concluded there was a total
1 of 15 different directions.
2 From the Defence, itches simply asked to select the most
3 favourable positions for points A and B, if we can call them that. Point
4 A is always the place or the position from which somebody was doing the
5 observing. So my task was to make an assessment of the visibility from
6 those points to those B points.
7 Q. Now, sir, when you were given this task, can you tell us a little
8 bit about how you went about performing that task? How did you start?
9 What did you do? What methods did you use, et cetera?
10 A. First of all, I had to select a set of maps of that area to be
11 able to identify those points. It is simplest to work with the mentioned
12 set of maps, that is set 5, in the scale 1:25000, because they are the
13 largest, the most accurate, and the most detailed. And as someone who
14 used to work on designing those same maps, I can claim that their
15 reliability is 100 per cent.
16 So I first had to identify those points. After that, I had to
17 mark those points with the letters A and B, as I did, to link those points
18 with a straight line and to analyse the position of the ground or the
19 configuration of the land in between.
20 As a topographer can at each point on the map determine the
21 altitude, what is shown on that map. Is it a house, a stream, flowing
22 water, or a river that is flowing? A river that is flowing constantly or
23 one that can occasionally dry up.
24 Then on that same map, there is the vegetation, which is mostly
25 marked in green, whereas the altitudes in this case were indicated with
1 isohypses. And I said a moment ago that those were closed curves linking
2 points of the same altitude. Then also there are trigonometric points and
3 grid points. And on these maps there are main and auxiliary points at an
4 equidistance of 10 metres. The equidistance is the vertical distance
5 between two neighbouring isohypses. So it is possible to say with
6 certainty within a metre the altitude of any point on the map, and this
7 was important for assessing visibility.
8 Q. Now, sir, let me ask you this question about the maps and this
9 procedure or process that you undertook. Did you use paper maps or did
10 you use computer generated maps or the paper maps having been scanned into
11 the computer in order to conduct the analysis and create the maps that we
12 have with us here in the courtroom today?
13 A. No. I had the original printed topographic maps such as they
14 exist in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the federal defence ministry, we have
15 all sections of topographic maps covering the territory of Bosnia and
16 Herzegovina in the scale 1:25000, 50.000, 200.000 and a review topographic
17 map of 1:500000. And I am in a possibility to pick up this map, not just
18 me, any official or soldier, to -- we are able to use those maps, so that
19 I used those maps printed from a matrix.
20 Q. So if I understood you correctly then, sir, you simply took a
21 paper version of the 1:25000 map and made the calculations that we have
22 before us in the binder today.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And the information that you relied on in doing your computations
25 is all reflected on the map.
1 A. Yes. The map has all the scales. I did take with me the
2 originals of those maps, at least most of the originals of those maps. So
3 I have them in the scale of 1:250000. And each map contains information,
4 the most important being the scale of the map, which means that if it says
5 1:25000, that is sufficient indication for me that 1 millimetre on the map
6 relates to 25 metres in nature, or 1 centimetre equals 250 metres. And
7 that applies to the entire area covered by that map. Which means that if
8 we measure the distance between Sarajevo and Zenica on a map in
9 millimetres and multiply the millimetres with the scale, we will find that
10 it is 72 kilometres.
11 Another indicator that is probably of interest to you is how I
12 compute the heights. There is an indication on the map of equidistances,
13 and as I said, those are vertical distances between two neighbouring
14 isohypses. And on the set of five maps, it is ten metres. On maps
15 1:50000 and 100000, this equidistance is 20 metres. And on a map of
16 1:200000, which is still a topographic map, the equidistance is 100
17 metres. Why. Because it covers a larger area, and simply it is readable
18 and usable.
19 Q. Okay. So let me try to see if I understood what you've told us,
20 sir. In producing the maps that we have before us in the binders, you
21 relied on the locations, that is the A and the B points were provided to
22 you by the Defence, and all the other information you were able as a
23 professional topographer to determine from the face of the paper map
25 A. Absolutely so. If you were to give me a map of The Hague and if
1 you were to tell me to select two particular points, with the help of the
2 map I would be able to tell you whether visibility is possible or not. I
3 don't have to go to the spot to be able to tell you that.
4 In every army in the world there is a service known geotopographic
5 security of the armed forces and which any normal commander has to use
6 before any action. And also in the broader senses, in order to decide
7 whether he will use tanks along a particular axis. A tank cannot go
8 across gorges. It cannot jump over. If he gives them the wrong
9 direction, they would all fall in. So he has to study the map carefully
10 to see whether the terrain is such as to use armoured mechanised units,
11 where he will build engineers' fortifications, et cetera. So every branch
12 of the army will decide accordingly.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis, I think it will be
14 best to stop because it is almost a quarter to two. I have something to
15 ask the registrar regarding the programme for tomorrow.
16 So, Witness, your testimony will continue tomorrow so you will be
17 spending the evening in The Hague. So I will ask you to come back for the
18 hearing tomorrow morning at 9.00. In the meantime you will not meet with
19 the Defence attorneys, because having taken the solemn declaration, you
20 are now a witness of justice and you are not allowed to contact anyone
21 before tomorrow. I will ask the you canner to escort you out of the
22 courtroom and the witness and victims unit will take care of you.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise. Is it tomorrow or
24 Monday as somebody said to me?
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A priori you will be testifying
1 tomorrow. In principle, you will not be here until Monday unless the
2 Defence expects to keep you until Monday through the re-examination.
3 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we go into private session,
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, we'll go into private
7 [Private session]
11 Page 16762 redacted. Private session.
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, regarding the
8 question of documents, the Judges have the impression that there's a
9 slight confusion regarding P662. There are two memos of the CLSS which
10 were given number C-10. So this morning we asked that we address an
11 additional request to the CLSS with two questions, and when we receive the
12 answers to those questions there will be a third memo which will remain
13 marked C-10, regarding DH270, and that was the document given the code
14 C-10. Is that all clear, Mr. Registrar? Can you confirm that?
15 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I agree
16 with the two references that you made. It is quite clear now. C-8 and
17 C-10. It's only P491/E and DH270/E.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Having said that, I ask everyone
19 to come back tomorrow for the hearing at 9.00 to hear the witness who will
20 come earlier than planned and then we will continue with this witness if
21 we have time. So we will all meet again tomorrow morning at 9.00.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m., to
23 be reconvened on Friday, the 4th day of March, 2005,
24 at 9.00 a.m.