1 Monday, 27 September 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
5 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everybody. There are three matters to
6 deal with before we proceed to hear evidence today. The first thing
7 relates to the 17th motion for finding of disclosure violation.
8 The Chamber notes the request filed by the accused on
9 23rd September 2010
10 considered the 17th motion and Prosecution's response to the 17th motion
11 and the request for leave to reply, the Chamber is satisfied that it has
12 enough information to make an informed decision on -- on the motion.
13 Therefore, it follows that any further response by the accused is
14 unnecessary, and it would not be in the interest of justice to hear that
15 response. Accordingly, the accused's request for leave to reply is
17 The second matter relates to the binding order motion against
19 As you are well aware, Mr. Karadzic or Mr. Robinson, Canada
20 the process of seeking permission from a third state to produce to you
21 one remaining document relating to your request. You have requested the
22 Chamber that it give Canada
23 production of that one document. Before the Chamber proceeds to deal
24 with your -- that request, I would like to know if there's been any
25 developments or correspondence between the Defence and Canada
1 Defence has made its request.
2 Mr. Robinson.
3 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. There's been no word from
5 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Thank you.
6 For the last matter, I'd like to go into private session briefly.
7 [Private session]
3 [Open session]
4 JUDGE KWON: Then let the witness be brought in.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, could I say something
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning to all. Please do
9 accept the assurances of my consideration. However, with all due respect
10 to all the participants involved, the subject matter that the next
11 witness will be dealing with, namely, incidents that are being confirmed
12 through him, require a great deal more time. In every country that has
13 ever heard in democracy and that has any kind of a judicial system, every
14 one of these incidents would have taken at least two days of trial time.
15 According to the current decision of the Trial Chamber, I have only
16 15 minutes respectively to deal with each and every one of these
18 I know that you're generous. When the examination is moving on
19 properly, you do give me more time. However, there should be a decision
20 as well. From the very outset the decision should show full
21 understanding for the needs of the Defence, namely to shed more light on
22 these incidents. Once more light is shed on them, which is quite
23 possible, they will look completely different. So please do reconsider
24 your basic decision on the time allocated to the Defence for
1 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber considered the limited scope of the
2 testimony of the next witness, in particular that the -- all analyses are
3 related to the same sorts of sniping incidents, and the logic used in the
4 analysis is not very different in each case. Therefore, the Chamber is
5 not minded to reconsider the time limit for cross-examination, which is
6 set for -- as four hours at this moment.
7 Let the witness be brought in.
8 You know, of course, depending upon the efficiency and relevance
9 of your cross-examination, there's room for further extension; but at
10 this moment the Chamber is of the view that four hours is more than
11 sufficient at this moment. You'll have more time with other witnesses.
12 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, while we're waiting, turning back
13 to the issue of leave to reply to the 17th disclosure motion, our team
14 spent this week going over those 6.000 documents that you gave us the
15 time to review, and we found 96 violations of Rule 68. Would it be
16 inappropriate if we simply supplied the Chamber a table listing the
17 documents with the violation so that you could know that information when
18 determining the scope of the violations that underlie that motion?
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE KWON: There's no reason not to grant it, Mr. Robinson.
21 MR. ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. President. We'll file that today.
22 [The witness entered court]
23 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, Mr. Van der Weijden.
24 THE WITNESS: Good morning, sir.
25 JUDGE KWON: If you could take the solemn declaration.
1 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
2 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
3 WITNESS: PATRICK VAN DER WEIJDEN
4 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Please be seated.
5 Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
6 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Examination by Mr. Gaynor:
8 Q. Witness, could you state your full name, please.
9 A. My name is Patrick van der Weijden.
10 Q. And you are of Dutch nationality?
11 A. Yes, I am.
12 Q. You've provided a CV to the Prosecution; is that right?
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 MR. GAYNOR: Could I ask that 14046 be brought up, please.
15 Q. Mr. Van der Weijden, since you provided your CV to the
16 Prosecution you have returned to the Dutch armed forces; is that correct?
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. And you currently hold the rank of captain; is that right?
19 A. That is correct as well.
20 Q. Now, you see the document on the screen in front you. Is that
21 your CV?
22 A. That is my CV.
23 Q. It appears from your CV that you initially trained as a
24 sharpshooter and then trained as a sniper; is that right?
25 A. That is correct as well.
1 Q. Would you explain briefly the difference between a sharpshooter
2 and a sniper?
3 A. The sniper will have had the same -- the same training that a
4 sharpshooter has had but he will have more advanced technical training as
5 well in addition to the technical part of shooting.
6 Q. What would the technical aspect of the training encompass?
7 A. To be able to operate as a two-man team or a three-man team and
8 plan their own missions and execute their missions.
9 Q. You've also undertaken training as a sniper instructor; is that
11 A. Yes, I have.
12 Q. What would a course in sniper instruction encompass?
13 A. It usually runs parallel to a sniper course and is intended to
14 train snipers to be able to train other snipers.
15 MR. GAYNOR: At this stage, I'd request that the CV be admitted
16 in evidence.
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1611; Your Honours.
19 MR. GAYNOR:
20 Q. Now, Mr. Van der Weijden, you've prepared a report for the
21 Trial Chamber in which you provided your opinion on the origin of fire
22 and the weapon used and the opportunity which the shooter might have had
23 to identify the target in relation to a number of incidents; is that
25 A. Yes, I did.
1 MR. GAYNOR: Can I have 65 ter 14045, please.
2 Q. Now, is that the front page of your report you see?
3 A. It is the same, yes.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note: Could the witness please be
5 asked to pause before answering so that there could be a pause between
6 question and answer. Thank you.
7 MR. GAYNOR:
8 Q. Yes. Mr. Van der Weijden, probably my fault. I'll try and leave
9 a pause myself.
10 Mr. Van der Weijden, your report is essentially divided into two
11 parts, a general part and a specific analysis of a number of incidents.
12 I want to first ask you a number of questions about the general part.
13 Now, in your report you describe the importance of training, and
14 you've already discussed the training which you yourself underwent.
15 MR. GAYNOR: At this stage I'd like to ask for document 20831,
17 Q. The document which you are about to see is an order signed by
18 General Dragomir Milosevic of the SRK
19 entitled "Order to training SRK units in 1995." And I'd like to take
20 you, Mr. Van der Weijden, to page 6 in the English, which is the 8th page
21 in the B/C/S.
22 Just look at the first paragraph of that document,
23 Mr. Van der Weijden. It states:
24 "A course for sniper instructors will start on 23rd January 1995
25 in the Jahorina Barracks sector and last eight days. Course commander
1 and training instructor Captain Terzic as per attachment 7."
2 Do you have any observations on that entry?
3 A. Well, it would be, of course, a course of sniper instructors
4 which I assume would be taught to people that are very -- already on the
5 ground sniper training, and it will last eight days, which is rather a
6 short time for such a course.
7 Q. Nevertheless, could you give some idea as to what subjects might
8 have been covered in such a course, based on your own experience.
9 A. I presume, if it is a sniper instructor course, the course will
10 at least be about the subject of shooting or precision shooting, some
11 technical training or how to provide the technical training for the
12 snipers and -- but I think one of the main subjects will also be how to
13 deploy the snipers.
14 MR. GAYNOR: Could I ask that that be admitted in evidence.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1612, Your Honours.
17 MR. GAYNOR: Now I'd like to request document 15602, please.
18 Q. The next document, Mr. Van der Weijden, is an order signed by
19 General Dragomir Milosevic of the SRK
20 19th of January, 1995. It's addressed to a number of units, including,
21 among others, the Igman Infantry Brigade.
22 Now, if you could look at the document on your screen, and, as we
23 can see, the first three paragraphs essentially deal with the logistics
24 of transporting sniper instructors out of various units to the
25 Jahorina Barracks.
1 Could you focus on paragraph 4. Have a read of paragraph 4, and
2 give us your observations on that, please.
3 A. In paragraph 4, the instructors are required to take their
4 personal weapons. And since their weapons are M-76, which is the -- the
5 standard sniper rifle of the JNA, was the standard sniper rifle of the
6 JNA, I assume they would already have to be snipers, so -- in order to
7 become sniper instructors. And in addition to -- to the weapons, they
8 will also have to bring equipment to -- to winter conditions on the
9 mountain which might be just warm clothing but also camouflage equipment.
10 MR. GAYNOR: I'd request that that be admitted into evidence.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1613, Your Honours.
13 MR. GAYNOR: I now request that 65 ter 15405 be brought up,
15 Q. This next document is a communication from
16 Major Ljubisa Petricevic of the command of the 1st Igman Infantry Brigade
17 to the SRK
18 page --
19 MR. GAYNOR: If we could have the English, please, as well.
20 There's no English available for that at the moment. I have an
21 English translation here. Perhaps we can return to that document a
22 little later. Thank you.
23 Now I'd like document 12206 to be brought up, please.
24 Q. This document which is coming up now is dated the
25 14th of August, 1994, and it's signed by
1 Lieutenant-Colonel Miodrag Sehovac, and it is from the command of the 2nd
2 Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade, and it is issued to the command in this
3 instance of the 3rd Infantry Battalion.
4 Now, I'd like to take you to the second page of the document in
5 English, to item number 12.
6 Now, you said in your report that snipers in NATO armies - this
7 was at page 3 of your report - are usually organised in separate platoons
8 at the battalion level.
9 Does this document enable you to comment on how snipers might
10 have been organised in the VRS, in the Bosnian Serb Army, that is?
11 A. Well, I wouldn't be able to exactly conclude it, but from -- from
12 12 I would conclude that the snipers are deemed as an important asset for
13 the commanders, because they're placed on the same level as machine-gun
14 or heavy machine-guns.
15 Q. Do you have any comments about the reference to sighted enemy
16 targets in the area of defence -- in the areas of defence, correction.
17 A. I might be able to conclude that they are -- the snipers, the
18 machine-guns, and the Browning gunners are to fire at -- are -- they will
19 have to fire at the sight of enemy targets. So if there are targets that
20 would present themselves in -- in their area, they would have to fire on
22 Q. Is there any clarification as to what an enemy targets consists
23 of in this particular document?
24 A. None.
25 MR. GAYNOR: I'd request that that be admitted in evidence.
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1614, Your Honours.
3 MR. GAYNOR: The next document has already been admitted; it's
4 P1208. It's also 65 ter 12202.
5 Q. This document in front of us now is also from
6 Lieutenant-Colonel Milorad Sehovac to a number of battalions; in this
7 case, the command of the 3rd Infantry Battalion.
8 Now, I'd like to focus your attention on the third paragraph of
9 this document, Mr. Van der Weijden, and you see there there's a reference
10 to "paired snipers."
11 Could you enlighten us as to what the reference to "paired
12 snipers" is there?
13 A. A sniper might be able to operate alone, but usually, as I'm used
14 to, a sniper will use -- will work as a sniper pair in which one of the
15 snipers who are both sniper trained will act as the spotter. So he will
16 not have -- he might have a precision rifle, but he will not use it at
17 that time, but he will be working with high-magnification optics to
18 support the shooter.
19 Q. If you look at paragraph 4 of that document, it states that:
20 "Snipers should be given precise tasks: place, time, mode of
21 combat, mode of combat control, and a method of reporting the results.
22 In combat, use primarily weapons with silencers and shoot with precision
23 (use ammunition sparingly)."
24 Could you comment on that entry?
25 A. Well, the first sentence would -- is -- it amplifies the
1 importance of the -- of the snipers because they're given -- for a single
2 man to be given place, time, mode of combat, mode of combat control, and
3 a method, it's structurised. And for the second sentence, to use weapons
4 with silencers, well personally I don't think silencers is the correct
5 term; it would be a suppressor. But a suppressor on a rifle lessens the
6 profile of the shot. So there is less muzzle flash, less blast, less
7 sound, which helps to disguise the sniper. And to shoot with precision
8 and use ammunition sparingly would imply that the good ammunition was
9 difficult to get. So they would have to be more economical with their
11 MR. GAYNOR: I'd like to move now back to the document which we
12 were trying to look at earlier which is 15435, please.
13 Q. As I mentioned, this is communication from
14 Major Ljubisa Petricevic from the command of the
15 1st Igman Infantry Brigade to the SRK
16 15th of January, 1995, and it's in response to an order from the
18 If you look halfway down the first page, you can ignore what were
19 originally handwritten annotations, and there's a reference to the
20 training which was carried out fully in 1994 in the organisation of the
22 sent for training. It gives lists of the officers, and it says "for
23 sniper squad commander 5."
24 Could you enlighten us as to what the position you understand to
25 have been in this particular part of the SRK in respect -- just -- yes,
1 go ahead.
2 A. In a regular sniper platoon, you will have several sniper pairs,
3 so couples of snipers, and they will be commanded by an NCO or an officer
4 who acts as both the advisor to the higher level, so battalion level, but
5 also to -- to give orders to the -- to the sniper couples. So he acts as
6 a -- as their commander.
7 Q. Now, if there's a reference to five sniper squad commanders, how
8 many snipers does that suggest?
9 A. Well, I presume that if a sniper squad would have three or four
10 pairs, so six to eight people, and five sniper instructors would have
11 30 to 40 -- 30 to 40 snipers under them.
12 MR. GAYNOR: I'd request that that be admitted in evidence.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes. That will be ...
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that will be Exhibit P1615.
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
16 MR. GAYNOR: Now, the document, which is still on your screen, in
17 the introductory part of the document it says:
18 "With reference to your document, Strictly Confidential
19 20/04-10/1, of 15th January 1995, which reached the
20 1st Igman Infantry Brigade on 14th January 1995."
21 Your Honours, it obviously doesn't make any sense, so I'd like to
22 put to you another document which was not on the notification filed which
23 clarifies that reference.
24 I'd like to call up, at this stage, 15412, please.
25 Q. The document which is about to arrive on our screens is an order
1 from the SRK
2 5th of January, 1995. Therefore it appears that the previous order
3 contained a typographical error. Where it said the 15th of January, it
4 should have said the 5th.
5 Now, if you can just look, Mr. Van der Weijden, at
6 subparagraph (d), at the bottom of this -- of the page in front of you in
7 English. It's also on this page in the B/C/S. Could you focus in on
8 that subparagraph, Mr. Van der Weijden, and give us your observations on
10 A. It would appear that the candidates were not just appointed but
11 they were selected to train as instructors or coaches, because there's a
12 clear selection of -- of people instead of just appointing them.
13 Q. And just looking at the -- if you could focus on the top of -- at
14 the part of this document which says:
15 "Forward to all brigades, regiments, independent battalions of
16 the SRK
17 Reading this document in conjunction with the previous document,
18 are you able in any way to estimate on the number of sniper instructors
19 which may have been taken for training?
20 A. Well, I don't know exactly how big the brigades or the regiments
21 were, because they can be full or half full, but it would be, well, at
22 least over a hundred in total, I think.
23 MR. GAYNOR: I'd request that that be admitted in evidence.
24 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
1 MR. ROBINSON: Since the Prosecution has been very good with us
2 about admitting documents for which we've not given them notification, I
3 don't see any reason why we can't reciprocate in this instance.
4 Thank you.
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. It will be admitted as Exhibit P1616.
6 MR. GAYNOR: I'd like to bring up, now, document 06859.
7 Q. In your experience in the work which you have carried out, how is
8 an individual sniper controlled by the overall command of the army? How
9 does that work in -- in the units that you've served in? Just as a
10 general matter. No need to look at the document at the moment.
11 A. The sniper, while regularly a soldier which would be -- which
12 could have the same rank as a sniper, will have to go through all levels
13 from individual group, platoon, company, battalion, brigade, and so
14 forth. The sniper would already be at battalion level. So he would be
15 already directly controlled [Realtime transcript read in error
16 "volunteered"] at a higher level than the regular soldier.
17 Q. I'd like you to look at this document and see if it assists you
18 in providing comments on how snipers were controlled in this military
19 environment. Now, I'd like to take you -- this document is from the SRK
20 command, dated 15th of August, 1994, and it's been sent to the
21 VRS Main Staff intelligence security sector. On the first page of the
22 document, as you can see, it concerns the implementation of an
23 anti-sniper agreement, and there is plan which will involve a joint staff
24 consisting of representatives of UNPROFOR, the VRS, and the ABiH.
25 Now, on the next page of the document, which will be on your
1 screen for the moment --
2 JUDGE KWON: Just for the record, it was from the security and
3 intelligence sector of the SRK
4 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Q. If you look at the -- one-third way down the document,
6 Mr. Van der Weijden, we can see there, according to General Tolimir's
8 "We would like to put forward our opinion and propose the
10 "1. Sniping is only -- is to be stopped only by orders in the
11 inner organisation and accordingly by taking of adequate measures.
12 "2. As we've already explained, we cannot accept anti-sniper
13 units which would operate on the respective side because it is not part
14 of UNPROFOR's mandate, and a joint staff is not necessary because
15 elaborate instruments of mutual information already exist."
16 Under -- it goes on, under number 3, to suggest that there's no
17 need for UNPROFOR to be present during the arrests or neutralisation of
19 Does this -- can you provide any comments about the control over
20 snipers from this entry?
21 A. First I would like to have something rectified at 34:43. It says
22 here that since it would already be directly volunteered at a higher
23 level; "volunteered" should be changed to "controlled," please.
24 And then in regards to the instructions, the first sentence, the
25 sniping is to be stopped only by orders in the inner organisation and
1 accordingly by taking of adequate measures, it would be that the sniping
2 is considered important enough for outside organisation not to interfere
3 in that matter. And for sentence three, the arrest or neutralisation,
4 well, I assume that neutralisation is a euphemism of eliminating of
5 snipers. But, otherwise, I don't have any other comments.
6 MR. GAYNOR: I request that that be admitted, please.
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
8 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1617, Your Honours.
9 MR. GAYNOR: The next document is 15741, please.
10 Q. This document is from Major-General Dragomir Milosevic of the SRK
11 command, and it's being sent to all units of the SRK, and it sets out the
12 recipients of this order. It says pursuant to the order of the
13 VRS Main Staff, strictly confidential, of 1st October 1995, and it
14 suggests that this concerns the stopping of sniper fire on the town.
15 And under number 1, could you have a look at that, paragraph 1,
16 and give us your comments on that.
17 A. The general clearly prohibits any sniper fire on the town of
19 happened before that time. So ...
20 Q. What about the chain of -- chain of control down to individual
21 snipers? How does that work here?
22 A. Well, the -- all levels are considered to be responsible for
23 their sub-units, by this sentence.
24 Q. Could you look at subparagraph 4 and provide your comments about
1 A. It further amplifies the first sentence because he holds all unit
2 commanders responsible, personally responsible, to withhold sniper fire.
3 MR. GAYNOR: I request that that be admitted, please.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1618, Your Honours.
6 MR. GAYNOR:
7 Q. I'm going to ask you an few general questions about your report.
8 On page 4 of your report, you discuss the question of judging
9 distance. I won't be showing you any particular documents at this stage.
10 Why is judging distance particularly important for a sniper?
11 A. Judging distance is considered one of the main subjects of -- of
12 any sniper course because it's not just the -- shooting is not just the
13 rifle; it's -- it's a complete system in which you have the distances
14 connected to the path of the bullet. And since the bullet doesn't fly a
15 straight line, as -- just the sight will have, it flies a parabolic
16 curve. So in order to be able to hit the target exactly where you want
17 to hit, you will have to match the distance with adjustments of your
19 Q. Now, going back to the period of 1992 to 1995, could you describe
20 the kind of information which a sniper crew would have available to it in
21 order to judge distance?
22 A. The most precise means would be just by maps. Nowadays laser
23 rangefinders are in wide use, but at that time they were very new. Aside
24 from maps, instruments that might have been used, I believe that in
25 artillery crews, rangefinders have been used for quite a long time. That
1 might have been borrowed or just asked for an observer to measure some
2 distances. And besides from that there are -- there's a formula. Most
3 military binoculars have an reticle which you can use to calculate the
4 distance. It's not exact, but it gives a -- it's -- it's good enough to
5 get a -- to get an accurate distance.
6 Q. Focusing on a relatively static situation where the front lines
7 remain more or less unchanged for weeks or months at an end, can you
8 comment on the opportunities for a sniper or a sharpshooter to judge
10 A. Given -- given time and, of course, the technical situation, but
11 if there's -- if it's safe enough for the sniper to shoot just at any --
12 any target, he can have target practice and from that target practice
13 conclude the settings of his scope for future shots at that same
14 distance. So for instance, he can use a clearly identifiable brick in a
15 house or traffic sign that he can use to -- for target practice.
16 Q. In your report you refer to the use of machine-guns in several of
17 the incidents. Now -- and you refer to the use of scopes on a
18 machine-gun. What kind of magnification would -- would a scope on a
19 machine-gun have in your experience?
20 A. Well, according to my experience and also the documentation, the
21 typical scope would have a 4x amplification.
22 Q. Again looking at a fairly static situation, what measures would a
23 machine-gun crew take to improve the accuracy of the weapon when firing
24 over a couple of hundred metres?
25 A. Well, especially in a static situation, a machine-gun is far more
1 effective if -- if it's placed on a tripod and then weighted down with
2 sandbags. So then it's very effective to a -- much more over than a
3 kilometre. So almost to 1500 metres you would be able to have relatively
4 accurate fire.
5 Q. In your report you refer, and just now you've again referred to
6 the use of binoculars, and you also in your report refer to a spotter
7 scope with 20x magnification and the rifle scope which, as you've said,
8 often has 4x magnification. Could you explain to the Court how a sniper
9 team uses, first, the binoculars; second, the spotter scope; and third,
10 the rifle scope in identifying a target.
11 A. I will explain -- try to explain for targets that are -- are at a
12 longer distance. It's difficult for the -- for the eye -- of course, we
13 would have a 1x magnification, but the eye is very suitable for detecting
14 movement. If I would see movements, I would then switch to binoculars to
15 try to get a reference as to where the target might appear. But then
16 for -- to identify the target, I would have to switch to a
17 20x magnification. Using that 20x magnification, I could direct the
18 sniper next to me with -- with the rifle with the 4x or higher
19 magnification onto that target because he might not be able to get a good
20 reference. So the 20x magnification is used for identification but also
21 to talk the sniper, the shooter, onto the target.
22 Q. Is the procedure you've just described, is that exclusive to
23 highly specialised and highly trained military snipers?
24 A. No, not really. It's also used for -- for hunting.
25 Q. Would you imagine that a static -- in a static situation a gunner
1 crew, even if they're not trained snipers, on the basis of your
2 experience would you imagine they might use the same instruments?
3 A. Well, they might use binoculars. They probably would use
4 binoculars but not spotting scopes.
5 Q. Now, on page 4 of your report you discuss the question of rules
6 of engagement. Now, focusing on the rules of engagement that you've used
7 or that you're familiar with from the Dutch or NATO exercises in which
8 you've participated, could you tell the Court what those rules of
9 engagement say about sniping at a person who appears to be a civilian?
10 In what circumstances is that permitted?
11 A. Well, sniping would only be permitted if that civilian would pose
12 an immediate threat to -- to yourself or to comrades.
13 Q. What criteria would you take into account in determining if a
14 civilian poses an immediate threat?
15 A. If that civilian would have a gun or maybe he would be busy with
16 explosives, something like that.
17 Q. And if you're not sure that a target poses a threat, what do the
18 rules of engagement normally require?
19 A. There's no use of force allowed.
20 Q. In the system that you've operated in, what are the consequences
21 for shooting a civilian?
22 A. Court martial.
23 Q. Now, in your report -- we've discussed the general part of your
24 report, and in your report you consider the origin of fire and the weapon
25 used in 17 specific incidents and you provide your observations as to the
1 opportunity the shooter would have had to identify the target as a
2 combatant. Now, when did you visit the incident sites?
3 A. I visited some of the incident sites in November 2006 and some of
4 the incident sites in January 2007 -- 2009, sorry.
5 Q. What effect did the passage of time have on your ability to make
6 a judgement about the origin of fire?
7 A. Aside from the construction of -- of new buildings and of the --
8 growing of the -- of the foliage around -- in the area, not much.
9 Q. Why was that?
10 A. Because it's -- the lines of sight which are very important in
11 my -- in my report, they were still there.
12 Q. Could you describe your methodology. When you arrived at an
13 incident location, how did you make a judgement as to where fire would
14 probably have come from?
15 A. I would be taken to the exact incident site by the investigator,
16 check the location with the data for which I had -- was given a
18 where the victim was shot. So if it's -- if it's a leg wound or a chest
19 wound or a head shot; if it's a leg wound, I would go down to the level
20 at which the bullet might have -- would have entered and then look at the
21 surroundings where -- where there's a clear line of sight to a suitable
22 shooting position.
23 Then in -- after visiting that incident site, I would go to the
24 shooting positions that I had -- that I had identified and see if they
25 were technically suited for -- to be able to be fired from.
1 Q. You were provided with witness statements which make -- in which
2 the witnesses sometimes suggest origin of fire; is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. What effect did those statements have on your own determination
5 of the origin of fire?
6 A. Not much.
7 Q. Could you explain your answer a little.
8 A. Well, I -- the method that I employed is as I've stated before,
9 so I took it for granted what -- what they said was the origin of fire.
10 And first I saw if it was possible to be fired upon by that location. If
11 it was the same, of course, then I would -- then I would assume that the
12 position was the same as they -- as they implied, but otherwise -- yeah.
13 Sometimes in my report the location they state and what I think is
14 possible, they don't coincide.
15 Q. So were you -- were you being led by the witness statements, or
16 were you exercising your independent judgement in each case?
17 A. My independent judgement.
18 Q. Now, you did not undertake a comprehensive review of medical
19 documentation nor obviously was the victim in loco when you carried out
20 the your investigation; is that right?
21 A. In some of the incident sites, the victim was present. But I
22 didn't see the wounds or the scars.
23 Q. Right. And what -- what effect did the absence of the victim's
24 body, for example, have on your ability to make a determination as to
25 origin of fire?
1 A. From my point of view, again, not much, since I strictly look at
2 the lines of sight. The distance are -- the distances from which I
3 believe the victims were hit, they were at several hundred metres to --
4 to -- almost to a kilometre, and -- yeah. So in my opinion, it didn't
5 really matter that much.
6 Q. I'd like to return to your expert report at this stage, and
7 that's 14045. And I understand you want to make one typographical
9 MR. GAYNOR: So if we could look at page 63 on the e-court
10 version. It's page 62 on the paper version.
11 I note that Mr. Van der Weijden has his report in front of him in
12 hard copy. I just want to inform the Court of that.
13 Q. Now, on that page, if you look at the second diagram on that
14 page, Mr. Van der Weijden, the -- both of the distances are stated to be
15 616 metres. And I understand that where it says "Tomb from here to
16 incident site 616 metres," that should read "550 metres;" is that
18 A. That is correct. I would also like to say that on the second
19 photo in which -- the bottom one, the circle where the sign leads to the
20 "Tomb from here to incident site," the tomb was marked by a dark roof
21 with a white wall, which is also visible in the top photograph which is
22 marked 550 metres, just to support the change of distance.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. GAYNOR: Could we turn now to page 32 in e-court of the
25 report. It's page 31 on the hard-copy version.
1 Q. In your introductory paragraph here, Mr. Van der Weijden, you
2 refer to the sniping of Tarik Zunic, a boy aged 14, who was walking home
3 from school along Sedrenik Street and just past the streets -- screens
4 which had been erected to provide some protection from snipers. You
5 recall your assessment of this incident.
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 MR. GAYNOR: Now I'd like to call up document 11357.
8 Q. The document coming up is dated the same date as the incident
9 you've described, 6th of March, 1995. It's an UNMO daily sitrep for the
10 6th of March, 1995. At page 3 of that document in the English, we see,
11 under subparagraph (a)(iii):
12 "Civilian male, aged 14 years, injured by SA RD in the left
13 forearm at 061350 A MAR
14 It says the origin of fire is assessed by UNMOs at location as
15 Sharpstone, and it gives another grid reference.
16 MR. GAYNOR: Now, if we could turn to page 1 of the document.
17 Q. And, Mr. Van der Weijden, could you focus your attention on
18 subparagraph 3(b), which begins with the words "During the activity in
19 the area of Sharpstone." And it refers to the incidents in paragraph (a)
20 of this report, including the incidents we've just looked at in
21 subparagraph a -- 8(a)(iii), and it says:
22 "During the activity in the area of Sharpstone ..."
23 It goes on to say:
24 "The Egybat anti-sniping APC at that location returned fire onto
25 BSA positions on Sharpstone. Following this retaliation, UNMO Vogosca
1 team received a telephone call from the CDR Radava BN."
2 And it goes on to say, stating that:
3 "If the Egybat APC
4 removed within 30 minutes, it will be fired upon."
5 Now, Mr. Van der Weijden, you've discussed the concept of target
6 practice earlier in your evidence. Could you provide your comments on
7 the reference to target practice there.
8 A. Well, the commander clearly sees that area as a target practice
9 area where target practice is possible.
10 Q. And the location that he's referring to is the area of Sedrenik;
11 is that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did you -- that's the area in which the boy was shot; is that
15 A. That is correct.
16 MR. GAYNOR: I'd like that to be admitted, please, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE KWON: This UNMO report?
18 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, please.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1619, Your Honours.
21 MR. GAYNOR: And it's just 10.00, Your Honours. I'd now request
22 that the report of Mr. Van der Weijden be admitted under seal for the
23 moment, as it refers to a number of protected witnesses. We will prepare
24 a public version in due course. That's 65 ter 14045.
25 JUDGE KWON: Unless it is objected to, we'll admit it under seal
1 for the moment.
2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P1620, Your Honours.
3 MR. GAYNOR: That ends the direct examination, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE KWON: I take it there's no associate exhibit with this
6 MR. GAYNOR: Well, there actually are some -- a number of
7 documents which -- which have already been admitted in evidence which are
8 relevant to his report. I could put them on the record right now, if
10 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, if they've already been admitted, I
11 don't see any reason for that.
12 JUDGE KWON: We can read the documents, and I'm not sure whether
13 it would be of any assistance just now. Thank you.
14 MR. GAYNOR: Very well. Thank you.
15 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, now is your time, your turn, to
16 cross-examine this witness.
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
18 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Van der Weijden.
19 A. Good morning, sir.
20 JUDGE KWON: Before you begin, Mr. Karadzic, we'll give a
21 separate number for the public version of the report of this witness,
22 which will be Exhibit P1621.
23 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Before we move on to knew topics, Mr. Van der Weijden, could we
2 please just go back to your last commentary on this document.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please pull up the last
4 document that the Prosecutor called, P1619, on the monitors. P1619.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. While we wait for the document, Mr. Van der Weijden, have you
7 noticed that the Egyptian Battalion opened fire on Serb positions on
8 Spicasta Stijena?
9 A. According to this report they did.
10 Q. Following that, the commander of the Serb unit demanded that that
11 Egyptian Battalion transporter be removed from that position; is that
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. My learned friend Mr. Gaynor tried to suggest to you that the
15 Serb position wanted them removed so that they could open fire. Wouldn't
16 it be more logical to conclude that the Serb side actually demanded that
17 that APC
18 A. I would not be able to state that because, in a few lines above,
19 the Egyptian anti-sniping APC
20 would suggest that they were fired on before that. So the Egyptians
21 didn't open fire, according to this report, they returned fire.
22 Q. And what if the Serbs had not opened fire from Spicasta Stijena
23 and the Egyptian Battalion actually opened fire on Spicasta Stijena.
24 What would have transpired in that case?
25 JUDGE KWON: We are going too far. Let's come to your points,
1 Mr. Karadzic.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. So to wrap up with this document, Mr. Van der Weijden, do you
5 know that we, the Serb side, actually felt that the Egyptian Battalion
6 was biased and that it was in favour of the Bosnian side because they
7 were Muslims too and that we were suspicious or -- suspicious of their
8 getting closer to our lines?
9 A. No, I did not know that.
10 Q. Thank you. I would like to thank you for your willingness to
11 meet with the Defence team, because it was very useful both to us and I
12 believe to Mr. Gaynor as well, in order to spend as little time as
13 possible on subsequent clarifications. To me it was very significant,
14 your introductory remarks about snipers, and if you recall, we
15 established that there were certain differences between the policies on
16 snipers in NATO countries and in armies of other countries, including the
17 Yugoslav People's Army. Is that correct?
18 A. Yes, that is correct.
19 Q. Thank you. And we've agreed that in NATO country armies sniper
20 units acted independently and were employed at the request of other
21 units, whereas within the Yugoslav People's Army, snipers existed as
22 parts of each unit, not as a separate unit, but as members of those
24 A. In -- in NATO armies, the snipers do not act independently. They
25 act -- there are smaller units, but they're still under control because
1 independent is -- they're not completely independent, of course. And not
2 only at the request of other units. They are structured at battalion
3 level, but they can be requested by sub-units to be added to their unit.
4 But for the rest, I agree.
5 Q. Thank you. We have also agreed that the training of snipers was
6 very important and that it was very -- a very important aspect of that
7 was that you couldn't create instant snipers, that training snipers took
8 a certain time; correct?
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. Thank you. The document which you've been shown, where the order
11 of General Milosevic was mentioned of 1995 regarding sniper training,
12 now, in respect of that document, would you agree with me that if such an
13 order is issued that would mean that there was a need for training
14 snipers? In other words, that they had not been trained up until then.
15 A. If it's the same document that we've been shown before, it was
16 about sniper instructors not about snipers themselves, I believe.
17 Q. But certainly that would imply that there would need to be
18 training, sniper training, because sniper instructors are a
19 significant -- a key element in that; right?
20 A. Yes, I agree.
21 Q. Thank you. Did you see any evidence that that sniper training
22 had actually been conducted as ordered by General Milosevic?
23 A. No, I haven't.
24 Q. Thank you. We have established, and I thank you for enlightening
25 me, we have established that there is a significant difference between
1 sharpshooters and snipers; correct?
2 A. There is, yes.
3 Q. We can also see from your introductory remarks what the duties of
4 a sniper are and that most frequently snipers operate behind enemy lines
5 where they are supposed to keep low and open fire as required; correct?
6 MR. GAYNOR: Sorry. Objection, Mr. President. The -- if
7 Mr. Karadzic is going to refer to an assertion made by the witness in his
8 report, I'd request that he point us to exactly the sentence that he's
9 talking about, specifically the assertion that most frequently snipers
10 had -- operate behind enemy lines. If he could point to the part of the
11 report where that is asserted.
12 JUDGE KWON: In paraphrasing, Mr. Karadzic, you need to be very
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I apologise. I will
15 try to locate that part. And as soon as I do, I will advise you thereof.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Well, let me reformulate that. Do you agree with me that we have
18 agreed that Serb snipers in the area of Sarajevo did not cross the lines
19 and act behind enemy lines? Correct?
20 A. I've agreed that it was difficult to -- to cross the lines
21 because it was static warfare, but I do not know if they did not cross
22 the lines at all. But it was difficult -- it must have been difficult to
23 cross the lines because of the static warfare.
24 Q. Thank you. And we have agreed that there is a significant
25 difference between a sniper -- a detached sniper operating behind enemy
1 lines and ordinary soldiers or shooters who operate from a formation;
3 A. Well, I -- I have never written in my report that the sniper,
4 they operate between -- behind enemy lines. That's the general thought
5 of the public, and an image is shaped by movies, because a sniper, he
6 operates within his own lines or just in a no man's land. So between the
7 lines. But there is big difference between a sniper and an ordinary
8 soldier; yes, that's correct.
9 Q. We have agreed that an ordinary soldier who is deployed on the
10 front line sometimes open -- opens fire out of fear that he will be hit,
11 as opposed to a sniper situation where if a sniper opens fire, then he
12 would place himself in jeopardy, whereas an ordinary soldier is -- the
13 situation is quite the opposite; correct?
14 MR. GAYNOR: Objection. Mr. President, what Mr. Karadzic appears
15 to be doing here is putting to the witness his recollections of a meeting
16 attended by the witness and Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Sladojevic and myself on
17 Friday. Obviously Your Honours don't have any record of that. The
18 witness -- instead of asking the witness does he agree to something and
19 come out with a long paragraph of what he believes the witness may have
20 said in that meeting, I suggest it's far more appropriate for
21 Mr. Karadzic to frame short, specific questions asking the witness today
22 does he agree with something or not, rather than referring to a meeting
23 which is not in evidence anyway. And to keep his -- his questions short
24 and focused.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes. While he's entitled to cross-examine the
1 witness and also to put -- also able to put leading questions. It's much
2 better -- you will be better off following the advice of Mr. Gaynor,
3 Mr. Karadzic. Try to make your question simple and direct.
4 Yes, Mr. Karadzic. Could you reformulate your last question.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. I would like to point you, Mr. Van der Weijden, to page 6 of the
8 document, page 6 of 106, paragraph 3:
9 [In English] "The big psychological difference however between
10 regular infantry and snipers lies in the killing. Most of the kills made
11 by regular infantrymen are in situations where it really is 'him or me.'
12 If they don't kill, chances are high that they themselves will be killed.
13 This means you can always justify it to yourself as self-defence. This
14 makes it easier to emotionally deal with the fact that you are -- have
15 killing a human being."
16 Next paragraph is:
17 "For snipers it is different."
18 [Interpretation] And then you further go on to explain why and
19 what the difference is with snipers. And then the next is sentence:
20 [In English] "The enemy is at a safe distance. He will be in a
21 concealed and safe position a little away from the front line. One could
22 even say that in shooting he actually risked his life."
23 [Interpretation] I apologise for having to shorten my questions,
24 but that's only because I don't have enough time.
25 So would you agree with me that, what you've said here, that an
1 ordinary soldier has to shoot out of a fear that he would be shot,
2 whereas a sniper is detached and that it would be better for him not to
3 open fire otherwise he would be detected?
4 A. I would -- I would like to state first that these are my personal
5 observations, which are the subjects I have discussed with -- with
6 colleagues throughout the years, but I do agree that for -- for snipers
7 the shooting is different from the regular infantry soldier.
8 Q. Thank you. And now to return to my question. Were you aware of
9 the deployment of forces and the confrontation lines within the city of
11 A. Only in very broad lines.
12 Q. Do you know that the confrontation lines were quite close? They
13 were between 10 to 15 metres, one from the other, in the city itself.
14 Did anyone tell you about it? I know you weren't there yourself, so did
15 anyone tell you that the lines of the two opposing sides were so close to
16 each other?
17 A. I am aware that -- I am aware that in some places the opposing
18 sides were actually on both sides of the street facing each other. So at
19 very short distances.
20 Q. Thank you. On the same page, you go on to say:
21 [In English] "When a trained sniper takes his shot, he has
22 entered something often described as 'the bubble.' This means he has
23 temporarily blocked himself from anything that might keep him from
24 hitting his target. So when a sniper shoots, it is always a deliberate
25 attack with the intention to kill or wound the enemy."
1 [Interpretation] Do you agree with me that Serb shooters or
2 snipers, and we will clarify that later on, in order to reach some of
3 these targets they would have to be either close to the separation line
4 on -- or on the very separation line?
5 A. As I've stated, I wasn't -- I'm not aware of the exact separation
6 lines of all locations. So I would not be able to agree.
7 Q. But can you agree that there is a difference between a person
8 shooting from the separation line and the classic-case sniper? You could
9 agree with me, couldn't you?
10 A. Well, the sniper can be behind the separation line, on the
11 separation line, or a little before it. So I don't really understand the
12 question, sir.
13 Q. Well, this is what I'm trying to have you tell us: If there is a
14 difference between a sniper and a sniper's conduct and the soldier on the
15 separation line, do you think that it was necessary for them to inform
16 you on how far the separation line was from the alleged source of fire,
17 sniper fire?
18 A. No, it wasn't, because my method was not on which of the side has
19 fired but strictly, purely, where the shot might have come from. So I
20 did not look if it were a Serb or a -- or Muslim lines.
21 Q. Thank you. We will come back to that later on, but for now I
22 would like to establish the following: whether it was a formation soldier
23 shooting from the line of separation or a sniper who opened fire
24 deliberately. So would it have been of help if you had known where the
25 separation lines were and how far they were from the place from where the
1 fire was opened?
2 A. In some incidents, it would have been of help because it would
3 have made the judgement of a -- the tactical situation easier. Sorry, it
4 would be not "technical" but "tactical."
5 Q. Would it be important to establish whether fire was opened by a
6 sniper or an ordinary soldier who would open fire in the other situation
7 in order to avoid being killed himself?
8 A. No, because I've never established that any shot was fired by a
9 sniper. So it doesn't -- for me, it doesn't make any difference.
10 Q. Are you trying to tell us that all these incidents were cases
11 where some projectiles had come in, but it was never established that
12 they were actually fired by snipers?
13 A. My methodology is -- has been to establish from where the
14 sniper -- the shot might have come from, what kind of bullet was used,
15 what -- in combination with weapon, and the distance. If you have a
16 precision rifle in combination with a long distance, probably it would
17 have been a sniper, but not conclusively.
18 Q. Thank you. Before we go on break, I would like to clarify
19 something. So the situation was the following: You were brought to a
20 certain place and you were told where the fire was opened from. You were
21 told either by the OTP investigators or by a witness. So what was then
22 your course of action? Could you tell us, was it your task to tell them
23 whether it was possible that a bullet had come from that direction or to
24 ascertain that it had actually come from that direction, that position?
25 A. Neither of those. It was my task to establish, in my view, where
1 a bullet might have come from, from any direction. No matter what the
2 implied origin of fire was.
3 Q. And who was it who determined the direction?
4 A. Myself.
5 Q. Based on what?
6 A. Based on the layout of the -- of the incident site. In -- in the
7 layout of the incident site, the possibility of the -- the tactical
8 possibilities of some of the locations from -- which were tactically
9 possible and thereby eliminating more and more possibilities to
10 eventually come out with a -- with an area that I think the shot came
12 JUDGE KWON: If it is convenient, we'll have a break,
13 Mr. Karadzic, for 20 minutes. And we'll resume at quarter to 11.00.
14 --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 10.46 a.m.
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Mr. Van der Weijden, can you please help us to understand and
20 grasp the methodology of your reaching conclusions. Who provided the
21 coordinates to you of the alleged sites from which the fire originated
22 and -- and the direction of the fire?
23 A. I was not given any coordinates of alleged sites from which the
24 site [sic] originated. I was only given coordinates from the incident
25 sites where the victims were. But for the methodology, to explain it, I
1 would -- it would help if I could draw a picture anywhere.
2 Q. Well, that would have been feasible if we had enough time. Let's
3 move on and then see if we will have time later.
4 So you received coordinates of the incident site. Who gave you
5 those coordinates?
6 A. I was given those coordinates by the OTP, by the investigator.
7 Q. Thank you. Who suggested to you the site of the origin of fire?
8 A. They were stated in -- sometimes in the incident of the -- the
9 short description of the incident or by witness reports.
10 Q. Who was the provider who furnished this information?
11 A. The OTP.
12 Q. Thank you. Were you allowed for a possibility that the fire had
13 come from any party involved, or were -- was it suggested to you that you
14 focus on the Serbian positions only?
15 A. I was allowed for any possibility.
16 Q. In our conversation, you said that the position of the victim is
17 not always crucial for your task, and I also suppose that the same
18 applies to the entry-wound channel, et cetera. Would you agree that just
19 like any other point in a physical space has a surrounding area of
20 360 degrees?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. So if you exclude some 359 or 350 degrees and you decided to
23 focus on the 10 degrees from which the alleged fire had come, and if you
24 didn't have the position of the victim and the wound channel, you didn't
25 have information about that, how did you reach your conclusion?
1 A. Purely by looking at the layout of the incident site. So if
2 for -- if the victim would be, for instance, in an enclosed garden with
3 only one exit, the bullet can only have come through that exit. So
4 that's how I came to a certain direction. In one incident, there is also
5 still a mark of the impact of a bullet within -- on a wall, and that,
6 together with a limited view on -- on the incident site, that leads back
7 to the possible position of a shooter.
8 Q. Thank you. In that case, did you visit the site of the alleged
9 fire, and did you observe the incident site from the site of the origin
10 of fire?
11 A. Where possible, I have. And that was for the majority of the --
12 of the incidents. And I did observe the -- from the location where I
13 think the shot came from, the location of the incident itself.
14 Q. How many such locations relating to certain incidents did you
15 observe? One or more than one?
16 A. More than one. Out of the 15 to -- out of the 17 incidents of --
17 out of my head, I think about 14.
18 Q. But speaking about an isolated incident, how many sites have you
19 tested as possible sites from which the fire came?
20 A. Well, I would not say about a site. I would -- it would be more
21 an area. I would go -- from the incident site, I took -- I would
22 calculate where the shot might have originated from, then go to that area
23 and just walk through the area and scout several of -- possible
24 locations. So they could be from -- from 1 to 20 to 50.
25 Q. Out of these 20 to 50 locations, how many of them did you visit?
1 A. Well, if the -- in -- for one incident, if there's a trench along
2 a long line and I see on -- I stop on four -- on four places along the
3 trench and I see that I can observe the incident site from that location,
4 I assume that from the -- the complete area is suitable for a position.
5 So I stopped at as many locations as were possible for me.
6 Q. In 2007 or thereabout, were there still trenches in the town
8 A. In some locations, yes. Signs of trenches.
9 Q. So if you went to a location for which you assumed that the shot
10 had come from, did you know the deployment of the troops, the distance of
11 the lines, and all the other elements relating to this specific location?
12 For example, where the trenches were, the deployment, the separation
13 line, and things of that nature?
14 A. Well, because it's already a long time ago, it's, of course, very
15 vague. But if I go to a location and I see bunker sites before that
16 trench line, so from my military experience I can establish some
17 positions from -- from that information.
18 Q. Were the investigation information provided by the police of
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina of any help to you?
20 A. Not much.
21 Q. Why not?
22 A. Because of the -- the reports. They were not very complete.
23 They only had a picture of a certain bullet in one case. So they were
24 not -- they were not very helpful to me.
25 Q. Do you believe that at the time when the incident happened an
1 investigation was indispensable for a legal processing of that incident
2 and that the forensic and criminal investigation of the location would be
3 most valuable and helpful in your drawing your conclusions?
4 A. Not necessarily so.
5 Q. For how many incidents did you have investigation reports at your
7 A. I would have to check in my report, but I believe for about four
8 to five.
9 Q. But these were incomplete; is that right? That's what you said.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you. Before we move to individual incidents,
12 Mr. Van der Weijden, let us clarify one issue. Therefore, your task was
13 to establish the possible origin of a shot; is that correct?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. Were you every able to reach a definitive conclusion, beyond
16 reasonable doubt, the exact location from with the bullet had come from;
17 and if you did, based on what?
18 A. I was never able to reach a definitive conclusion.
19 Q. Thank you. Can we now move to incident number 1 that you dealt
20 with. That's an incident that happened at Sirokaca Street on the
21 13th of December, 1992. Do you recall that incident?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. That's F1 from the list of sniper incidents.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please have in e-court
25 65 ter 10060.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. While we're waiting for the document, let us remind ourselves
3 that a 3-year-old girl, Anisa Pita, was wounded in this incident. When
4 she was wounded, she was playing on the veranda on the Zagrici Street; is
5 that right?
6 A. According to the witness statement it is.
7 Q. Which witness are we talking about?
8 A. Well, it -- I don't know exactly who gave the witness statement,
9 but it would either be the victim itself -- herself or her mother.
10 Q. In this photograph, is the balcony on the right-hand side the
11 balcony where the incident took place?
12 A. No, it's not. The balcony which is outlined, that is not
13 incident -- the location. From where the picture was taken, that's the
15 Q. Is this building and the balcony where the incident happened is
16 shown in this photograph? And I'm talking about the place where this
17 child was.
18 A. Could you -- just a moment. As far as I remember, the photo was
19 taken from the exact location where the child was. So the photographer
20 is standing on the same location.
21 Q. In other words, this balcony where the photographer was standing
22 is actually the place where the child was at the time when the incident
23 happened; is that right?
24 A. I believe so, yes.
25 Q. Thank you. We see here that there is a direction marked here
1 with the term Baba; is that correct? Is that where Baba is?
2 A. I would not be able to conclude that from this picture.
3 Q. Would it be helpful if you were told that a witness had indicated
4 that this is the direction where the Baba Rock is from which the bullet
5 came, and the witness is the mother's child?
6 A. It would be of no influence on my findings.
7 Q. How did you deal with the site where the shooting took place?
8 What did you use as a basis?
9 A. I used as a basis to go down to the level where I presume the
10 shot has entered the victim. So if it's a 3-year-old child, I would go
11 down to knee level, and from knee level I would observe the -- the
12 surroundings to look for locations or gaps where -- where a shot might
13 have come from. And since the garden is almost completely enclosed, it
14 only offered a view of a location higher up the mountain, which later I
15 did understand that it was Baba Rock. And that led me to the conclusion
16 that it must have been -- come from that direction.
17 Q. So does that correspond to the direction that is marked in the
18 photograph? You have an arrow and the word "Baba."
19 A. I would not be able to conclude this from this photo. I can't
20 remember the exact vision I have in my head, sorry.
21 Q. Do you have any material in your report that would be helpful for
22 you to determine that?
23 A. I think I do. On page 15 of the document. Page 15 in paper.
24 Q. Thank you. We'll come to that later, because you're unable to
25 make any markings at the moment, and therefore we shall not tender this
1 photograph. But you did say that the photographer was standing at the
2 place where the child had been standing. Can you please mark this exact
4 And I would kindly ask the Registry to help you with the marker.
5 JUDGE KWON: What's the point of this witness marking this photo,
6 having no knowledge where the witness was, himself? We cannot admit this
7 picture as it is confirmed by the witness this is the place where witness
8 was allegedly.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But the witness has confirmed that
10 the photographer was shooting a photograph from the place where the child
11 was, and I deem that to be a sufficient reason to be admitted. Maybe he
12 can mark it with an arrow.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Well, we can admit this, but I was wondering
14 what point there would be for the witness to mark this photo.
15 Can you mark the place where the victim was at the time.
16 THE WITNESS: It's not possible, because then the photographer
17 would have to take a picture of -- of his feet, because he's -- the exact
18 location is not in the photo.
19 JUDGE KWON: Would you like to tender this picture, Mr. Karadzic?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, please.
21 JUDGE KWON: That will be admitted.
22 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D637, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE KWON: The date of picture seems to appear on the photo
24 itself, Mr. Gaynor. You do not object to it?
25 MR. GAYNOR: I have no objection to its admission. Thank you.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we please have in
2 e-court 1D02402.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Are you familiar with this particular section of the city of
6 A. I do recognise some features, yes.
7 Q. May I suggest to you to try and mark with number 1 the Baba Rock,
8 then with number 2 the Muslim cemetery above Zagrici Street, and with
9 number 3 Zagrici Street itself.
10 A. [Marks]
11 Q. Thank you. Can you please put a date on this image and your
13 A. [Marks]
14 Q. Do you know where the separation line was in this area?
15 A. No, I didn't.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please have this admitted
18 into evidence.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D638, Your Honours.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please now call up 1D2406.
22 Thank you.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Van der Weijden, may I remind you that this is the same
25 building from the previous photograph on the left and that in the
1 background one can see the Muslim cemetery. Do you see the cemetery?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. Can you please mark it with a circle or use an arrow, whichever
4 you prefer.
5 A. [Marks]
6 Q. Thank you.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] For the record, this photograph was
8 taken by the investigation team of the Defence with relation to the
9 direction where the Baba Rock is located. On the right-hand side is the
10 building where the incident took place, and this is a passage that leads
11 to Baba.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Can the accused please repeat the last sentence
13 or the request for the witness.
14 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, interpreters were not able to hear the
15 last word of yours, your request to the witness.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just ask the witness to put the
17 date and his initials on this photograph.
18 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
19 JUDGE KWON: So, Mr. Van der Weijden, you agree with the accused
20 that this is -- the right-hand side is the building where the incident
21 took place, and this is a passage that leads to Baba?
22 THE WITNESS: For the last part, I cannot conclude. To the right
23 side, a few metres to the right, is, indeed, the location of the house of
24 the victim; but the direction that I'm looking in the photo, where the
25 Muslim cemetery is, is not exactly the same direction as Baba Rock.
1 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we then please pull back the
3 map so that I can show you that in fact it is the same location.
4 Well, first of all, I'd like to tender this into evidence, and
5 then if we can get the map back on the screens, please.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes. That will be Exhibit D639.
7 Would you like to bring back the marked map or the clean map?
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The marked map, please. D638.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Van der Weijden, will this be of assistance? We can see
12 Zagrici, the cemetery, and Baba Stijena. Is that approximately on the
13 same line as we can see in the map and also in the photo?
14 A. If -- if possible, I would like to explain something about maps.
15 This is a city map and this is not -- for precise terrain features, I
16 would need a topographical map, because a terrain -- a city map is only
17 to guide people to a certain street. And a topographical map represents
18 exactly the -- the features.
19 But I would like to state that from direction 3 to line -- to 1,
20 it can be -- oh, sorry. Sorry.
21 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. I will ask the usher to help the
22 witness. Would you like to mark the map again?
23 THE WITNESS: I would like to draw something on there, please.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Yes. Just -- could you wait a minute, please.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes. Sorry, sir.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. In the meantime, Mr. Van der Weijden, can you just tell us
3 whether this was the direction of fire? Was it along this line, the line
4 that actually goes through these various features?
5 JUDGE KWON: We'll hear from the witness. Why don't you use
6 black colour this time.
7 Yes, Mr. Van der Weijden.
8 THE WITNESS: From my findings, the only direction that is --
9 that is possible, it's - I'll try to draw it as straight as possible - is
10 from 3 to 1. But since in the picture that I've -- where I've marked the
11 Muslim cemetery, I do not see if it's the complete cemetery. So it might
12 indeed be this line, which would not be visible from the house. So I
13 would have a sight on the house, but it's different. The photo that
14 shows the Muslim cemetery is not exactly from the same location where the
15 victim was hit. So it's not possible to -- for me to conclude if -- if
16 it would be possible to be fired upon from the cemetery as well.
17 It really is important that even 50 centimetre or a metre
18 distance can change the whole tactical situation.
19 JUDGE KWON: Shall we give this a separate number, or shall we
20 keep it as is? Let me consult with the court deputy.
21 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
22 JUDGE KWON: We will give this a separate number.
23 THE REGISTRAR: That is Exhibit D640, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now please get 1D0247. I
1 apologise. 1D02407.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. This will be a magnified portion of the area where the cemetery
4 is in order to assist you to better orientate yourself and determine the
5 direction more easily.
6 Is this a view of the cemetery from Zagrici Street, the cemetery
7 that you marked?
8 A. I do recognise on the extreme left the -- the right side of the
9 house that was visible in the previous photos, but I do know -- I do not
10 know from which exact location the picture was taken. But that is the
11 Muslim cemetery.
12 Q. Well, if I can be of assistance, let me just say that this is the
13 same photograph -- or, rather, the same location as earlier, except here
14 it is zoomed in on. So we only see the last two houses in the row and
15 the cemetery in the background. Would you agree with me? And the
16 electric power line runs along Zagrici Street; correct?
17 A. I would not be able to conclude that.
18 Q. Do we need to bring back the earlier photo so that you can see
19 the whole photo and then to show you -- so you can compare this blow-up
20 with the original photograph? And the house on the right, as you can see
21 from the earlier photograph, is in fact the house where the incident was.
22 A. Yes, please.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Is it possible to split the screen
24 and have the two photos one next to the other, please? D6309 and the one
25 that we have before us.
1 Could we please show D639 together with the photograph that we
2 have on the left screen, on the right-hand side of the screen.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Mr. Van der Weijden, would you agree with me that you can see in
5 the background the two houses that are zoomed in on the right-hand
6 photograph and that it is the same position exactly except that we have a
7 magnified and enlarged portion of the photograph on the right-hand side?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Thank you. Could you please put your -- your initials and the
10 date on the right-hand-side photo.
11 JUDGE KWON: No. There's no need for the witness doing that.
12 We'll just admit this.
13 THE REGISTRAR: As D641, Your Honours.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we now please have
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Mr. Van der Weijden, can we agree that this is a view of the area
18 from the hill on the opposite side, from the northern slope? And can you
19 locate the cemetery and Baba Stijena and draw a line to connect the two
20 to show the path of the bullet to the location of the incident.
21 MR. GAYNOR: Objection, Mr. President. Could -- could I request
22 that the accused put his questions one by one to the witness.
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes. If Mr. Van der Weijden could mark the -- the
24 position of Baba Rock and Muslim cemetery and then draw a line of the
1 THE WITNESS: Well, this picture was taken from a location that I
2 haven't visited. This is on the opposite side of the town. I would need
3 a map to exactly pinpoint the locations.
4 JUDGE KWON: Can you locate the place of incident from this --
5 from this photo?
6 THE WITNESS: Not like this. I'm sorry.
7 JUDGE KWON: But can you -- can you locate the place which is
8 called Baba Rock?
9 THE WITNESS: I know it's one -- one of the rocks here on top,
10 but I would -- I would really need a map to exactly locate them.
11 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
12 Mr. Karadzic.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. In that case, perhaps I can ask Mr. Van der Weijden to take a
15 look at a map. And then with the assistance of the map, perhaps he can
16 be assisted in drawing the line between Baba Rock and the location of the
18 JUDGE KWON: The map Mr. Van der Weijden refers to is a map with
19 topographical assistance, I take it.
20 Will that be of any assistance, Mr. Van der Weijden?
21 THE WITNESS: I will try. Just a moment, please.
22 MR. GAYNOR: Just for the record, Your Honours, the map
23 Mr. Van der Weijden has in his hand is the street map. It doesn't have
24 topographical features.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I take it it was 1D2402, which was admitted
1 as D638.
2 THE WITNESS: The area 1 would be where Baba Rock would be
3 located, within that area. Not -- it's not possible to precisely point
4 it out, but I know -- I remember that it's between the big building and
5 the high rock on the -- or the high cliff on the right side.
6 JUDGE KWON: And where is the Muslim cemetery?
7 THE WITNESS: The Muslim cemetery is this area.
8 JUDGE KWON: Number 2.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. And now, Mr. Van der Weijden, could you show us, if you go on and
11 continue along the same line, the Zagrici Street? Could you show where
12 that would be in this photo.
13 A. I'm sorry, I would really need a topographical map with a --
14 Q. Right. Here. I have a topographic map. Here it is.
15 A. Do you have a ruler, a small ruler?
16 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, why don't we move on to the next
17 topic. The witness can study the map during the break. And I hope that
18 Prosecution and the Defence would be able to agree on -- as to the
19 location of the incident from this map.
20 Do you think it's feasible?
21 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, I imagine it's feasible, Mr. President.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Yes. Well let me just ask you this, Mr. Van der Weijden: Do you
24 know where in the photograph the separation line is and who was under --
25 who had the area between 1 and 2 under their control? Could you please
1 mark the cemetery with 2 and tell us who controlled the area between 1
2 and 2.
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. Were you told about that, anything about that?
5 A. I was told that Baba Rock was controlled by the VRS, and for the
6 rest I have no information about where the separation line was.
7 Q. Well, if I tell you that right below the road which is in the
8 upper third of your circle, so right below your road, the line of
9 separation was - would you accept it if I said that to you? - and that
10 this area was under the Muslim control?
11 A. I would not know.
12 Q. Thank you. It would be of assistance both to you and to us.
13 Thank you. Would you please put your initials and the date.
14 A. [Marks]
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes. This marked photo will be admitted as Defence
17 THE REGISTRAR: D642, Your Honours.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we now please
19 have 1D02403.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. It's a Google Earth photograph, and maybe that will assist you in
22 determining the location.
23 JUDGE KWON: 2403.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Is this of any assistance?
1 A. Yes, I do recognise the buildings on the -- on the photo.
2 Q. And can you see that this shorter parameter is 870 metres, and if
3 we were to go across the cemetery, then it would be even longer, wouldn't
5 MR. GAYNOR: Objection, Mr. President. The -- the photograph
6 being shown to the witness at the moment doesn't indicate where the
7 870 metres ends. And Mr. Karadzic, again, he's talking about the
8 cemetery, and he hasn't elicited any evidence as to where the cemetery is
9 in relation to this particular photograph.
10 JUDGE KWON: Agreed.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Can you see the cemetery in this photo, Mr. Van der Weijden?
13 A. Yes, I can.
14 Q. Would you agree with me that Zagrici Street, which we can see
15 here, is open, facing the cemetery, and that that is the direction
16 leading to Baba Rock; correct?
17 A. The street itself is open, facing the cemetery. I would conclude
18 that from this -- from this picture. But I would not know exactly
19 because I would have to check on -- on the incident site itself.
20 Q. And where in reference to Zagrici Street is Baba Rock?
21 JUDGE KWON: But first of all let us establish whether witness is
22 able to mark the place where the incident allegedly took place.
23 Can you do that? Oh.
24 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
25 JUDGE KWON: Could -- yes. Just wait a second, please.
1 THE WITNESS: Okay.
2 JUDGE KWON: Oh, it moved. It zoomed in.
3 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, it's -- now the exact location has
4 disappeared to the --
5 JUDGE KWON: Why don't you zoom out one further.
6 THE WITNESS: Left --
7 JUDGE KWON: Just a second, it's -- well --
8 THE WITNESS: It's again -- so the incident site as I've marked
9 with blue, that's where the incident took place, between the houses.
10 JUDGE KWON: And the Muslim cemetery?
11 THE WITNESS: That would be this area, this area, and some of
12 this area, from what I see here.
13 JUDGE KWON: So what is your question, Mr. Karadzic?
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Would you agree, then, that the line marked with 870 metres
16 actually indicates the direction where in continuation we would have
17 Baba Rock?
18 A. I have not drawn that exact line, so I would not know.
19 Q. Would you please date and initial this photograph.
20 A. [Marks]
21 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, I have to note that these are all
22 waste of time. This --
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, we will show that
24 there was no chance of the fire coming from Baba Stijena or Baba Rock.
25 And we will go step-by-step, because in the next photo we will show
1 Baba Rock from which you cannot see either the cemetery or the incident
3 I would like to tender this photo, please.
4 JUDGE KWON: We'll admit it.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D643, Your Honour.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now please have 1D02404.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Would you agree with me that this is the location of
9 Baba Stijena, Baba Rock, the location from which the photo was taken?
10 A. I only know the general location of Baba Rock, so I cannot
11 conclude this from this photo.
12 Q. Have you been to Baba Rock, and have you made any photos from
13 there of your own?
14 A. I have been to a location where I think the shot has originated
15 from, and I was told -- I was pointed in a -- in a general direction that
16 that was Baba Rock by -- by one of the witnesses and the investigator.
17 So I do not know if Baba Rock is within a few metre parameter or it's a
18 wider feature, a bigger feature.
19 Q. Is it possible that they misled you and maybe took you to some
20 other location and said that that was Baba Rock?
21 A. They did not take me to any location because I went to the
22 location that -- where I wanted to go, because that was the location
23 where I think the shell originated from.
24 JUDGE KWON: And you took a picture from that place.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
1 JUDGE KWON: Which is appearing on your report, page 15.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Can you see this house on the right-hand side? That's the same
4 house that we could see in the earlier photo but taken from the hill on
5 the opposite side. Are these -- the buildings that are here that we see
6 on the right-hand side of the photo, are these the buildings that we saw
7 on the earlier photograph?
8 A. Well, I do recognise some of the buildings, only this picture was
9 taken -- taken in a year where the trees had leaves. And both the
10 incidents, at the time of the incident and the time of my visit, the
11 trees were without leaves, which would heavily influence the visibility.
12 Q. But you do not question that this is a direction from which, in
13 your view, the bullet had come -- could have come?
14 A. From somewhere in this area, because it's not exactly the same
15 position where I've taken the picture from, that would be the -- the
16 origin of fire, I agree.
17 Q. Thank you. Would you please date this, or perhaps we can just
18 tender it as it is, depending on the Trial Chamber's view.
19 JUDGE KWON: But, Mr. Van der Weijden, can you locate the place
20 of the -- that incident?
21 THE WITNESS: Not that -- not with this photo I can't.
22 JUDGE KWON: No. No. Thank you.
23 Any objections, Mr. --
24 MR. GAYNOR: No. No objection.
25 JUDGE KWON: We'll admit it.
1 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D644, Your Honour.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we now please
3 call 1D02-407. Thank you. This is just is to remind ourselves, but
4 could we now have 1D02-405.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Would you agree that there is only one road at the foothill of
7 Baba, and is that the road that we are seeing in this photo?
8 A. From both the map and the Google Earth view, there appears to be
9 only one road leading up. There is a road that passes by Baba Stijena
10 from east to west, but there is only one road leading from -- from north
11 to south up to Baba.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please have this photograph
14 tendered into documents as well.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes. This will be D645. 645, yes.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Mr. Van der Weijden, having looked at these photographs, there is
18 no visibility, optical visibility, towards the Zagrici Street and the --
19 Zagrici Street and the Muslim cemetery. Do you see this elevation from
20 which the Muslim cemetery can be seen?
21 MR. GAYNOR: I'm sorry, objection. Could -- once again, it seems
22 to be a compound question. Could the accused put each assertion to the
23 witness to give him an opportunity to respond to each assertion.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Well, let me be of assistance. Mr. Van der Weijden, this is
2 viewed from the direction of Baba Rock. We agreed on that.
3 Could you see anywhere the Muslim cemetery which is located
4 between the Baba Rock and the incident site?
5 JUDGE KWON: I'm not sure whether witness agreed that this is a
6 view from the Baba Rock.
7 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, it is a view from -- from Baba Rock
8 only maybe not exactly in the same location where I was standing, but
9 this is a view more to the east. If I could have the previous picture,
10 because I recognise some of the features.
11 JUDGE KWON: Can you feature --
12 THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation] [Overlapping speakers] ...
13 JUDGE KWON: -- both pictures at the same time. This is the
14 difficulty with the e-court.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. From the left-hand-side photograph, or in that photograph, can
17 you see the Muslim cemetery and the incident site? The previous one,
19 A. I'm sorry, I was referring actually to the other photo that was
20 taken from Baba Rock. I'm sorry.
21 JUDGE KWON: D644.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] D644.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Is that the one, Mr. Van der Weijden?
25 A. This is the one. Could I have the left photograph on the full
1 page, please. Slightly more, please. Yes, okay. Thank you. Could I --
2 can I draw?
3 Because I can see on the picture that I have in my report on
4 page 15, on the paper version, in the round -- the rounded-off
5 photograph, this group of buildings is visible, the roofs, the red,
6 green, and black roof, and down below in the distance this L-shaped
7 building is also visible, which is in the exact line from where the
8 shooter was that leads back to the position. So more or less the
9 position is in the same -- that picture -- this picture was taken from
10 the same location. And the location of the incident site would be
11 somewhere in between.
12 But like I said before, these trees now have leaves so that
13 alters the visibility of the incident location. As visible in the
14 picture on page 15, at the time that I visit, I did have a view on the
15 location site of the incident site.
16 JUDGE KWON: Could you put the date and your signature.
17 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please now see page 15 of
19 this document.
20 JUDGE KWON: This will be kept as --
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we just put numbers to indicate
22 what is what.
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes --
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Circle number 1, number 2, and
25 number 3.
1 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Gaynor.
2 MR. GAYNOR: Sorry. Yes, if he's still working with this, I was
3 going to ask that it be admitted, but.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we will admit it.
5 Could you put number 1 on the place of the incident. Oops, we
6 lost again, but we can mark it again. Could you put -- could you mark
7 with number 1. That's ...
8 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
9 JUDGE KWON: Okay. Could you tell us what does number 1 refer
11 THE WITNESS: Number 1 is the incident site, the general location
12 of the incident site.
13 JUDGE KWON: And number 3?
14 THE WITNESS: Number 3 is the L-shaped building that's visible in
15 the top of the photo on page 15 of the paper version.
16 JUDGE KWON: And number 2?
17 THE WITNESS: Number 2 is the roofs of the houses that are
18 visible in the bottom of the photo on page 15 of the paper version.
19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Could you put the date and the signature
20 again, kindly.
21 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
22 MR. GAYNOR: Perhaps just for the record, Mr. President, where
23 the witness says the paper version, he's referring to the paper version
24 of his expert report.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I -- I'm aware of that.
1 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you.
2 JUDGE KWON: So we'll keep this as Exhibit D646.
3 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Before this is removed, can you mark the direction of the
6 projectile trajectory and mark the position where the shooter was?
7 A. I cannot mark the location of the shooter because, again, I would
8 have to be down at the ground level and to establish a position that
9 would be suitable. And for the trajectory, the trajectory is not a
10 straight line; it's a parabolic line. And I would have to know the exact
11 calibre and rifle which was used to be able to establish that.
12 JUDGE KWON: If we bring back that marked picture again, could
13 you roughly mark the direction of the fire on that -- we'll bring back
15 Just a second. Could you wait a minute.
16 THE WITNESS: The direction of fire would be where the arrow is
18 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
19 We'll keep D646 as is now.
20 Let's move on.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. You said in your previous answer --
24 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Just a second. I think we lost --
25 could you kindly mark -- he has to mark again the direction of fire. As
1 you --
2 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
3 JUDGE KWON: It was saved. Thank you.
4 THE WITNESS: Okay.
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Does that mean that you didn't know the exact calibre and the
8 type of weapon that was used to fire?
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. So, Mr. Van der Weijden, are you aware with the adjudicated facts
11 cited by the OTP in connection with this incident? And these facts were
12 adjudicated in the Galic case.
13 A. I have them listed in the -- in the report.
14 Q. Do you agree that, starting from the beginning, 27, 32, several
15 times, that what we have here is an evolution of the conclusion relating
16 to the location of Baba Rock to the fact whether the weather was chilly
17 and foggy and whether several shots were fired at unspecified time after
18 he [as interpreted] daughter left to return home?
19 Further on, it says that her mother had told her to take off her
20 dirty shoes, which makes no sense because one cannot have dirty shoes
21 when it is frosty.
22 So do you know the weather conditions that prevailed in Sarajevo
23 In other words, that if there is the fog, then there is frost as well?
24 A. I did not know the weather conditions at the time of the
25 incidents. But when I visited Sarajevo
1 but there was no frost. So it doesn't necessarily have to be freezing.
2 Q. Please focus on paragraph -- paragraph 535, page 17,
3 17th paragraph:
4 [In English] "Both parents believed that the bullet that had
5 injured their daughter had been fired from a bridge known as
6 Baba Stijena, because the location was visible from their house and was
7 controlled by the SRK
8 [Interpretation] Was their yard visible only from the Baba Rock,
9 or was the prevailing factor in the determination that this was
10 controlled by the SRK
11 any other location, irrespective of who controlled it?
12 A. The complete yard might have be -- parts of the yard might have
13 been visible from other locations, but the exact incident site at knee
14 level, at leg level, so almost ground level, where the child was hit,
15 from there, the area that they indicate as -- as Baba Rock was -- is the
16 only possibility. There is a possibility that the shot might have come
17 from 25 metres directly next to the street, because that's the only other
18 option, but for me that was -- I ruled that out because of tactical
20 Q. Could it have come from the cemetery or from any other point on
21 the line between the incident site and the Baba Rock? How come that you
22 did not conclude that it had come from another direction?
23 A. I would refer to the photo number 2 that I took from the incident
24 site towards the location that I -- that I concluded the shot came from,
25 which is on page 15 of my report, on the paper version.
1 As you can see, there's only -- there is a possibility that it
2 might have come from the house, on the foreground, but the only other
3 possibility is from the upper rock. So the cemetery is not -- the
4 cemetery does not have a view on the exact incident site.
5 Q. Did you know the deployment of forces in Sirokaca where the
6 Zagrici Street is?
7 A. No, I did not.
8 Q. Did you see that the cemetery was elevated and that the passage
9 between the two houses can be seen from the cemetery?
10 A. I agree that the passage between the two houses can be seen from
11 the cemetery because we drove past the cemetery on the way to the top. I
12 actually stopped at the cemetery to see if I could take a -- have a clear
13 view of the incident site, but I did not, so I drove -- I had to drive
14 higher up the mountain. So I can see the passage but not the actual
15 incident site.
16 Q. Did you make a photo?
17 A. Not from the cemetery because I could not -- could not see it. I
18 could not see the incident site.
19 Q. Tell me what kind of wound one can expect to be sustained by a
20 3-year-old child by a 7.9 millimetre bullet?
21 A. It depends, of course, where the child was hit. In her case, in
22 the right leg, because it's a relatively small mass for which the bullet
23 will have to pass through, it will be an in-an-out shot. So there will
24 be no tumbling of a bullet or a lot of transfer of energy. So the bullet
25 will go in, it will go out. It will not have the same devastation as on
1 an adult on the same location.
2 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, we'll have a break for half an hour.
3 But bear that in mind, as I indicated earlier on, the -- this witness's
4 evidence is of limited nature, and you don't have to go into detail, in
5 such a detail to challenge the Prosecution's argument. You can deal with
6 in general matter, in general matter, and you can deal with his method of
7 such things, but -- and try to finish your cross-examination during the
8 time set by the Chamber. And plan, again, your cross-examination during
9 the break.
10 We will resume --
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before the break, may I just ask
12 the following: We do not have an investigator, nor will the investigator
13 who did this will -- testify. The adjudicated facts are an integral part
14 of this document. We have no other opportunity of disputing this because
15 there is no truth about any of these incidents. So when is the Defence
16 going to be given an opportunity to do that? My learned friends from the
17 OTP are using this opportunity to pack an enormous number of facts into
18 evidence that I have no chance to test or challenge. When else can I do
19 that apart through this witness?
20 JUDGE KWON: It is for you how to plan your defence strategy, but
21 you have ample opportunity to bring your witnesses.
22 We will resume at 35 past 12.00.
23 --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.
24 --- On resuming at 12.42 p.m.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellency.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Van der Weijden, can you see among these adjudicated facts,
4 for example, the description of how this idea evolved of the possibility
5 of fire coming from Spicasta Stijena? That's page -- on page 17. The
6 parents believed that it came from Spicasta Stijena because it was held
7 by the SRK
8 area of Baba Stijena.
9 Do you have any evidence or any document that would corroborate
10 this conclusion that she was wounded by a shot that came from
11 Spicasta Stijena? What is the basis of your supporting this conclusion?
12 A. The basis of my support to this conclusion is -- has been that I
13 visited the incident site, checked what was technically possible for a
14 bullet to end up in the victim or -- and then see from the tactical
15 possibilities which possibilities would remain or would be removed
16 because of tactical reasons.
17 Q. And which were the possibilities that you eliminated? Or let's
18 better move to page 13 of your report.
19 And I would ask everyone involved to pay attention to this page.
20 The little girl Anisa Pita was wounded exactly in which part of
21 her leg?
22 A. It only was -- says here that she was wounded in her right leg.
23 So I don't know exactly which -- which part of her leg.
24 Q. In your report -- or, rather, in the adjudicated facts it says,
25 and I'll find this place, "above the knee." Is it true that she was
1 wounded above the knee, or was she wounded in the foot?
2 A. I do not know because the only information that I've had is that
3 she was wounded in her right leg, as was written in the situation or as
4 in the -- you've mentioned in the adjudicated facts that she was wounded
5 in -- above the knee.
6 Q. Let's see what else you concluded on page 13.
7 "The calibre of the bullet that struck Anisa will not have been
8 greater than 7.92 millimetres. Calibres greater than that would have
9 caused far more serious damage than in this incident."
10 What kind of injury was caused by this shot for which you presume
11 must have been inflicted by 7.9 millimetres? Have you seen any related
12 documents or have you seen the wound itself?
13 A. I reached my conclusion because I saw the -- where -- the victim.
14 She was in the -- in the house at the time of my visit, and she still had
15 both her legs. The calibre that would be above 7.92 millimetres that was
16 available or that was present at the time was 12.7 millimetres, which
17 probably would have -- most likely would have taken off her leg. So
18 because she had two legs left, therefore I concluded that she had -- that
19 the calibre must not have been greater than 7.92 millimetres.
20 Q. How does a entry/exit wound look like? Have you seen it?
21 A. I've seen entry and exit wounds, yes.
22 Q. In which part of the leg?
23 A. Oh, I have not seen for this case, but I have seen entry and exit
25 Q. Let's go on. You have seen the child, but you didn't look at the
1 wound. You saw the child, but you did not see the wound; is that right?
2 A. That is correct.
3 JUDGE MORRISON: And she wouldn't have been a child any longer,
4 would she?
5 THE WITNESS: No, she wouldn't. She's a teenager now.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Thank you. It goes on to say:
8 "The standard assault rifle round, 6.6 -- 7.62x39 millimetre
9 would have been at its extreme range and would be very inaccurate, so in
10 my opinion there are three calibres that could have been used in this
11 incident. These are: 7.62x51 millimetre, 54 millimetres, and
12 57 millimetres."
13 Did the Serbian Army had any weapons of this type and these
15 A. The last one, the 57, is not -- does not work with 7.62. That is
16 the 7.92 millimetres. But for the -- these calibres, at least the last
17 two, the 54 and the 7.92x57, these were available to the Serbian army as
18 they were to all the forces. As for the 7.62x51, that was a calibre that
19 was produced in the republic -- in Yugoslavia
20 export reasons. So they might be available to any forces.
21 Q. And which weapons are used to fire these calibre rounds?
22 A. For that I would have to refer to Annex A, which is the weapons.
23 To Appendix A, weapons and ammunition. There I have listed which weapons
24 work with what ammunition. And as you can see, that several weapons are
25 suitable for more ammunition. If they were -- depending on -- for which
1 round they were chambered.
2 Q. If I tell you that 7.62x54 millimetres was the ammunition that we
3 didn't have at all, what would you say to that?
4 A. I found that -- I would find that very strange because I visited
5 the Republic of Yugoslavia
6 check-points with weapons that fire 7.62x54R rounds.
7 Q. Did you find in the requisition papers of the Army of
8 Republika Srpska any indication that this type of ammunition was
10 A. I was not given requisition papers of the Serbian army for my
12 Q. Let's go back to paragraph 3 on your page 13. The distance that
13 you estimated was 920 metres; is that correct?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. At such a distance, would the trajectory necessarily be a
16 parabolical one?
17 A. It's not officially a parabolic because it's not the same on both
18 sides, but it's -- for these rounds it would be almost parabolic.
19 Q. Regardless of that, does that mean that there must have been
20 optical visibility present if the intention is ascribed to this shooter,
21 as well as an appropriate range for him to fire such a shot?
22 A. Yes. The shooter would have had to see the person he was -- the
23 target he was shooting at, and there would be any kind of optical
24 equipment present. Not necessarily on the weapon itself, but at least
25 within -- nearby, in the form of binoculars.
1 Q. Thank you. By looking at page 13, one can conclude that this
2 distance excludes calibre 7.62 39 millimetres, and the wound that you
3 haven't seen excluded the calibre larger than 7.62. Why did you take
4 this roundabout course of action? Why didn't you take the documents and
5 the slug and make your decision on that basis?
6 A. There was no slug in the -- in the evidence.
7 Q. Do you know that there was a slug but that it was lost, as were
8 medical documents, and that the father, the mother of the wounded girl
9 said that?
10 A. No, I didn't know.
11 Q. So what did you conclude then, that it might have been fired from
12 the Baba Rock, or did you conclude that the shot definitely came from
13 that location and that it can be used as proof in a legal sense?
14 A. According to my findings, I would conclude that the shot
15 originated from the -- in the direct vicinity of Baba Rock because that's
16 the only location that there's a view of the incident site.
17 Q. What if the bullet was 7.62 39 millimetres? Where would the shot
18 then have come from?
19 A. I would not know, because I did not see any possibilities for
21 Q. Mr. Van der Weijden, on the basis of what do you claim that it
22 must have been a 7.9 millimetre bullet instead of a 7.62 millimetre? If
23 it was a 60 -- if it was a 7.62x39 millimetres, then it could not have
24 been fired from the distance of 920 metres; is that right?
25 A. It -- it would be very unlikely. It's at the most extreme range
1 for which it would not be possible to set your sights for that distance.
2 So there is a possibility, but it's very limited.
3 Q. Let's conclude this subject now. Had this shot been fired by the
4 Serbs from the Baba Rock, would be true only because there's a sole
5 indication that it must have been a 7.9 calibre; however, there is no
6 proof that this was the actual calibre of the bullet.
7 A. I did not conclude that it was a 7.9. I said it was within the
8 group. There is two 7.62 bullets that might have been used or the 7.92.
9 So there's a group of bullets that might have been used. Aside from that
10 which I've already listed in the weapons ammunition, these are the
11 military calibres. But hunting rifles also might have been used, and
12 they use different rounds as well. But if they are military bullets or
13 military-style bullets, these -- I believe these three bullets represent
14 the group of bullets.
15 Q. Mr. Van der Weijden, before this Tribunal had you ever appeared
16 as an expert witness in any trials?
17 A. No. I've only appeared as an expert witness for -- in cases for
18 the Tribunal.
19 Q. Thank you. Tomorrow, if we succeed in opening certain documents,
20 we will demonstrate that you should have been informed about the
21 deployment, the confrontation, and the combat operations. So that would
22 have led you to a conclusion that it was a stray 7.62 millimetre; is that
24 Mr. Van der Weijden, what is preventing you from saying that the
25 bullet came from the Muslim-controlled territory? In other words, what
1 is preventing you to allow for a possibility that this was a
2 7.62x39 millimetres, apart from the fact that the Serbs were not close
4 A. I would refer back to page 15 of my report. On photo 2, this is
5 the photo that I took that, in my view, offers the only possibility from
6 where the shot might have originated from; and within that photo, Baba --
7 the arrow points to Baba Stijena, and that's the only location that I
8 deem possible. So that's how I reached my conclusion that it's -- the
9 bullet did not come from Muslim-controlled territory, even though I did
10 not know where the Muslims were at the time.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now please have this photo
12 in e-court.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. What does the arrow indicate here? As far as I can see, it is
15 pointing to some foliage. And if this is Baba Stijena, then the distance
16 could not have been more than 50 metres; correct?
17 JUDGE KWON: Let's just take a look. Just English or B/C/S,
18 whatever, and let's zoom in. Further. Second -- second picture.
19 Further. Further once again.
20 THE WITNESS: Okay. Where the arrow points directly is rock.
21 And this is a picture that I've taken, of course, with a photo camera.
22 And from the incident site, I observed the surroundings with binoculars,
23 6-power binoculars, which offers a better view. But for the picture to
24 be the same quality as binoculars, it is difficult. But you don't see
25 foliage where the arrow points but a gap between trees. And the light
1 part that you see, that is rock.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Van der Weijden, tell us, now, where -- where in this photo
4 is the separation line, and where is the road that we saw a little
5 earlier? And I will put it to you, Mr. Van der Weijden, if you look up,
6 you can see some power line -- power lines there. I can tell you that
7 this entire territory was under Muslim control, the entire area. And we
8 weren't even close to that area.
9 A. I would not know, because this is -- I did not check for a
10 separations line. I only checked for tactical possibilities.
11 Q. Thank you. Now, let's take a look at another incident,
12 incident -- an incident on the 8th of October, 1994, which is under
13 number 11 in the F schedule. Could you please look at this portion of
14 your report.
15 Can you tell us, in brief, the gist of this incident, the F11
16 incident. And for your information, Mr. Van der Weijden, the conclusion
17 that it must have been -- that it was certainly fired from Baba Rock
18 would not have been concluded even by a court in Bogujani [phoen] which
19 is a place which is in the boondocks.
20 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, the accused is now engaging in
21 commentary rather than putting questions to the witness.
22 JUDGE KWON: What was your question, Mr. Karadzic?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This was simply for
24 Mr. Van der Weijden's information, where, in fact, he should have been
25 informed by the people who took him there.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. But for now, could you just tell us in brief what the substance
3 of case F11 is?
4 A. Well, the situation was as it's written on page 87, and I was --
5 as I was presented by the OTP, in which Alma Cutuna sustained injuries
6 when the tram she was travelling in was fired upon and for which she
7 recalls hearing bursts of fire, so multiple rounds, which shattered the
8 glass and wounded her. There was apparently an expert investigation of
9 the tram. The alleged shooting position was Grbavica. The calibre of --
10 the calibre weapons, since it was -- there were bursts of fire, I
11 concluded that it most likely -- it will have been a machine-gun that had
12 been used. And as for the origin of fire, when I visited the incident
13 site, for me I concluded that some of the witness statements were
14 contradictory to my findings. So I concluded different-wise as to the
15 origin of fire.
16 Q. Could you please tell us more about the discrepancies. What are
18 A. Could you rephrase that question, please?
19 Q. The contradictions in some of the witnesses's statements and your
20 conclusions, what was the gist? What did they consist in?
21 A. The inconsistencies, there was -- I was presented coordinates by
22 the -- by the OTP, and I believe the coordinates that were matched to the
23 incident sites, the exact incident sites -- and it's also -- that
24 coordinate was used for the 360 video that was shot by the -- by the OTP,
25 which I also had as evidence. Only when I matched the coordinate for the
1 exact incident site it -- it made no -- it was contradictory to Grbavica.
2 So I concluded that the location didn't match the witness statement of
3 one -- of the victim. So I thought that was a mistake with the
4 coordinates in the information that I received beforehand.
5 Q. And it didn't occur to you that there may have been an error in
6 determining the incident -- or, rather, the fire position? So in other
7 words, it was concluded that it must have been from Grbavica, come what
9 A. No, I did not automatically conclude that, because I took into
10 account the -- within a short distance, the tram would also have been
11 visible from the Jewish cemetery. It was clearly in view of that as
12 well. So from those two areas, and if I then looked at the witness
13 statements and taking into account that a tram moves while it's being
14 fired upon, it's very difficult for the victims to exactly describe where
15 they were hit -- when they were hit, because the realisation might come a
16 little bit later. But then looking at the facts and the situation, then
17 I conclude that Grbavica was the point of origin.
18 Q. Did the Prosecution provide the grid references of the origin of
19 fire, or did they tell you that the origin of fire was at Grbavica?
20 A. I was not given grid references of the origin of fire. They --
21 of course in the -- in the incident, it's already -- the facts that
22 received of the OTP beforehand, the alleged shooting position already
23 pointed to Grbavica.
24 Q. Thank you. On page 87, you say the following:
25 [In English] "Grbavica building (321m)."
1 Alleged by whom?
2 [Interpretation] Who determined the alleged position, that
3 Grbavica was the alleged position?
4 A. I recall I read this in the witness reports but also in the --
5 it's probably also stated in the medical -- the expert examination of the
6 tram. So in the investigation.
7 Q. Did you attach those investigative materials produced by the
9 A. No, I did not.
10 Q. Was the investigation accurate and complete? Was it
12 A. I cannot recall, I'm sorry.
13 Q. So what makes this a sniping incident, Mr. Van der Weijden?
14 A. I have never -- nowhere concluded that it was a sniper that
15 fired -- fired in any of the incidents. This is just an incident that I
16 was presented by the OTP and asked to look at it and determine if I could
17 find what had been the origin of fire.
18 Q. Didn't the Muslim police -- or, rather, the Sarajevo police
19 already indicate where the shooting had come from? Were you supposed to
20 evaluate and assess the existing investigation reports done at the time
21 of the incident, or were you supposed to just justify the findings and
22 the allegations that the firing had been done by the Serbs and
23 deliberately in order to harm the people on the tram?
24 A. Just as with the other incidents, I only took into account the
25 existing investigation reports, if they were of technical assistance to
1 me, in determining the point of origin. For the rest, I had nothing to
2 do with justifying or denying anything.
3 Q. Now, tell me why, then, did you have to guess at the calibre?
4 Weren't you provided the accurate calibres and rounds used? On page 87
5 we can see that, as in the other incidents, you first tried to determine
6 the calibre that you didn't have any information on, but based on that
7 calibre, you then go on to establish that it must have been fired by
9 A. I don't think I've anywhere concluded that it was fired by Serbs.
10 I cannot read it back in my report.
11 Q. Thank you. At the time of the incident, were any UNPROFOR
12 members present on site? Can you remember?
13 A. I was not there at the time of the incident, so I cannot recall.
14 Q. Thank you. Can you recall or were you provided information to
15 that effect that there were any TV reporters present on site?
16 A. Well, I'm aware that the Holiday Inn Hotel, which was a hotel
17 where a lot of the news crews were staying, is in close vicinity of the
18 incident site, but I would not know if the TV reporters would actually be
19 present on site.
20 Q. Have you seen the footage that was produced by the official
21 Sarajevo Television at the same time, at the time of the incident?
22 A. No, I haven't.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now please have
25 65 ter 1D04045, page 89, 14045. That's the English version. Page 89. I
1 think in ERN page that would be 0629-5314.
2 JUDGE KWON: E-court page 90 of this expert report.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 90 of this report, please.
4 JUDGE KWON: This one, Mr. Karadzic? Or the next page?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. That's not 65 ter -- no. Wait
6 a minute. We need ERN ending in 314.
7 JUDGE KWON: We are talking about different --
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 65 ter 14045. ERN 0629-5314. Can
9 we pull that page up, please.
10 JUDGE KWON: Page 88 in -- 89 in e-court. The previous page.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think this is the right page.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Can you tell us what these two photos actually represent? What
14 do they depict?
15 JUDGE KWON: You can see only one pictures.
16 THE ACCUSED: Layout 1, Jewish cemetery v. Grbavica. Layout 1,
18 THE WITNESS: They represent, in my view, this is the layout of
19 the area around the incident site with green the actual incident site as
20 located by the -- as mentioned in the report, and blue the location where
21 I think the tram was -- was fired on. If I look down the street, the red
22 cone or the -- the two cones, they represent, together with the slightly
23 curved building below -- that building -- if the shooter would be on the
24 left of the building, he would be able to have of a view on -- of the
25 most right side of the upper cone, and if the shooter would be on the
1 right side of the building, in the bottom, he would have view on the
2 extreme left of the upper cone. So that represents the field of fire.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. And how did you determine where the tram was at the moment of the
6 A. Because if the tram had been a little bit further, there is no
7 situation that I can think of that the machine-gun was fired from the --
8 from the -- let's see what -- I think it was the left side. I believe in
9 the -- the expert examination the location of the site of the tram was
10 mentioned where the tram was hit, where the entries were, and that site
11 was to the south. So if I would have a tram with -- facing -- that was
12 fired upon from the south, there would be no possibilities for the
13 machine-gun to be at, aside -- beside from down the street. And that
14 would be represented by the two red cones.
15 Q. So, Mr. Van der Weijden, if the tram had been hit while it was in
16 a location a little forward or a little back of where you indicated that
17 it was, then it could not have been fired from Grbavica; correct?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. So in other words, you are depicting this street as a shooting
20 range, a slot through which one had to fire quickly because -- bearing in
21 mind the speed of the movement of the tram.
22 A. It would not be difficult, especially after being in position --
23 if it was indeed that building where I think the shots originated from,
24 it would not be difficult to hit the tram, because you can hear the tram
25 coming. So you can calculate over days what time it takes for the tram,
1 from the time you hear it, to pass the intersection; and it would be just
2 a question of pressing on the trigger to spray the -- to hit the tram.
3 Q. And was this schematic produced on the basis of your conclusions
4 and your findings, or did you draw your own conclusions based on
5 something else; and if so, based on what?
6 A. This is my schematic. I produced it myself, and it was based on
7 my conclusions.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now please have in
9 e-court -- I don't know the 65 ter number, but that's the seventh map,
10 photograph number 7 from the Karadzic binder.
11 JUDGE KWON: Do we have the 65 ter number, Mr. Reid?
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 21216. 65 ter 21216.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Do you know what this photograph depicts, Mr. Van der Weijden?
15 Can you recognise the street running between the School of Philosophy
16 the left-hand side and the museum on the right-hand side? And the photo
17 was taken --
18 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the position.
19 From the Holiday Inn; interpreter's correction.
20 THE WITNESS: I can recognise the street, yes.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Thank you. Is that the street along which one can actually hit
23 the tram if fired -- if firing from Grbavica? Is that the street that
24 you marked under the assumption that it was fired from Grbavica? You can
25 also compare this to your photograph.
1 A. That is the same street.
2 Q. Thank you. Do you know what the buildings between the
3 Holiday Inn and Grbavica are? And do you know where the
4 School of Philosophy
5 and what we can see on top of the museum? Under whose control was this
6 area between the Holiday Inn -- or, rather, the tram tracks and Grbavica?
7 A. I know that the river was the dividing line for this area. So to
8 the -- the Grbavica area would be under VRS control, and from the river
9 to the Holiday Inn would be under Muslim control, or Bosnian control.
10 Q. Can you please indicate where the river is. Can you mark it,
12 A. There would be the river.
13 Q. Would you please put number 1 there.
14 A. [Marks]
15 Q. Can you agree with me that the building on the left-hand side is
16 the School of Philosophy
17 A. If it is this building, this is what I was told is the Faculty of
19 Q. Thank you. Would you put number 2 there.
20 A. [Marks]
21 Q. Thank you. Can you see on the other side of the same street the
22 museum complex, the buildings of the national museum?
23 A. I can see the buildings that were identified to me as being the
24 museum, yes.
25 Q. Would you please mark them.
1 A. [Marks]
2 Q. Thank you. Could you now please draw a line to follow the bullet
3 trajectory from the place where it was fired from up to the tram tracks.
4 A. I cannot draw a line because I do not know within the building
5 that I marked the shooter actually was, so I would have to draw again the
6 same two cones. It would be about this -- this area.
7 Q. Would you agree that the range should have been a little smaller
8 because it encompasses one corner of the Faculty of Philosophy?
9 A. I'm sorry, this is only because -- because it's not easy to draw
10 a good line. And furthermore, this is in perspective and not straight
11 from the top, so it's not possible to determine the exact field of fire.
12 Q. Thank you. Mr. Van der Weijden, did I understand you correctly
13 that if the tram had been fired at beyond this cone then it could not
14 have come from Grbavica?
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. Thank you. Can you please put the date and your initials.
17 A. [Marks]
18 JUDGE KWON: This will be admitted.
19 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D647, Your Honour.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please now have
21 65 ter document 21215.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Do you recognise this photograph, and is this viewed from the
24 opposite direction with reference to the same place?
25 A. More or less, because it's slightly from a different angle than
1 the -- it's not straight across from the other photo. But they are the
2 same buildings.
3 Q. Can I ask you to draw these two identical cones, or as
4 approximately as you can.
5 A. That would be the cone. But, again, this is in perspective, so
6 it doesn't -- it doesn't give the actual field of fire as it would be
7 viewed from the top.
8 Q. If the tram was hit on its right-hand side, would you agree in
9 principle that it was not hit from north, rather, from the south, and
10 south would mean 180 degrees? Is that correct?
11 A. As I recall, because I -- I'm sorry I did not include the
12 examination of the tram with my findings because they were lost
13 somewhere, but as I recall, the tram was serving eastwards towards the
14 town centre, and so it would have had its right side exposed to the
15 south, to Grbavica. So it should -- should be hit -- if -- it was hit on
16 the right side and not on the left side. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted
17 that before.
18 Q. No, no, no. I am not criticising you. Let us just make it
19 precise. Does that allow for a possibility of 180 degrees instead of a
20 full circle, i.e., 360 degrees?
21 A. Both the entry and exits -- exits of the bullets would be
22 different. Not all the bullets would exit the tram on the other side, so
23 it would be fairly easy to determine from which side the tram was
24 fired -- was fired at.
25 Q. Thank you. But the physical obstacles demonstrate that only this
1 small portion of the semicircle was possible to be achieved if the shots
2 came from Grbavica. How far is the building where the supposed shooter
3 was from the site incident? What is the figure that you cited?
4 A. I cited 321 metres from the centre of the building, measures with
5 a laser rangefinder. And I waited till a tram passed to have -- have an
6 exact reading to the tram line itself.
7 Q. Thank you. Speaking about this building, what was approximately
8 the angle if the shot came from the top floor having in mind that there
9 were eight floors, but the height was calculated as being 7 floor? What
10 would the site angle be?
11 A. I would have to calculate, but it would be not much of influence
12 because it's 321 metres away and then 35 metres high. So it's only a
13 1 in 10 declination.
14 Q. Very well. We'll come to that. Is it acceptable to you that
15 this is approximately 3.7 degrees?
16 A. I would have to calculate it, but that might be, yes.
17 Q. What would be the descent angle of the bullet under such
18 circumstances if the distance was 321 metres?
19 A. I would have to have access to the bullet trajectories of the
20 bullets used. I could calculate it, but it would take time. I cannot
21 take a -- take a guess now.
22 Q. When you prepared your report, did you make that calculation?
23 A. No, I did not, because I did not deem it of importance.
24 Q. Do you agree that if the site angle is around 4 degrees, the
25 landing angle of the bullet would be around 5 degrees?
1 A. I wouldn't know. I would have to calculate.
2 Q. Can you please prepare that for tomorrow. But do you agree that
3 if it were 5 degrees, the bullet would ricochet?
4 A. I do not think for 5 degrees a bullet would ricochet because the
5 5 degrees will be only from the ground level instead of on the target.
6 It will only deviate 5 degrees from straight on. So for this it will not
8 Q. We are talking about an angle with respect to the ground; is that
10 A. The degrees that you mentioned, yes.
11 Q. Thank you. When you were given this assignment, were you
12 informed who was controlling the area between the building on the south
13 as a possible shooting site and the tram and whose forces were deployed
14 there? Why did you exclude the possibility that someone might have fired
15 from that position as well?
16 A. You imply the shooting from either the faculty or the museum
18 Q. Can you please look at the photographs. Do you see the Assembly
19 building? Do you see it in this photograph?
20 A. I think it is the big building on the right side with the dark
21 roof. In the middle of the photograph.
22 Q. Yes, that's correct. Can you please mark it.
23 A. [Marks]
24 Q. And please put number 1.
25 MR. GAYNOR: Sorry, Mr. President. Can we clarify what date that
1 that building was manufactured, if he's going to mark it. Sorry, was
2 built I should say.
3 JUDGE KWON: Is it at issue or --
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It was built a long time before the
5 war. It is still there, and its was there for the whole duration of the
6 war. Is that a satisfactory answer?
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. So can you please now put a number 2 where the government
9 building is.
10 A. I do not know what the government building is or where it is.
11 Q. Can you please mark the high-rise building next to the Assembly
13 A. This one.
14 Q. Can you please put number 2.
15 A. [Marks]
16 Q. And now the Faculty of Philosophy.
17 A. [Marks]
18 Q. Number 3, please.
19 A. [Marks]
20 Q. The museum.
21 A. [Marks]
22 Q. Thank you. Had you been informed that all these buildings, as
23 you stated in your report that big buildings were used by shooters and
24 snipers, were you informed that the top areas of these buildings had been
25 occupied by the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
1 A. Not the exact location, but I was made aware of the fact that
2 from the river to the big site where the tram lines are, that was
3 Bosnian-controlled territory.
4 Q. Thank you. Is it true that the witnesses who were in the tram
5 were unable to pinpoint an exact location because at the time when they
6 were between the museum and the faculty they heard shots but they only
7 noticed blood after the tram stopped?
8 A. Well, they don't gave exact location of where they -- where
9 the -- where exactly they were fired upon. It was only in the testimony
10 that I read in the situation that she was approaching the stretch between
11 the museum and the faculty. So she was approaching the crossroads, and
12 after that something happened. It doesn't state if it happened after the
13 crossing or even further down the track.
14 Q. How do you explain that in the first incident relating to
15 Anisa Pita the slug disappeared as well as the medical records, and in
16 this case the expert report relating to the tram also went missing? How
17 come this was not provided to you, and how do you explain that?
18 A. I do not know.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think my time is up, and we shall
20 continue tomorrow.
21 Can you please tell me how much time I have left, and we will
22 have to deal with this particular case just a little bit more.
23 JUDGE KWON: How much more with this incident?
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Not more than 30 minutes.
25 JUDGE KWON: Excuse me, you mean the F11 incident?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Van der Weijden, could you kindly put the date
3 of today and your signature.
4 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, you should conclude your
7 cross-examination by the second session tomorrow.
8 We will adjourn for today.
9 We will give the number for this exhibit.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that will be Exhibit D648.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. 9.00 tomorrow morning.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m.
13 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 28th day
14 of September, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.