Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 16862

1 Monday, 7 March 2005,

2 [Open session]

3 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.

4 [The accused entered court]

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, will you please

6 call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Case number

8 IT-01-47-T, the Prosecutor versus Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir Kubura.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

10 Can we have the appearances for the Prosecution, please.

11 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon, Your

12 Honours, Counsel, and everyone in and around the courtroom. For the

13 Prosecution, Matthias Neuner and Daryl Mundis, assisted today by our

14 intern, Alenka Obal, and our case manager Andres Vatter.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16 Can we have the appearances for the Defence, please.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] On behalf of General Enver

18 Hadzihasanovic, Edina Residovic, lead counsel; and Stephane Bourgon,

19 co-counsel. Thank you.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21 And the other Defence team, please.

22 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.

23 On behalf of Mr. Kubura, Rodney Dixon, Fahrudin Ibrisimovic, and Nermin

24 Mulalic, legal assistant.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 16863

1 On this day, on the 7th of March, 2005, I bid good afternoon to

2 all those present, the representatives of the Prosecution, the five

3 attorneys present, the accused, and the two new assistants assigned to our

4 Chamber. I also add my greetings to the registrar and the usher and all

5 the persons assisting us both within and outside the courtroom.

6 We need to continue our work today, and that is the testimony of

7 a witness who testified last week and who needs to be cross-examined by

8 the Prosecution.

9 Could the usher go and bring the witness, who is waiting.

10 [The witness entered court]

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon. Let me check

12 that you are hearing the translation of my words in your own language.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I am.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You may be seated.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I know you've been waiting for

17 several days to appear again in the courtroom because, as you know, we

18 changed the order of witnesses, which meant that you had to stay in The

19 Hague for several days. I hope you made the best of your stay and visited

20 the tourist sites of the city, and today will be the last day of your stay

21 and you will be able to return home shortly after the completion of this

22 hearing.

23 Without further ado, I will give the floor to the Prosecution to

24 begin their cross-examination.

25 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.

Page 16864


2 [Witness answered through interpreter]

3 Cross-examined by Mr. Mundis:

4 Q. Good afternoon, Witness, and welcome back.

5 Sir, I'm going to ask you a few questions to start off with about

6 the tasks that you were given by the Defence and some of the methodology

7 that you employed. I'm aware that the Defence have filed a motion to the

8 Chamber informing them of that, but I do have some -- some questions about

9 -- about this.

10 Sir, do you recall approximately when it was - approximately -

11 that you first became engaged in undertaking these tasks for the Defence?

12 A. I apologise. You mean these specific tasks or are you asking me

13 about the methods?

14 Q. No, these -- these specific tasks with respect to the maps, the

15 calculations that you've done as reflected on the maps, and your analysis

16 with the photographic work and your tests that you personally conducted in

17 Sarajevo. When -- when were you first asked to assist with this project?

18 A. About two months ago.

19 Q. Let's focus first, please, on the maps with the calculations and

20 the -- and the visibility lines that -- that have been produced on those

21 maps. You told us last Thursday that basically you were provided with the

22 A points and the B points and that based on that you did the calculations

23 and worked with the maps to produce the lines that are visible on the

24 maps. Is that correct?

25 A. That's right.

Page 16865

1 Q. And just so that everyone is clear, sir, at -- during 1993, you

2 were not at any of the locations depicted on the maps. Is that correct?

3 You weren't in Central Bosnia in the summer of 1993?

4 A. I wasn't there, no.

5 Q. And from the period approximately two months ago until today,

6 were you at any point in time in any of the locations depicted on the maps

7 that you've produced for us here in court?

8 A. No, I didn't visit any of those points, but travelling on another

9 assignment to Travnik I passed along the main road from Travnik to

10 Sarajevo and I passed through the locality of Nova Bila, but that had

11 nothing to do with this.

12 Q. But just so we're clear, sir, for example, you didn't climb to

13 the stop of Strmac and look in the direction of Cukle or Grahovcici.

14 A. No, I didn't.

15 Q. And, sir, with respect to the photographs, again, so that

16 everything is clear for the record, the photographs that you took us

17 through last week, the electronic photographs that we all saw on the

18 screen in front of us, were taken in an area near Mostar; is that correct?

19 A. That's right.

20 Q. And I believe you told us, sir, that those photographs were taken

21 by one of your colleagues.

22 A. Yes, that's right.

23 Q. And you, sir, were not present when these photographs were taken;

24 is that correct?

25 A. I was not present, but it was explained to me.

Page 16866

1 Q. Okay. We'll get to that, sir, in just a -- just a second.

2 Can you tell us, sir: Were you provided with the digital files

3 containing these photos, or did someone print them out and give them to

4 you in a hard copy? How did you obtain these photos from your colleague?

5 A. In the digital form, on a CD.

6 Q. Sir, there were some markings on the photos, including red

7 brackets and distances with the distance located printed onto the

8 photographs. Can you tell us who put those markings on the photographs?

9 Was that you or a colleague or someone else perhaps?

10 A. The markings with the red rectangle was automatically made by the

11 camera, but whether the photographs were taken with a normal camera or

12 with the zoom and how many times, this was indicated by my colleague.

13 Q. Do you know, sir, who put the distance indications on the

14 photographs?

15 A. I'm not quite sure I understood the question.

16 Q. Some of the -- or all of the photographs say, for example,

17 "D=100 m" and then the next one said "D=100 m 5x ZUM," et cetera. How

18 were those markings or indications put onto the photographs?

19 A. As far as I know, the distances were selected, so we tested

20 visibility on the ground in that way too. And the distances were

21 carefully chosen, the distance from the object that was being

22 photographed, whether it was a building or people, and then the cameraman

23 would move to a certain distance and before my own examinations were

24 conducted we tested visibility at the distances indicated on the

25 photographs.

Page 16867

1 Q. I'll ask you a little bit more about the methodology in a moment,

2 but perhaps my question wasn't clear. My question simply went to who or

3 how did the "D=100 metres" marking get placed onto the photographs?

4 A. The CD with the photographs was given to me by Mr. Kemo

5 Becirevic, who was my colleague and who had originally been planned for

6 this trial. He explained to me in detail what had been done, what

7 photographs had been taken, what methods had been applied, and which

8 camera had been used. The entire presentation was shown to me, and I was

9 given a CD with all this information, and this is what I provided.

10 Q. So I take it then, sir, from that answer that the markings in

11 white on the photographs, such as the "D=100 metres," was already on the

12 digital photos at the time you got them and you don't know who put them on

13 there or how they got onto the photographs. Is that accurate?

14 A. Yes, that's accurate.

15 Q. Now, sir, when -- when your colleague Mr. Becirevic provided you

16 with this CD and explained to you the steps he had taken, did you take any

17 notes or did he give you any written notes as to how he had done this, or

18 did he just orally explain it to you?

19 A. The explanation was given to me orally. There were no written

20 comments. I received the CD.

21 Q. Now, you told us -- you told us last week about the type of

22 camera that was used. Do you remember anything about the type of lens or

23 lenses that were used, including the focal length of the lenses that were

24 used to make these various photos?

25 A. I'm afraid I couldn't say, because I am not an expert in

Page 16868

1 photography or cameras. And this method, as I already said, is again one

2 that I couldn't claim 100 per cent that it is absolutely what it purports

3 to be.

4 Q. And, sir, do you know if Mr. Kemo Becirevic took the photos or

5 was he simply present when someone else took the photos?

6 A. Kemo Becirevic took the photos himself personally.

7 Q. Do you know, sir, the approximate time period when the

8 photographs were taken?

9 A. I said that I became involved in these proceedings about two

10 months ago and those photographs had been taken before that. Now, whether

11 it was five, ten, or fifteen days before that, I can't tell you with

12 certainty because I didn't think it was important. I went to see Mr. Kemo

13 Becirevic, and he simply presented it all to me, the photographs, and

14 informed me in detail about what he had done.

15 Q. So you don't know what -- even what season the photographs were

16 taken; whether it was autumn or winter or fall or summer.

17 A. This could have been around the New Year, maybe a day or two

18 before or a day or two after, but the season was autumn to winter.

19 Q. The photographs -- or the weather in the photographs appears to

20 be rather overcast and in at least one of the photographs it appears as

21 though there's a recent rain on the ground. Can you recall whether you

22 asked or discussed with Mr. Becirevic the weather conditions on the day or

23 days the photographs were taken?

24 A. I did not discuss it, but clearly nobody would take photographs

25 when it's cloudy and overcast, nor when it's sunny. And the area of

Page 16869

1 Mostar has a climate with a large number of clear days, sunny days, so it

2 was probably not difficult to find such a day and it's not by chance that

3 the area of Mostar was chosen rather than the actual spot which was in

4 those days covered with snow, overcast, foggy, et cetera.

5 Q. But you don't remember -- in light of what you just told us, that

6 Mostar has a climate with a large number of clear days, you didn't discuss

7 with Mr. Becirevic why these photos were taken on what appears to be a

8 rather overcast day?

9 A. No. The whole process, including my own tests, and I believe

10 this test too, were done under ideal conditions or, rather, given the

11 factors that I mentioned at the beginning, those which would provide the

12 best possible visibility.

13 Q. Do you recall what Mr. Becirevic told you about the method that

14 was used for measuring the distances? For example, the photo that says

15 "D=100 metres," was that done by using a tape measure, or a range finder

16 -- a laser range finder, or GPS, or did he simply count out 100 --

17 approximately 100 metres by walking? Can you tell us how he actually

18 measured the distances?

19 A. I was also given a topographic map, "Mostar 2," in the scale of 1

20 to 50.000, a set of maps, number 4, a topographic map of the area, which

21 means that 1 millimetre on this map stands for 50 metres in reality.

22 Before that, the route was prepared -- or rather, the positions from which

23 the photographs were taken. So these things were measured on the map, the

24 points were marked on the map, then those locations were identified on the

25 ground, and from those spots, photographs were taken of the objects or --

Page 16870

1 or rather, the people who were being filmed.

2 Q. Sir, how did you locate or identify the precise locations on the

3 ground, based on the 1 to 50.000 maps?

4 A. I worked on maps in the scale of 1 to 25.000, if you're referring

5 to my test.

6 Q. No, I'm still -- sorry -- sorry for interrupting, but I'm still

7 talking about the photographs. How did Mr. Becirevic determine in the

8 photographs that the object he was photographing was 100 metres away or

9 200 metres away or 500 metres away, et cetera? How did he determine how

10 far he was from the object he was photographing?

11 A. I said that the topographic maps that were used are highly,

12 highly precise and each point on the map can be found in nature, and for

13 the purpose of identification, one uses objects or features that are

14 easily recognisable. For instance, confluences of rivers, curves in the

15 road, isolated houses, et cetera, et cetera. And with the help of such

16 identification, one can establish that that is what one is seeing on the

17 map. And using an ordinary ruler with millimetres on it, we know that if

18 it is 10 millimetres, this means that it is actually 500 metres in nature.

19 Q. Sir, I understand how one can use the map to determine distances

20 between objects. My question is: How did Mr. Becirevic determine the

21 distance from the object that he was photographing? How did he take the

22 information on the map and determine where to stand in order to take the

23 photographs at 100 metres?

24 A. By simple measurement on the topographic map. I told you about

25 the identification of features on the ground.

Page 16871

1 Q. But -- but, sir, the -- the vehicle and persons and buildings

2 that are depicted in the photographs were not visible on the maps, on the

3 1 to 50.000 maps, were they?

4 A. I explained what was done. The house was obviously visible.

5 There are also methods to identify exact spots. With a pencil, I could

6 point to the spot where I may be standing. And the scene that was

7 photographed was always the same. Only, in this case, Mr. Kemo Becirevic,

8 who was the cameraman, would move away from those objects to achieve

9 different distances. As you can see, the photograph always depicts the

10 same scene: The house, and the other facilities were always in the same

11 spot.

12 Q. And, sir, moving -- moving back from 100 metres to 200 metres,

13 are you telling us that Mr. Becirevic relied on the map, or did he use

14 some other kind of measuring method in order to determine that he was 200

15 metres from the people and the vehicles, or did he just use the map?

16 A. The map, because this distance and this difference between 100

17 and 200 metres is 2 millimetres on the map. And I told you that the map

18 had been prepared in advance. The points had been marked and identified

19 on the ground -- on the map and on the ground. No measurements were

20 carried out on the ground.

21 Q. When you say "the points had been marked and identified on the

22 ground," how was that done?

23 A. I have the feeling that we seem to be going round in a circle.

24 However, to be able to carry out this task, one needs to have a

25 topographic map, and they had such a map of the scale 1 to 50.000, which

Page 16872

1 is absolutely precise and on the basis of which it is quite possible to

2 identify any spot on the ground by simply marking it, measuring the

3 distances, and identifying it, which in this case means comparing the

4 contents on the topographic map with the contents on the ground.

5 Q. Now, sir, do you recall how Mr. Becirevic informed you about the

6 procedure he undertook when utilising or using the zoom on the camera?

7 For example -- and I'll show you this in just a moment, but there's a

8 photograph that says "D=200 metres" and then a photograph that says

9 "D=200 m 5x ZUM." Did he explain to you how he did that, how he took

10 those two photographs?

11 A. No, not to any great detail. He explained to me things that I

12 could understood, about photos -- taking photos and the cameras. "Zooming

13 in" means that one focuses on certain details, and those details were

14 chosen by him, and that's as much as I was informed about.

15 Q. Do you know, sir, if for the photos taken at 200 metres with the

16 zoom, was he standing in the same place or did he move around when taking

17 the photos from the same distance away from the people in vehicles?

18 A. The zoom was always a five-time enlargement, regardless of the

19 distance from which the photo was taken. The same zoom was used, a

20 five-time enlargement.

21 Q. My question, though, sir, is: He would take the photo from 200

22 metres and then he would stay in the same place and zoom five times in, or

23 would he move to a different place that was also 200 metres away and zoom

24 in?

25 A. Again, I don't understand your question, sir.

Page 16873

1 Q. Let me try it this way: Mr. Becirevic would identify from the

2 maps a distance - for example, of 200 metres away - from the persons in

3 vehicles and he would take a photograph from that location. Is that what

4 he explained to you?

5 A. Yes. Yes. Yes.

6 Q. Now he's going to take a photograph from 200 metres but using the

7 five-time zoom feature on the camera. Would he stay at the same point and

8 use the five-time zoom, or would he go to a different point that was also

9 200 metres from the persons and the vehicles and use the 500 -- or

10 five-time zoom?

11 A. He did it from the same place. First he took just a normal photo

12 -- photograph and then he would use the five-time zoom from the point

13 that was previously selected and identified by him. Then he would move to

14 another distance, which again was prepared in advance and marked in

15 advance.

16 Q. Okay. Let me -- let me show you two of the photographs, sir.

17 MR. MUNDIS: With the assistance of the usher, Mr. President,

18 we're going to use the hard copies of the photos rather than the

19 electronic ones due to some technical limitations that we're facing at the

20 moment.

21 I would ask that those be placed on the ELMO, please. And

22 perhaps if -- if the ELMO can be zoomed out.

23 Mr. Usher, I'd like the two photos to be placed -- and if it

24 could be zoomed out just a little perhaps, or the -- that's -- that's

25 fine.

Page 16874

1 Q. Now, sir, the photograph in the top says "D=200 m 5x ZUM" and the

2 photo on the bottom says "D=200 m." Are you telling us, sir, these photos

3 were taken by Mr. Becirevic from the same precise location?

4 A. Yes, this is what I'm saying.

5 Q. Because the top photo, the five-time zoom, you'll notice there's

6 an expansive amount of ground in the -- in the foreground of the photo,

7 which, based on the bottom photo, does not seem to be possible in light of

8 the stone fence and the brush and other plant life in the immediate

9 vicinity of the fence. Do you see what I'm referring to?

10 A. This is true. However, when you use a zoom -- the zoom feature,

11 this focuses on the details which were depicted in the original photo.

12 And due to the abilities and capabilities of a camera, every camera has

13 its own angle. In other words, it has its own technical characteristics.

14 And this tells you what the distance is in the part which is being

15 photographed.

16 Q. Okay. Just so that we're clear then, sir: On the bottom

17 photograph, you're telling us that if you were to zoom in five times on

18 the bottom photograph, that you would see a similar expanse in the

19 foreground immediately in front of the vehicles and the persons?

20 A. Yes, it's -- it is the same photo, taken from the same place.

21 The angle of the camera from the person who is taking the photo to the

22 object, which is some 150 to 200 metres away, at the moment when the photo

23 was being taken, this was not an ideal situation and it could happen that

24 the cameraman's hand was shaking at a certain moment and maybe the photo

25 then depicted 10 metres away from the cameraman or 10 metres towards him.

Page 16875












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 16876

1 However, the cameraman here focussed -- focussed on the objects and

2 details that he was interested in at the moment. Rest assured that the

3 photos -- the two photos were taken from the same spot, the first time

4 without a zoom and the second time without the zoom --

5 THE INTERPRETER: With the zoom, interpreter's correction.


7 Q. Is it possible, sir, that in taking the photo with the zoom

8 Mr. Becirevic was standing in the back of a vehicle or on some kind of a

9 stepladder to get a higher elevation in order to avoid the stone wall and

10 brush that is visible on the bottom photograph?

11 A. He could simply stand on the ground. I am sure that his position

12 was not ideal, but him making one step forward or backward doesn't mean

13 anything. This is an ideally flat ground. So he did not have to be very

14 selective when choosing the point from he was -- from which he was taking

15 the photo.

16 Q. But you're telling us that he was standing in the same spot at

17 the time he took both of these photos; is that right?

18 A. Yes.

19 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you. The photos can be returned, please,

20 Mr. Usher.

21 Q. Now, sir, you told us yesterday that you also undertook

22 personally some experiments near Sarajevo with respect to visibility and

23 what could be distinguished by the human eye and with the human eye

24 assisted with binoculars; is that correct?

25 A. It is.

Page 16877

1 Q. And approximately when did you do that? When did you undertake

2 that exercise?

3 A. Well, let's say that this was about a month ago. Before that, I

4 got informed about the task, about the points. This took place two months

5 ago. And I worked in the office. I prepared all the topographic maps. I

6 prepared the profiles of the ground. I calculated the angles. I made the

7 triangles. And this is how I ended up with the indicators for these 15 or

8 17 scenarios. The nine axes on which I arrived, and I concluded that

9 there was no optical visibility, and I eliminated these cases which I

10 already explained on Thursday. Due to the speed with which I had to act

11 -- and when I gave my testimony on Thursday, I later on remembered that

12 in order to observe the difference whether there is visibility or whether

13 there is no visibility, in the six scenarios there was no way for you to

14 observe these points. When I realised that in these six scenarios that

15 there was optical visibility between these points, I wanted to prove what

16 could really be seen at these distances.

17 Looking at scenario 2, where the distance is 850 metres, to the

18 furthest distances in these scenarios, which was 3.050 metres, I wanted to

19 show on these distances in an approximately similar area where could be

20 seen. Something could be observed, but I wanted to be sure as to what

21 could people see in the past or what they will be able to see in the

22 future. If I decided to write a new book, I believe that these indicators

23 will support my theory.

24 Q. Let me return, sir, to the issue of the experiments that you

25 undertook in the vicinity of Sarajevo in order to determine what could be

Page 16878

1 seen at various distances, both by the naked eye and by the human eye

2 assisted with binoculars. Approximately when did you do that?

3 A. A month ago.

4 Q. Okay. What was the weather like on the day that you undertook

5 this exercise?

6 A. A lot of snow; however, sunny and the conditions were ideal for

7 observation. The sun was behind me, which means that the area that was

8 observed was light -- lit by the sun, so the day was clear and very

9 suitable for observation.

10 Q. And the -- I take it, since there was some snow, that the

11 buildings or other objects you were looking at were sufficiently

12 contrasted against the snow for you to say that there were ideal

13 conditions for observation.

14 A. Yes. All the objects and people that I observed, as I've already

15 told you - I told you that on Thursday - that there are factors conducive

16 to better observation is a contrast of -- a contrast of colours. If you

17 imagine the entirely white area, as you can see in the photo - this is a

18 field, very level ground, there's a road, there are houses around - this

19 represents an ideal contrast of colours, which are very conducive to

20 observation, providing for ideal conditions for observation.

21 Q. So I take it, then, that you weren't looking, for example, at

22 white buildings or white houses on this day with the snow. You were

23 looking at structures that were some colour that contrasted with the white

24 snow.

25 A. That is correct.

Page 16879

1 Q. You also told us, sir, that the visual capacity of the observer

2 is important. Sir, do you -- is your vision ideal or do you wear any kind

3 of corrective lenses; contacts, glasses?

4 A. Thank God I have an ideal visual capacity.

5 Q. Sir, does it make any difference in terms of looking at distances

6 or objects in distances whether you're looking at the object in person or

7 in a photograph? That is, does it make a difference if you're looking at

8 a two-dimensional versus a three-dimensional image when you're trying to

9 judge distances?

10 A. As I've already told you, visibility depends on the size of the

11 object that is being observed. In any case, yes, there -- there is a

12 difference. It makes a difference whether you look at the objects in

13 nature or observing them in a photo.

14 Q. Sir, what's the maximum distance at which people can distinguish

15 colours?

16 A. It depends on all of the factors that I've mentioned and also it

17 depends on the contrast of the colours that are being observed. The

18 colour of the background has to be taken into account.

19 In the snow, when I was observing the -- the area, a person

20 wearing black, like you are now, will be visible at a greater distance --

21 a much greater distance than it would be possible if that same person were

22 wearing white clothes.

23 Q. Okay. And what about the ability to tell one colour from a --

24 from another colour at a distance? In other words, is there a particular

25 maximum distance that a typical person is able to tell the difference

Page 16880

1 between green and yellow or green and blue or red and blue? Does the

2 human eye lose the ability to tell the difference between colours at a

3 certain distance?

4 A. There is no -- an absolute number. It depends on the colours, on

5 the season. For example, if somebody is wearing a green uniform and is

6 standing against a background of green forest, then -- you are insisting

7 on a distance, I can see. However, I can say that this is up to 400

8 metres that you can observe a colour, depending on the background, so my

9 answer would be between 400 and 500 metres is the distance at which you

10 can discern a certain colour.

11 Q. So more than 500 -- 500 metres away it's not possible to tell the

12 difference between colours?

13 A. I said "some of the colours." Visibility means that one is able

14 to tell the difference between a certain colour and the background behind

15 that colour. The maximum for any colour is 800 metres. That's the

16 absolute maximum.

17 Q. I take it, sir, that the houses in Central Bosnia tend to be of a

18 light colour, such as white or similar light-coloured buildings?

19 A. It depends. There are -- they are of all colours.

20 Q. Can you tell us the maximum distance, in your professional

21 estimation, that it would be possible to contrast a green military uniform

22 against a white house?

23 A. A uniform? A green uniform?

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. 800 to 850 metres.

Page 16881

1 Q. Again, when the person in the uniform is in front of a white

2 house, just so that we're clear, that there's a contrast, 800 to 850

3 metres?

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, there is an objection.

5 Mr. Bourgon, is there a problem?

6 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] I would like to ask my learned

7 colleague to be more precise when giving examples. We want to be clear.

8 For example, when he says "a military uniform in front of a

9 house," I would like to hear this question to be more precise. Is that an

10 olive-drab uniform? What kind of green? In front of what background?

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. For a better

12 understanding, when the Prosecution is questioning the witness, can they

13 be more precise. Can they put the questions in the way indicated by the

14 Defence when we're talking about distances and what the witness can see or

15 cannot see at a certain distance.

16 Mr. Mundis, can you please proceed.


18 Q. Sir, the -- can you tell us, please, the specific colours or

19 shades of green that were used by the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina in

20 1993?

21 A. The uniform of the BiH army, as well as of all the other armies

22 in the area, was a camouflage uniform which was greyish greenish, and the

23 shades of that uniform did not differ much from the uniforms of the HVO or

24 the Army of Republika Srpska. At the distance that I mentioned, at the

25 distance of 800 metres, you can see a soldier wearing a uniform, but you

Page 16882

1 cannot see whether this soldier belongs to the BiH army or to the Army of

2 Republika Srpska. That, you cannot see.

3 Q. I'm not disputing that at all, sir. My only question is: In the

4 uniform -- the camouflage uniform which was greyish-greenish and which was

5 similar in colour and camouflage patterns between the HVO, the VRS, and

6 the ABiH in 1993, could be distinguished at 800 metres when the person was

7 standing in front of a white house or barn or other white structure; is

8 that right?

9 A. Yes, that's right.

10 Q. Now, sir, can you tell us at what distance the human eye can

11 distinguish smoke from a fire.

12 A. 4.000 to 5.000 metres. You can see smoke at that distance, the

13 distance of 4.000 to 5.000 metres. Of course, there's also optical

14 visibility.

15 Q. And, of course, since smoke rises, it might be possible to see

16 smoke even though you can't see the source of that smoke because whatever

17 is on fire or burning is on the other side of a hill or a ridge or a

18 mountain; wouldn't that be right?

19 A. You are absolutely right. You are right.

20 Q. Now, sir, let me turn to the -- the maps that you produced and

21 which were -- you described for us last Thursday. Would you agree with

22 me, sir, that there are certain limitations in using such maps simply for

23 the reason that they are between two discrete points?

24 A. In what terms "limited"?

25 Q. Well, and perhaps that's not the -- not the best word, but let me

Page 16883

1 -- let me put it this way: Because your maps, for example, relate to

2 point A and point B, they are of -- their value is limited to what can be

3 seen from point A to point B. And if you were to move point A 20 metres

4 to the west or east or north or south, the indications on the map would

5 have to be recalculated.

6 A. Yes, absolutely.

7 Q. So the -- the maps are extremely useful in terms of point A to

8 point B and the visibility or lack thereof between points A and B, but if

9 the observation point were to be -- the A, in other words -- were to be 20

10 metres in a different direction, those maps wouldn't be of assistance.

11 A. If we're talking 20 metres, then there is no need to use it.

12 Q. I'm afraid I -- I don't quite understand. If there's no need to

13 -- to use it, I don't quite follow you, sir.

14 A. If I understood you well, you said that if the distance between

15 the two points is 20 metres, then the map --

16 Q. I -- yeah, I understand your answer now. I'm talking not about

17 the distance from A to B being 20 metres. What I'm referring to is if --

18 over, say, a distance of 1.000 metres, you were to move point A 20 metres

19 away from the original point A, the calculations would have to be done

20 completely anew; isn't that right?

21 A. Yes, that is right. Again, it depends on how much the axis would

22 change in such a case. However, 20 metres is a negligible difference

23 because 20 metres is still not represented even by 1 millimetre on the

24 map. In whatever direction you move towards by 20 metres, it's not even

25 1 millimetre on the map. Certainly I will redo calculations because of

Page 16884

1 the axis; however, I don't expect to see any major changes after a

2 20-metre move.

3 Q. Well, let me -- 20 metres perhaps was not a good example. But

4 let me ask you this, sir: How long does it take you to calculate each of

5 these -- for each of these maps?

6 A. Can I please see it on -- can this be switched on, please?

7 Q. Well, let me -- let me try something else with you. If you could

8 turn to the first map that you've got, the map of Grahovcici, which is a

9 map from Strmac to Cukle.

10 A. Yes, please.

11 Q. Sir, could you put -- could you take out the first map and put it

12 also on the ELMO, the machine to your right.

13 MR. MUNDIS: Perhaps if we could just zoom out just a little bit,

14 please.

15 Q. Let me ask you, sir, a couple of preliminary questions. If you

16 look at your mark A, it seems that you have used elevation 940 on Strmac

17 as your starting point.

18 A. That's right.

19 Q. And if you look, sir, immediately above the "S" in "Strmac," it

20 appears that the Strmac ridge or hill or mountain has a second high peak

21 right above the "S." Do you see that?

22 A. That's right.

23 Q. Sir, if -- if -- and how far is that from the 940 elevation

24 approximately?

25 A. It is 2 centimetres away, or 20 millimetres away, which means 50

Page 16885

1 metres.

2 Q. Okay. Sir, if you were to use that high point on Strmac

3 immediately above the "S" and recalculate to your point B on this map,

4 would your result be the same or would it be different, or would it take

5 you some time to do the calculations?

6 A. First of all, this other peak has an altitude of 915 metres,

7 which means it is lower than the other high point, which is at 940, so the

8 difference is 25 metres. In that case, point A is moved to an altitude of

9 915 metres and the point of observation is there. The direction is being

10 changed considerably. And as a result, it will be even more difficult to

11 achieve observation. It is less feasible.

12 As for time to prepare the profile of the ground, I need a pencil

13 and an hour to use one -- to move from one elevation to another and to

14 prepare the relief of the ground and the graph.

15 Q. You told us that the reason that you couldn't see from A to B was

16 that there was a feature, and I believe you said it was 640 metres high,

17 that obstructed the line of vision from A to B; is that correct?

18 A. That's correct.

19 MR. MUNDIS: If the usher could please provide the witness with

20 some kind of a thin marker in the appropriate colour.

21 Q. I would ask you, sir, if you could place an "X" on the elevation

22 or the feature that obstructs the view from point A to point B on this

23 map.

24 A. The composition of a poor village road, and our axis cuts across

25 this road, this dirt road, and this is where the obstacle is.

Page 16886

1 Q. Can you please, sir, make a small "X" at that point.

2 A. Yes, of course. And this -- the altitude here is 648 metres.

3 [No interpretation]

4 MR. MUNDIS: We lost the English.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Going along the dirt road from the

6 village of Cukle to Softici, you come across an obstacle at a height of

7 648 metres.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I understand what you're trying

9 to establish. And as it's rather complicated and to assist everyone,

10 would it be useful for the witness to indicate with the line the point

11 from 615 metres to point B to see whether the line will coincide with the

12 "X"?

13 Witness, have you understood what the Prosecution is trying to

14 show? The Prosecution wishes to demonstrate that if an observer standing

15 at point A moves by 50 metres to one side and goes to an elevation of 915

16 metres, that is, a point above the letter "S," then observation of point B

17 may be different. That is what the Prosecution is trying to establish.

18 What would you say to that? If the observer standing at point A

19 moves 50 metres to the left, the obstacle which is at point X, would it

20 still obstruct his view? What would you say? Because that is what the

21 Prosecution is trying to show us. And as you are the specialist, it would

22 be useful for us if you could tell us what the result would be.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you were following what I was

24 saying on Thursday, I said that I chose the most favourable spots for

25 observation. Along this direction and all other directions, the most

Page 16887

1 favourable point was chosen for the observer.

2 In the case of direction 1, Strmac-Gornji Cukle, the highest

3 feature is the trig point at Strmac, with an altitude of 940 metres. It

4 dominates the surroundings. Any movement, 50 or 100 metres or 200 metres

5 of course affects observation. If no observation is possible, as is the

6 case here, one searches in the environs a more favourable point for

7 observation. But as there is no such point here, as the Prosecutor said

8 -- suggested that the observer could move to another hill which is 50

9 metres to the north, it is -- its altitude is lower. It's 915 metres

10 above sea level, which means that the graph would be different and

11 observation of point B would be still less possible. So if we were to

12 choose any other point in this area, the result would be the same; there

13 is no possibility of observation along this direction.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please continue, Mr. Mundis.


16 Q. Sir, I'm going to give you a ruler -- I'm going to give you a

17 ruler, and I would like you to draw the line from the 915-metre feature on

18 Strmac to your point B. Can you -- can you do that for us?

19 A. You have it on the profile.

20 Q. I'm -- no. Sir, if you could -- if you could please on the

21 map --

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. If you could please on the map from the 915-metre feature on

24 Strmac, if you could make a dot and perhaps call that "A2."

25 A. [Marks]

Page 16888

1 Q. And draw a line from A2 to point B.

2 A. [Marks] There you are.

3 Q. Now, sir, if you could take a look, please, at the houses and

4 structures depicted on the map in Cukle between the letter "B" and the

5 word -- or the letter "C" in "Cukle." Do you see that cluster of houses?

6 A. [Indicates]

7 Q. Precisely. If you could circle those houses between the "C" in

8 "Cukle" and the letter "B" that you've indicated. Those houses.

9 A. These houses?

10 Q. Yes, those houses -- those houses right there.

11 A. [Marks]

12 Q. What is the altitude of those houses?

13 A. If one sees well, I think it says 600 to 605 metres.

14 Q. Now, sir, there are two villages of Cukle on this map. I assume

15 one of them is Donji Cukle and one of them is Gornji Cukle. Would that be

16 correct?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. And "Gornji" and "Donji" basically mean "upper" and "lower"

19 Cukle. Would that be accurate?

20 A. Not necessarily. In this case, it is "north" and "south."

21 Q. Okay.

22 A. They can also be at the same altitude or at a different altitude,

23 but as far as I can see, from Gornji Cukle there's a river flowing, so we

24 can see that the altitude decreases as you go down towards Donji Cukle.

25 Q. Okay. Would it be possible to see from your point A to what

Page 16889












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 16890

1 you've told us is South Cukle?

2 A. I don't know. I would have to check.

3 Q. Were you instructed specifically to use North Cukle when

4 undertaking this exercise?

5 A. Yes. As the title indicates, it's Strmac-Gornji Cukle. I would

6 suggest two, three, four, to seven different directions, and I think they

7 cover this, because we haven't looked at those other graphs.

8 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I do note the time. Perhaps this

9 would be an appropriate time for the first break.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is time for the break. We

11 will have a break of 25 minutes, and we will resume the hearing at 4.00

12 sharp.

13 --- Recess taken at 3.32 p.m.

14 --- On resuming at 4.03 p.m.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing is resumed.

16 Mr. Mundis, you have the floor.

17 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.

18 Q. Witness, thank you for answering our questions.

19 MR. MUNDIS: The Prosecution has no further questions,

20 Mr. President.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. In that case, I

22 shall give the floor to the Defence for any re-examination in connection

23 with the questions put during the cross-examination.

24 Mr. Bourgon.

25 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

Page 16891

1 Re-examined by Mr. Bourgon:

2 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Izmirlic. Welcome back to The Hague.

3 I just have a few questions for you arising from the questions

4 which were put to you by my colleague from the Prosecution, and the first

5 one deals with the pictures that were taken by Mr. Kemo, your colleague,

6 Becirevic, if my pronunciation is right. And my first question to you is:

7 Did Mr. Becirevic explain to you why they took those pictures in Mostar?

8 A. Yes, because of the climate there, as I have said, and the

9 visibility is good, and it was easiest to travel to Mostar to do -- to

10 carry out the task.

11 Q. And why not go to the area where they had to address, like, Cukle

12 or Strmac or any other area that was in the scenarios?

13 A. I assume that it was because of the snow and it was impossible to

14 climb to an altitude of 940 metres when there is a lot of snow.

15 Q. I'd like to refer you to tab 26 of the documents. And my

16 colleague asked you some -- a number of questions with respect to the

17 preparation of this map. My question to you would be simply whether this

18 map corresponds to the information which was provided to you by

19 Mr. Becirevic and whether the methodology used was, based on the similar

20 exercise that you conducted, a good method to identify the locations and

21 the distances.

22 A. Yes. The map covers the distances indicating from which

23 positions photographs were taken. In my case, I was standing in one place

24 and observing from that place the objects and people and phenomena at

25 distances that I chose and which I identified. So one might say that in

Page 16892

1 this case the procedure was the reverse; I was standing in one spot and

2 observing objects at different distances, and Mr. Kemo Becirevic would

3 himself move away from the objects and take photographs at various

4 distances, as can be seen from the attached documents.

5 Q. Now, just a final question with respect to Mr. Becirevic. Can

6 you provide some information to the Trial Chamber as to what his

7 background is and whether there was any reason why he was in as good a

8 position as you can be to identify on the ground a position which is

9 marked on the map.

10 A. Mr. Kemo Becirevic is a graduate of the secondary school of

11 geodesy and he worked with me during the war in various surveying

12 projects, and he was involved in preparing the relief that we were talking

13 about. Also, Mr. Becirevic was with me at a course of geodesy that lasted

14 three months in the Idar Oberstein artillery school in Germany, so that I

15 feel his experience in these matters is such that he was fully qualified

16 to carry out this task properly.

17 Q. My next -- my next question, Mr. Izmirlic, is: In response to a

18 question put to you by my colleague, you said that the pictures was not an

19 accurate way and that you could not provide a scientific approval to what

20 can be seen on pictures but that they were a good way and could provide a

21 good idea as to what can and cannot be seen from various distances. And

22 that was an answer similar to a question which I asked to you last week.

23 Now, today my question is: Even though you were not there when

24 the pictures were taken and even though you were not in -- in any of the

25 locations which were discussed in the scenarios in 1993, and even though

Page 16893

1 you do not have the full information as to how the exercise was conducted,

2 the pictures which were shown to you last week, do they provide, in your

3 opinion, a good approximation as what the human eye can see from various

4 distances?

5 A. Yes. I believe the answer is yes, but I believe that the methods

6 I applied were quite sufficient too, starting from the configuration of

7 the land, then the triangulation method and the calculations that

8 resulted, but we also undertook this test, as I already said. I made

9 these tests at various directions, in various distances. In cases where

10 there was optical visibility, we wanted to show what could actually be

11 seen. And as the crown of everything, we wanted to support all this with

12 the photographs.

13 Q. I move on to the test that you conducted in Sarajevo. And you

14 gave a number of answers to my colleague in response to his questions.

15 One of the things that you did say is that, having eliminated nine

16 scenarios, you had six left. And my question is: What was your aim with

17 those six scenarios that were left?

18 A. My aim was to prove what can really be seen at the mentioned

19 distances, what can be seen with the naked eye, and what with binoculars

20 at those distances.

21 Q. And my next question deals with the analysis that you performed

22 for the 15 scenarios. And I would simply like to know whether, bearing in

23 mind the possibility that an observer was not exactly on your point of

24 observation outlined in each of your maps, are you confident that the

25 conclusions you reached in doing these analyses are accurate?

Page 16894

1 MR. MUNDIS: Objection. Leading.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. There's an objection,

3 Mr. Bourgon.

4 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't see at all

5 in what way the question was leading. I'm asking the witness what his

6 opinion is regarding the precision of the analyses he carried out, bearing

7 in mind the observations of my learned friend. I am just asking him to

8 explain something. I'm not asking him to give me yes or no, just to

9 provide me information so that -- taking into account all the factors that

10 may have been raised by my learned friend, whether that changes in any way

11 the judgements and assessments he himself made on these documents.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, can you answer the

13 question put to you, please. Let me repeat it in my own words.

14 You undertook some scientific efforts, which is quite obvious,

15 and no one can contest that prima facie; however, the Prosecution has

16 shown you some other aspects of this approach, and in view of what the

17 Prosecution has told you, the Defence would now like to know whether this

18 calls in question the scientific approach of your efforts. What would be

19 your response?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As a professional land surveyor and

21 topographer, I will tire the Honourable Chamber with the following

22 definition: A mathematically constructed and generalised picture of one

23 part or the entire surface or the earth, which in a particular geographic

24 way represents the situation and the relationships between objects and

25 phenomena in the nature, which means as a professional land surveyor I

Page 16895

1 need a map in order to be able to define certain elements which I require.

2 For example, a commander who wants to direct his fire in a

3 certain direction, he needs to know the distance to the point, the

4 vertical angle at which he will direct his barrels and the horizontal

5 angle where he will direct his fire. This means that all of my

6 experiments are based on knowledge, experience; and based on that, it was

7 not difficult for me to define the elements that were required from me.

8 In nine cases for which I said that there was no optical

9 visibility between the observed points, using any of the methods available

10 to me, I would like to repeat that that is correct and I stand by it a

11 hundred per cent. At the distances seen in the six scenarios where there

12 is optical visibility between the observed points, I carried out my test,

13 taking into account all of the theoretical knowledge that I had acquired

14 before that.

15 My knowledge and my practice on the ground enabled me to say that

16 I was correct in my test. And if I ever decide to publish my second book,

17 I believe that the data that I acquired in this exercise will be one of

18 the contributions to my new book.

19 MR. BOURGON: Thank you very much, Mr. Izmirlic. I do not have

20 any further questions for you.

21 [Interpretation] Mr. President, this is the end of our

22 re-examination.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The other Defence team, do you

24 have any questions to put to the witness?

25 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] No questions, Your Honour.

Page 16896

1 Questioned by the Court:

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, just a few questions from

3 the Bench. If I have understood you well, you have told the Defence that

4 if you hadn't been in the position when the photos of Mostar were taken --

5 we are now the month of February, so this means that in December or in

6 January all the area was covered in snow. Is that -- is that what you

7 told us?

8 A. Yes, from before New Year, from the 15th of December, this is

9 when the first snow fell around Sarajevo, Travnik, and hilly parts around

10 there. It is still there. It hasn't thawed. And according to the recent

11 information that I have, there is about 60 centimetres of snow currently

12 in Sarajevo.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] However, using a helicopter,

14 could one do the job from a helicopter that could have lifted above the

15 snow level? Would that have been possible? The Army of Bosnia and

16 Herzegovina, I believe that they could have lended a hand in enabling you

17 to carry out the work on the ground. What can you say to that?

18 A. The Strmac plateau, as far as I can tell from the map, a

19 helicopter cannot land there. What I can see on the topographic map makes

20 me say that it was not necessary to go to the field. Based on all the

21 analyses, I can tell you that the accuracy of my data is 100 per cent.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] However, somebody who carried

23 out a scientific analysis and wanted to confirm this, somebody who climbed

24 on foot up to that altitude would be able to confirm what you have

25 calculated mathematically; is that the case?

Page 16897

1 A. Your Honours, 100 per cent that would be the case.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, then. If somebody

3 climbed on foot in July, in two or three months, and if they moved by 50

4 metres laterally and if they looked at Cukle, they would obtain the same

5 results as you have indicated; is that correct?

6 A. Yes, absolutely. Again, it would be more difficult to do that

7 because of all the vegetation in July. And I've already said that I have

8 not added any obstacles, I have not added the 10 metres which should be

9 added because of the possible obstacles. However, I believe that the same

10 conclusions would be arrived at in all the seasons on the directions that

11 we have observed.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The vegetation in this region,

13 is it more abundant in July than it is in June or in May? Does the

14 vegetation change in different months?

15 A. It starts in spring and lasts sometime until the month of

16 September or October, when the leaves start to fall.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When we look at the table at 20

18 -- tab 24, you have indicated that it is possible to see -- do you have

19 the table in front of you? You have mentioned different altitudes up to

20 3.050 metres. And if I understand well, looking with the naked eye,

21 without binoculars, we can see only at a distance of 1.400 metres.

22 Further on, we can't see anything. After 2 kilometres, again we can see

23 something. What is the distance, the limit at which we can see somebody,

24 a person? This is just a question to complete your table. We know that

25 at 1.400 metres we can see something, at 2.000 we can't. So can you

Page 16898

1 explain that?

2 A. The maximum distance is up to 2 kilometres, and this arises from

3 the definition. I would have to draw the angle at which a certain object

4 can be seen at a distance of 1 kilometre if the size of that object is 1

5 metre. By definition, if the height of the person is 1.80, the limit at

6 which you can actually see a person is 2 kilometres.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, then. This table

8 does not make a difference between day and night. On a clear night with

9 binoculars, if there is moonlight, what is the distance of visibility at

10 what distance we can see a person, if the night is clear?

11 A. On a clear night, when there is -- there are stars, the distance

12 would be 200 metres.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And after that, after 200

14 metres, you can't see anything?

15 A. No.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, then. For example,

17 if there is a house on fire on a clear night and around the fire there are

18 persons, from which distance would you be able to see these persons around

19 the fire during the night, on a clear night? With the naked eye, what

20 would be the distance for you to see something around the fire? In your

21 table, you indicate that we can see a fire or smoke at any distance, but

22 let's take a night situation. There is a farm on fire. Would you be able

23 to see somebody in the vicinity of that fire, in the light of the flames?

24 A. Of course these people around the house would be lit, but they

25 couldn't be seen at these distances. I believe that they would be seen at

Page 16899

1 a distance of 1 kilometre if there is a big fire, if there is smoke, if

2 there are contrasting colours at the time. And even during the night you

3 would be able to see the smoke and the fire at all of these distances.

4 You would be able to see the house. But the persons around the fire would

5 be visible at a distance of 1 kilometre only.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, then.

7 The Prosecution, do you have any questions arising from my

8 questions? Do you need any clarification?

9 MR. MUNDIS: No, thank you, Mr. President.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Defence, any questions arising

11 from my questions?, Mr. Bourgon?

12 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Yes, with your permission, I do

13 have a few questions.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Go ahead.

15 Further examination by Mr. Bourgon:

16 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... this issue of adding 10

17 metres and that you had not added 10 metres. Without going into a

18 scientific explanation as to what that method is, can you simply explain

19 whether by adding these 10 metres your result would have been more

20 favourable to see something or less favourable, and why.

21 A. By adding 10 metres, the height of the obstacle would increase

22 and it would be more difficult to observe anything. This is my scientific

23 explanation.

24 Q. And is there -- is this -- is this a normal practice when you do

25 these charts, that you should be adding 10 metres? And if so, why?

Page 16900

1 A. The customary practice - and I can see that you have the military

2 topography in front of you, 5158 by Pukovnik, Colovic, and Gvozden, and

3 you also have the blue topography - where it says that in a situation of

4 observation there are remarks, and according to that remark it says that

5 it is added, but in this case I did not want to add the 10 metres. What I

6 was interested in was the relief, the way the area looked like.

7 If we're talking about a borderline case of something being

8 visible or not, in any case then you have to take into account the 10

9 metres.

10 Q. Thank you. Can you quickly move to table -- to tab 20. In

11 response to a question from the Presiding Judge, you mentioned the

12 distance at which a person could be seen. Can you refer to any of the --

13 any parts in this table to confirm what your answer was a little earlier?

14 A. Under number 3, these are the norms. This is Annex 2. An

15 infantry column marching - we're talking about a number of people - you

16 can see it at the distance of 1500 metres. An individual soldier moving

17 can be seen at the distance of 850 metres. And I believe that your

18 question was at -- about the distance at which one person can be seen, and

19 I said 1 kilometre.

20 Q. The Presiding Judge also asked you a question concerning a fire

21 at night and what you could see close to a fire. In this same table at

22 tab 20, I see there is a column for night. Can you refer to any parts of

23 this table to confirm your answer earlier on to the Presiding Judge?

24 A. Under number 12 in this column, it says: "Illuminated in a

25 glowing surface." I said that any fire will illuminate the vicinity of

Page 16901

1 the object that is on fire.

2 Q. And my last question, Mr. Izmirlic, is: You also referred to a

3 test by which you could calculate how far a person could be seen. And in

4 your response, you mentioned that a person who was 1.8 metres tall - I

5 believe that's what you said - could be seen, if I am -- if I recall

6 correctly, could be seen at 2 kilometres. Is that a commonly known test,

7 the angle test that you referred to?

8 A. Yes. But I need a pencil and a piece of paper. I will be really

9 quick, if I am provided with a pencil and a piece of paper, please.

10 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] With your permission,

11 Mr. President -- [Previous translation continues] ... [In English] to the

12 witness.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you place this on the

14 ELMO.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The vertical line in this triangle

16 is an object which is about -- which is 1 metre high. The distance -- the

17 horizontal distance is 1 kilometre. Here we have an angle between the

18 horizontal line and the line leading to the object. This is the angle in

19 -- in science we call it the thousand angle. And this angle is the one

20 depicting the visibility between -- to the object which is 1 metre tall.

21 And this is the equation: "Dm:Dm=1.000:U." "U" is the angle, and the

22 value of the thousand angle has to be 1 if you want to have visibility.

23 If it is less than 1, then the object is not visible. From the equation

24 U=Dm times 1.000, "U" is Dm by 1.000 over Dm. In this very specific case,

25 if we say that the person's height is 1.8 metres by 1.000, and if we say

Page 16902

1 that the distance to this person is 1.000 metres, which means that U

2 equals 1.800 metres over 1.000, which equals 1.8, that will mean that the

3 person is visible. If, however, the distance to that same person is 2

4 kilometres, the U will be 0.9 approximately - I don't have a calculator -

5 which means that at this distance, if we are looking at that person at a

6 distance of 2 kilometres, you will just see the silhouette. You cannot

7 see the person. I don't know whether I have answered your question.


9 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Izmirlic. I will simply ask you to sign

10 this piece of paper and indicate today's date, and I will request that it

11 be admitted into evidence at the end of your testimony.

12 A. [Witness complies]

13 MR. BOURGON: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.

14 [Interpretation] I have no further questions, Mr. President.

15 Thank you.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The other Defence team, any

17 questions?

18 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] No questions, Mr. President.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, then. Your

20 testimony is over -- maybe there are any questions by the Prosecution.

21 Mr. Mundis.

22 MR. MUNDIS: No, Mr. President. But I -- I'm not sure if -- what

23 precisely the Defence was going to tender, but we did ask the witness to

24 make some markings on one of the maps, whether -- I don't know if the

25 Defence is going to tender that one or the electronic version. We would

Page 16903












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 16904

1 ask that the witness similarly date and sign the one that he made some

2 additional markings at on our -- at our request. And whether the Defence

3 tenders that or not, we certainly want that to go into evidence.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. There is a map on

5 which you traced some lines. Could you please put the date on the

6 document and sign it because the Prosecution would like to tender that map

7 into evidence.

8 Is this the map, Mr. Mundis?

9 MR. MUNDIS: Yes. Yes, it is, Mr. President. Thank you.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will provide you with a

11 working pen, Mr. Usher. The pen is not good and our sight is getting

12 worse as well.

13 THE WITNESS: [Marks]

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

15 As I have started saying, your testimony is over, so thank you

16 very much for coming to The Hague to answer the questions by the Defence

17 and by the Prosecution. You have provided us with a lot of information.

18 We apologise for having kept you over a few days. Your testimony started

19 in the middle of the week. That's why you had to stay longer. But we

20 couldn't do it otherwise. I hope that you have spent a pleasant time in

21 The Hague. On behalf of the Chamber, I wish you a pleasant journey back

22 home, and we wish you a lot of success with your second book, should you

23 decide to write it.

24 I'm going to ask the usher to accompany you out of the courtroom.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 16905

1 [The witness withdrew]

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And now on to the documents.

3 Mr. Bourgon.

4 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] With your permission, I am ready to

5 proceed. I have documents to tender.

6 We have a list of documents to provide to Your Honours to

7 facilitate the procedure.

8 Mr. President, the way in which I would like to proceed for the

9 tendering of documents would be as follows: If I look at the list of

10 documents that you have in front of you, there are documents under tab 3

11 going on to tab 18, and these are the five scenarios which were prepared

12 by Witness Izmirlic, as well as tab 3 is a table of work. All these

13 documents, Mr. President, have already been provided to the Prosecution in

14 CD form, 1978, and we would like them to be given a final exhibit number.

15 For the other documents under tab 19, there is a map which was

16 used for the documents at a certain distance. Under tab 19, we need a new

17 number for that document, for the documents contained therein. It will be

18 only to a number to be marked for identification because the part of the

19 book from which the table comes has still not been translated into

20 English. So we need a number -- ID number.

21 Under tab 20, we have a second table which already bears a

22 number, so we wish it to be given an ID number as the attachments need to

23 be translated into English.

24 Under tab 21, we have a map which the witness used for his tests

25 in Sarajevo. We need a new number for this. And as the question of

Page 16906

1 translation does not arise, we would like to have a final exhibit number.

2 And tab 22 is the document on binoculars 6 by 30. It already has

3 a number, 1640, and the document is in both languages, so we would like to

4 have a final exhibit number.

5 As for document 23, there is information about binoculars, 7 by

6 40, and again we have a number, 1979, and the document is in both

7 languages, so we can have a final exhibit number for it.

8 It should be noted, Mr. President, that on this document there's

9 an error. The number at the top is 1978, but actually it should be 1979.

10 It's our mistake.

11 Under tab 24, there's a new document, the one prepared by the

12 witness, which is available in both languages, and we ask it to be given a

13 final exhibit number.

14 Tab 25, we find the conclusions of the witness on the 15

15 scenarios, and we request that it be given a final exhibit number, as it

16 is available in both languages.

17 Tab 26, we have the map used in the area of Mostar by the people

18 who took the photographs and who conveyed the information to the witness,

19 and we are requesting a final exhibit number.

20 Finally, under tab 27, there is information about the camera used

21 to take the photographs. And with the permission of my learned friend

22 from the Prosecution, we can have a final exhibit number rather than

23 asking this document to be translated, as it is a technical document and

24 perhaps, if necessary, we can ask the translation service later on to

25 translate it should it be a point of contention.

Page 16907

1 So we would like it to have a final exhibit number or an ID

2 number.

3 And the final document is the one signed by the witness, and we

4 ask it to be marked as an exhibit as this document does not require any

5 translation.

6 Regarding the photographs, Mr. President, the photographs will be

7 on the same kind of CD as the one given to the Prosecution, and it will

8 have the same number, 1978. So it will contain all the materials, all the

9 tests and analyses carried out by the witness, including the photographs.

10 We will also try to make paper copies of the photographs to

11 attach it to the exhibit so that the Chamber doesn't need to use a

12 computer to review the evidence.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Have you given the CD to the

14 registrar?

15 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] The CD is here in my possession.

16 It is ready to be given to the registrar. And let me mention a small

17 point, Mr. President, and that is that the exhibits that we are tendering

18 in paper are those used by the witness. They are in the possession of the

19 registrar, and the document signed by the witness is a part of this. And

20 if my learned friend doesn't mind, we can keep the same number.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis, have you any

22 remarks to make regarding all of these requests?

23 MR. MUNDIS: No, Mr. President. The Prosecution has no objection

24 to the course of action my learned friend has proposed.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. In that case,

Page 16908

1 Mr. Registrar, do your duty, please.

2 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. These

3 exhibits are admitted into evidence under the following numbers. I will

4 begin with tab 19. I shall switch to English to simplify the task of the

5 court reporters.

6 [In English] Tab 19 is entitled "Table of possible observation,"

7 which is a document only in B/C/S. This document is -- is tendered under

8 the reference DH2053, marked for identification, ID.

9 The document entitled "Table of possible observation," reference

10 1642, is only in B/C/S and is marked for identification under the

11 reference DH1642 ID.

12 The new document, which is a map entitled "Review of positions in

13 respect to which the visibility is verified, Map Sarajevo," is a new

14 document admitted into evidence under the reference DH2054.

15 The document reference 1640 is admitted into evidence under the

16 reference DH1640, with an English version, DH1640/E.

17 The document 1979 is admitted into evidence under the reference

18 DH1979, with an English version, DH1979/E.

19 A new document entitled "Table of identification possibility from

20 the place of observation" is admitted into evidence under the reference

21 2055, with an English version, DH2055/E.

22 The new document entitled "Table (Conclusions of the possibility

23 to distinguish or see an object, person, or action from various distances"

24 is a new document admitted into evidence under the reference DH2056, with

25 an English version, DH2056/E.

Page 16909

1 The new document entitled "Review of positions from which the

2 photographs were taken, Map Mostar," is admitted into evidence under the

3 reference DH2057, with an English translation, DH2057/E.

4 A new document entitled "Olympus" is tendered into -- is admitted

5 -- sorry, is marked for identification under the reference 2058 -- DH2058

6 ID.

7 The map signed by Witness Izmirlic today, or the diagram, more

8 precisely, bearing today's date is admitted into evidence under the

9 reference DH2059.

10 The Registry takes note that a CD will be provided to the

11 Registry containing all the pictures shown and currently under the

12 reference DH1978, this reference being the -- well, remaining as such.

13 Thank you very much. [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

14 That ends the list.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It should be noted that all the

16 scenarios, the 15 scenarios, are DH1978 and scenarios [as interpreted] 4,

17 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18.

18 Then there's the document of the Prosecution. The map,

19 Mr. Mundis.

20 MR. MUNDIS: Yes, Mr. President. I -- but I should also note, at

21 least with respect to the English translation, I believe the scenarios --

22 the word "scenarios" on line 18, the second time, is actually the tabs, if

23 I'm not mistaken. Perhaps my learned colleague can clarify that. But we

24 would ask that the map that the witness marked be specifically admitted

25 into evidence as a Prosecution exhibit. Thank you.

Page 16910

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Scenarios 1 through 19 should

2 -- instead of "scenarios" it should be "tabs."

3 Has the Defence any objection regarding the map?

4 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] No objection, Mr. President.

5 I just should like to make a clarification regarding some of the

6 numbers. DH2053 ID, Mr. Registrar said it was a table but there's also a

7 part of a book, which is part of the same number. The same applies to

8 DH1642. Mr. Registrar mentioned that there was a table, but the table is

9 accompanied also by an extract from a book from which the table is taken.

10 Also, under tab 3 this document is also part of DH1978. It is

11 the work table used by the witness in which he refers to the 15 scenarios

12 and he deals with the distances, the altitudes, and his conclusions

13 regarding the first test of optical visibility. That is the table to

14 which I made some corrections following the objections of the Prosecution.

15 That is, scenario 14 on this table is the same as scenario 7, and scenario

16 15 thus becomes scenario 14; scenario 16 is the same as scenario 7; and

17 scenario 17 becomes scenario 15.

18 Mr. President, this table is also a part of DH1978.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This corrected table, have you

20 made the corrections?

21 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Yes, by hand.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Perhaps this should be done on

23 the computer.

24 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] I will make those corrections and I

25 will provide the registrar with the table. But the CD has already been

Page 16911

1 given to the registrar with the photographs.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So, Mr. Registrar, you need to

3 give us a number for the Prosecution exhibit, that is, the map, and

4 another number for the CD, which needs to be identified.

5 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. The

6 map identified by the witness today is Prosecution Exhibit P952.

7 The CD given to the registrar a moment ago is admitted as DH2060.

8 Thank you, Mr. President.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We take note of

10 what has been said on the -- under the reservation that the Defence will

11 provide a corrected table of tab 3.

12 Mr. Bourgon.

13 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

14 There's a final important comment to make. The witness did not

15 mention to which situation the scenarios related. But to facilitate the

16 work of the Chamber, we would like to say to which witness each of these

17 scenarios relates, and for that purpose I would like to go into private

18 session.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, let us go into private

20 session. But I'll first give -- I'll give the floor to Mr. Mundis after

21 that.

22 [Private session]

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 16912











11 Page 16912 redacted. Private session.















Page 16913











11 Page 16913 redacted. Private session.















Page 16914

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 [Closed session]

Page 16915











11 Pages 16915-16939 redacted. Closed session.















Page 16940

1 (redacted)

2 [Open session]

3 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session,

4 Mr. President.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In open session, I give the

6 floor to the Defence, who wish to take the floor.

7 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I take

8 the floor concerning a filing that we have just received. It's a letter

9 dated the 4th of March, 2005 entitled "Deputy Registrar's submission

10 regarding the issue of translation of documents for the Defence."

11 Mr. President, this letter, I would have preferred to have it

12 avoided, but it has been filed. When the Chamber adjourned proceedings

13 for a week, I prepared some arguments to submit to the Chamber so as to

14 avoid the Defence being blamed for this week of interruption in the

15 proceedings. Having thought the matter over, I thought that we were all

16 acting in good faith and there was no point in arguing the matter and that

17 everyone would understand; however, that was not the case, and we have a

18 written submission by the Assistant Registrar of the Tribunal. It has

19 been filed in accordance with Rule 33(B) of the Rules. I think 33(B) of

20 the Rules does not allow the Assistant Registrar to write such a

21 submission and to blame a Defence team and thereby calling in question its

22 neutrality and impartiality in the proceedings. This is only one matter.

23 I will come back to it later in detail.

24 Secondly, the filing, which I still haven't had time to analyse

25 fully, in our view omits many elements, and I will limit myself to two

Page 16941

1 such elements.

2 First of all, this question of translation for the Defence team

3 is a problem that exists for a long time now, and even before the trial

4 started I personally made a lengthy expose to explain the situation. The

5 situation that we -- which we explained - it was in the month of November

6 of the year when the trial started - has still not been resolved. We

7 still don't have in this Tribunal a policy which would say which documents

8 should be translated in support of a Defence team in the submission of its

9 case.

10 The situation, as you know, Mr. President, is quite different

11 from the Prosecution, who can count on, in addition to the Registrar's

12 service, their own translation services.

13 Also, a year before the trial we proposed a plan to the

14 Registrar, which was adopted in other cases, to have translations done by

15 people who would cost less, and we established a budget, and this whole

16 matter was rejected. More recently, in December last year and on several

17 occasions before that but most specifically in December, we told the

18 Registrar that the translation services are doing everything they can and

19 we, too, are doing everything we can to avoid any problems during the

20 proceedings. I think there were more than a thousand documents, and the

21 sum of money required to avoid any interruption of the proceedings for a

22 week was minimal compared with the cost of interrupting a trial for a

23 week. But the managers of this Tribunal do not look at the costs.

24 Certainly some translations could have been made before this became a

25 problem.

Page 16942

1 I will stop there, Mr. President, to tell you simply that we will

2 respond to the submissions filed by the Assistant Registrar. We will

3 respond in detail, and clearly that is the only case we can do, and we

4 will do it and in detail.

5 Thank you, Mr. President.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Bourgon, for

7 this clarification. We haven't still familiarised ourselves with that

8 document, so I cannot respond on that level. But personally - and I think

9 the other Judges share my opinion - the week when we had an interruption,

10 the interruption was made at the request of the Prosecution because the

11 Prosecution, to prepare their cross-examination, wanted to have in English

12 all the documents that you have in B/C/S. So it wasn't you that asked for

13 the interruption; it was the Prosecution, which indicated that they needed

14 to have all the documents in English.

15 But it's not only that. During that so-called week of

16 interruption, we had a hearing with the HCR, which means that it was not

17 wasted time --

18 Yes, Mr. Registrar, I need to redact the three letters that I

19 mentioned.

20 So we held a hearing which mobilised us. And if it hadn't been

21 held, we would have to have held it later. So we didn't waste time.

22 Also, in my personal name, it is my opinion that the Defence is

23 entitled to having documents translated, as well as the Prosecution, and

24 the Judges too, in order to be able to judge, we need to have documents

25 translated. This is an absolute necessity.

Page 16943

1 So obviously we're going to study the document of the Registry.

2 But let me tell you, Mr. Bourgon, that you are not a person that is to be

3 blamed because it was not you who asked for the interruptions; it was the

4 Judges who felt that in order to allow the Prosecution to be able to

5 cross-examine, as is their right, to have few -- a few days' break. And,

6 of course, you will respond to the document.

7 Rule 33(B) does say that "The Registrar may inform in writing --"

8 I assume it is the Chamber that they informed, but there's no indication

9 in 33(B) to inform us.

10 And in any case, we will have your response to this, and I wish

11 to underline that at the very beginning of the trial you did draw the

12 attention of the Chamber and the Registry to this question of translation.

13 So you fully highlighted all the problems of translation in good time.

14 And in spite of the difficulties that you have encountered and the

15 Prosecution, we were at times forced to deal with documents in B/C/S so as

16 not to allow the proceedings to suffer any delays, and thanks to your

17 cooperation we were able to forge ahead with the proceedings. And as I

18 said today, it is the 191st sitting. And this will certainly be one of

19 the longest at this Tribunal.

20 So we will for our part study the Registrar's document, and we

21 have always supported both the Prosecution and the Defence with respect to

22 the need for translations of documents. And the very fact that there is

23 no translation in realtime involves additional work for everyone. We need

24 to mark documents for identification, we'll have to go back to them, et

25 cetera, et cetera. And of course it would be desirable to have all the

Page 16944

1 documents translated in time. The Rules require that all documents of

2 Rule 66 and 68 be disclosed to the Defence, that they be translated into

3 the language of the accused, and of course either into English or French.

4 That is the legal obligation which the Registry has to fulfil.

5 However, as we are in an adversarial system, it is quite normal

6 for the Defence, when its case comes up, to provide all the documents they

7 feel are necessary and to have them translated by the Registry as the

8 Defence does not have a personal translation service at their disposal.

9 This is a matter that can be usefully addressed by the Council of -- the

10 Commission of the Defence Counsels.

11 In the ten minutes left, does anyone wish to address some other

12 matter which may not be of not such importance?

13 Nothing to address, Mr. Mundis?

14 MR. MUNDIS: Nothing from the Prosecution, Mr. President. Thank

15 you.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, Mrs. Residovic, you

17 have the floor.

18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I just wanted to

19 say that when we reviewed the documents disclosed to the Trial Chamber

20 through the Registry, the Defence of General Hadzihasanovic would like the

21 letter to be translated and we will tender it into evidence, as it can

22 serve as additional explanation to the answer the witness gave to the

23 question put by His Honour Judge Swart.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. As we are now in

25 open session, we don't know that there is a witness -- can you prepare a

Page 16945

1 new order for me, Mr. Registrar, for the redaction.

2 Yes, of course, all documents addressed to the Registry or the

3 Chamber need to be translated, either into English or French. That is

4 quite obvious. I'm just waiting for the order to be given to me by the

5 registrar before adjourning.

6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I may not have

7 been quite clear. As we are in open session, to make myself clearer

8 regarding my proposal, perhaps we should go into private session.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, let's go into

10 PS, private session, please.

11 [Private session]

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 16946

1 [Open session]

2 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session,

3 Mr. President.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In open session, today's

5 hearing is adjourned. I invite everybody to be here tomorrow at quarter

6 past 2.00.

7 And just a remark: This week we will be sitting in the afternoon

8 every day, including even Friday. Thank you very much.

9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.53 p.m.,

10 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 8th day of

11 March, 2005 at 2.15 p.m.