1 Thursday, 19 August 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone. The parties will have seen
6 the Chamber's decision to suspend the hearing of evidence for a period of
7 two weeks following the completion of the testimony of Mr. Blaszczyk,
8 which is likely to be the two-week period starting on Monday, 23rd of
9 August. The parties had previously been advised that the Chamber would
10 not sit on Wednesday, 15th, Thursday 16th, Friday 17th, Monday, 20th, and
11 Tuesday, 21st September. However, in light of the two weeks suspension,
12 the Chamber is minded now to sit on 15th and 16th September, although it
13 will be unable to do so on 17th, 20th, and 21st September. We will
14 therefore ask the registry to put us back into the court schedule on
15 those two days.
16 I should note that the Chamber is also contemplating holding a
17 Status Conference during the period of the suspension to discuss the
18 progress of the trial to date. We will advise you at the end of
19 Mr. Blaszczyk's testimony when that will occur.
20 That said, we will bring in the witness.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I address you before the
22 witness is brought in?
23 JUDGE KWON: He's already in, but.
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's no problem. Yesterday we
1 referred to the report of Mr. Higgs, 10083. That's the 65 ter number.
2 We did not refer to the amalgamated statement. It was P1437 that had
3 been prepared for another case. I say this for the sake of clarifying
4 the transcript, so that there is no confusion in terms of what we were
5 referring to. Thank you.
6 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
7 WITNESS: RICHARD HIGGS [Resumed]
8 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, Mr. Higgs.
9 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE KWON: Sorry for your inconvenience. There have been some
11 matters to be dealt with in your absence.
12 Mr. Karadzic, let's -- let's continue your cross-examination.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic: [Continued]
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have 65 ter number
16 09893. Let us see page 1 and then move on to page 10 in English and 9 in
17 Serbian. Serbian 9, English 10. Those are the page numbers.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. First of all, good morning to everyone, to all the participants.
20 Now, Mr. Higgs, on the basis of all the reports available in this case
21 and all the information submitted to you, photographs of the site and the
22 maps of the area involved, you established the azimuth for the shell in
23 relation to Markale II, and your report says, "I have reviewed all of
24 these reports, and as I used the maps and the material related to this
25 area, I was able to confirm the correct bearing by using these methods."
1 What was the conclusion that you reached exactly after analysing
2 these documents?
3 A. My conclusion was to agree with the initial findings, that of the
4 bearing of 1 -- the proximate bearing of 170 degrees was far more
5 accurate than the presumed bearing of 220 to 240 degrees.
6 Q. Whose assumption was that, 220?
7 A. The figures of 220 to 240 came from a second UNPROFOR
8 investigation carried out after the -- the initial first three done by
9 UNPROFOR, the French, and the forensic teams.
10 Q. Thank you. Can you -- could you explain to us briefly how it was
11 that you established that bearing? You say in your report of the 3rd of
12 August, 2006, "First of all, I reviewed the photographs of the crater to
13 see what was traces were and where it was in relation to the road. On
14 the basis of the traces -- or, rather, their form, we can see roughly how
15 the projectile fell on the road."
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note: We do not have the text.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise to the interpreters. I
18 did not give a reference.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. "On that basis, I was supposed to see what the relationship was
21 between this crater and the road and to try to get a bearing from crater
22 to road. Once I had a bearing related to the road, I could then
23 calculate the road direction and then consequently the true bearing and
24 the -- the true bearing that the crater is facing."
25 Is that right?
1 A. Yes. I looked at all the information from the reports I'd been
2 given and the photographs that you mention. On looking at the
3 photographs, then looking at the shape of the crater, the direction it
4 was facing, towards the building, and then taking approximate bearings of
5 in relation to the road to try and establish whether or not it is closer
6 towards a bearing of 170 or closer to a bearing of 220 as suggested in
7 the reports. From that, in my opinion, the crater points closer towards
8 the bearing of 170.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now have 65 ter number
10 09893, please.
11 JUDGE KWON: Is this not what we are looking at?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. We're asking for page 546 in
13 Serbian and page 4 in English from the same document -- or, no. No.
14 Just a moment, please. English page 4 and Serbian page 12. Basically
15 it's page 12 of the document itself, so it's two pages further up, and in
16 Serbian it's probably three. One more page. We're actually looking for
17 the photograph.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Let us now look at this photograph in order to be clearer on
20 this. Is this the photograph of the crater that you were referring to?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Are this crater and photograph a bit different than we had seen?
23 In the film I mean.
24 A. No, this is the crater that you saw on the video that the -- the
25 French were taking the measurements from.
1 Q. Thank you. We'll have a look at the film in order to establish
2 whether there is a difference involved. What is this 275, the figure
3 written up there? What does that denote?
4 A. When trying to determine the approximate bearing at which the
5 round came in, the only references you have on the photograph, of course,
6 is the crater and the road. So by then looking at the maps to see the
7 approximate bearing along which the road runs, that is the approximate,
8 275 degrees.
9 Q. The azimuth, the direction of the road; right? How was it that
10 you established this? Did you use a map, or did you apply some kind of
12 A. It was taken as an approximate bearing from a map.
13 Q. Thank you. It's the same document but page 13 now. Could we
14 have the next page, the map, to see whether it is the map that you worked
15 with, the one that's in the report.
16 Is that the map?
17 A. Yes, it is.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D2252. Could we have that in
19 e-court, please. That is a detail from this map.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. We marked certain things on your map. Is this what you
22 established to be the 275 degrees trajectory?
23 A. The 275 is represented by that line as shown on the map there.
24 That's correct, yes.
25 Q. Thank you. So was this marked properly then? Was Markale marked
1 properly, the actual site?
2 A. The site on the maps was -- as I remember, was not marked as it
3 is, obviously, on this one. I was working off the grid references given
4 on the reports.
5 Q. But it's the same map that you worked off; right? Do you recall
6 that the explosion was to the south of the tram line? Right?
7 A. As far as I can remember that, yes.
8 Q. Is that what is marked by this arrow saying "Markale Market"?
9 A. The tram line I -- on here I assume is being represented by the
10 black line with the -- the cross-hatches across the line.
11 Q. Yes. Yes. You can see that. Right. All right. I would like
12 to ask you if you would be so kind as to mark -- or, rather, to place the
13 date on this map and to initial it.
14 JUDGE KWON: He didn't mark anything, so why does he have to mark
15 it at all?
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. But he identified the
17 site of the explosion and trajectory 275. We entered the markings that
18 are now --
19 JUDGE KWON: No. Mr. Higgs, are you able to mark on this map the
20 place where the explosion took place?
21 THE WITNESS: Not just with this map, Your Honour. I would need,
22 obviously, more information, because the precise location on the ground
23 was never something I was ever asked to confirm, only to confirm or give
24 my opinion on a bearing.
25 JUDGE KWON: But we can notice that this is a -- this is a map
1 which is zoomed in from the map that we had previously seen in one -- in
2 your report.
3 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE KWON: This witness, Mr. Higgs, is not sure where --
5 whether this -- the marked place as "Markale Market" is exactly the same
6 place as the place where the explosion took place.
7 THE WITNESS: I'd say I was working off the grid references that
8 was given to me in the reports. I had no reason, obviously, to doubt
9 where they were, and working off of the video and the photographs that I
10 could see, and from that is where I then did my work regarding trying to
11 identify the possible direction from which that round came.
12 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
13 Mr. Gaynor, would you oppose to the admission of this document
14 with that caveat, that Markale Market is marked by the Defence team?
15 MR. GAYNOR: No, I don't object. Simply to go back a few lines
16 where Mr. Karadzic referred to the trajectory of 275, I just want it
17 absolutely clear for the record that that is not considered by the
18 witness to be the trajectory of the projectile. That's simply a
19 direction of 275 degrees.
20 JUDGE KWON: I take it you agree, Mr. Higgs.
21 THE WITNESS: Correct.
22 JUDGE KWON: With that caveat, with that explanation, we'll admit
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D543, Your Honours.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Higgs. You worked on the basis of this map, and
2 you established the direction of the road and the direction from which
3 the shell came on the basis of this map; right? So there was no other
5 A. I worked on the basis of this map and the other map which is in
6 my report. However, this one being the most detailed that I had and used
7 this to get the approximate directions of the road, remembering, of
8 course, that these are only approximate directions of which the road
9 approximately runs along.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have 1D2238, please.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Can you see this map now, and can you see the localities -- or,
14 rather, the sites where the explosions took place? You see the market
15 area in depth. We see one explosion. It's probably Markale I. And do
16 you see the rest? Do you agree that that is the place where the shell
17 from Markale II exploded?
18 A. Yes, I can see that.
19 Q. Can we agree, then, that you were not correct in establishing the
20 direction of the road and that that deviation is considerable and that
21 therefore it had to affect the establishment of the location where the
22 mine -- or the shell fell?
23 A. As I said before, it was the approximate direction along the
24 road, and as you can see if you look along the whole the road on which it
25 faces, the road runs approximately east to west. There will always be --
1 JUDGE KWON: I'm sorry, Mr. Higgs, to interrupt you. Although
2 the witness was able to confirm where the Markale I or Markale II are,
3 I'm not. Could you help the Chamber where it is marked. Could you
4 direct where it is, with the assistance of the usher.
5 Where's the Markale I?
6 THE WITNESS: Okay. From this map here, the two rounds being
7 referred to, would be those two there.
8 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. And where is Markale II?
9 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Markale II would be the second one.
10 JUDGE KWON: Second one, yes. I see. Thank you. Thank you,
11 Mr. Higgs.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].
13 Q. I ask the witness to mark it M1 and M2.
14 A. With a 1 and a 2?
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Magic touch.
16 And as for the provenance of this map, who marked this -- this
17 marking, Mr. Karadzic? Is it done by your team?
18 THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]
19 JUDGE KWON: I'm sorry, we're not hearing the translation of what
20 you said. Shall we give it another try?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is a street plan of Sarajevo
22 where sites of three explosions were marked in another case, and you can
23 see from the number below at the bottom, 1D01, et cetera. I think it was
24 from the Milosevic case. It's a regular street plan marked with the
25 sites of three explosions. The first was the Miskin street, the queue
1 for bread, the next one is Markale 1, and the --
2 JUDGE KWON: No. I'm simply asking who did these markings.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's a street plan made
4 probably in Sarajevo
5 and it's marked.
6 We'll identify the publisher now. I believe it's a publisher
7 from Sarajevo
8 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
9 Mr. Higgs, if you can kindly marked 1 and 2 on Markale I and
10 Markale II.
11 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Let's proceed, Mr. Karadzic.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Could you please put the date and your initials.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, the Bosniak
16 institute of Mr. Zulfikarpasic is the author of this map. They made the
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. The numbers 1 and 2 referring to Markale, I kindly ask you to
20 put the date below and your initials.
21 A. [Marks]
22 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, we'll admit this as Exhibit D544.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I now ask for 65 ter
24 15061, and that would be page 9. ERN number is 0033-9206.
25 JUDGE KWON: In the meantime while we are waiting, Mr. Gaynor,
1 have we admitted the 65 ter number 9893, among which the map reappears?
2 Mr. Karadzic, did you want to tender that report by Mr. Higgs into
3 evidence, or you just used it?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If it's not yet an exhibit, we
5 would like to tender it. If it's the same one we referred to, not the
6 amalgamated one the Prosecution tendered.
7 MR. GAYNOR: This particular report has not yet been admitted.
8 We have no objection to its admission.
9 JUDGE KWON: Very well. We'll admit it as a Defence exhibit.
10 That will be Exhibit D545.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Mr. Higgs, I ask you to tell us if this is the site of the
13 explosion and whether you received that as part of your documentation,
14 and can you identify the fragments, the traces in the form of beams,
15 rays. I hope that the transcript will be corrected. Is this the
16 photograph of the site that you were given as the site of descent of the
17 second shell, Markale II, and which is marked. It says here that it's
18 before the clean-up. It says: "The site of descent of the mortar
19 projectile calibre 120 millimetres, marked number 1 before clean-up and
20 marking." Is that it?
21 A. This is one of the many photographs that I was presented.
22 Q. May I now ask you to mark on this site the characteristic traces
23 of the fragments of the shell on the asphalt, the centre of the
24 explosion, the first crown, the second crown, and the ray-like traces.
25 A. This is not the best photograph to do that, because you do not
1 get clear sight of the crater from this photograph, which is why I used
2 the better quality one which looked down onto the crater.
3 Q. Are you talking about the one that we were told was marked by
4 chalk, because there is a reference to marking here. Were there any
5 markings on the photograph that you studied?
6 A. On this particular photograph we're now looking at here, the
7 quality of the photograph and from where the photograph is taken, you
8 cannot make out the pattern of the crater at all.
9 JUDGE KWON: How about zooming in this photo a little bit? Still
10 it's not --
11 THE WITNESS: Still not the best photograph, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE KWON: How about the next page, or the page after -- next
14 THE WITNESS: No, that one again is really too -- too far away.
15 JUDGE KWON: How about this one? We can zoom in a bit further.
16 THE WITNESS: This photograph has been taken close in to mainly
17 show the crater. It doesn't show the entire fragment pattern. This
18 photograph concentrates on looking at the point of impact.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. May I read to you, Mr. Higgs, what it says below the photograph:
21 "Close-up of the site of descent and explosion of the
22 projectile -- projectile taken after clean-up and marking."
23 Do you now accept that they did mark these -- this pattern on the
24 asphalt by chalk?
25 A. If it says obviously in the examination that they did mark it for
1 clarity, then I would have no reason to disbelieve what it says.
2 Q. Thank you. You seem to have a lot of trust in the authors of
3 these reports, and you said yesterday that you believed them, but this is
4 a criminal case, and I challenge their accuracy.
5 Can you now mark on this the elements that we mentioned, the
6 characteristic traces on the tarmac, the centre of the explosion, the
7 first crown, the second crown, and the ray-like pattern.
8 A. On this particular photograph the second crown is difficult to
9 determine, but the point of impact as best you can see on the photograph
10 would be in this area, with the first crown being in that area. The
11 photograph which looks at the crater from further away can give you a
12 better picture of where the second crown will be.
13 JUDGE KWON: But if we -- before we go any further, if you can
14 tell us what the first crown, second crown, or third crowns are to us.
15 THE WITNESS: When a mortar round explodes and detonates it forms
16 a small crater. The first lip of that crater is known as the first
17 crown, and then when the bomb explodes, the fragments and the pressure,
18 of course, go outwards, and where the main centre of the body explosion
19 took place and where those fragments hit the ground, they give a fan-type
20 shape on the ground, and that centre -- measurement to the centre of that
21 position is known as the second crown.
22 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Higgs.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Could you please put numbers there, 1 for the point of impact,
25 the centre of the crater, and number 2 for the first crown.
1 A. [Marks]
2 Q. Could you please mark the ray-like or the fan-type pattern and
3 tell us something about it.
4 A. It's not all included in this picture because this is a close-up.
5 Some of it is contained in here, but you would need the -- the photograph
6 which shows you the whole pattern to better show the -- the second crown.
7 Q. Did you have such a photograph? Does such a photograph exist?
8 A. The photograph that better shows it would be the one which I used
9 my bearings from, the one that looked down -- looks down upon it. But I
10 did not use the first or second crowns as part of my investigation
11 because they require calculations, and of course I had no access to the
12 crater to carry out those calculations.
13 Q. Well, how did you then decide? What did you use to make your
15 A. For the findings or bearing it was the pattern, the overall
16 pattern of the crater and the direction which it points which gives you
17 bearing. First and second crowns come into play when, if you do not have
18 a quality fuse furrow for calculating angle of descent, you can by
19 ballistic calculation use the distances the first and second crowns to
20 come up with a ballistic estimate of the angle of descent, and this is
21 shown in the forensic report as this is one of the methods that they
23 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, it might be easier if we move back --
24 I don't want to interfere with Mr. Karadzic's cross-examination, but
25 there is a photograph describing exactly what the witness is referring to
1 at page 4 of this collection of photographs.
2 JUDGE KWON: Very well. We'll do so after keeping -- after doing
3 the housekeeping matters.
4 So would you like to tender this document parked by Mr. Higgs?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. If he can put the date and
6 his initials.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. You want to say that there is no fuse furrow on this one?
9 A. That picture does not show any distinctive fuse furrow at all.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We'll --
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If we can admit this and then move
12 on to page 4, suggested kindly by the witness [as interpreted].
13 JUDGE KWON: We will admit this as Exhibit D546, and I for the
14 record, I note this is a picture marked from the -- from page 15 of
15 Exhibit P1448.
16 Now we'll back to page 4 of this document.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just a correction on the record. I
18 said it was kindly suggested by Mr. Gaynor, not the witness.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Do you notice here those markings in chalk, Mr. Higgs?
21 A. I can see the markings on the ground, yes.
22 Q. Could you tell us on the basis of this photograph how you
23 determined the direction?
24 A. On looking at this overall crater, from the shape of the crater
25 and where the -- the majority of the shrapnel marks are in the tarmac, it
1 is possible to come to the conclusion that from the point of impact the
2 majority of the fragment marks are then between the point of impact on
3 the curb facing towards the building.
4 Q. That was enough to you to determine the angle of descent, the
5 direction from which the shell came.
6 A. By examining the fragments and the overall pattern, that was
7 enough to give me an approximate bearing from which this round came,
8 which is pointing toward the building. If this round had come from 220
9 to 240 as suggested in the second report, the majority of the fragments
10 would have been pointing in this picture to the right, down the road,
11 because that is the -- the other direction. And you can see from this
12 picture that is not the case, that from the point of impact the majority
13 of fragments face towards the building.
14 Q. Thank you. Can you please draw two lines here, one showing the
15 direction from which the round came and the second line marking the
16 direction of 275 that you used as orientation.
17 A. The bearing of 170 is approximately in that direction, and 275
18 approximately in that direction.
19 Q. Can you show us the axis that coincides with the direction from
20 which the round came, and second, across the whole photograph will you
21 please draw the line that marks 275 degrees.
22 A. If you could please just confirm the question. I have just
23 marked the line that is approximately 275, which is the one to the right.
24 What axis would you like me to draw?
25 Q. Well across these traces draw us an axis that shows the direction
1 of descent across the traces. If that's the direction you already
2 marked, you can just stretch it to -- to cover the whole photograph. Or
3 would you change something?
4 A. Obviously from working from this photograph I'm obviously
5 estimating, but the arrow to the right is approximately 275. The arrow I
6 have drawn from the crater to the building again is approximately 170,
7 that sort of area. The way in which I come to these findings is by
8 looking, as I said before, the overall shape of the crater.
9 Would it help if I was to show the pattern of the mortar round to
10 explain that?
11 Q. No. Just mark this direction as 275 and the other one as 175,
12 which you believe to be the direction from which the round came.
13 A. [Marks]
14 Q. Can this line be lengthened to show us the axis of descent, the
15 axis of the pattern relative to the direction from which the shell came?
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Gaze.
17 MR. GAYNOR: I just want to clarify for the record where
18 Mr. Karadzic said, "The other one was 175, which you believe to be the
19 direction from which the round came." It might have been a slip of the
20 tongue by Mr. Karadzic. The witness said 170.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes. I think it's clear from the record.
22 And would you like the witness to extend the other line as well?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That wouldn't be necessary if we
24 agreed that the edge of the pavement coincides with the line 275. I
25 don't think my question was recorded.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Do you agree, Mr. Higgs, that the line of the payment coincides
3 with the direction 275?
4 A. Yes, that's correct. Yes.
5 Q. I have to speak fast, so not everything is recorded by -- I'm
6 working against the clock. Can you put the date and your initials,
8 A. [Marks]
9 JUDGE KWON: This will be admitted as Exhibit D547.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now get back the first map
11 of the city, the street plan on the basis of which you marked. 1D2252.
12 The one we marked. D543. Can we get that? D543, recently admitted.
13 Let's just look at it briefly. It's the detail of the street plan used
14 by Mr. Higgs. It's easier 1D2252.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Do you agree, Mr. Higgs, that this is not very well drawn, namely
17 the direction 275 does not really coincide. It actually coincides more
18 with the Mustafa Baseskija Street.
19 A. That is correct, because at the time I only had this one
20 particular map, so I took an approximate line which represented a
21 direction as much as possible with the roads. Obviously, I had no means
22 of an accurate bearing. So that -- that is where the 275 came from. I
23 was trying to use a direction which was then a -- if you like, a stable
24 or a current connection which I could then use to work from.
25 If -- as you can see from this blown-up picture here that the
1 roads running around the front are the marked Markale Market is at --
2 could be, as you suggest, a slightly smaller bearing. It could be, if
3 you measure this accurately, probably nearer 260 or 265. If that is the
4 case, then that just goes to reinforce the decision the initial teams
5 came to about the direction being 170 and not 220, 240, because the more
6 that road has a smaller direction, i.e., less than 275, then the crater
7 would be more facing down the road. It would be really prominent that it
8 has come from down the road. So I use a direction of 275 of a central
9 correction not having, as I say, any direct or detailed information. So
10 from that I could then just look at the evidence I was given, i.e., the
11 photographs, and then come up with my opinion of whether it came from
12 over the building or whether it did come from down the road direction,
13 which would have been the 220, 240.
14 So I think this picture just goes to reinforce my opinion that
15 the round came from a direction a lot closer than 170 and is nowhere near
16 a direction of 220 to 240.
17 JUDGE KWON: The line on this map, Mr. Higgs, which purports to
18 be the line pointing to the direction 275 degrees is the correct one?
19 THE WITNESS: That is -- the line is 275 degrees. Yes, it is,
20 Your Honour.
21 JUDGE KWON: On this map.
22 THE WITNESS: Yep.
23 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. P1450. Could we have
25 that now. Could we just see briefly what this crater looks like at the
1 moment when the French team started working there.
2 It's in Sanction, rather. I think that the reference is 625 or
3 something like that.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, it's 65 ter number 40221.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. I believe that the arrival of the French investigation team is at
8 a bit more, the moment when they're actually arriving. That's it.
9 [Video-clip played]
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Is this the point of impact of the shell?
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 JUDGE KWON: We are now at 5 minutes, 32 seconds.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Higgs, when was it that the French arrived?
16 A. I have no information on timings and when people actually arrived
17 by time.
18 Q. Were they the first investigation group to arrive?
19 A. Again, I don't have that information, whether they were the first
20 or worked with any of the other teams.
21 Q. Does this site differ from all the other photographs that we saw
22 from the report of the Sarajevo
23 A. I'm not sure on the question. In what way do you mean differ?
24 Q. Well, first of all, this is not soaked in blood. Also, the form
25 and depth of this crater looks different, doesn't it?
1 A. Well, this is obviously the video. It does not show the whole
2 area. And as you made the point on the previous photographs, the
3 photographs were taken, as you said, after clean-up, which of course
4 would have moved blood around on the scene when they did it and given a
5 different picture.
6 Q. How do you explain those photographs where the crater is full of
7 blood? How come? Where was the point of impact of the shell? Did the
8 shell hit a human being or the asphalt?
9 A. There is no evidence that the round on it's path down hit a human
10 being. You can see, although this picture is not the best, that the
11 round has struck the ground. Obviously the blood all around came from
12 the casualties which would have been in that vicinity. The differences
13 between the video and the still shots I can only assume is that, as you
14 made the point earlier, some of the still shots were taken after some
15 form of clean-up had taken place, and therefore it could have spread,
16 obviously, the blood patterns all around.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This has already been admitted,
19 and we don't need it any longer. Otherwise, this footage is going to be
20 precious in its entirety, but we're going to go back to that some other
22 65 ter number 09893, please. In Serbian it is page 11 -- rather,
23 14, and -- in English it is 14, actually, and in Serbian it's 11. D545.
24 It was admitted that way.
25 JUDGE KWON: Let us switch to e-court.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Can we now have a look at this. Your conclusion was that in this
3 case the shell was fired from positions held by the Army of Republika
4 Srpska and that the range was 2400 metres; right?
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. On this particular page the conclusion is that at a range of 2400
7 metres puts the firing position in the hills, which is out of earshot of
8 the UN observers due to the lay of the land. You say that they would not
9 have heard the round being fired due to the hills and valleys; is that
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. Do you know that it was proven before this court that a
13 stabiliser has to remain at the point of explosion when the third charge
14 is involved? Do you agree with that finding?
15 MR. GAYNOR: Objection, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
17 MR. GAYNOR: I'm not aware that that finding has been made, and
18 if the --
19 JUDGE KWON: I'm not either, but with that caveat, whether you
20 can answer the question, irrespective of whether or not it has been
22 THE WITNESS: Whether or not the tail fins will be at the point
23 of impact is dependent on many, many factors. Normally at the lower to
24 medium charges, percentage-wise, a higher percentage of the explosion
25 would cause the tail fins to be blown away from the initial impact area
1 and possibly be laying around within the close proximity of that strike.
2 When firing on higher charges, i.e., charges 5 and 6, and the increased
3 velocity that the round will have, you then have a higher percentage that
4 the tail fins will be embedded within the crater. So in this particular
5 case there is no surprise that the tail fins were found in close
6 proximity to the crater but not within it, again giving a possible
7 indication that the mortar was fired on possibly a low or medium charge
9 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Higgs, could you assist in what is the
10 weight? We know the diameter. What is the weight of a 120 or
11 122-millimetre mortar round high explosive.
12 THE WITNESS: There are all different types of round, Your
13 Honour. It depends on what type they are, but they could range, well,
14 approximately 20 to 30 kilogrammes. So quite a heavy round.
15 JUDGE MORRISON: And of that how much of that would be high
16 explosive if it was a high explosive round.
17 THE WITNESS: I haven't got those figures in front of me, but
18 high explosive content contained within that only probably about 3 or 4
19 kilogrammes of that, the main mass being made up of the steel belting
20 that surrounds the explosive content.
21 JUDGE MORRISON: And just for analysis, in terms of the explosive
22 effect, would that be similar, less, or more than, say, 155-millimetre
23 artillery shell?
24 THE WITNESS: It would be less and a different type of explosion
25 effect. With mortars being designed for main use, which is
1 antipersonnel, their bodies are designed to fragment into smaller pieces
2 than artillery ammunition which fragments are generally larger and with a
3 larger blast effect.
4 JUDGE MORRISON: Thank you.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Mr. Higgs, how many charges are needed, then, for this shell to
7 get there from a distance of 2400 metres?
8 A. To arrive at that range charges 3, 4, 5, and 6 would be able to
9 achieve that range.
10 Q. Where was this stabiliser found? How far away was it from the
11 point of explosion?
12 A. I have no measurement of that. You saw from the video that it
13 was laying in the road, obviously some distance from the point of impact,
14 but I have not been shown any direct or detailed measurements on exactly
15 how far away it was.
16 Q. What would you expect it to be, given all these elements that you
17 have established?
18 A. It could be any distance away. It depends on the angle at which,
19 of course, it was blown away. And in this case, because fired within
20 streets, it could have obviously bounced back off buildings to end up
21 where it did.
22 Q. So the distance at which the stabiliser was could also have been
23 an element for establishing the angle, right, in view of what you said a
24 moment ago that it depends on the angle, it depends on how far it will
25 get away or bounce away?
1 A. No. Where the tail fins are found, you could not just that to
2 determine in any way whatsoever the angle, because it could, for many
3 different reasons, really end up anywhere.
4 Q. Thank you. Do you recall that in the case of Markale I it was
5 established that the stabiliser, when it arrives with such force with a
6 charge of at least 3, has to remain stuck in the crater?
7 A. Yes. With Markale I, the tail fins were still in the crater.
8 And as I mentioned a few minutes ago, this has a higher percentage chance
9 of happening when a mortar is fired on a higher charge and therefore
10 arriving in the ground at a higher velocity.
11 Q. Thank you. Do you recall that at Markale I the angle of descent
12 was very similar? It was a 120-millimetre shell, and the charge was at
13 least 3. There were at least three charges; right?
14 A. With Markale I, because we had no accurate angle to determine the
15 descent, they worked the angle out from the minimum, which it must have
16 been, to clear the buildings and then came up with all the possibilities.
17 And with Markale I, they looked at all possibles from charge 1 through to
18 charge 6.
19 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us what kind of injuries persons who had
20 been standing there would sustain if they were standing one metre away
21 from the point of impact of a 122-millimetre shell? Would limbs have
22 been amputated?
23 A. I'm just -- to clarify, we're talking here about a 120-millimetre
24 mortar, not a 122-millimetre shell, because that is an artillery shell.
25 That is completely different. But within a 120-millimetre mortar, if you
1 would right next to it as well as damage caused by the shrapnel, the
2 fragmentation, you would also have damage caused by the blast. So you'd
3 have blast injuries as well as shrapnel injuries.
4 Q. Would it be possible to have body parts fully amputated, and if
5 that is the case, how would you explain that?
6 A. With the directions of blast and the -- the higher content of
7 shrapnel which will have closer into the round, that is how you would
8 possibly have cause of main body parts being amputated and, of course,
9 high degrees of damage. The further you would then get away from the
10 point of burst the blast effects will then be minimised, and you'd then
11 predominantly see more shrapnel injuries.
12 Q. Yesterday we saw that film. Is that the usual way casualties are
13 being dealt with when such incidents occur? Do you remember how these
14 people were piled up, dragged down the streets to trucks? Just give a
15 yes or no answer. Is that the usual way things are done?
16 A. There is no set way of -- of clearing a scene where civilians are
17 involved, as they will do whatever they think they need to do at the
18 time, and they will obviously use whatever resources they have to clear
19 the area.
20 Q. May I go back to the term I used from the very outset, taking
21 care of casualties. I'm not talking about clearing the terrain.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 65 ter 09917. Could we have that,
23 please? Page 3 both in Serbian and in English.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. It was established -- rather, you established, right, that --
1 that UNPROFOR headquarters sent a report about this incident at a request
2 sent by the UN. 09917 is the number. And over here in paragraph 4 of
3 this report it says -- can we see paragraph 4. Yes, we have it both in
4 Serbian and in English. Yesterday you confirmed that you know what
5 Cymbeline radar is.
6 Can you please read this part of paragraph 4 where there's a
7 reference to that radar.
8 A. Paragraph 4 states that:
9 "The evidence from Cymbeline radar was used by the UNPROFOR G2
10 staff to ascertain the firing range of the mortars. At that time of the
11 firing, the incident -- the radar was operation on a direction arc and at
12 an angle that would have detected the trajectory of any mortar fired at a
13 range of 950 metres or less and showed that the round fired from 900
14 metres would have reached vertex height on its trajectory, which would
15 have registered on the radar beam. The assessment was that the mortars
16 were fired at a lower trajectory which passed under the radar beam. Any
17 round fired at such a trajectory could pass under the radar beam would
18 have come from a firing position, dependent on charge, at a range between
19 1500 and 3500 metres. The distance to the confrontation line from the
20 impact point is 1050 metres."
21 Q. Thank you. Do you agree that all -- all shells that are about
22 950 metres would have been registered by this radar?
23 A. No, that's not the case, because Cymbeline works on the angle of
24 the vertex height. The vertex height on some of the other trajectories,
25 as the Cymbeline report here mentions, although fired further away, their
1 vertex height could have been lower than the round that fired only 950
3 Q. You're talking about indirect fire, aren't you?
4 A. The term "indirect fire" suggests that whoever fired this round,
5 that they could not see the target. You must remember that mortars can
6 fire what is called direct fire. The term "indirect fire" has no -- does
7 not relate to the arc or the path in which the round takes from firing to
8 when it hits the ground.
9 Q. Thank you. Do you know that UNPROFOR organs and investigation
10 organs of Bosnia and Herzegovina established that the angle of descent of
11 this shell due to the height of the building had to be 67 or more than 67
12 degrees? By no means could it have been less than 67 degrees; right?
13 A. That's correct.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D2231. Could we have that,
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Do you see this table referring to charges? We see
18 120-millimetre shell trajectories from charge 1 to charge 6 if -- if the
19 descent angle is 67 degrees. The range is from 900 to 4700 metres. Does
20 this table correspond to your knowledge of this?
21 A. I've not seen this table before, and I obviously don't know who's
22 produced this, so I couldn't either confirm or deny this.
23 Q. Can you confirm the firing tables that 900 metres is 0 plus 1 and
24 1700 is 0 plus 2 and so on and so forth? Can you confirm that?
25 A. Without having the firing tables in front of me and the precise
1 figures, it wouldn't be possible to confirm the exact ranges. These look
2 approximately correct. Well, as I say, I cannot confirm the exact ranges
3 you will get at that degrees by charge without having the range tables.
4 Q. Yesterday you stated for the record that charge 3 corresponds to
5 2400 metres; right?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. That is in your report as well; right?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Thank you. This is the radar beam, this line that we see, and it
10 has to do with charge 1, although according to the UNPROFOR report it can
11 be even lower because there are also lower directions or arcs in this
12 respect. However, in this case, the angle of descent would have to be
13 less than 67 degrees, so that option is ruled out.
14 Do you agree that the shell could not have been fired with a
15 charge of 0 plus 1 from the Serb positions because the line of separation
16 was at a distance of at least 1050 metres in that direction?
17 A. That's correct. A range of 900 metres would be within the
18 confrontation lines.
19 Q. Into Muslim territory; right?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. On the assumption that the direction of the shell was established
22 properly, and that's where the range was over 1.000 metres; right?
23 A. The established of range came up with different variables because
24 we obviously have the minimum descent angle of 67 degrees.
25 Q. Thank you. Does that mean that if this trajectory were to be
1 below the radar's beam, the peak of the arc, if it were lower, then it
2 would have -- that would not have been the case because the building that
3 was in the vicinity; right?
4 A. I've obviously got no data regarding the radar beam and how that
5 works, where it was pointing or anything else. You would obviously have
6 to get the Cymbeline experts to answer that particular point. But if a
7 round was fired at lower than 67 degrees, then, yes, it would not have
8 cleared the building.
9 Q. I'm afraid that my question was not quite clear, but you felt
10 what it was that I was getting at. So you agree that every shell whose
11 trajectory would go below the first line of 900 metres would have a
12 shorter range and an angle of descent of less than 67 degrees; right?
13 A. I'm not quite sure on your question, but regardless of which
14 charge was fired, it must have had an elevation on it greater than 67
15 degrees, obviously it would not have cleared that building.
16 Q. Thank you. And do you agree that according to UNPROFOR findings
17 their observation radar was able to record a round flying along the first
18 trajectory and also all the higher trajectories?
19 A. No. The information I have is as per the reports where the
20 Cymbeline people reported that where their radar was pointing at the
21 time, that in their opinion they would not have detected the round being
22 fired at the distance of 900 metres -- sorry, they would have detected
23 the round being fired at a range of 900 metres but they believe they
24 would not have heard the round being fired at the medium charges or
25 medium ranges that they suggest in their report.
1 Q. You're trying to say that even from a higher distance and with
2 the same angle a round could fly even on a lower trajectory than these
3 548 metres.
4 A. No, I didn't say it could fly lower than that 548 metres you have
5 on this drawing. The angles they fire at are specifically laid out in
6 the range tables. The maximum vertex height those rounds may achieve
7 along their path will be listed in those range tables.
8 Q. But you agree that if it were fired from 900 metres and landed at
9 67 degrees or more, then it would have to be as shown here, over 548
10 metres elevation. The vertex height would have been more?
11 A. The vertex height of the round fired on charge 1 to achieve that
12 angle of descent, 67 degrees. I don't know whether it is the 548 as
13 shown here but it will be, of course, specified in the range tables, and
14 it will be listed in those range tables at that angle for that charge the
15 maximum vertex height that that round would be able to achieve.
16 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, if it is convenient, it's time to take
17 a break.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is convenient, but we will have
19 to finish with this subject because it's important. And if I may ask
20 Mr. Higgs to get these tables during the break, because this was done
21 according to the table.
22 JUDGE KWON: We'll have a break for half an hour. There's
23 something the Chamber needs to discuss during the break. So we'll resume
24 at 5 past 10.00 -- five past 11.00 I should say.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 11.14 a.m.
3 JUDGE KWON: I was informed that, Mr. Karadzic, you have
4 something to raise.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Excellency. To be able
6 to take full advantage of the presence of my expert, could you approve
7 that the entire team may be present during the breaks so I can use the
8 breaks to consult with them and prepare?
9 JUDGE KWON: Could you be clearer as to the meaning of "entire
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, so far only my privileged
12 advisors, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Sladojevic, were able to be with me, and
13 now I would like you to approve in a Ms. Subotic and experts who are part
14 of the team may also join me during the breaks. There is problem with
15 OLAD and they need your decision.
16 JUDGE KWON: As it concerns the security issues, the Chamber does
17 not want to make the decision lightly, and given that the testimony of
18 this witness is almost coming to an end and that only today we have only
19 one break left, so the Chamber is minded to make an informed decision
20 having -- after having heard from the various organs of the Tribunal so
21 will make its ruling tomorrow.
22 Let's bring in the witness.
23 Do you have any say, Mr. Gaynor, or Mr. Tieger, as to this issue?
24 MR. GAYNOR: We take no position on the matter, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
1 [The witness takes the stand]
2 JUDGE KWON: Good morning still.
3 Mr. Karadzic, please continue.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we get back
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. While we're waiting, Mr. Higgs, what was decisive in determining
8 this angle of descent, 67 degrees? Do you agree that it was the height
9 of the roof of the building?
10 A. There were two pieces of evidence, the calculations of the height
11 of the building and the ballistic calculation conducted by the forensic
12 team, one of -- the first which came up with 67 degrees, the second of
13 which came up with an angle of approximately 70 degrees.
14 Q. Thank you. Do you agree that according to all these findings,
15 particularly because of the height of the building the angle of descent
16 could not be less than 67 degrees regardless of the distance?
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. Thank you. May I ask you to draw in before the -- below the
19 vertex height of this first trajectory, to draw the building so we can
20 picture it more easily.
21 A. Whereabouts do you want the building drawing?
22 Q. Between this line, 900 and 67 degrees, to see that the height of
23 the building was decisive in determining the minimum angle. Do you see
24 the vertex height of this first trajectory, 900 metres?
25 A. Yes, I can see that --
1 JUDGE KWON: Just a second, Mr. Higgs.
2 Mr. Higgs confirmed or agreed that according to all these
3 findings because of the height of the building the angle of descent could
4 not be less than 67 degrees regardless of the distance. However, the
5 witness was not able to confirm what this -- this diagram or picture
6 depicts as it is now, so what's the point of asking the witness to mark
7 the height of the building on this document? If Mr. Gaynor is not going
8 to oppose to the admission of this document.
9 MR. GAYNOR: Well, actually I was going to make some submissions
10 about this document at the appropriate moment.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. We can mark this document for
12 identification for future identification by Defence witnesses. At this
13 moment, speaking for myself, it is not mature to be admitted at this
15 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, well, in that case, if I could just make my
16 brief submissions now.
17 First of all, it appears to have been prepared by somebody within
18 the Defence team in this case to support the Defence case. I just want
19 that clear on the record. Second, there's currently no evidence to
20 support the parabolas described and represented on this document, the six
21 parabolas described. There's no evidence on the record to support the
22 centre point of the radar beam, there's no evidence to support the radius
23 of the radar beam, and the figure of 548 metres mentioned is not based on
24 evidence on the record so far.
25 JUDGE KWON: So I would like you to proceed after marking this
1 identification for identification.
2 THE REGISTRAR: As D548 marked for identification, Your Honours.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, this is very
4 important point. There are three -- or, rather, four very hard facts
5 that the angle was determined by the height of the building. If the
6 distance is greater, 2400 or 2700, if the round came, obviating this
7 radar beam, then the angle would have been greater than 67 or 70 degrees.
8 JUDGE KWON: I see your point, but the problem is that the
9 witness is not able to confirm the location or the position of the radar
10 beam as reflected in this diagram.
11 Am I correct, Mr. Higgs?
12 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honour.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just have to correct the record.
14 It would have been lower than 67 degrees. If the range had been greater
15 in order to avoid the radar beam, the round would have come in at less
16 than 67 degrees.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Maybe you did not receive the interpretation. Do you agree with
19 my proposition?
20 A. As I said, this diagram represents if -- to get the angle of 67
21 degrees, you can achieve it on all charges. So if you wanted to achieve
22 an angle greater than that to clear the building, the large -- all the
23 larger charges, charges say from 1 to 6 can all do that depending, of
24 course, on how far away the mortar was.
25 Q. But the angle was determined by the height of the building.
1 Could this round have come to land at this place with the lower
2 trajectory under the same angle in view of the building, or it would have
3 gone through the building in that case?
4 A. Yes. At an angle less than 67 degrees, the round would not have
5 cleared the building.
6 Q. And the radar, as we were able to see from the UN report, was
7 working. Thank you.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This document has received a
9 number, hasn't it?
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes. It was marked for identification as Exhibit
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In view of the fact that we are
13 probably not going to have enough time, we have to move to the second
14 incident now, and that's the incident in the queue for water in
15 Sana Babovic Street
16 Can we get 1D2242.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Higgs, is this the site of this incident, including these
20 A. I have not seen this photograph before. It's not a photograph I
21 was given as part of my investigation, so it would be very difficult for
22 me to either confirm or deny it is.
23 Q. And on what basis did you study this incident?
24 A. From the reports that I mention in my consolidated report, the
25 investigations carried out by the two teams that were present at the
2 Q. Local investigators established that the projectile came from
3 north-west, from the direction of Nedzarici. The UNPROFOR determined
4 that --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Karadzic repeat his question, please.
6 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, could you repeat the question.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Local investigators established that the round came from
9 north-west, from the direction of Nedzarici. The UNPROFOR determined
10 that the round came from a direction whose bearing would be 500
11 100 thousandths parts and that makes 287 degrees, and that's this line
12 marked here.
13 Did you accept that this was indeed the direction from which the
14 round came?
15 A. Yes. On looking at the two reports, because of the poor quality
16 of information due to the round exploding within a person, and they then
17 calculating their bearings from the patterns given by the shrapnel on the
18 surrounding areas, I have no reason to doubt their findings that the
19 round came from westerly, I believe north-westerly location.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now get 65 ter 11394. The
22 photograph we need is ERN 1026897. The photograph should be 1026897.
23 Yes, that's the photograph. We need just one.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Can you, Mr. Higgs, mark on this photograph the likely direction
1 from which the projectile came.
2 A. It's not possible from the photograph, because it doesn't show
3 obviously the marks in any great detail or the surrounding area to give
4 any possible direction just from that photograph.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now get back 1D2242. The
7 previous document. Yes.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Could this assist you if you looked at a picture with markings of
10 the places of the incident and the bearing established by the UNPROFOR?
11 Do you see that the angle is an acute angle relative to the payment?
12 A. As you can tell from the -- the two reports that are in evidence
13 that I refer to, the two investigation teams do come up with slightly
14 different bearings due to the type of crater that we had not being very
15 accurate to determine bearing, and that's why they have only given
16 general bearings in this particular case, and that is why you get a
17 slight difference between the two reports. But from the pictures that we
18 have alone, it's not possible for me to either confirm or deny the
19 investigations carried out on the day.
20 Q. Well, I dispute it. I dispute these investigations. I cannot
21 take it on trust. The Defence now has to establish whether was indeed
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we get back 11394, the
24 photograph. 65 ter 113694. Yes.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Can you mark on this photograph the fragments of the round on the
2 asphalt? The typing here says:
3 "Close-up of the place of incident, the centre of explosion,
4 after the removal of the casualties."
5 A. You can see some of the fragments in the tarmac here, but
6 obviously due to the quality of the picture and its angle, you cannot see
7 any of the other markings that may be on the car or the fence. Do you
8 wish me just to mark the markings in the tarmac.
9 Q. Yes. All the traces you can identify. This is a photograph that
10 they provided to you and when you worked on the basis of this photo,
11 didn't you?
12 A. Yes, but I did not use the photographs as part of my
13 determination because of, again, their poor quality and not sharing
14 really any evidence I could base any findings upon. But pieces of
15 shrapnel in the payment are ...
16 Q. All right. Just mark the traces.
17 A. [Marks]. Difficult to identify pieces of shrapnel marks and
18 pieces of debris that are laying on the road. But the three I have
19 identified seem to be just three parts made by pieces of shrapnel.
20 Q. May I draw your attention to the left side of the photograph. Do
21 you see the trolley, the cart that people used to transport water? Can
22 you mark the direction of the force that overturned this trolley?
23 A. The trolley you are relating to, I believe, are these wheels
24 here, and it seems to be tipped over in that direction.
25 Q. Thank you. Now, on the right corner of this car, which is a
1 Skoda, can you mark the direction of the force which deformed the rear
2 right headlight or light? Do you see that this is the rear of the
3 automobile? It's deformed by the explosion. Can you tell us the
4 direction of the force which deformed the chassis and the rear right
6 A. It appears that the round has exploded obviously very close to
7 the car, and the damage would indicate probably slightly to the rear of
8 the car so that some of the blast has gone into the rear of the car.
9 Impossible from this picture to give a definite angle.
10 Q. But can you mark whether it was from the top or from the bottom
11 looking just at this damage?
12 A. Just looking at the damage, no. Difficult to tell whether the
13 blast was above, below, or in line. The photograph does not give enough
14 information to determine that.
15 Q. Does it look like this blast was below or above? Does this look
16 caved in or raised?
17 A. If you purely look at the boot of the car, it does give the
18 impression that some force was pushing down in one corner, which may
19 indicate that the blast could have been slightly higher than the level of
20 the boot of the car.
21 Q. Do you also see the left-hand side of the boot? Can you mark on
22 it the direction of the force which caused this damage?
23 A. As I said before, it's very difficult to be precise with the
24 direction of force as there's not enough information purely in this
25 photograph, but it could possibly indicate that the force has been, as I
1 said, slightly downwards and probably off to one side, in this direction
3 Q. Thank you. Can you write the date and your initials at the
4 bottom of this photograph?
5 A. Marks.
6 Q. Thank you?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this document be admitted?
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes. As Exhibit D549.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we now get 65 ter
10 11394, which is the same document only a page further.
11 JUDGE KWON: We will keep this image first.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Next page, please. [In English]
13 Next page, please.
14 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. They are having difficulties in
15 keeping the previous image first.
16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
17 JUDGE KWON: They lost the image, but they are confident to be
18 able to revive it through the assistance of the image taken by the video.
19 Then we'll -- we can proceed.
20 Let's go to the next page.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Mr. Higgs, can you mark on this photograph the rib trace on the
24 joint of the two edges. The edge of the pavement. Can you see it?
25 A. Do you mean some of the shrapnel marks that are on the -- on the
2 Q. No. Do you see this part which looks like stairs. The step at
3 the top of that there are fragment scrapes, like ribs.
4 A. Do you mean these marks here? It keeps moving down.
5 Q. To assist you, may I ask the usher to give you this photograph.
6 You will be then able to identify what I mean.
7 A. The ones you have circled, that area there?
8 Q. Yes. Is that a fragment scrape?
9 A. From the quality of the photograph, I could not say that it is or
10 whether it's from some form of previous damage. The photograph does not
11 make that clear.
12 Q. Thank you. Then we are not going to tender that.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we get 65 ter 11394, page with
14 the number ending 893. It's page 2 the document. It's marked with an
15 ERN number ending in 893. The full ERN number is 10268893.
16 No. This is 94. We need 93. We'll need this photo too later,
17 but now we need the one ending in 893. Yes.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Do you notice this white car with doors open?
20 A. I can see the car in the centre of the photograph, yes.
21 Q. Can we now get a zoom-in on the doors. This open door, was it
22 damaged by fragments of a bomb in your opinion?
23 A. Purely from the photograph, often you can see holes or marks in
24 the door. Whether or not, of course, that is from this incident I cannot
25 obviously confirm or deny. Whether or not it was caused by this
1 particular mortar bomb, again with this clarity and without having
2 fragments to identify, it's impossible to say whether it is or it isn't.
3 Q. Thank you. Do you agree that this car in the photograph is moved
4 towards the fence and it's basically leaning against the fence? The rear
5 of the car, that is. The front is on the driveway. The front part is on
6 the driveway, whereas the middle of the body of the car is on the
7 sidewalk, right?
8 A. I guess the car does appear to be in a position half on and half
9 off the pavement.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have the next page,
12 please. Could I please have the next page.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Do you see the Skoda here? And in front of it you can see the
15 car with the door open; right?
16 A. Yes. To the right-hand side the photograph, you can just see the
17 edge of the open door.
18 Q. Thank you. Could you please mark that trolley now, the one that
19 was tipped over, and these two cars.
20 A. The trolley wheels that we marked before are there.
21 Q. Can you show us where the body of the trolley is? Can you show
22 it to us now, and can you show the direction in which the trolley fell.
23 A. The trolley location appears to be in that location, and appears
24 to have fallen over that way.
25 Q. Could you please mark the door on the previous car? It can be
1 seen here as well. Not as clearly as in the previous photograph, but you
2 can still see the open door.
3 A. The edge of the door appears to be in that location there.
4 Q. Thank you. Do you agree that the white car behind the Skoda, the
5 one that you marked just now, or actually that between these two cars is
6 the gate that was used to access the water pump, and can you show the
7 direction of that gate?
8 A. From the previous photograph, the first one that we looked at,
9 the gate is in the fence somewhere just off the edge of the picture.
10 Q. Thank you, but that's the arrow. That's the projection. Do you
11 agree that if an 82-millimetre shell hits a man who is standing and
12 explodes that, do you agree that that body is going to behave in a
13 certain way according to relevant laws? Is it going to move in a certain
14 way, or is it just going to remain standing there as it was?
15 A. What happens to the body when hit by obviously a mortar round
16 will depend on, again, many circumstances; how the person may have been
17 standing at the time, where the round may have impacted on the body, the
18 angle descent of the round. All these factors will affect where any
19 remains may end up on the ground.
20 Q. And in which direction, then, will the body fall in relation to
21 the trajectory along which the round moved in the first place.
22 A. Again for the same reasons as my previous answer, depending where
23 it hit on the body the blast effect would probably have the biggest
24 motion effect on the body. So depending where the round hit this lady,
25 as I believe it was, would affect where her remains would end up on the
2 Q. According to everything you know, which one of these bodies had
3 been hit?
4 A. From the -- the reports I read, it gave no final positions of the
5 pieces. However, from reading the reports, I would assume that it is the
6 body that is to the rear and right next to the car. To the rear right of
7 the car.
8 Q. Could you please mark the body and could you mark the axis in
9 relation to the position of that body.
10 A. The body, I believe, and again this is only obviously from
11 written reports, I've never had this confirmed, but I believe it would
12 be -- that's one that may have received the strike of the mortar round,
13 but it's obviously been covered in plastic. So how that now lays on the
14 ground, I cannot see.
15 Q. Do you agree that this is the site before the bodies were moved?
16 They're just covered in plastic; right?
17 A. It appears to be, yes.
18 Q. Could we please ask you to put the date here and to initial this.
19 Could you actually place a mark on this photograph next to the head of
20 this person that had been hit, in your opinion.
21 A. [Marks]
22 Q. And also in terms of the orientation of this body.
23 A. I can't give any definite of which way round the bodies laying
24 because of it's being covered in plastic. It could be laying in any
1 Q. But can you mark the axis in terms of how this body lies?
2 A. If you're referring to the points which I marked with the X,
3 it -- obviously he's just a -- a shape covered in plastic. I would be
4 guessing if I was to give it any form of direction.
5 JUDGE KWON: He says he doesn't know. Let's proceed,
6 Mr. Karadzic.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, he doesn't know where the
8 head is but the axis of the body could be established, but all right.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. What is the position of this body below letter x and also below
11 the trolley?
12 A. Again, the two other pieces covered in plastic, because they're
13 covered up their orientation could be one way or the other. Their heads
14 or feet could be at either end. That is really all I could ascertain
15 from the picture.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this document be admitted?
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D550, Your Honours.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. If there's enough time,
20 we are going to offer some footage from Croatian television of this site
21 before the plastic covers were placed. We're not even going to ask how
22 come the TV crew was there so fast, but it all really depends on the time
23 we have left.
24 JUDGE KWON: Don't make a speech, Mr. Karadzic. We'll have 15
25 minutes before we take the next break.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Then I will have to
2 move on to another incident. It is incident number 4 in attachment G.
3 It's the football game in Dobrinja on the 1st of June, 1993. Could we
4 please have in e-court --
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Actually, Mr. Higgs, before we find the document that we're
7 looking for, in the beginning -- or, rather, in the -- in the first part
8 of your report did you say that you used documents that you marked as
9 references A, B, and C?
10 A. I haven't got my document in front of me, so I'm not clear what
11 references are you discussing.
12 Q. Did you actually visit that particular location where the
13 incident occurred at the football game in Dobrinja on the 1st of June,
14 1993? Did you visit that particular location when you went out there
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. Who did you visit it with?
18 A. I was taken there by the UN team at the time, the names of which
19 are in my report.
20 Q. You say:
21 "At the request of the International Tribunal, I visited the
22 location with Mr. Chester Stamp, and I explored the two craters
24 Can you tell us who Mr. Stamp is?
25 A. He works obviously here as part of ICTY. I am not sure what his
1 specific role is.
2 Q. What was it that you found on this site? What kind of traces did
3 you find that you used in your work afterwards?
4 A. I was taken to the site to have a look at the general area and
5 what buildings are around. The craters of the mortars, obviously due to
6 many years passing between the incident and me attending, had by this
7 time been filled with a rubber-type material. So therefore, any detailed
8 crater analysis by myself obviously was not possible.
9 Q. This rubber-type material, was it placed there intentionally in
10 order to preserve the craters as it was?
11 A. The reason why it's been put in there obviously I don't know. It
12 was put in not to preserve them as far as any analysis work is concerned.
13 It may have been put in to just preserve them so people know where they
15 Q. Did you carry out any measurements in terms of the crater, the
16 angle of descent and so on?
17 A. Determination the crater, no, because obviously they were filled
18 with this material, and therefore crater examination would not be
19 possible, but I did work out the minimum angle of descent to the
20 buildings because the nearby flats was one of the calculations used by
21 the examination team to calculate a minimum angle around must have
22 achieved to clear those buildings.
23 Q. So without doing any measuring on your own you accepted their
24 findings; right?
25 A. Yes. The only measurement I took was the minimum angle or the
1 crater examination information. I accepted -- I had no reason not to
2 accept the -- the investigation team's information.
3 Q. So you just trusted them fully. Isn't that right? On the face
4 of it.
5 A. I have to believe that what they're writing is true and it's been
6 calculated honestly. I can do as much as I can from visiting the scene
7 and looking at their reports, and there was nothing in their reports that
8 stood out as being grossly inaccurate.
9 Q. Do you agree that in such matters repeated measuring has to yield
10 similar results like in any science? Every scientific fact has to be
11 proven time and again by repeating measuring.
12 A. Yes. That would obviously give you more accuracy should you be
13 able to measure something more than once. In this case here, obviously
14 only the teams attending the site had that opportunity.
15 Q. Thank you. Since you did not measure anything, let me ask you
16 whether you took any photographs when you were there.
17 A. No, I didn't.
18 Q. Can you tell us what the positions are of these two craters, and
19 could you sketch their respective positions vis-à-vis each other on the
21 A. That would be a guess at the moment from my, obviously,
22 recollection of this incident and when I was there many years ago. So it
23 would not be a very accurate sketch, but, yes, I can proceed with the
24 best of my recollection, if required.
25 Q. Thank you. Could you please do that, and could the registry help
1 you with that. Could you do that on a blank screen, and could you try to
2 say what the approximate distance is as well as the position of the
4 JUDGE KWON: Do we not have pictures of the site?
5 MR. GAYNOR: There is a fairly comprehensive report relating to
6 this incident which was admitted through an earlier witness. I don't
7 have the number with me. And secondly, we see no point whatsoever in
8 asking the witness to conduct this exercise. It seems to be totally
10 JUDGE KWON: I agree.
11 JUDGE MORRISON: I agree too.
12 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, you will have had three hours by
13 quarter past 12.00, which was assigned to you for your cross-examination
14 of Mr. Higgs. I take it that you're going to conclude by quarter past
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can stop by 12.15, but I cannot
17 conclude by 12.15.
18 This is very important. This expert did not check or did not
19 conduct any measurements in terms of findings of other investigation
20 teams. The Defence has this unavoidable need to throw more light on
21 eight incidents that are included in this indictment and in other
22 indictments, and they have also become part of different judgements. So
23 when are we going to do it if not now, and that would fall within the 20
24 hours that the Defence asked for.
25 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, as is apparent from the line of
1 questions we saw right now, or as we made it clear yesterday in our
2 ruling, the evidence of this witness is of limited nature. There's no
3 point, as you put it, robust questions to this witness because this
4 witness has limited knowledge. So after the break we'll give you another
5 half an hour. So arrange your questions to be concluded in that time
7 Judge Morrison.
8 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes. I mean, obviously Mr. Higgs is of great
9 expertise as far as mortars are concerned and everything related to
10 mortars. It's an impressive curriculum vitae, if I may say so, but
11 inevitably in this case he was relying very heavily upon investigations
12 which had already been done. He didn't have the opportunity to do
13 original investigations because patently he wasn't there to do it. So
14 the cross-examination seems to me to be necessary to be focused on the
15 methodology he used to verify the original findings rather than asking
16 him to go back now and try and, as it were, do an original report which
17 is not fair on him and it's really of no assistance to the Tribunal.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With all due respect, the basic
19 methodology of this witness is trust in the findings of previous teams,
20 and that was stated quite clearly. So there is no methodology involved.
21 There is trust. There is belief. He is taking over without any further
22 checks the findings of previous teams, and he is simply taking this at
23 face value, carte blanche.
24 These are mortar incidents. In this case and in this entire
25 situation in Sarajevo
1 They're the ones that harmed us the most, and they have to be explored
2 one by one because we claim, the Defence claims, that none of these
3 incidents were caused by the Serb side. They were designed for the
4 purpose of bringing the Serb side into a difficult position -- into a
5 difficult position and to invoke sympathy on the part of the
6 international community and to bring about intervention, and we're going
7 to prove it that way.
8 This kind of improvisation and sloppiness exhibited by the teams
9 in Sarajevo
11 JUDGE MORRISON: You're simply making speeches and wasting what
12 little time you have left.
13 JUDGE KWON: We will have a break now for half an hour. After
14 which you'll have half an hour to conclude your cross-examination of
15 Mr. Higgs.
16 --- Recess taken at 12.14 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 12.49 p.m.
18 JUDGE KWON: Before we continue, Judge Morrison has a question
19 for Mr. Gaynor.
20 JUDGE MORRISON: Mr. Gaynor, is it the Prosecution's intent to
21 call evidence from the original investigating teams as to the findings
22 they made and the methodology that they used?
23 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, it is our intent to call several of the
24 investigators. I don't want to say that we're going to call every author
25 of every report that we've tendered, but we will be calling a number of
2 JUDGE MORRISON: I'm grateful for that, because of course what
3 this witness can do with his expertise is to confirm the methodology that
4 was used, examine the reports to see if there are any obvious errors in
5 the way that the report was calculated or structured and give his, as it
6 were, imprimatur as to that aspect of it. What he doesn't do by virtue
7 of his testimony is to prove the original findings themselves. He
8 simply, as it were, says that as far as he can see, the methodology that
9 was used and the conclusions drawn from those -- that methodology, which
10 of course he has to accept as he has said, because he has no reason not
11 to accept it, that doesn't prove it so that I'm glad to hear you, in
12 fact, going to be calling additional evidence as to that point, and I
13 thought I'd raise that now to put Dr. Karadzic's mind at rest, because
14 with great respect I think he has been labouring under the slight
15 misapprehension that this witness's evidence conclusively proves the
16 matters set out in the original reports which it doesn't. It simply adds
17 a gloss to it.
18 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, that's correct. There will be a significant
19 number of other witnesses that Dr. Karadzic will be able to cross-examine
20 concerning the findings.
21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Gaynor.
22 Thank you, Judge Morrison.
23 Mr. Karadzic, as I said to you, you will have half an hour.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Now I feel a bit better
25 having heard this clarification. However, the Defence would expect to be
1 in a position to cross-examine investigators who worked on every one of
2 the incidents that are in the indictment. For the sake of credibility
3 and the general situation, we would even like to deal with investigators
4 who worked on incidents that the OTP took out of my indictment, and we
5 ask for that with good reason.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Mr. Higgs, you did visit the location in Dobrinja. What kind of
8 a surface was the one that you saw there where these rounds landed?
9 A. The improvised football pitch area was made of tarmac,
11 Q. The second one?
12 A. Both the rounds fell in the area of the football pitch, so they
13 both fell on the tarmac surface.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have 10105. That's the
16 65 ter number. We have both a Serbian version, 10105. That's the 65 ter
17 number. And the page is 03 --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Could Dr. Karadzic please repeat the number.
19 It is too fast.
20 JUDGE KWON: Could you repeat the page number.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 03058877. The findings of
22 Captain Houdet. I don't know how you pronounce the name.
23 This is not the document. It would help us if 03058877 -- that
24 would be the right page, whereas this one ends in 356. So --
25 JUDGE KWON: How about trying page 18 of this document?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let's try it. It may be helpful.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. I would like to draw your attention to what Captain Houdet is
4 saying. 81 millimetres. Let us look at this. Due to macadam, there can
5 be no fuse furrow. So how do we reconcile the two, asphalt and macadam?
6 A. I'm sorry, what is your question?
7 Q. Who's right, you or Captain Houdet? You say tarmac asphalt and
8 he says macadam, and he says that the angle of descent and range cannot
9 be determined because there is no fuse furrow.
10 A. That is correct because of the -- the hardness of the surface.
11 He could not work out a precise angle of descent, which is why then he
12 went on to work out what the minimum angle could have been, in this case
13 against the top of the buildings.
14 Q. So it's not asphalt or tarmac. It's macadam, right?
15 A. I think what he calls macadam, he's -- what I would call tarmac,
16 I think it's just a translation issue.
17 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, I think it's confusion. Macadam
18 was the name of the Scottish engineer who invented substance that's also
19 known as tarmac. Simply tarmac is a word for macadam.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then this is a linguistic
21 confusion, because the same word "macadam," as we pronounce it, means
22 something completely different. It's a different kind of surface.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Do you agree that one of the Muslim documents says that this red
25 mass was placed in the craters in order to preserve them for
1 investigation? We can find the document, but it's part of the documents
2 contained in your report.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
4 MR. GAYNOR: Objection. First of all, I don't believe that the
5 red substance which one sees in Sarajevo
6 sites to preserve them for investigation. It's more a memorial purpose.
7 And second, Mr. Karadzic wishes to refer to the documents that he's
8 talking about. I really must ask for a page number in this instance.
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Gaynor.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Do you recall the incident at Alipasino Polje. 22nd of January,
12 1994. Do you remember that incident?
13 A. Could you just confirm which incident this one was as just by
14 date and a location doesn't register with me immediately.
15 Q. G, incident number 6.
16 A. Was this the incident with the -- the children in the street?
17 JUDGE KWON: I think you're right.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. Yes, I remember that incident.
21 Q. How many shells were fired on that day, Mr. Higgs?
22 A. From the investigations, they ascertain that there were a total
23 of three rounds fired.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have 1D021522, please, in
1 MR. GAYNOR: Just for the record, Your Honour, the report by
2 Captain Houdet, which the witness has just commented upon, has been
3 admitted as page 9 of P1053 through an earlier witness.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Are you familiar with this map, Mr. Higgs?
7 A. No, I'm not. I've not seen this map before.
8 Q. On the basis of which map did you check the findings that you
9 confirmed, the findings of the investigation organs of Bosnia?
10 A. I cannot remember the exact map which I -- which I used at the
11 time. Obviously I was working from the data supplied to me by the
12 investigations of the locations. I visited the area, checked it against
13 the information that they had come to in their investigations, but as I
14 say, this particular map isn't unfamiliar to me.
15 JUDGE BAIRD: Is not unfamiliar or it is familiar.
16 THE WITNESS: I think unfamiliar. Yeah, unfamiliar Your Honour.
18 JUDGE BAIRD: It is not unfamiliar or familiar?
19 THE WITNESS: Unfamiliar. I've not seen this particular map
21 JUDGE BAIRD: Thank you very much.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Can you refer us to the map on the basis of which you accepted
24 the bearing?
25 A. I did not use a map for confirming bearings. That was done by
1 looking at the initial reports and what they came to, looking at what
2 remains of the shelter craters and where they are, and from that agreeing
3 with the directions that were produced by the investigating team.
4 Q. Did they determine the bearing in their reports?
5 A. Yes, they did. The reports here you have again approximate
6 directions if I remember right from this particular incident, because the
7 location of where the craters struck the ground did not produce quality
8 craters for determining accurate bearings, so they used them to come up
9 with an estimated direction from which the rounds could have come.
10 Q. Can I ask you to mark several points here. Do you see these
11 three-wing buildings that represent the students' hostel?
12 A. Just by looking obviously at the area or map with obviously the
13 passage of time, I could not now without plotting the information and,
14 again without guessing, of which of these building are the ones that we
15 are referring to in this particular incident.
16 Q. All right. Do you agree that where it says Alipasino Polje, do
17 you know how many storeys these buildings have?
18 A. The exact number of storeys, no. I know they are obviously
19 blocks of flats, but no, not the total number of storeys.
20 Q. But it's more than six, seven, or eight; right?
21 A. Again, from memory I cannot remember how many storeys these
22 buildings have.
23 Q. Did you see those buildings? Have you been to this place?
24 A. I went to the road where the rounds landed and walked around the
25 general area, but again which of those buildings precisely I went to I
1 couldn't tell you just from looking at this -- this aerial view of the
3 Q. Did you go to the place from which this projectile was allegedly
4 fired, and it's called the Institute for Blind Children?
5 A. No, I didn't visit the area of the institute for the blind, only
6 the area of where the incident occurred.
7 Q. The MUP of Bosnia and Herzegovina
8 that the projectile came from the west, from Nedzarici, that is to say,
9 the area of the Institute for Blind Children. Since you have not been
10 there, we can no longer establish whether it's true or not, but did you
11 accept that the azimuth, the bearing, was 180?
12 A. Two points here. First of all, by visiting the area, Nedzarici,
13 where they suspected it may have been fired from, would not have helped
14 me in my determining if it could have been fired from there or not. So
15 therefore I based my opinion, of course, on the forensic reports based
16 around strikes on the ground, and again because of the poor quality.
17 That is why they only gave an approximate area of where they suspected it
18 came from rather than a detailed bearing back from the crater back to a
19 possible firing point.
20 Q. Thank you. Just a small correction to the transcript. It was
21 270 degrees, not what is written. But can we agree about one thing? Do
22 see on the map where it's written "Institute for Blind Children"? It's
23 west of Alipasino Polje. Do you see where it "Oslobodjenje," and do you
24 see where it says "Studentski Dom," students' hostel?
25 A. Not immediately.
1 Q. Do you see where it says "Alipasino Polje"?
2 A. Yes, I can see that.
3 Q. A little to the west do you see three-winged buildings where it
4 says "Studentski Dom"?
5 A. Would it be easy if I mark this on the map of where I'm looking?
6 Q. Yes. It says "Zavod" here, a bit to the north it says
7 "Oslobodjenje," and then there are two three-winged buildings where it
8 says "Studentski Dom."
9 May I offer it -- offer you this map where it's marked so you can
10 see it.
11 A. Is the three wing-building you are referring to the red one, the
12 small red one in the centre, that one there?
13 Q. No. No. East of that, the large building is the building of
14 "Oslobodjenje," and it's written there. Right. Here, may I try to
15 assist you. This drawing is marked.
16 Can we erase this marking. Do you see where "Oslobodjenje" is
17 now; the students hostel, Studentski Dom; and Zavod, the Institute for
18 Blind Children?
19 A. I can see the three markings that you have put on this map, which
20 is the three-wing building and the large building in the centre. The
21 small one just underneath.
22 Q. Do you know under whose control this large building and the
23 three-wing buildings were?
24 A. Not at the time, no.
25 Q. Do you know where the confrontation line was?
1 A. Not without, again, studying the maps of the confrontation lines.
2 I can't remember at this stage where they were.
3 Q. Do you agree that relative to this smallest building down here,
4 the Institute for Blind Children, the buildings of "Oslobodjenje" and the
5 students' hostel were a little to the north?
6 A. Yes. If the -- if the building further south on there is the
7 institute for the blind, then obviously the other two buildings are a
8 little distance to the north of them, or to the north of that building.
9 Q. Do you see where it says "Nedzarici" below?
10 A. I can see the main name of "Nedzarici," yes.
11 Q. Can you just mark "Alipasino Polje"? Was it with the first group
12 of buildings or the second group of buildings that the bomb landed? Is
13 it nearer to the western or the eastern group of buildings?
14 A. From my recollection, again without studying the maps, it'd be
15 unsure, but it was the buildings on the eastern side of that square.
16 Q. Thank you. Can you mark that. You are right. It's in the
17 eastern ring. That's where Cetinjska Street is.
18 A. Obviously the exact grid and location is shown in the reports,
19 but by recollection it would be in that area.
20 Q. That would be south-west. Cetinjska Street is near the petrol
21 station where it's marked. Alipasino Polje has two blocks shaped as 8s.
22 You see the rings of the 8s. Do you see where Cetinjska Street is?
23 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, given the lack of detailed knowledge
24 about geography of the witness about this place, I don't think this line
25 of questions lead us anywhere. Put your direct question, if necessary,
1 and move on your next item.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Did you go to Cetinjska Street where the bombs landed and did you
4 see the craters?
5 A. Yeah, I went to the street. Obviously the craters have
6 deteriorated over the number years, and so therefore couldn't really use
7 those in any whatsoever to help me, but I did go have a look at the
8 general area, yes.
9 Q. Thank you. Do you normally keep a mortar on the forward front
10 line in urban conditions?
11 A. Where they would be locate would depend on various factors. You
12 would want to try and keep your mortars as close as possible to the front
13 line so the range of the mortar could then be used to cover a larger
14 area, but you would not want to place it in harm's way. So you would not
15 want to put it in a position where it would be obviously targeted by the
16 opposing side.
17 Q. Thank you. In your report you wrote the following:
18 "If these two mortars were active within one combat assignment,
19 then it looks like it was a deliberate attempt to kill civilians in that
20 area by forcing them, first of all, to run for cover and then by
21 targeting their path. If that is in issue, then that was a deliberate
23 Does this claim of yours imply full visibility of the place which
24 you are targeting?
25 A. If the three rounds were fired as one mission, and of course we
1 do not know that, but if they were, we're in the position then of the
2 82-millimetre rounds landed in the street right outside the -- or close
3 to the entrance to the buildings, may represent the three, as you said
4 there, could be used together as a form of an ambush, but to do this,
5 yes, you're right, that whoever fired it would ideally want to be able to
6 see the area of where the rounds landed so they fire this at the right
8 Q. Thank you. We'll deal with the rest when we get witnesses who
9 made these reports. If they misled you, then it's their responsibility.
10 Now, who suggested that you go to Mrkovici?
11 A. Was this for the Markale I incident?
12 Q. Yes. I apologise. Before that, can you put the date and your
13 initials on this map.
14 JUDGE KWON: I don't think it will be of any assistance to us.
15 He didn't mark it for himself. Let's do without this.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Right. You are right. It's about Markale I. You said you had
19 been to Mrkovici and that it was a possible site for an 82-millimetre
20 mortar, but you couldn't find the place where it was dug in. Now, who
21 suggested that you go to Mrkovici?
22 A. Yes, it was to do with Markale I. I was looking for where this
23 120-millimetre mortar may have been fired from, because we had the whole
24 range issue to try and ascertain. I looked around the areas within the
1 took me to the area, Nedzarici, because this is the area where if the
2 mortars was fired on the higher charges, along that bearing line of 18
3 degrees is where it may have been sited.
4 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, you have only three minutes.
5 How long would you need for your redirect examination,
6 Mr. Gaynor?
7 MR. GAYNOR: Approximately 20 minutes, no more than that.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we get 1D2246.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. We are again in Alipasino Polje. 1D2246, I want you to have a
11 look at this.
12 Do you accept, Mr. Higgs, that this is the Institute for Blind
14 A. As I said earlier, I did not go to the institute of blind people,
15 so I couldn't say whether it is or not.
16 Q. Can we agree that we see a rather high ground floor here and two
17 upper floors?
18 A. Yes. It's a three-storey building.
19 JUDGE KWON: No point, Mr. Karadzic. He doesn't recognise this
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. All right. But he'll
22 recognise the next one. Can we now see 1D2245.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Is this picture familiar? Do we agree that this is the block of
25 buildings in Alipasino Polje?
1 A. This could be the block of buildings. I have not seen it from
2 this vantage point because I was on the road. So again, really from this
3 photograph I couldn't really not either confirm or deny that.
4 Q. Do you agree that apart from the ground floor there are seven or
5 eight floors?
6 A. Yes, it does appear. Obviously this has seven or eight floors,
7 as best as you can tell.
8 Q. If you had been supplied with these two photographs and the photo
9 of this photograph in the vicinity of the Institute for Blind Children,
10 would you assume that there was full visibility from this place?
11 A. Wherever the mortars were sited, which of course is what you get
12 from the crater analysis, that is the position of the mortar, if somebody
13 was directing this, an observer, they could have been anywhere. They
14 don't have to be where the mortar is. An observer could have been in any
15 area within visible line of sight of this particular area and not
16 specifically where the mortar was actually fired from. So trying to
17 identify where the observer was is nearly impossible.
18 Q. All right. But you know that this was under Muslim control, and
19 the Institute for Blind Children was under Serbian control.
20 A. As far as I'm aware, yes.
21 Q. Thank you. Did you come across any information that in the
22 investigations of these major incidents Serbian experts were involved?
23 A. I've not seen any evidence to that fact, no.
24 Q. Thank you. Do you agree that you were presented with the
25 findings of the Bosnia-Herzegovina government, the Muslim government
1 whose interest lay in laying the blame on the Serbs?
2 A. The documents I was given obviously were the forensic -- the
3 Bosnian forensic teams', and also the military teams that may be
4 applicable on each site. Any reasons or intents on how they may have
5 been produced, obviously I have no knowledge of at all.
6 Q. But can you tell us what was the mandate given you by this Office
7 of the Prosecutor?
8 A. I was to look at the investigations that were conducted and see
9 if their methodologies were correct, to see if there were any
10 irregularities, as indeed there was on the Markale II case. And then by
11 using my experience to give my opinion of were these cases correct,
12 incorrect, and then again using my experience to see if I agree with
13 findings or oppose, if need be, a different solution.
14 Q. Did you propose a different solution, different to the findings
15 of the Muslim government investigation teams?
16 A. With the case of Markale II, it wasn't a case of disagreeing with
17 the Muslim authorities. It was disagreeing with the UNPROFOR reports, as
18 that was the one that I believe is incorrect, so my findings agree with
19 the first three investigations; that of the Muslim authorities, the
20 UNPROFOR initial reports, and those of the French investigation team.
21 Q. And during your site visit did you talk to anyone on the Serbian
22 side about these incidents and these findings?
23 A. No. I wasn't given an opportunity to speak to anyone from the
24 Serbian side.
25 Q. Can you just explain one more thing, Mr. Higgs. How are you able
1 to estimate the accuracy of the findings of the Muslim investigating
2 teams without checking and conducting any measurements on site? How can
3 you know that they did it accurately if you did not repeat their
4 measurements? Is there any other method whereby you can establish that?
5 A. After the period of time where I was looking at the reports, I
6 was working off the information that they have in their reports, and
7 where possible seeing what they did, the results they got, and relating
8 that to obviously the photographs of the areas, and on my visits
9 obviously I did not carry out any measured analysis because the craters,
10 of course, were not good enough condition when I was there. So my
11 opinions are based upon their findings, their reports, and checks on the
12 methodologies that they carried out which was why, again in the case of
13 Markale II, why -- what the second reading stood out as being incorrectly
14 obtained because the methodologies again for that one were -- were
15 totally inaccurate.
16 JUDGE KWON: Was that your last question, Mr. Karadzic?
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. I have one more question.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. In the Markale case, or in the other cases, you did not make any
20 measurements, but you still contested the findings of the United Nations
21 and confirm the findings of the Muslim government. Why didn't you check
22 in each and every case rather than confirm? Why were you able to -- to
23 conduct your own analysis and checks in Markale and not in other cases?
24 A. In Markale II specifically, the individual who carried out the
25 second investigation, I had sight of his witness statement on how he
1 conducted his investigation. On reading that statement, it was obvious
2 that this person was not a mortar investigation expert, and he explains
3 what he did, and he was using it totally incorrect and flawed procedures.
4 That then led me to believe that the findings could be wrong. I then
5 looked at other pieces of evidence like the photograph that we've already
6 seen here to try and prove that as much as possible and see which of the
7 findings then I most agree with. For the reasons I've already stated, I
8 agree with the three investigation reports taken on the first day where
9 they came to that bearing of 170 degrees and do not believe the bearing
10 of the 220 to 240 because it is based on flawed methodologies.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Karadzic.
12 Mr. Gaynor.
13 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE KWON: Before you ask some questions.
15 MR. GAYNOR: Yes.
16 JUDGE KWON: Judge Baird has some questions for the witness.
17 Questioned by the Court:
18 JUDGE BAIRD: Mr. Higgs, I want to get back to Mrkovici just for
19 a while. Now, yesterday's proceedings Dr. Karadzic asked you whether you
20 were toured all the sites on the bearing between Mrkovici and Markale,
21 whether you had toured other places to see if there were any suitable
22 sites for a mortar, and you replied, and I quote:
23 "We looked at all the area along that bearing line and
24 identified the suitable places, yes."
25 You recollect this, do you not?
1 A. That's correct.
2 JUDGE BAIRD: Now, how many places did you identify, Mr. Higgs?
3 A. We looked at all the areas that possibly could have been used to
4 achieve that angle of descent, so there will be six areas in total from
5 charge 1 out to the possibility of the area fired to charge 6.
6 JUDGE BAIRD: Yes. And what -- what indicia or what parameters
7 did you look for, if any, in order to arrive at the conclusion that any
8 one place qualified as a possible location for the firing of that round?
9 A. The -- at the short ranges it would have obviously meant that the
10 mortar would have been within the confrontation lines and within the
11 built-up areas of Sarajevo
12 anything like that.
13 At the middle two ranges, the medium charges, it would have
14 placed the mortar in the area right on top of the confrontation line and
15 for tactical reasons that is not an area where you would normally expect
16 to see a mortar. The higher charges places it beyond the confrontation
17 line in the area Mrkovici that we went to it have a look at.
18 The other pieces of evidence that I had to take into account was
19 the witness report who heard the mortar fire, and from that report he
20 places it more at the higher charges than being within the area of
22 the tail fins, the stabilisers of the mortar round, were imbedded into
23 the crater. This happens on a high percentage of times when a mortar is
24 fired on the higher charges. So using the sound -- the noise sound and
25 that the fins were in the crater and that normally you would not expect
1 people to shoot at their own civilians, all led me to believe in my
2 opinion that the mortar was possibly fired from that area of Mrkovici on
3 higher charges.
4 JUDGE BAIRD: Thank you very much indeed.
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
6 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Re-examination by Mr. Gaynor:
8 Q. First of all, just to clarify a translation issue which came in
9 earlier today concerning P1442, which -- no need to look at it now, but
10 we were discussing the angle mentioned in the UN report which is 5100
11 mils. As Dr. Karadzic pointed out, that's approximately 287 degrees; you
12 accept that?
13 A. It sounds about right without doing the mathematical calculation.
14 Q. Right. And just for the record, could you just confirm the
15 number of mils in that complete revolution in the system you're using?
16 A. 6400 mils in a circle.
17 Q. Thank you very much. Now, I'm just going to ask you a couple of
18 questions about Markale I, then Markale II, and yesterday you were shown
19 a still photograph or a freeze from the video which was Exhibit D542,
20 which was said to show covered stalls in Markale Market at some point
21 prior to the beginning of the conflict. Do you remember that?
22 A. I remember that picture, yes.
23 Q. All right. You were asked, and this is at pages 5953 and 5954,
24 whether you stood by your finding based on previous investigations that
25 it's possible with one hit of this market to land a shell without having
1 the shell activate on the roofing plates. Do you remember that?
2 A. I remember that, yes.
3 Q. I'd just like to show you three short clips from the video. I
4 would like the first to be played now, please. This is from 65 ter
5 40125. And the first clip is E, 65 ter number 40125 E.
6 [Video-clip played]
7 MR. GAYNOR:
8 Q. Now, as you can see from the bottom left that bears the date
9 5.2.1994. Do you confirm that?
10 A. Yes, I can see that.
11 Q. Play the next clip which is 65 ter number 40125 F?
12 [Video-clip played]
13 MR. GAYNOR:
14 Q. What do you see there, Mr. Higgs?
15 A. That's a video just passed over the crater and it shows the
16 pattern on the ground given by the shrapnel, and it shows them placing
17 the stakes on the ground to indicate the direction of fire.
18 Q. That was at 6 minutes 50. We can play the rest of this clip.
19 [Video-clip played]
20 MR. GAYNOR: And could I ask that the third clip now be played,
21 which is 65 ter number 40125 G.
22 [Video-clip played]
23 MR. GAYNOR:
24 Q. Could I just ask you to confirm the date on that third video is
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Now, on the basis of those three clips that you've just watched,
3 can you comment on the question of whether the projectile detonated upon
4 impact with the ground or upon impact with some kind of roofing material?
5 A. From those pictures there, you can see that the -- the round has
6 detonated on impact with the ground, and it seems to have landed like in
7 a corridor between the stalls, so could quite easily have missed these
8 roofing structures or whatever they may be.
9 MR. GAYNOR: I'd like to request the admission of those three
10 clips into evidence.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes. It's -- they themselves are excerpts of the --
12 MR. GAYNOR: That's correct.
13 JUDGE KWON: The videos.
14 MR. GAYNOR: That's correct.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one moment. The Defence would
17 like to know the provenance of these clips. When we produced similar
18 clips we were asked to state the origin.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
20 MR. GAYNOR: I don't have that information to hand at this very
21 moment. I can find it and provide it to the Court or directly to the
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we get the entire footage from
24 this -- from which this was excerpted, all the video material regarding
25 all the incidents, especially Markale I and II.
1 JUDGE KWON: From this conversation I take it that this was not
2 previously disclosed to the Defence.
3 MR. GAYNOR: This is -- these are excerpts of 65 ter number
4 40125, which has been disclosed to the Defence, as well as a great number
5 of other videos.
6 JUDGE KWON: The entire video of -- in the number of 65 ter
7 number 40125 has been disclosed to the Defence.
8 MR. GAYNOR: Yes.
9 JUDGE KWON: A long time ago.
10 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, indeed.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Let's proceed, and we can hear about the
12 provenance of this video later on.
13 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. Should we mark the excerpts for identification
14 at this stage?
15 JUDGE KWON: No. I don't see any problem in admitting them right
17 THE REGISTRAR: So, Your Honours, 65 ter 40125 E would be P1451.
18 65 ter number 40125 F would be P1452. And 65 ter 40125 G will be P1453.
19 MR. GAYNOR: For the Court's benefit, this was delivered to the
20 Prosecution in June 2001 from the AID service of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
22 MR. GAYNOR: I'd now like to move to the Markale II incident, and
23 I'd like video 65 ter 40221 to be brought up. And if we can go, first of
24 all, to 1 minute and 25.
25 Q. Now, Mr. Higgs, as you can see there is the body of a person
1 which was shown to you yesterday, and it was put to you that there was
2 relatively little fluid under the body. Do you remember that?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. Now, earlier today you told the Court that there were two ways in
5 which the impact of a projectile can cause death. One is through
6 shrapnel, and the other is through blast; is that right?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. Now, insofar as you're able to tell on the basis your expertise,
9 is it true that death through blast injury can occur with minimal
10 evidence of external injury?
11 A. Yes, from my experience, yes. Blast injuries can show very
12 little external damage. Obviously, I don't have any evidence in this
13 particular case.
14 MR. GAYNOR: Could we move now to location 6 minutes and 40
15 seconds, please.
16 Q. What do you see in front of you there, Mr. Higgs?
17 A. It looks like the tail is section of a 120-millimetre round that
18 is laying in the road.
19 Q. Now, in cross-examining -- cross-examination yesterday you were
20 asked a considerable number of questions about this item concerning, that
21 is, the integrity of the item, and you said you couldn't tell from
22 looking at this -- enough information to confirm some of the questions.
23 So I'd like to now show you an object. If the usher could assist me.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We hope that the Defence, too, will
25 have a chance to see it.
1 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. The Defence has inspected this specific object
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Proceed, Mr. Gaynor.
4 MR. GAYNOR:
5 Q. Mr. Higgs, could you describe what you're holding in your hand?
6 A. This looks like the tail section as you see on the still video.
7 The tail section of a 120-millimetre mortar.
8 Q. Could you read out insofar as you can the markings on the bottom
9 of the item?
10 A. We have the mark or type, we have "Mike, Mike, Mike 74," and a
11 batch number. It's difficult to read.
12 JUDGE KWON: What Mr. Higgs is seeing --
13 THE WITNESS: It could be 9307.
14 JUDGE KWON: What Mr. Higgs is seeing now what we see on our
15 monitor, the very thing?
16 MR. GAYNOR: Well, yes. If Mr. Higgs is able to confirm that,
17 yes, that is it.
18 JUDGE KWON: I'm not sure how Mr. Higgs is able to confirm that,
20 MR. GAYNOR: Very well. I'm going to ask him some more questions
21 which might enable him to confirm it. If could ask for P1449 to be
22 brought up. I'd like to go to page 16 --
23 JUDGE KWON: I'm sorry, Mr. Gaynor, how long would you, more,
24 need to conclude?
25 MR. GAYNOR: Literally about two minutes.
1 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
2 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. The document which is coming up now in a moment is a report
4 prepared by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Ministry of the
5 Interior, Security Services Centre Sarajevo, and in that document as
6 you'll see in a moment they describe the projectile recovered from the
7 Markale II site.
8 I'm waiting for page 16 in the English.
9 Now, as you'll see, Mr. Higgs, if you look at approximately in
10 the middle of the page you're looking at, it says:
11 "One pair of fins is missing and three traces caused by
12 shock-resistant welding are visible on that spot; 31.5 millimetre brass
13 plate with one hole, around 6.2 millimetres in diameter. In the middle
14 of the plate was found at the bottom two holes" --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could you read more slowly, please.
16 MR. GAYNOR: My apologies. "... two holes around 3.1 millimetres
17 in diameter were on the side 10 millimetres away. A small brass cap
18 around 2.5 millimetres in diameter with the trace of a crater-shaped
19 impact is placed within a 6.2 millimetre inner hole. Two signs in
20 Cyrillic are printed on the rim of the brass plate, MK, M74, and KB9307."
21 Does that description agree with the object in your hand.
22 A. Yes, it does.
23 MR. GAYNOR: I have no further questions. I'd like to tender
24 that object into evidence.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll admit it as evidence in this -- in this
2 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P1454, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE KWON: As well as the document we just saw?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I see this object?
5 JUDGE KWON: Of course. It's in evidence, and then you will have
6 the procedure and right to examine the object.
7 How about document, is it already --
8 MR. GAYNOR: The document was -- that I've read from is page 16
9 of P1449 which has been admitted.
10 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
11 MR. GAYNOR: I might also point out that we informed the Karadzic
12 Defence that we had this document on the 3rd of March, 2010, we informed
13 them of their right to inspect it pursuant to Rule 66(B). They did
14 exercise that right. And, again, I told them earlier today that we were
15 going to be using this projectile from Markale II, this stabiliser fin.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
17 That concludes your evidence, Mr. Higgs. Thank you very much for
18 your coming to give it. Now you're free to go.
19 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 [The witness withdrew]
21 JUDGE KWON: We will rise, and we will resume at 9.00 tomorrow
22 morning with Mr. Nicholls.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.
24 to be reconvened on Friday, the 20th day
25 of August, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.