Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 38200

 1                           Tuesday, 14 May 2013

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Good morning, everyone.

 7             When one is logged on at the courtroom it cannot log in in your

 8     chambers, so I was not able to check the transcript of yesterday.  But

 9     there seems to have been a misunderstanding on my part when, Mr. Karadzic

10     and Mr. Robinson, you raised the issue of G17 issue.  What was the --

11     what was the point of the request for reconsideration?

12             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.  As Dr. Subotic was explaining

13     yesterday during her testimony, in incident G13, it's her position that

14     the damage that was done to the television building in G17 was actually

15     part of a ricochet that was fired on the occasion of the incident of G13.

16     And therefore, the information about that incident is directly relevant

17     to the G13 incident.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  My misunderstanding was that I thought

19     mistakenly that while the Chamber allowed a part of G17 to remain in a

20     report it inadvertently ordered redaction of 15 pages.  It was not the

21     case.  In order to lead evidence in such a way, I think the Defence

22     should have objected to the redaction when the Prosecution proposed the

23     redaction.  We didn't disallow the Prosecution to lead evidence on that

24     issue and so it would be simply inconsistent and unfair to allow the

25     Prosecution -- the Defence to lead evidence in such a detail.  I remember

Page 38201

 1     we heard some evidence in a general -- in general terms and that's more

 2     than sufficient.  So we'll not allow the accused to lead that part of

 3     evidence with Dr. Subotic.

 4             Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Excellencies.  Good

 6     morning to everyone.

 7                           WITNESS:  ZORICA SUBOTIC [Resumed]

 8                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 9                           Examination by Mr. Karadzic: [Continued]

10        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Dr. Subotic.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Excellencies, I'd like to clarify

12     one issue from yesterday.  What was discussed was the possibility of

13     uploading only two pages connected to incident 17 which relate to

14     incident 13.  We did so.  Can we perhaps have a look at it and then you

15     can make a ruling as to whether you want to admit it.  So not the entire

16     incident 17, only those images that are related to incident 13 .

17             JUDGE KWON:  I think the Chamber has given its ruling.  We'll not

18     allow it.  Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Dr. Subotic, yesterday you said that it didn't have a foundation

22     or that's to say that the physical traces did not allow for a conclusion

23     that the incident involved fuel bomb.  What else can you tell us about

24     this incident, G13?

25        A.   As for incident G13, the issue that we did not touch upon

Page 38202

 1     yesterday was that one needs to emphasise that the destructive effect of

 2     the bomb FAB-100 involving a solid explosive could not have been the

 3     result of a fuel air bomb.  What happened in this instant was that the

 4     projectile hit a vehicle, penetrated the roof of the vehicle, or rather,

 5     of the building, it broke through the roof slab of the building, and it

 6     also broke through the slab between the fifth and the fourth floors and

 7     inflicted injuries to the people who were on the fourth floor.  Now, why

 8     do I say that it didn't involve a fuel bomb --

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I ask you to call up 1D7900,

10     image 22.  This was part of paragraph 47.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   I apologise for interrupting you, but I believe this will be of

13     use to you to refer to the image.

14        A.   I can continue in the meantime because I do see the image before

15     me.  The image does indicate or show the slab on the fifth floor that was

16     torn through.  Now, on the fifth floor where the bomb was, in fact,

17     activated as it came into contact with the floor, we do have a survivor,

18     an eye-witness.  So you would perhaps wonder how a person managed to

19     survive the impact of a 40-kilogramme bomb.  It is possible because in

20     the event that the person is behind a shelter, that would be the result

21     of this blast effect bomb.  The second survivor eye-witness sustained

22     serious injuries as a result of him finding himself under the rubble in

23     between the two floors.  The important issue is that in this instant

24     there would not have been any survivors had the impact involved a bomb

25     with fuel air filling.

Page 38203

 1        Q.   Thank you.  You said as a wall, as a pillar, and this isn't

 2     reflected in the transcript.  That's in reference to line 21.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we only have the English

 4     version, please.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Can you tell us what sort of force is required to break through

 7     the armature and can this be done by fuel air explosive?

 8        A.   No, definitely not, not a fuel air bomb.  This also indicates the

 9     fact that this wasn't a large bomb.  There are no thick walls and this is

10     an indication of the fact that what was used here was a bomb of inferior

11     power, a FAB-100.  We can also see the incoming trajectory here, but

12     without going into details because I do believe that they could only

13     confuse us.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Can I now ask you to look at incident G14 and tell us

15     what it is that the physical traces indicate in this particular instance.

16        A.   This is the incident at Dositejeva Street 4A.  It's presented in

17     figure 45.  This is a park skirted by a number of buildings, and the

18     building that was hit housed some sort of a representation office.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see image 45.  This is part

20     of paragraph 64 of the document.

21             JUDGE KWON:  66.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, it's not -- it wasn't a

23     representation office, rather it was the building of the Presidency in

24     line 20.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 38204

 1        Q.   Can you tell us now by reference to the figure what it is that

 2     you were saying?

 3        A.   I said that the location was restricted within the red lines that

 4     we showed here.  It's a park area in the centre of town where the command

 5     of the 1st Corps of the BH is housed, the CSB, the Presidency of the BH,

 6     the command of the 105th Brigade.  At any rate, the area outside of these

 7     dotted lines indicates the residential area.

 8        Q.   What do the physical traces tell us about the device that

 9     exploded and where it had come from?

10        A.   We agreed that there are two directions or trajectories that were

11     at play before we got involved in the analysis to see if we could

12     facilitate the process.  These two directions were distributed by the CSB

13     and they were 348 plus/minus 10 --

14             THE INTERPRETER:  And can Dr. Subotic repeat Dr. Zecevic's

15     figure.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 315 plus/minus 10.  We agreed that

17     in our view the direction or the trajectory that was more likely was the

18     one that was established by the CSB on the basis of the rocket engines

19     that we -- that were uncovered the trajectory defined by the CSB was more

20     likely.  This was the effect of FAB-100 with a solid explosive filling.

21             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Thank you.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at image or figure 50.

24     This is part of paragraph 75.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 38205

 1        Q.   You were speaking of the trajectories.  Can you tell us which is

 2     more likely and why?

 3        A.   One of the trajectories was established by the CSB and it fits

 4     with the physical traces that can be seen based on the traces of the

 5     rocket engines.  The other trajectory was established by Mr. Zecevic

 6     without providing any explanation.  I don't think his reconstruction of

 7     the launching of the projectile fits really with the possibilities of the

 8     system.  He believed that the launcher was placed within the Pretis

 9     compound.  This is not to be expected in view of the distances involved

10     and I don't think that anybody can support that.

11        Q.   According to Zecevic, it would have had to fly over Brdo -- the

12     Hum hill?

13        A.   Yes, that's trajectory 2 and that's pretty distant.  Now, the CSB

14     defined trajectory which we believe fits with the physical traces is

15     trajectory 1, that's 315 plus/minus 10.

16        Q.   Perhaps we should make pauses and speak slowly --

17             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Doctor, did you have something to say?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to say that I apologise.

19     I may have rushed when speaking.  That's the only thing I wanted to say.

20                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

21             JUDGE KWON:  Please continue.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Can you tell us this:  As for these trajectories, 1 and 2, what

24     is the --

25             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

Page 38206

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   -- geography down on the ground and what is the density of the

 3     population?

 4             JUDGE KWON:  I think everybody seems to have a problem with

 5     personal LiveNote.  I tried to fix it myself but it doesn't seem to work.

 6     It's better to have a short break for five minutes.  We'll rise for five

 7     minutes.

 8                           --- Break taken at 9.20 a.m.

 9                           --- On resuming at 9.29 a.m.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Dr. Subotic, could you please focus on what we have on the screen

14     right now.  Taking into account the infrastructure, the mortars, the

15     command posts, and in image 45 we can see that the Presidency building is

16     80 metres away from the impact site.  Taking into account both distances,

17     how would you assess the precision of this hit?

18        A.   Taking into account everything that you just mentioned, the

19     precision from the ballistics point of view is practically directly at

20     the target which is part of the VVEP as I said yesterday, this meant

21     50 per cent of hits.  So it is quite close and that is expected, taking

22     into account the dispersion.  Because for such a distance we were working

23     with average distance, the VD for this projectile is 102 metres.

24        Q.   You said 102 metres for 1?

25        A.   According to the calculations and the tables for one projectile

Page 38207

 1     propelled by rockets FAB-100, 1VD, so one probable table deviation is

 2     102 metres, and we are within a smaller deviation of 1VD which is very

 3     precise.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Did you come across a piece of information that in

 5     Dositejeva Street itself at that number or neighbouring number there was

 6     some military --

 7        A.   I think that we noted here everything that we established;

 8     namely, that the Presidency of the BiH, the Sarajevo CSB, and the command

 9     of the 1st Corps of the BH army, the command of the 105th Brigade were

10     all located there.  The brigade was the mountain brigade.  We note all

11     that in our report, everything that we found in documents.

12        Q.   Thank you.  I started before the break, I was about to ask you

13     about the geography and the population along the one and the other

14     possible trajectories.

15        A.   Well, the population along the trajectory that we agree with

16     according to the findings of the CSB is practically the sparsest in the

17     area covered by the triangle created by the directions that we depict

18     here, whereas the other trajectory which is not well argumented and which

19     is noted by my colleague Mr. Zecevic without explanation in his report, I

20     think that he said that he would avoid areas populated by the Serbs.  But

21     I would not claim that before having another look at the document.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Can you please tell us if you know when the CSB

23     conducted the on-site investigation and when did Berko Zecevic do so?

24        A.   As far as I know, Berko Zecevic conducted his on-site

25     investigation later and the CSB conducted it - let me just look here

Page 38208

 1     because I don't remember any longer - I think on the same day or was this

 2     the instance when it occurred later?

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Could I ask you to tell us what the material evidence

 4     represents, paragraph 56, image 33, that's the previous incident

 5     Safeta Hadzica Street number 102.

 6        A.   Just a second.  Let me find the image.

 7        Q.   G13, paragraph 56.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And for others I'm looking for G13,

 9     paragraph 56, image 33 is what I would like us to see on the screen.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Can you tell us what this image with fragments tells us about the

12     direction and the incoming trajectory and what hit here?

13        A.   What obviously hit here --

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please zoom in to the image

15     so that we see the image only on the screen.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As can be seen from this

17     photograph, the building was hit with a projectile of a smaller calibre,

18     that's a mortar projectile, and the incoming trajectory was upwards.

19     There is a slight deviation from the normal line if we take that the

20     building is against a horizontal direction.  So this is a hit with a

21     mortar shell or projectile of a smaller calibre, and the shell came

22     upwards from a lower position.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Thank you.  What tells us that it's directed upwards?

25        A.   Well, from quite close because, as we know, mortar projectiles

Page 38209

 1     have a high trajectory and this came from quite close.  It could have

 2     been done by mistake, but certainly from quite close.  When I say that

 3     the velocity's also high, we talk about -- we talk about particular

 4     trajectories, and it's quite obvious from this image that it was fired

 5     from quite close, from a small distance.

 6        Q.   It was not recorded it was done either deliberately or by

 7     mistake.

 8             Can you tell us what tells you in this image how you decide that

 9     it came from down and that the trajectory was an upward trajectory?

10        A.   This is a typical image of the effect of a mortar projectile,

11     where the central crater is marked by the first row of traces and the

12     other one which is created by shrapnel tells us from which direction the

13     shell arrived.  If you were to depict it as a horizontal level, you would

14     see that it had come upwards from a position down from here and directed

15     upwards.

16        Q.   Thank you.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, when you tried to correct the

18     transcript, it is important to get the confirmation of the witness;

19     otherwise, there would be no way for us to check it later.  So I take it

20     that it is true you said, Doctor, that it was not recorded that it was

21     done either deliberately or by mistake?  Do you confirm having said that?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I just wanted to say that such

23     a hit could be created in these two ways.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 38210

 1        Q.   Doctor, do you think it would be useful if you were to draw a

 2     letter T across this image so as to show us how this proves that it had

 3     arrived from the said direction?  I mean, if you made a drawing around

 4     the crater with an electronic pen.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can Dr. Subotic please receive some

 6     help with the electronic pen.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   The first and second rows of traces and the incoming trajectory.

 9        A.   [Marks]

10        Q.   What is that?

11        A.   That's the central crater, how it is oriented.

12        Q.   Can you please mark it with number 1.

13        A.   [Marks]

14             This is the second one.

15        Q.   And now the direction, please, if you can.

16        A.   This would be the approximate direction.  All is put in a certain

17     perspective.

18        Q.   Can you put number 3 next to the direction.

19        A.   [Marks]

20        Q.   Which side was in a position to fire this shell?

21        A.   Judging by the position that we analysed, this shell could have

22     arrived only from the side of the ABiH, from the separation line.  And we

23     based that on the situation as it was at the moment.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted as a separate

25     document.

Page 38211

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness and the accused please be

 2     asked not to overlap.

 3             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Could you please sign this document.

 5        A.   What date are we today?

 6        Q.   The 14th of May.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we'll receive it.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D3539.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, can you please bear

10     with me for a moment.  Maybe it would be appropriate to draw the

11     horizontal axis here in this image for a better understanding of the

12     image.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Can this be done?  Can we plot the horizontal axis here?

15        A.   Yes, we can, because it would be parallel with the top and bottom

16     edges of the window.  If you think that this is necessary ...

17        Q.   I don't think so.  Now you have explained that that would be

18     parallel to the edges of the window.  We can see that this is far below

19     the horizontal line.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And what number has been given to

21     this document.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Shall we repeat it.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D3539.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 38212

 1        Q.   Dr. Subotic, please pay attention to incident G15.  Can you tell

 2     us in a nutshell what did the physical evidence demonstrate in this case?

 3     The square of international friendship on the 16th of June, 1995.

 4        A.   Yes, there was an explosion and based on the physical evidence

 5     that we found on the site, the explosion was caused by an modified bomb

 6     FAB-250.  It was activated on a trail in front of the building number 10.

 7     It created certain traces, a crater, the fragments on the nearby

 8     high-rise building.  There was a -- the building of local commune there

 9     and the civilian protection and people were present there when that

10     happened.  Based on the size of the crater, it was established what bomb

11     was in question, FAB-250 with classical explosives, since the bomb

12     exploded in the ground as you see on figure 54 --

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Can the witness be asked to slow down, please.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Doctor, could you speak a bit more slowly and then

15     could you --

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Could you repeat your answer.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before that, I would like to call

19     up image 52, 53, and 54, all those are within paragraph 81.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll start to repeat my answer

21     slowly, if that is okay.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Please try not to overlap with the interpretation.

23     So please wait before you start answering the question.  Yes.  Yes.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on physical evidence which

25     was found in the field and on the photographs, in this case on a

Page 38213

 1     passenger footpath near building number 10, a modified air bomb FAB-250

 2     was activated.  Based on the size of the crater and the fragmentation

 3     effect on the high-rise building which was caused by the particles of the

 4     bomb which did not land in the ground, we were able to ascertain what

 5     kind of a bomb that was.  No other bomb could have created such a crater,

 6     not the FAB-100 bomb or an area bomb for that matter.

 7             And there is another piece of evidence corroborating the fact

 8     that this was not an area bomb.  The people who were there in front of

 9     the building when the bomb was activated were not harmed, they remained

10     alive.  When we investigated this incident a very good sketch of the site

11     was drafted.  However, a mistake was made in marking the north.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Before that, Doctor, can I ask you, first of all, when you say an

14     "air bomb," can you replace that word with "fuel air bomb"?  And now I

15     would like to zoom in on the facade of the building and I would like you

16     to explain what you found on the facade.  You mentioned some

17     fragmentation effects.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the photos at the bottom be

19     zoomed in on.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, I didn't follow when you said

21     replacing the word "air bomb" with "fuel air bomb."  Could you clarify

22     with the Doctor.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Doctor, you use a technical term "area bomb."  Do you have in

25     mind fuel air bombs when you say that?

Page 38214

 1        A.   Yes, it's one in the same.  These two are synonyms.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  This is what I wanted.  Unlike TNT air bomb, when you

 3     say an "area bomb" what you mean is a "fuel air bomb"; right?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   [In English] "Area bomb," I think it is making some confusion.

 6     It's not "area."  "Spatial" would be -- rather, "spatial."

 7             [Interpretation] Can you tell us what you concluded when looking

 8     at the facade and then we will move on to the sketch that you mentioned.

 9        A.   I said that the high up on the high-rise building there are

10     traces of fragmentation effects and they can be seen very well in figure

11     54 and this was caused by the rear part of the projectile.  I can mark

12     them but I'm sure that you can see them very well because they're very

13     well visible.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at figures 56 and

15     57 on the same page -- or rather, two pages further on.

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   And while we're waiting, if this had been a fuel air bomb, would

18     we have ended up with such a crater and such a fragmentation effect on

19     the facade?  I'm talking about the previous image.

20        A.   The answer's no, of course not.  I've already said that a crater

21     of that kind and such fragmentation effects could not have been caused

22     even by a FAB-100 which contains about 40 kilos of explosive.

23        Q.   Thank you.  And now can you please tell us what is depicted in

24     this map and then we will scroll down a little.

25        A.   This is an excerpt from Google Earth which depicts the place of

Page 38215

 1     the incident and the location of the Bitumenka factory.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we scroll up a little.

 3             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Could you please comment.

 5        A.   On the right-hand side is a sketch of the incident site which was

 6     drafted by a forensic expert when he investigated the site of the

 7     incident.  And this sketch was used to determine the direction.  I'm sure

 8     that you have noticed the mistake in determining the due north.  The

 9     deviation was 57 degrees and this was confirmed with the forensic expert

10     and confirmed by him.  We have used his sketch of the site to determine

11     the position of the launch place based on the position of the crater.

12     This is direction 2 in figure 57.  When it is plotted parallelly to the

13     site of the incident, we can see that the trajectory is across the

14     Bitumenka factory, which points to the fact that it was the factory that

15     was the target of this shell.

16        Q.   And now can we go to the following page, i.e., to the following

17     figure.  Can you briefly explain this photo.

18        A.   The figure depicts all the trajectories that were established

19     during the investigation of this incident.  Number 1 depicts what we

20     determined based on the actual north and the sketch based on documents

21     and the aerial orientation in space.  Number 2 was determined by

22     Berko Zecevic.  This is interesting for the fact that he did not agree

23     with the forensic expert and he determined his trajectory together with

24     two other incidents, one which had happened 20 days before and the other

25     one that happened 12 days after this incident.  He merged them together,

Page 38216

 1     and based on that he determined trajectory 2, and trajectory 3 is the

 2     trajectory that was determined by the CSB, whereas bullet point 4, or

 3     rather, bullet point 5 is actually the position of the Bitumenka factory.

 4     Number 4 is the trajectory that was determined by the police based on the

 5     official note.  The investigators themselves determined two trajectories.

 6     One was determined by the forensic expert and the other was based on the

 7     official note, and this was all shown in one figure.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  And now can we pay attention to incident 10 which

 9     happened in Hrasnica at the Alekse Santica school.  We have finished with

10     that.

11        A.   Incident 10 happened in Alekse Santica Street, not at the

12     Alekse Santica school.

13        Q.   I apologise.  Can we then look at paragraph 100 and I'm

14     interested in figure 73.  Tell us what you concluded based on the

15     physical evidence of this incident.

16        A.   The incident is very clear in terms of physical evidence.  The

17     figure that you have called up shows everything as it was once the

18     building was repaired.  This photo was taken by Mr. Zecevic in 2007.  So

19     the physical evidence is not very visible here.  The physical evidence is

20     better depicted in figure 74.  The photo is part of the photo

21     documentation that was compiled by the investigative organs, and it

22     perfectly shows that --

23        Q.   Can -- I apologise.  Can the following page be shown for the

24     benefit of the witness.  I'm interested in figure 74 and 75.  Can you

25     please continue and tell us what the difference is between the two

Page 38217

 1     photos.  When did Zecevic take his photo and when did these two photos

 2     originate?

 3        A.   The previous photo taken by Zecevic was taken in 2007, and it

 4     shows that the building was repaired, that a new house was built in the

 5     left part of the photo.  When you look at the previous photo

 6     documentation, you won't see here.  It is not that the whole house was

 7     built, it was just reconstructed and you won't see that in any of the

 8     photos in the photo documentation.  In our paper, this is figure 74.  You

 9     can see the traces on the building that was -- that were created by the

10     bomb.  You can see that the bomb entered the bomb and exited after having

11     done a certain trajectory through the ground and continued, and this was

12     confirmed by the investigative organs.  However, my colleague Mr. Zecevic

13     did not agree with that.  He had his own explanations about the impact of

14     the fuel air bomb within the ground.  In technical terms it was

15     absolutely unacceptable.  Actually, what happened was that the bomb

16     landed on -- in the corner of the house.  As you can see in figure 74 --

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please slow down.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Interpreters were not able to catch up with your

19     speed, Dr. Subotic.

20             Yes, could you repeat from the part where you start explaining

21     about figure 74.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.  I will do my best.  I

23     am under the impression that I'm speaking slowly.  Based on the traces

24     visible in figure 74, this was how the bomb travelled, in fact.  In the

25     spot marked with number 1 in the image, the bomb hit the house and tore

Page 38218

 1     away a part of it.  We can even see the direction of impact.  Along the

 2     direction shown by the arrow and at the tip of the arrow it penetrated

 3     the ground next to the overturned fence.  At that point when the engines

 4     had already fallen off, it had deviated significantly from its initial

 5     trajectory and continued to travel up until Bunicki Potok Street, I

 6     believe the number was 73, and exploded there.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Can you tell us the physical evidence at the point of impact

 9     indicate what exactly?

10        A.   I think it's 233 or 133, the address on Bunicki Potok Street.

11     It's not 73.  I think it's -- let me just check.

12        Q.   Image 79, 233.

13        A.   Yes, Bunicki Potok, 233.  Let me just add that the technical

14     parameters and the capabilities of a fuel air bomb complete with the

15     physical traces on the site are simply insufficient.  There isn't enough

16     oxygen in the soil to allow for the creation of a fuel air cloud and for

17     the bomb to be, in fact, activated.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we show figure 79, please.  Can

19     it be enlarged further.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Can you tell us briefly what this figure illustrates?

22        A.   The image was taken over from Mr. Zecevic's report.  He

23     illustrated the impossibility of the incoming trajectory from the

24     ricochet point on Alekse Santica Street number 50, that it was impossible

25     for the bomb to ricochet over there and land on Bunicki Potok Street

Page 38219

 1     number 233.

 2             In his analysis there is one issue that I don't understand why my

 3     colleague has overlooked.  This isn't the classical ricochet.  What was

 4     at play here was that the projectile penetrated into the soil and

 5     travelled a certain stretch within the soil.  In the process, the engine

 6     was detached, which meant that the projectile lost its stability of

 7     flight.  Secondly, as the environment changed, a deflection occurred

 8     because the resistant coefficient of such a dense environment as soil is

 9     is immeasurably higher than that of air.

10             Another noteworthy point is something that we, members of the

11     profession, are fully versed with because we've seen it numerous times

12     and we used it to test the resilience of a casing, we do cause the

13     projectile to penetrate the soil and then come out of it again.  We want

14     to see the state the casing is in, and it is precisely this sort of

15     effect that we would observe, that's to say a very sharp deflection to

16     the left or to the right.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Can you now briefly present to us incident 928 of

18     July 1995 --

19             JUDGE KWON:  While the picture is before us, could you read the

20     yellow letters which appears between Alekse Santica Street number 50 and

21     Bunicki Potok number 233.  Because it was not translated.  Could you read

22     it out for the benefit of us so that we can hear the interpretation.  Do

23     you see the 140 metres --

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the bottom part of the figure --

25             JUDGE KWON:  In the picture.

Page 38220

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, the bottom part of the

 2     image; right?

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Which appears above Bunicki Potok number 233, which

 4     start from "rikose ..."

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, I'll read it out for you.

 6     It reads:

 7             "The projectile cannot possibly ricochet in this direction!!!"

 8             And this is in fact what I was saying a moment ago that the image

 9     was taken over from where -- in fact, it is clearly seen that the

10     ricochet cannot possibly happen in this direction.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

12             Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Dr. Subotic, how many points do you have -- the transcript seems

16     to reflect that this is your view that the ricochet is impossible, or is

17     it your view or is it a view that you criticised a moment ago?

18        A.   Yes, I will answer this.  It wasn't my understanding, but let me

19     repeat, this isn't my view, this isn't my opinion, and I've explained the

20     reasons why I believe it to be inaccurate.  I've merely read out what my

21     colleague wrote on an image that we've taken over in order to be able to

22     provide our comments of it, we've taken it over from his report.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Rest assured, I think it's clear.  Even

24     Ms. Gustafson would not challenge it, it's from Mr. Zecevic's report.

25             Please continue.

Page 38221

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Doctor, can you tell us from that corner of the house that was

 4     torn away through to Bunicki Potok, how many points do you have to

 5     establish the trajectory, the corner of the house?  How many points in

 6     the ground could this line therefore be established on the basis of how

 7     many points?

 8        A.   Well, the first point is the damage to the house.  The second

 9     point is not -- but is only approximate, it is the point where the

10     projectile penetrates the ground.  We have a clear point where the

11     projectile leaves the ground and we have the point of impact on

12     Bunicki Potok Street, if that's what you had in mind.

13        Q.   Yes.  This statement here that it was impossible prompted me to

14     ask you to tell us on the basis of how many points you can draw this

15     line?

16        A.   Let me just make a few points.  What colleague Zecevic said holds

17     true if what we have is a vertical surface, but we had the horizontal

18     surface and then the penetration of the ground wherein the physical

19     process is completely different.

20        Q.   Doctor, does this look like the game of drakes and dragons when

21     you're skimming the earth with pebbles?

22        A.   Well, it does a bit.  In this, of course, event you would have a

23     pebble entering water and then leaving it again, which is not normally

24     the case.

25        Q.   Let's look at incident 9, 28 July 1995, Cetinjska Street,

Page 38222

 1     paragraph 108 and onwards.  Can you briefly present this incident?

 2        A.   I'll try to make it brief.  This is a FAB-250 modified aerial

 3     bomb which impacted the ninth floor and you can see that clearly on

 4     figure 82.

 5             The assertions made in respect of this case were varied and all

 6     of them were presented in detail in this report.  Let us not dwell on

 7     those.  In short, based on the trace evidence found on this high-rise

 8     building it was established that the incoming trajectory practically ran

 9     north-south, that the bomb was activated on the ninth floor, what are the

10     traces that we're referring to?  Well, the ones that are visible on the

11     high-rise building itself, first of all.  We are looking at the traces of

12     soot on the slab on the ninth floor and the traces found around the

13     building and the effect that the bomb would produce does fit with those

14     and with the trajectory that I indicated.

15        Q.   Can we look at figure 81.  Can you tell us who took the

16     photographs and what do they illustrate?  How did you interpret the

17     physical evidence they show?

18        A.   These -- the trace evidence was obtained from the CSB photo

19     documentation.  I think that the markings in yellow and red are by my

20     colleague Mr. Zecevic.  On the first photo on the left side, the traces

21     that I referred to are clearly visible.  On the right-hand side of the

22     high-rise building, two slabs were destroyed and you can see the intense

23     black of the soot on the ceiling of the ninth -- on the ninth floor.  You

24     can see that the projectile basically flew more or less in parallel to

25     the disposition of the structure and this is clearly seen on figure 87

Page 38223

 1     where we have indicated it as transposed upon a Google Earth image.  On

 2     the basis of the traces on the ground, that's also figure 87, you can see

 3     the concrete beam that was knocked out and all the other traces.  The

 4     lateral part opposite the yellow arrow faces north.  So this part of the

 5     high-rise building was exposed to a lateral impact and it occurred on the

 6     ninth floor.  And such a highly destructive force could only have come

 7     from a FAB-250 filled with a TNT explosive.

 8             What we also see here on figure 85 is a trace from a smaller

 9     projectile.  This has nothing to do with the incoming trajectory of this

10     particular bomb.  On this issue we have the testimony of a witness who

11     said that he first heard the impact and then went out to see what it was

12     all about.  When he went back in, that was when this other impact was

13     heard, which means that the first impact was that of a mortar because its

14     incoming trajectory does not fit with the incoming trajectory that we

15     established based on the physical evidence and the destructive force that

16     was visible on this high-rise building.

17        Q.   Thank you.  And in the event that the high-rise building had not

18     been grazed but rather had the projectile flown in under a normal angle,

19     what sort of damage could be expected?  What would have become of this

20     floor had it not grazed merely but had it been a direct hit, as it were?

21        A.   I apologise, I don't understand the question.

22        Q.   Perhaps I'm not versed enough.  You said that the projectile had

23     flown in practically in parallel to the building?

24        A.   Well, it was a right angle really, not in parallel to it --

25             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Now please continue.  Please bear in

Page 38224

 1     mind you should put a pause.  Yes.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The Doctor said that the angle was

 3     low or small, not a right angle.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   And had the angle -- had this been at a right angle --

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, please confirm with the Doctor or you

 7     put the question again.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   In line 18 it says that you said that it was a right angle.  Did

10     you say that this was an impact at a right angle?

11        A.   No, I didn't say that it was at a right angle, that would be

12     90 degrees, and what we see here does not indicate something like that.

13        Q.   And how do you know that it's not at a right angle?  In other

14     words, where would the damage be expected to be seen had the impact been

15     at a right angle?  At a right angle in respect of which particular

16     direction or line?

17        A.   Well, in respect of the high-rise building.  Had it been at a

18     right angle in respect of the surface of the high-rise building, the

19     entire destructive effect would be focused on the building itself.  We

20     would not have such extensive physical evidence around the building.  We

21     would have the sort of traces that would be expected upon such an impact.

22        Q.   [In English] "In the building" instead of "on the building

23     itself."

24             [Interpretation] Did you say that the destructive

25     building [as interpreted] would have been within the high-rise?

Page 38225

 1        A.   Within the high-rise and to the left and to the right in respect

 2     of the trajectory.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Can we show figures 84 and 85.  You were talking

 4     about the traces outside of the high-rise building and a hole in the

 5     concrete which you established did not originate from the same

 6     projectile.  What does this figure show?

 7        A.   This picture shows the effects of the impact on the ground around

 8     the high-rise that we talked about recently and the scattered fragments

 9     of various materials that were caused after the explosion.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Could we please show image 85 now.  Maybe we can just

11     scroll down if it's on the same page.  In the English version it's on the

12     following page.  What did you want to say about this hole in the plate?

13     It seems to be a vertical shot or something.

14        A.   This is the plate between the floors, between the seventh and

15     eighth floors, and the investigating team said that it was caused by a

16     fragment of the projectile, which suggests that by its dimensions it does

17     not correspond to the dimensions of the FAB-250 projectile.  And there is

18     also the testimony of witnesses residing in the high-rise, which is

19     included in the report, the resident who first heard the impact of this

20     projectile and then after a while FAB-250 hit the same high-rise.  It can

21     be seen here that the trajectory does not correspond with incoming

22     trajectory of the FAB-250.  For the reason that in the photograph itself

23     you can see the window in lower left-hand corner, the window is located

24     on the northern side of the high-rise.  And if the shell had arrived from

25     there -- excuse me, not the shell but the FAB-250, then we would not have

Page 38226

 1     such traces, either on the high-rise itself or in the surroundings of the

 2     high-rise.  So that leads us to conclude that this projectile arrived

 3     independently immediately before the impact of the FAB-250.  It's

 4     elaborated in detail in the report.  My colleague Mr. Zecevic was wrong

 5     about this.  He simply did not dwell on the details sufficiently because

 6     if he had looked into the fact that we have undamaged windows, it would

 7     be clear to him that the orientation of the defect on the plate between

 8     the seventh and eighth floors is pointing to another direction.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Can we please now show figure 87 and if you can

10     please explain to us what, according to your report, was the probable

11     target here which was missed when the high-rise was grazed.

12        A.   We can see here that we found the particular building in

13     Google Earth.  We then inserted the trajectory which we established on

14     the basis of the material, traces of the impact on the high-rise itself.

15     And one can see here that the trajectory is almost north to south.  One

16     can see that the particular trajectory leads across the part of the

17     high-rise which was damaged.  The high-rise is situated on a hill and the

18     ordinate of the ninth floor is around 40 metres.  And if there had been

19     no impact against the high-rise, the modified bomb would continue its

20     flight and end at the target which is marked by number 2 in the same

21     image.  And that is the Zica, or wire, factory.

22             I have to note here that such an instance cannot be foreseen by

23     any artillery crew member; namely, that such a building would come up

24     along the trajectory and I think that this had to happen because if the

25     bomb had been just 1 metre to the left it would have flown by.  It just

Page 38227

 1     happened that the obstacle was at the height of the trajectory ordinate

 2     as the projectile was flying towards the target.  And I think it's

 3     impossible to foresee such an incident unless you have a 3-D image of the

 4     terrain and software which can foresee what might happen.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell us generally speaking what were your

 6     conclusions in connection with the rocket propulsion of the bomb; namely,

 7     whether the bomb itself had been modified, what was the modification

 8     like, and what can you tell us about --

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Could you expand, Doctor, about your

10     basis upon which you could conclude that on the part of the -- those who

11     fired the shell could not have anticipated such an obstacle.  What is

12     your basis?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm saying that because when the

14     information is provided, when the data is provided, whether it's a system

15     for directing fire or if the data is introduced manually from firing

16     tables on the basis of the information collected and the other ballistics

17     characteristics, such as the meteo-ballistics [Realtime transcript read

18     in error "metal ballistics"] data, the distance, and everything else that

19     is included in the parameters which are taken into account when the data

20     important for the target is considered, there is no way to introduce the

21     data which would say, for example, there is a high-rise obstacle at such

22     and such a distance along the Y axis.  There is no way to take that into

23     account because whether it's the fire directing system or whether

24     manually the parameters which are important for the flight would be

25     introduced from firing tables, there is no possibility to take something

Page 38228

 1     like that into account.  So what I'm telling you now and what I decided

 2     that -- on the basis of what I decided that is that such a facility

 3     simply happened to be along the Y axis of the trajectory at the moment

 4     when the projectile was launched.  I hope that this explanation was

 5     sufficient.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 7             Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   While we still have this image on the screen, Doctor, can you

10     tell us what the sub-image A represents in this image.  And in line 11

11     instead of "metal ballistics data," the doctor said "meteo-ballistic

12     data."  Perhaps you can tell us whether it was meteorological ballistics

13     data or metal.

14        A.   It had to do with meteorological ballistics data, or shortly,

15     meteo-ballistics data.

16        Q.   And now if you can tell us what is in square A, number 1, in the

17     lower right-hand corner, what does the right line represent in relation

18     to the high-rise and how does that fit into what you just told us?

19        A.   This is the incoming trajectory marked by line 1 and determined

20     on the basis of the traces found at site in the surroundings of the

21     high-rise and on the high-rise itself.  It can be seen here precisely how

22     it actually hit the high-rise and it fits perfectly with the traces which

23     are evident on the high-rise itself and around it.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Before the break, just a few brief questions.  Did

25     you analyse or conclude how many victims there were in the 16 or 17

Page 38229

 1     incidents, the victims or casualties of aerial bombs in this part of the

 2     city?

 3        A.   I think that we provide that in the A report and opinion and --

 4     and that it's, I don't know, perhaps a dozen, 12, 13, 15, something like

 5     that, I don't know, I could only try and find that analysis and then I

 6     would be able to tell you.  The targets ...

 7        Q.   All right.  We can do that after the break as well.  But could

 8     you tell us --

 9        A.   Here, I've got it.  According to available information in 16

10     incidences, according to one set of information there were ten and

11     according to another set of information, 11 persons who were killed;

12     seriously wounded, four; and slightly wounded or slightly injured, 38.

13     So in all 16 instances that we analysed, according to available

14     information that we had at our disposal, that was the figure.

15        Q.   Could you then tell us on the basis of that something about the

16     precision and the justification of the use of such projectiles against

17     industrial zones judging by the number of casualties?

18        A.   Well, as you can see from our report, we did analyse the

19     precision of all the firing in relation to the targets that were targeted

20     because this is the only way it can be done.  We noted that of all the

21     instances that were analysed, 43, or rather, 44 per cent hit the target,

22     about 19 per cent, or rather, 18.7 per cent, was at a distance smaller

23     than 0.5 VD and around 31 per cent was between 0.5 and 1.5 of the table

24     deviations which in ballistics terms is completely correct and all right.

25     We have only one firing which is outside the scope of three table

Page 38230

 1     deviation and this one instance could have been seen in a different

 2     light.  There were two possible targets in that particular instance and

 3     we considered that instance of firing in relation to the greater

 4     distance, and in my view the precision, professionally speaking, was

 5     quite sufficient and fine.  On the other hand, I think that the other

 6     part of your question had to do with the justification, how justified was

 7     it.  Right.  Considering the firing power, the number of projectiles that

 8     were fired, and the use of destructive explosive that was used and the

 9     number of casualties, it can be assessed that the bombs were primarily

10     used as for or for destruction of facilities, buildings, and targets

11     which were used in some other way rather than as buildings in which

12     civilians resided because if that had not been the case the number of

13     casualties would have been much greater.  We have to take into account

14     that each of these bombs carries at least 39 kilos of TNT and the FAB-250

15     are loaded with as much as 100 kilos.

16        Q.   And the last question before the break, Dr. Subotic:  Was there

17     any material trace or evidence that fuel air bombs were used?

18        A.   There are no material traces in all the evidence that a single

19     fuel air bomb was used in the Sarajevo area, and I think this is

20     presented in detail in the report.  These were effects that were analysed

21     in detail, the principles of action and all the collected material

22     evidence.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, I am looking at

24     the clock.  If it's the right time for the break, I think that this would

25     be an opportune moment.

Page 38231

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Ms. Gustafson.

 2             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you, Your Honours.  I just would like to

 3     make a very minor point.  We've referred in the last half an hour to

 4     incidents that the accused referred to as incidents 9 and 10.  I just

 5     want to make clear, those are the numberings that the witness gave to

 6     some unscheduled incidents and they shouldn't be confused with G9 or G10.

 7     Thank you.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, the Chamber is aware of that point.  Thank you.

 9     We will take a break for half an hour and resume at seven past 11.00.

10                           --- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.

11                           --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Dr. Subotic, before I move on to your next report I have a couple

16     of brief questions for you.  The precision that you just talked about,

17     would it have been possible without the firing tables being used for the

18     fuel that was used in this case?

19        A.   Are you referring to the complete projectile equipped with rocket

20     engines?

21        Q.   Yes.  What is their significance?  Would this kind of precision

22     be achieved without firing tables?

23        A.   In my view, this is impossible, absolutely impossible.

24        Q.   Did you know Pretis as a military factory?  Did it have any

25     software capabilities to conduct ballistics calculations; and if it did,

Page 38232

 1     how were these firing tables designed?

 2        A.   I co-operated with Pretis before the war.  They did have

 3     software.  They had a development department.  My colleague Zecevic was a

 4     staff member there.  According to my information, Professor Jankovic in

 5     Zagreb sold them the ballistics software.  I know that because I was

 6     offered to co-operate on the software applications.  They obviously had

 7     very good software and I'm sure that they had professionals who could use

 8     it, although I can't be sure of that.

 9        Q.   Did Pretis have its own firing ranges in Bosnia-Herzegovina or in

10     Republika Srpska during the war?  Are you aware of some of them?

11        A.   It had its factory firing range, but it was used for testing the

12     function and not the external ballistics conditions.  There was also a

13     firing range in Kalinovik.  I was there.  I tested some of the assets to

14     design firing tables.  I'm not personally aware of any other firing

15     ranges in that area.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Do you know if Pretis used certain other institutions

17     in Serbia to design new firing tables and to test assets, both old and

18     new?

19        A.   I apologise.  Are you referring to the same period of time or in

20     general terms?

21        Q.   Before the war and during the war.

22        A.   Yes.  There were such institutions and there were -- there are

23     documents that we have had at our disposal to come up with our study.  I

24     know that assets were tested in --

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Can the witness repeat the name of the place,

Page 38233

 1     the last word she said.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   You said Nikica?

 4        A.   Yes, Nikica is one of the firing ranges of the technical

 5     institute in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.  It was the only

 6     institution that could check the quality of military products.  One of

 7     the firing ranges was in Prevlaka, the third one was in Kalinovik, the

 8     fourth in Macedonia, and so on and so forth.  There was a special

 9     institution called VOC which was an institution to test aircraft and

10     air-borne assets.

11        Q.   Thank you, Dr. Subotic.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could 1D7900 be admitted?  This is

13     Dr. Subotic's report on modified air bombs.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Ms. Gustafson.

15             MS. GUSTAFSON:  No objection.  Thank you.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we'll receive it.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D3540, Your Honours.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19             And now I would like to call up 1D7903 in e-court.  This is an

20     expert report on the impact of mortar shells in the Sarajevo zone.

21             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Dr. Subotic, is this the first page of your expert report on the

23     effects of mortar shells or projectiles in the area of Sarajevo?

24        A.   I suppose so -- yes, yes.  I have an electronic version which is

25     difficult to read.  Before we start, I have a request, if I may.

Page 38234

 1     Yesterday we agreed that I would dictate the corrections before we deal

 2     with the document itself, so I think this would be an appropriate time to

 3     deal with the areas in this document.

 4        Q.   Thank you very much.  If there are such mistakes, this is a good

 5     time to correct them.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, I do not see the word "effect" on this

 7     page.

 8             What's the title of your expert report, Dr. Subotic?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Expert analysis for the Defence,

10     mortar operations in Sarajevo area in 1992 - 1995."

11             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.

12             Please continue.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, this is our problem with the

14     interpretation and translation.  I'm not even sure that "operations" is

15     the best word for something that I think would be "actions."

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   In any case, Doctor, could you please dictate the list of

18     mistakes, give us the pages, or perhaps paragraphs.

19        A.   This is why I've opened the document, in order to be able to see

20     the paragraph numbers --

21             JUDGE KWON:  Now please continue.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first correction would be in

23     paragraph 8, footnote 46.  At the end of the footnote it said "drafted

24     by."  This should be deleted.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 38235

 1        Q.   46, let's see if we have the same footnote in English.

 2        A.   It has to be the same.

 3        Q.   [In English] "... the person who made and the date when it was

 4     made."  In English there is no mistake, that is in Serbian, I suppose.

 5             [Interpretation] We made this correction in the Serbian.  Go on,

 6     the next paragraph, please.

 7        A.   The next paragraph is on page -- please bear with me, it is

 8     paragraph 10 where it says based on what we have shown previously it is

 9     beyond any doubt.  Now, this, "beyond any doubt" has to be deleted.

10        Q.   I apologise, I don't have that, based on the evidence presented

11     above, it is beyond any doubt that the crater photographed ...

12        A.   We need to delete "beyond any doubt."  That's what I have in my

13     copy and this should be deleted.  The next one is paragraph 15 and it is

14     a table --

15             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Do we have it on the same page --

16     I'm comparing the B/C/S page and the English page.  Apparently they are

17     different.

18             Yes, Ms. Gustafson.

19             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I think I found the language on page 13 of the

20     English, paragraph 10 goes on for a number of pages.  I think it's at the

21     top of page 13, first full paragraph.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The last paragraph.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Where do you have that language?

24             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Well, it says -- in the English it has been

25     translated "... it is undoubted that ...," so it is the first full

Page 38236

 1     paragraph on page 13.  "Based on the evidence presented above, it is

 2     undoubted that ..."

 3             I think that is what the witness is referring to.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Could you please help us, what needs to be --

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  And the English translation does not

 7     contain the figures; is it the case?

 8             Mr. Karadzic?

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe that the only mistake

10     arises from Dr. Subotic's copy.  I can't see that mistake in either

11     English or Serbian.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I be of assistance?  I

13     apologise.  It is quite possible that Dr. Karadzic is right.  We're

14     talking about a line four above paragraph 10, the last four lines in

15     paragraph 10 -- I apologise.  Paragraph 9.  Paragraph 10 follows

16     paragraph 9 and we're talking about the last four lines of paragraph 9,

17     the fourth line from the bottom.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Yes, yes.  It says here "beyond any doubt," and that, "beyond any

20     doubt," has to be deleted; right?

21        A.   Yes.

22        Q.   Page 10, the last paragraph:

23             [In English] "The information presented above shows beyond any

24     doubt that the shape and dimensions of the marks left by the

25     explosion ..."

Page 38237

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  Very well.  Please continue.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Paragraph 15, table 4, line 2,

 3     column 1, it says "82-millimetres, M72."  It should be "82-millimetres,

 4     M74."

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Thank you.  So this is the second line in that table?

 7        A.   Yes, it is the second line, the first column.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Go on, please.

 9        A.   Yes, paragraph 16, the second passage, "according to my opinion"

10     remains ambiguous.  It seems to me that it should be replaced by a

11     different wording to provide for clarity.  The second passage in

12     paragraph 16 where it says:

13             "The shell must become embedded in the ground when it is

14     fired ... with either charge 4 or charge 5.  In any case, shells fired

15     using charges 4 through 6 must become embedded in the ground and remain

16     at the point of impact.

17        Q.   It says "or" here and you said "and."

18        A.   It is "or," not "and."

19        Q.   What would you change?

20        A.   Instead of that wording, I would use the following wording:

21             "The stabiliser has to become embedded in the ground when a shell

22     is fired with either charge 4 or charge 5.  In any case, if a shell was

23     fired using charges 4 through 6, its stabiliser must become embedded in

24     the ground or remain at the point of impact."

25        Q.   Go on, please.

Page 38238

 1        A.   Paragraph 68, line 3 from the bottom of the first passage.  In

 2     front of footnote 257, I believe, it says "south-east" and it should read

 3     "south-west."

 4        Q.   What is the footnote number?

 5        A.   I apologise --

 6             JUDGE KWON:  257.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- it's the third line from the

 8     bottom of that passage and the footnote number is 257, yes.  In front of

 9     it we can read "south-east" and it should read "south-west."

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   In my footnote there are no sides of the world in the footnote.

12        A.   We are not talking about the footnote itself, but I am just

13     trying to point you to the -- point to the text where there is an error,

14     and that is in front of the footnote.

15        Q.   The next correction, please.

16        A.   The next correction, please bear with me, the paragraph started

17     on the previous page.  It's paragraph 74 and subparagraph (b), the

18     incoming direction or trajectory.

19        Q.   Page 56 in English.

20        A.   Again, it says "south-east," but it should be "south-west."

21        Q.   Next page in English.  What line, Doctor, can you be of

22     assistance?

23        A.   In the Serbian version it is the end of line 11 and the beginning

24     of line 12 where it says in Klare Cetkin Street from number 4 to the

25     Institute for the Blind corresponds to the direction "south-east,"

Page 38239

 1     whereas it should be "south-west."

 2             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the accused please be asked not to

 3     overlap.  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, did you hear the request from the

 5     interpreters.

 6             THE ACCUSED:  Yeah, okay, I will try to be more careful.  In line

 7     from the top "blind corresponds to the south-east" should be

 8     "south-west."

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Did you find it, Ms. Gustafson?  Where is it?

10             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Yes, I agree with Dr. Karadzic, it appears to be

11     eight lines down from the top of page 57 in the English.  The middle of

12     the line says "south-east."

13             JUDGE KWON:  But it's -- the paragraph number is wrong, it's

14     paragraph 75.

15             MS. GUSTAFSON:  I think it's paragraph 75(b).

16             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Thank you.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 75(b), yes.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   The next correction, Doctor, please.

20        A.   162.  Below paragraph 113 there remained a designation, 75, which

21     should be deleted.  That's the beginning of the third passage of that

22     paragraph.

23        Q.   I see the last passage in that number 75.

24        A.   Yes, it's just there without any purpose, really, it's not a

25     paragraph.

Page 38240

 1        Q.   The error does not exist in English.  It's just a typographical

 2     error.

 3        A.   Right.  Paragraph 105, the caption beneath figure 97, the second

 4     line, at the end it says "in image 89," whereas it should read "in image

 5     96."

 6        Q.   English page 81.  I think we have it.  It's the first paragraph,

 7     penultimate line [In English] "Figure 89" should be "96," right.

 8     [Interpretation] Thank you.

 9        A.   And the caption beneath the image, it says "image 97, the window

10     from figure 107," and it should read "96," in fact.  It's in the same

11     place on the same page.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Since the English page -- version does not contain

13     the actual figures, it's very difficult to follow.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see figure 97 in English and

15     Serbian.  This was translated by the service and I wonder that they would

16     not have transcribed paragraph numbers.

17             Can we have the next page in Serbian and in English.

18             JUDGE KWON:  In English we have "figure 97."

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But it's not been pasted.  There's

20     just the headline.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  This is the text or the

22     caption that is within the same frame as the image.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   But there is no image in the English version?

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we ask the service to correct

Page 38241

 1     its errors, to mark the paragraphs properly and to paste the image where

 2     it reads "image 97" or "figure 97"?  At any rate, can this be revised?

 3             JUDGE KWON:  I think it is for you to send a request to the

 4     proper unit, whatever.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.  We will.  But we have

 6     no control over the services of the Registry and this is one of them.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  No, it is not correct.  We'll come to that issue,

 8     but please continue.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Sorry, can you tell us again what is supposed to be replaced

11     here, "the window from figure 7"?

12        A.   A moment, please.  The text which is part of figure 97 should

13     read, or rather, it read:  "The window from figure 7 taken on the

14     18th of September, 2010."  Or "photographed on the

15     18th of September, 2010."  Now, this text should read as follows:

16             "The window from figure 97 photographed on 18th September 2010."

17        Q.   Is there anything else?

18        A.   Yes, above paragraph 108 there is figure 101.  It reads "1001" in

19     the report, whereas --

20             JUDGE KWON:  Let's go back to figure 97 which we have in front of

21     us now.  We are talking about figure 97, but you are telling us that the

22     caption should read:  "The window shown from figure 97 ...," are you

23     referring to the same number?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The window shown from figure 96,

25     photographed, et cetera.  Because you have the same photograph from the

Page 38242

 1     photo documentation in figure 96.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, probably --

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was compared then and now.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Probably there was a mistranslation, yes, 96.  Thank

 5     you.  Please continue.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The next correction is a

 7     typographical error, but nevertheless above paragraph 108 there is figure

 8     101.  It reads "figure 1001," whereas it should read "figure 101."

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Thank you.  Still, no images in the English version.  At any

11     rate, "1001" should be changed into "101."  Anything else?

12        A.   Let me just find the paragraph.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Can we see paragraph 109 in both versions.  Previous

14     page for the B/C/S.  Oh, yes --

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The next in B/C/S.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, please continue.  Fine.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my copy it's page 164, but I

18     will look at what the paragraph is.  I think it's paragraph 113,

19     sub-item (b).  "Incoming trajectory" is the title.  It's the same

20     correction we had in that other section.  In the conclusion it says, "In

21     the south-easterly direction," whereas it should read "in the

22     south-westerly direction," and it's the end of line 11 in Serbian.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Line 13 in English.  Thank you.  Anything else?

25        A.   I think that I have made a note of one in the same correction

Page 38243

 1     twice.  My apologies.  I think there is something else.  Paragraph 68,

 2     the third line from the bottom of the first paragraph, it reads:

 3             "The Institute for the Blind corresponds to the south-easterly

 4     direction," whereas again it should read "south-westerly."

 5        Q.   I think that we marked that.  It was 257.

 6        A.   Really?  Yes, indeed.  I apologise.  That would be all.  I seem

 7     to have duplicated some of the corrections.

 8        Q.   Thank you very much.  Doctor, can you help us introduce this

 9     report of yours as per various incidents.  A courtesy of the

10     Trial Chamber, your opinion in respect of incident 11 was left in the

11     report even though the incident itself was taken out of the indictment --

12             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

13             Yes, Doctor, you raised your hand.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I -- my hand got -- touched the

15     microphone, so I was adjusting it merely.  I apologise.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Incident 1, not 11.  Incident 1 was taken out of the indictment,

19     but the Chamber found that there were reasons for it to remain in the

20     report.  Can you tell us, therefore, in the briefest of terms --

21             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

22             Yes, Ms. Gustafson.

23             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Sorry.  I'd just like to prevent this error about

24     G1 to get embedded in the record, as we've made clear on several

25     occasions.  The incident that is described as G1 in this report, the

Page 38244

 1     shelling on Vase Miskin Street, is not G1 as pleaded in the indictment.

 2     We've made this clear in our filings, and I'd ask Dr. Karadzic not to

 3     refer to it any longer as G1.  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  I was looking at real G1 incident that took

 5     place on the 28th of May, 1992, but this is totally different one.

 6             Do you follow, Mr. Karadzic?

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.  The Vase Miskina happened on

 8     the 27th of May, and I see that in the report it's marked as G1 and it

 9     happened on the 27th of May.  At any rate, we will be modifying it as we

10     go through it.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   The first incident that you addressed in your report is

13     incident 1, as marked in your report.  Can you tell us what your

14     conclusions were on the basis of the physical evidence retrieved there

15     and what is the significance of the incident?

16        A.   Based on the physical trace evidence retrieved at the site and

17     based on the position of the incident and in view of the capabilities of

18     the weapon itself, and the documentation drafted by the CSB in two sets,

19     one of which was shortly after the on-site investigation and the other

20     after the clearing up was conducted and as a result of a personal visit

21     to the incident site and the information we gathered, it was concluded

22     that at this incident site an 82-millimetre shell exploded fired from a

23     distance of between 100 and 120 metres from the incident site along the

24     trajectory that was determined by the CSB and that we agreed with.  It

25     was a direction that was quite normal in relation to Vase Miskina Street.

Page 38245

 1     We concluded that the sniper fire that was recorded in a TV footage

 2     filmed during the evacuation of those injured had to have come from a

 3     close proximity because the positions of the BH army were -- because the

 4     positions were 1700 or 1800 metres away --

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Can the witness repeat the positions of which

 6     side.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

 8             Could you repeat which side it was?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't understand the question.

10             JUDGE KWON:  The position -- you said positions were 1.700 or

11     1800 metres away and where?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A moment, please.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Serbian positions is what wasn't recorded.

15        A.   The positions of the VRS were 1.700 or 1.800 metres away and it

16     can be seen in an image that it's a -- a road is there and the Serb

17     positions never changed.  It's image 19 where this trajectory was

18     provided.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have image 19, please.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And this point was given, the

21     Lukavica road, where the positions were located, and it was the only

22     place from which this area could have been targeted and that place was

23     1700 or 1800 metres away because the Serb positions never came closer

24     from that place where the Lukavica-Pale road was.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 38246

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell us what was the angle, what the angle of

 2     descent had to be and could it have been achieved from such a distance?

 3        A.   This is a distance from which one could not fire infantry weapons

 4     and anticipate where it would hit.  That would be high angles of descent.

 5     So no one using infantry weapons would not use it outside its range of

 6     efficiency.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Would you recommend any other image of the pavement

 8     or something else that you included in the report?  We will not dwell on

 9     this incident much longer, but is there anything that you would

10     recommend, something that is striking when it comes to conclusions that

11     can be drawn?

12        A.   Well, we dealed quite in detail with all of this here, everything

13     is noted in the report.  What we used as the main reason for a detailed

14     analysis is that the photograph made by the CSB included in their photo

15     file is the photo file compiled by the investigating judge and the

16     situation that we found on the ground when we visited it fully

17     corresponds, the shape of the crater, its position, its dimensions,

18     everything is the same.  Why did we wish to compare because of the video

19     shot by the reporter Roger Richards who filmed the same crater and it's

20     much smaller beyond comparison, if compared to the image that we found in

21     the documents.  We then established that his crater corresponds with two

22     stills from a video filmed on the day of the incident before the clearing

23     up.  The two craters correspond completely.  And we also established on

24     the spot that that part of the pavement - it's not really a pavement but

25     it's a pedestrian zone - that is the location where the changed crater

Page 38247

 1     is, the paving slabs around the crater in its vicinity have been changed.

 2     And we've shown that -- we depict that in image number 14.  We could

 3     establish the angle of descent on the basis of these images, and on the

 4     basis of that we then determined the distance.  Perhaps it's something

 5     that should be noted here and now, attention should be drawn to it.  In

 6     this image, number 14, it can be clearly seen.

 7        Q.   Could we please see image 14.  Yes, we have it on the screen now.

 8        A.   No, we don't.

 9        Q.   It's on top of the page.

10        A.   That's not image 14.

11        Q.   It's 14a; correct?

12        A.   Yes.  We need one image earlier, one before that.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please show the previous

14     image, please.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Can you please briefly comment on the reeds and tell us what the

17     difference is.  We can see that here the point of impact is in the middle

18     of one of the tiles and here it is moved?

19        A.   Yes, when you compare this to images, we shifted it to an angle

20     deliberately the one from the photo file so that we could follow the

21     tiles.  And you can see that the crater is firstly different in terms of

22     dimensions, the left one is practically all -- or rather, not

23     practically, but the crater remains within one tile or slab which is

24     40 by 40 centimetres.  It's only the reed that insignificantly covers

25     another slab, whereas the other one covers one and a half tiles or slabs

Page 38248

 1     by its dimensions.  So the dimensions are quite different.  And the other

 2     reed, the second reed reaches up to the end of the next slab so that the

 3     difference is really indicative from this.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Did you take into account the other data about the

 5     presence of the media, the information and reports from the media, the

 6     statements, and what can be concluded on that basis?

 7        A.   We took into account in our analysis everything that we had at

 8     our disposal, whatever we could find that was linked with this incident.

 9     So as you will see yourself in the analysis, let me not go into details

10     here.  Whatever we had, we presented it and it is up to the Chamber's

11     discretion to add any value to any of that.  We presented everything and

12     one can have a sort of general picture.  One thing that is noticeable is

13     that the incident has some similarities with the incident which occurred

14     at Markale, which means that the media were immediately present at the

15     site and also that during the evacuation there was sniper fire and simply

16     one could not fail to observe this similarity.

17        Q.   Thank you.  I would now draw your attention to G4, and later on

18     with the Chamber I will request a clarification.  How is the Defence to

19     deal with G1 which took place on the 28th and the incident did not happen

20     and is not sufficiently explained, and similarly G2 on the 6th of June.

21     This is something fluid and not sufficiently precise for the Defence to

22     deal with them.

23             And as for you, Doctor, I would draw your attention to the

24     1st of June, 1993.  What did you establish about this incident?

25        A.   This incident is elaborated in small detail in the report because

Page 38249

 1     in my view it is, first of all, such that there is a deviation during the

 2     technical on-site investigation, but let me not dwell on that.  What is

 3     characteristic about this incident is that the first investigation that

 4     was conducted, if we do not take into account the fact that one UNPROFOR

 5     member visited the site, was conducted two years after the incident.

 6             During the first investigation which the CSB conducted two years

 7     after the event at a location which was claimed to be the incident site,

 8     at the football-pitch the traces of one shell were found, and that is

 9     covered in the technical report produced by the CSB.  We discussed that

10     with Mr. Sabljica who was in charge of the investigation and he did not

11     have any explanation about the lack of traces of the second shell.  The

12     investigation took place in 1995 and in 2001 two traces were found in

13     this location.  The two traces were examined by Mr. Higgs and by UNPROFOR

14     members and Mr. Barry Hogan also photographed it, so that the appearance

15     of the second crater at the football-pitch has not been explained to

16     date.

17             Another interesting aspect of this event is this:  We established

18     that there was no football-match being played at the parking as was

19     claimed, but that they rather played it at the indoor football ground

20     which is located next to the football-pitch.  Mr. Fazlic mentions these

21     details in Mr. Hogan's video in detail.  We established, first of all,

22     that his testimony does not correspond; and next, that it was an indoor

23     football-match.  And we concluded that it was the indoor football ground

24     right next to the parking where the incident took place.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have image 38,

Page 38250

 1     that's the end of paragraph 47.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   And if you could explain what you had in mind there.  38.  Next

 4     image, please.

 5        A.   Perhaps I can comment on this image, too, so that we don't have

 6     to return to it.  This image depicted the measurements of the incoming

 7     trajectory and we'll return to that because now that we have this image

 8     it's precisely what I was telling you about.  Up here is the small

 9     plateau and down here is the parking-lot where it was claimed that the

10     football-match took place.  And that was where the incident had occurred.

11     However, we have shown in our report and opinion that actually the

12     football-match was played up there right next to the parking-lot where

13     you can see the pitch for five-a-side football.  You can see the goals

14     that was photographed first by Mr. Barry Hogan.  You can see the

15     five-a-side football goals.  Everything else indicates that that was

16     where the football-match took place, rather than down at the parking-lot

17     where the on-site investigation was conducted and where it was claimed

18     that the incident had happened.  When I say "claimed," I refer to witness

19     statements.

20        Q.   Can we see, please, image 29 and then we'll return to image 38.

21     So image 29 is the one we would need now.  That's the end of

22     paragraph 36.  What does this image depict?  This is from the TV news of

23     the BH television?

24        A.   It is here because it follows the testimony of Mr. Fazlic.

25     Because one can see here that actually there is a small goal here, a

Page 38251

 1     five-a-side football goal, in front of the blue car so that's a football

 2     played with small goals, which was not the game judging by what he said.

 3     This is a different category, the five-a-side football.  We can see only

 4     one trace of blood here which was filmed by the TV crew and probably it

 5     was caused by a shell, which according to witness testimonies landed on

 6     the previous day and hit a boy -- I mean the trace of blood could not be

 7     like this if it was produced by the two shells, and according to witness

 8     testimonies and judging by the number of injured persons.  That's all.

 9     Because here you cannot really have a good impression.  The following

10     moment shows, the following frame shows the entire area and one can see

11     that it is the only trace.

12        Q.   What photograph would that be?

13        A.   Excuse me?

14        Q.   We do not have the photograph showing this next frame and showing

15     the entire parking-lot.

16        A.   No, but the film, the video, is available so it can be extracted,

17     no problem at all.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please show the witness

19     image 37 now, please, so you can explain to us what the investigators are

20     doing.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Image 37 is something that took

22     place later.  After we talked to Mr. Sabljica we received it from --

23     actually, the Prosecution received it from the CSB and thanks to their

24     courtesy we received it.  It shows the measuring of the incoming

25     trajectory by using the central axis in 1995 and its trajectory that we

Page 38252

 1     do not accept and do not agree with.  Because judging by what we found on

 2     the ground, the traces of the impact do not match the trajectory which

 3     they establish.  When we looked at this image a little bit more closely,

 4     we could see that the compass here is at the right fork rather than the

 5     central one when you look at this.  And when we look at this -- when we

 6     looked at this on the ground, then we decided that they registered the

 7     incoming trajectory which is photographed here and they made a

 8     corresponding error with the -- with regard to the incoming trajectory

 9     because the compass is located on a wrong stick.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Thank you.  I would draw the participants' attention to image 38

12     which depicts the whole parking-lot as mentioned recently by the witness.

13        A.   No, it's the same as --

14        Q.   28, 28.  Can you tell us what would be the reason for the

15     investigation to be conducted two years after the incident and how did

16     that affect the accuracy of the investigation findings?

17        A.   Well, the investigation was obviously conducted at someone's

18     request because I don't understand how it could be conducted two years

19     after the event unless someone requested it.  That's the first part of

20     the answer to the first part of your question.  As for the second part of

21     your question, everyone present here knows that no investigation is

22     conducted before -- I mean, two years later because the situation on the

23     incident site had changed.  It could happen accidentally or forensic

24     technicians like to say that the space becomes contaminated.  The traces

25     are jeopardised, the ones that -- that exist at the site and which are

Page 38253

 1     crucial if we are to establish the exact factual situation.  So the data

 2     showed later on that there were some strange results here starting from

 3     another trace which appeared and which were nowhere to be found in 1995.

 4     And as I say, there was just one investigation which was conducted by the

 5     UNPROFOR but its results are not applicable because they are located

 6     200 metres away.  So they cannot apply them and see where the error is.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  In your report you mention that that match that was

 8     played was part of some religious festivities, al-Fitr festivities.  Did

 9     you have any documents to that effect?

10        A.   Of course.  The documents are all referred to.  There is an order

11     to organise those festivities.  There are persons who were in charge of

12     organising that football-match.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Shall we move on?  I'm not sure if

14     it comes from Doctor's expertise.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is a reference to that in the

16     Doctor's expertise, Your Excellency.  I agree that this has nothing to do

17     with ballistics, but it is mentioned that the Doctor and her team did

18     come across documents covering the issue of festivities and

19     football-matches.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.  May I say something

21     with this regard?

22             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First and foremost, we paid

24     attention to that because the main witness of this incident changed his

25     evidence over time.  We concluded that by reading his statement he

Page 38254

 1     provided in various cases and in various situations.  It was Mr. Fazlic

 2     who also participated in the recording of Mr. Barry Hogan's film and

 3     nothing matches nothing else in that film.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Chamber is of the view that this kind of evidence is

 7     outside of expertise.  So please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is correct that it goes beyond

 9     the ballistics expertise, which is why I will leave that topic aside.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Doctor, can we now look at incident G5?

12        A.   Of course.

13        Q.   It starts with paragraph 49.  The incident happened on the

14     12th of July, 1993.  It involved water queue in Spasenije Cane Babovic

15     Street.  What did the physical evidence show in this case?  I would also

16     like to call up figure 41.  Let us move on along the text and let's show

17     figure 41, which is at the end of paragraph 55.

18        A.   This incident occurred in Spasenije Cane Babovic Street.  The

19     position of that street is depicted in figure 43 in Google Earth.  We'll

20     come back to that later.  A shell exploded, an 82-millimetre shell, I

21     believe.  According to the investigators, it exploded on the body of a

22     victim.  Figure 41 depicts that body.  The body is covered and it is

23     right to the investigator and to the Skoda car depicted in the figure.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] For the benefit of the other

25     participants, can the photo be zoomed in across the whole screen.

Page 38255

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2             Go on, Doctor.

 3        A.   We all agree on that.  We believe that the projectile was

 4     activated on the victim's body and that body is on the right-hand side of

 5     the image, to the right of the investigator and the damaged Skoda.  The

 6     investigator established that the shell had arrived over the house on the

 7     right-hand side which you can't see very well in this image, the house

 8     that is behind the fence.  However, the physical evidence on the pavement

 9     and the physical evidence on the car indicate that that was actually not

10     the case.  We analysed all of the traces one by one and we established

11     what the trajectory of that shell was, the incoming trajectory, that is.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Could we now look at image 43 which is part of

13     paragraph 60.

14        A.   Yes.  This is the position of Spasenije Cane Babovic Street and

15     the physical evidence that can be seen and that are described in great

16     detail in this expert report show that the shell had come at an angle

17     of -- at of less than 90 degrees in the direction of that street depicted

18     in the photo.  And you can see that also in another figure, figure 52.

19     When we were there, we marked the traces and we also used the measuring

20     tape to make things as clear as possible.  Figure 52 shows what I have

21     just described.  The trajectory, as you can see, is depicted in the image

22     on the right-hand side at an angle that is certainly less than 90 degrees

23     from the top of the image to the bottom.

24        Q.   Can we now first look at figure 46 and invite your comment.

25        A.   Figure 46 is one photo from the photo documentation.  We used

Page 38256

 1     white circles to mark the traces on the asphalt that had been created on

 2     impact.  They are typical of an explosion that happened mid-air and not

 3     on the ground.  Their form shows the incoming trajectory quite clearly

 4     and this is marked by line 4.  Another thing that confirms the trajectory

 5     of the mine or the shell are the damages on the Skoda car that you can

 6     see.  And you can see that the blast -- and if we are talking about

 7     Skoda, so the shock wave went from the left to the right, from the bottom

 8     to the top, and the deformation on the Skoda show it clearly.  On the

 9     right flank you have the deformation of the metal that shows the height

10     at which the shell exploded.  We took a photo of a similar Skoda and at

11     the height of 65 centimetres is where that shell exploded.

12        Q.   You're talking about figure 47?

13        A.   No, figure 46.  It is on the screen -- I apologise.  Figure 47

14     where you can see the 65 centimetres.  Obviously we couldn't do it on

15     this photo, we could not measure things on this photo because the Skoda

16     was too damaged.

17        Q.   It says a similar or the same Skoda?

18        A.   It's the same model of a Skoda car.  It's the same Skoda but not

19     the same car, actually.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Please continue and tell us what is the allegation

21     which would charge myself or us -- what is alleged as the trajectory of

22     the shell, what houses in question?

23        A.   We can see the house ever so slightly behind the fence and behind

24     the gate.  Maybe there is another photo that depicts this alleged house

25     better.

Page 38257

 1        Q.   Perhaps 48.

 2        A.   Yes, it is the same photo that could be seen in 47; however, what

 3     we did here is a representation - and I'm pointing you to the red marks

 4     and the direction marked by number 5 as well as the traces marked by

 5     number 6 - this is the hypothetical trajectory determined by the

 6     investigators and described in their documents.  If that shell had

 7     arrived across the house as they claim then the traces would have to be

 8     found in the place of our red marks but they are not there.  You can see

 9     where they are.  We encircled the real traces at the site of the

10     deformation, and we also showed what the deformation on the Skoda should

11     look like if the shell had arrived from the direction that they had

12     allegedly determined.  This picture shows everything.

13        Q.   Can we scroll up a little.  Let's see how you obtained this

14     figure.

15        A.   It is a mirror image because the angle is 90 per cent or less.

16     If the shell had landed from the side across the house and the fence,

17     then the biggest deformation would be at number 1.  It would go from the

18     right to the left, from the top to the bottom, and this is what it would

19     look like.  In order to make things clear, we showed what kind of

20     deformation this car would have had to suffer if the direction or the

21     incoming trajectory was as they claim it was.

22        Q.   Can you please read the caption under 49.

23        A.   Figure 49, it says, "fence in the lower right-hand side" and

24     the -- and arrow, the pointed arrow, points in the direction of fence and

25     the caption below the photo.

Page 38258

 1        Q.   Where would the fence be if it was there?

 2        A.   Yes, where the fence would be in that position.  All this is a

 3     hypothetical representation of the situation as it should have been in

 4     case the shell had flown over that house and if that trajectory was as

 5     the investigators claim it was.

 6        Q.   Thank you.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  So it's not a real picture, but rather produced by

 8     you hypothetically using the existing photo?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.  The real photo is

10     at number 48 and it confirms the trajectory as marked by number 4.  And

11     this photo, number 49, is just an illustration of the situation as it

12     should be as opposed to what was -- it was alleged as it had been.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   And the real fence, where would it be with regard to this mirror

15     image?

16        A.   It should be in the direction of the pointed arrow on the

17     right-hand side.  The car is positioned in that way that its position

18     could not be changed.  Do you see what I mean?  The car was where it was,

19     and around it there are real deformations and the real deformations

20     indicate that the trajectory is in the direction of number 4.  The

21     deformations on the car and the traces on the ground confirm that.  The

22     car has to be in its place so as to allow us to discuss what the

23     investigators claim.  It is in the same place, but the deformations would

24     have to be totally different.  The fence is in the same place as it is in

25     figure 48.  Did I make myself clear at all?  Do you understand what I'm

Page 38259

 1     saying?

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Can I now ask you to --

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Can we go back to figure or image 46.  No, shall we

 4     show the paragraph above the picture as well, let's zoom out a little bit

 5     further.  Here I rely on the English translation, I think you explained

 6     what yellow line number 4 means.  Collapse the English and leave it as it

 7     is, but I can't find the explanation as to number 1, 2, and 3.  Did you

 8     touch -- did you mention -- did you touch upon it, meaning of number 1,

 9     2, 3, and the meaning of arrows in your report?  Otherwise, I'd like you

10     to explain it here.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it's a bit lower, where it

12     says figure 40 [as interpreted] shows that the left rear end of the car,

13     this is the text immediately after figure 46 under (e), we start with the

14     damage to the Skoda car after a detailed analysis --

15             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, I found it.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And then you have the --

17             JUDGE KWON:  I found it.  Thank you.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- direction 1, and so on and so

19     forth.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, shall we move to

22     the next incident or is this a good time for our next break?

23             JUDGE KWON:  We'll have a break.  We'll have a break for

24     45 minutes and resume at quarter past 1.00.

25                           --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.29 p.m.

Page 38260

 1                           --- On resuming at 1.19 p.m.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Doctor, can we now focus our attention on the incident of the

 6     22nd of January, 1994, at Alipasino Polje.  Do you have it there within

 7     reach?  I think it's G6.

 8        A.   Yes, I have it.

 9        Q.   Can you tell us briefly what the most significant points are and

10     what does the physical evidence point to as the most telling in that

11     incident?

12        A.   There were different findings produced by the security service

13     and the forensic examinators.  They could not agree on the issue of which

14     shell impacted there.  There was also the investigation conducted by

15     Mr. Verdy, a member of UNPROFOR, who also provided his findings.  Based

16     on the evidence found at the impact site and based on the elements noted

17     in the documentation and the photo documentation we had to establish,

18     first of all, what the shells were which landed there and from which

19     direction.  We established that three 120 shells exploded there and that

20     there were no technical elements that would warrant the conclusion that

21     82-millimetre shells exploded there.  We were lucky enough in that as we

22     toured the scene we were able to establish at Klare Cetkina Street number

23     4 that there was a presence of trace evidence and through the central

24     axis method we were able to establish the incoming trajectory.

25        Q.   Would that be image 54 that would depict that or at some other?

Page 38261

 1        A.   Well, yes, 54 is fine as well as 55.  In image 54 you can see

 2     elements of the central crater and you can see that fragmentation

 3     shrapnel was present there.  The CSB was also able to establish that, and

 4     it was on this basis that we established that it was 120-millimetre shell

 5     rather than 82-millimetre.

 6        Q.   The CSB thought that the traces would be scattered about a metre

 7     from the centre of the crater and you established that it was --

 8        A.   We established that it was more than 3 metres, and it was on this

 9     basis that we established that the crater must have been the result of

10     120-millimetre shell impacting rather than 82-millimetre.

11        Q.   [In English] "That you were able to" [no interpretation] "that

12     the CSB was also able to establish that and it was on this basis, but the

13     CSB established 1 and a half metres."

14             [Interpretation] In line 13 this should be reflected and it's not

15     there.  So do you confirm this?

16        A.   Yes, yes.  It can't be seen, or rather, it can be seen that the

17     traces reach as far as 3 metres from the centre of crater.

18        Q.   Can you tell us if something was changed at the impact site?

19        A.   Well, obviously flagstone was included in the curb there,

20     although the situation as it is now allowed us to measure what the radius

21     was, or rather, what the diameter was.

22        Q.   And with regard to the trajectory, can we look at image 55 and

23     see what the conclusions there were?

24        A.   Perhaps figure 56 would be more helpful in that respect.

25     Figure 55 shows only the method whereby the central crater was measured

Page 38262

 1     and what the pattern was, whereas in figure 56 we can see the incoming

 2     trajectory.  It was established on our part that it was 237 degrees

 3     through the application of the central axis method.

 4        Q.   Which figure is that?

 5        A.   Figure 56.

 6        Q.   So it's the next page.  [In English] Yeah, that's right.  Thank

 7     you.

 8        A.   Our tape indicates the central axis and the angle of descent.  We

 9     established it by establishing the azimuth of the building which can be

10     seen in the background.  It is along the same azimuth.  It seems to me

11     that Mr. Sabljica during his testimony agreed that this was accurately

12     presented when looking at our work.  On the point of impact of the second

13     shell which impacted on the carriageway, unfortunately we could not

14     retrieve any physical trace evidence because a new layer of asphalt was

15     laid.

16        Q.   Sorry, is this image 58?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Can it be shown, please.  Carry on.

19        A.   On the right-hand side the point of impact of the shell can be

20     seen.  This is a photograph taken from the photo file and it can be found

21     in the documentation given by the forensic examiner, the one above.  It

22     has a scale as well.  It is pretty unclear, but one can conclude that

23     it's a crater of the size of between 70 and 90 centimetres.  We checked

24     it by comparing it against the manhole that can be seen in the

25     background.  This also casts suspicion on the fact that it was a

Page 38263

 1     82-millimetre shell and that was the reason why we checked it further.

 2     We were lucky enough that Mr. Barry Hogan photographed the area before a

 3     new layer of asphalt was placed, and this can be seen on figures 59 and

 4     onwards.

 5        Q.   While we're still with this figure, can you tell us where the

 6     pattern -- the spray pattern can be seen in respect of the centre of the

 7     crater, to the left or to the right?

 8        A.   It's an unclear picture but it's definitely to the right, I would

 9     say, based on the photograph.  And I can confirm that it's scattered to

10     the right-hand side by reference to Barry Hogan's photographs.

11        Q.   Can we have the next photograph.

12        A.   Mr. Barry Hogan photographed the area of impact before it was

13     recoated with asphalt, and it can be compared against the manhole cover

14     which we know is about 70 centimetres.  So it must have been the

15     122-millimetre shell [as interpreted], as confirmed by Mr. Barry Hogan in

16     his report.  I think the CSB was confused by the damage to the asphalt

17     and they believed that it was the centre of crater, and as a result,

18     thought it was the result of an 82-millimetre shell.  On the basis of

19     this photograph - and you know that the footage also has the time when it

20     was taken and the various co-ordinates - and by reference to the position

21     of the planets we explained the shadow which can be seen in figure 61

22     next to that post.  We could establish a central crater and the

23     fragmentation effect.  We marked the pattern and the crack which can be

24     seen in figure 59.  Our central axis is slightly to the left of that

25     crack, and in figure 61 it can be seen that it is almost parallel to the

Page 38264

 1     post there.  It was on this basis that we established that the azimuth of

 2     the sun, or rather, of this here is 240.  And when we compared it to the

 3     results obtained by Captain Verdy the difference in respect of both mines

 4     was in several degrees only.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at figure 61.  First

 6     briefly figure 60 so we can see Mr. Hogan.  And then figure 61.  There we

 7     have it, figure 61.

 8             THE WITNESS:  Yes, this one.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In line 24 it's 120-millimetres,

10     that's what the mine was.  I have an intervention for the transcript.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Carry on, Doctor.

13        A.   When we compared the traces on the ground and the angles we

14     obtained with the angles obtained by Captain Verdy, the differences were

15     only 1 to 2 degrees and we decided to carry on with his measurements

16     because he had, after all, taken them on the ground.  We found that

17     Captain Verdy had recorded the angles of azimuth and had rotated them

18     somewhat in relation to the site of the incident.  Now, how did we

19     establish this ?  Since the shells were obviously fired from the same

20     weapon and this was a conclusion that both Mr. Higgs and ourselves

21     arrived at based on the distance compared to where they landed and the

22     impact dispersion, we established that the two projectiles were fired

23     from the same weapon, these trajectories intersect in one point which is

24     the point where the projectiles were launched.  If we look at the traces

25     on the asphalt and the angles, they would not be consistent and that's

Page 38265

 1     why we agreed that because of the consistency of the angles that he

 2     established and the traces produced by the projectiles, that he had in

 3     fact mistaken the points from where the projectiles were launched when

 4     measuring the angles.

 5        Q.   In line 25 did you say that he took them on the ground shortly

 6     after the event, and I mean Verdy?

 7        A.   Yes.  He investigated the scene shortly after the incident took

 8     place.

 9        Q.   Tell us, is this image 62 that you wanted us to look at or 63?

10        A.   No matter, both images illustrate the same -- well, perhaps we

11     should look at 62 first and then 63 to make this clear.  Image 62

12     indicates the trajectories from the incident site of both shells under

13     the angle of azimuth as established by Mr. Verdy and thoroughly checked

14     by us and the two intersect at 2.237 metres where the IP institute is

15     located which was under the BH army control -- UP institute.

16        Q.   And that is Sokolovic Kolonija; is that right?

17        A.   So it would appear on this Google image.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Can we have image 63.

19        A.   We have the war map of the 14th Division placed side by side with

20     the Google Earth image to indicate that it's the same.

21        Q.   And who claimed that it had arrived from the Institute for the

22     Blind?

23        A.   I think it was the CSB and even UNPROFOR who maintained that.  We

24     were lucky enough to be there, to visit there, before the arrival of

25     certain investigators to testify here, and they confirmed that we had

Page 38266

 1     established these trajectories correctly.

 2        Q.   Could this difference in the trajectory look at -- let's look at

 3     table 5 when it comes to the filling, the charge, and the trajectory.

 4        A.   The differences listed were not coincidental.  There must have

 5     been the adjustment of fire, most certainly.  The two impacts are within

 6     range.  15 metres minus one range error probable and there must have been

 7     an adjustment of fire.

 8             Had the shell been defective in any way and that was the reason

 9     why it deflected, it would most certainly not be able to reach that far.

10     It would have landed earlier.  Technically speaking that would have been

11     impossible.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Under (b) -- it was under (b) that you made your

13     correction south-westerly direction and that's what this image shows;

14     right?

15        A.   Yes.

16             JUDGE KWON:  One moment.  Is the UPI institute the Institute for

17     the Blind?  What's the UPI institute then?

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] United agriculture and industry.

19     It was an agricultural institute or a food industry -- institute.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

21             Do you confirm that, Dr. Subotic ?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, of course.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

24             Please continue.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is definitely not the Institute

Page 38267

 1     for the Blind.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Thank you.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see image 51 for a brief

 5     moment.  It's the previous incident, 5.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Had the shell flown over the house from the direction suggested

 8     by the security centre of Sarajevo, where would one expect to see the

 9     stabiliser which is in this case to the right of the car?

10        A.   If the incident was such as the investigators found and if the

11     shell has come from the direction across the house, the stabiliser would

12     have to be on the other side of the car where the shell was activated on

13     the body of the deceased woman.  It could not have been on this side.

14     Because when the shell is activated, depending on the charge, the

15     stabiliser remains at the spot where the shell was activated.  It is then

16     propelled backwards a little bit -- rather, it continues to fly on in --

17     along the incoming trajectory a little bit, and then it gets stuck in the

18     ground depending on the charge.  So this stabiliser could never be found

19     on this side of the car if the activation of the shell had occurred on

20     the other side of the car.  So the position of the stabiliser which

21     landed in the vicinity nearby tells us that the shell had arrived from

22     this direction.

23        Q.   Thank you.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Could you read out the word that appears at the

25     bottom right of this picture out loud.

Page 38268

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Below the image next to number 51,

 2     is that what you mean?  Oh, that's a marking -- that's the TV agency

 3     which filmed the video because this is a still extracted from a video.

 4     It's one of the TV stations and it says "FIVA."

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Could we now deal with the incident G7 which is the

 9     Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street in Dobrinja.  And the beginning is in

10     paragraph 76, so if we could please now move on to that paragraph in this

11     document.  76.  Actually, we can immediately move one or two pages on to

12     the image or figure 64, and if you can explain to us briefly on this map

13     what is depicted here and then we'll move on to a photograph.

14        A.   This is a section of the map of the city of Sarajevo showing the

15     streets mentioned in the report about this incident, particularly what I

16     have in mind is Hamdija Kapidzica or Dzavarharl Nehrua Street.  Excuse

17     me, it's difficult to pronounce.

18        Q.   It is --

19        A.   It is particularly mentioned here for the reason that -- and that

20     was why we included it here because nothing happened in this street and

21     it's mentioned in documents.  Therefore, we wanted to show it.  You

22     couldn't say it's not far.  But nothing happened there.

23        Q.   And what is the point at which indicating the site of the

24     incident, is it one of the red dots?  Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street?

25        A.   No, the dots are already in the map.  The

Page 38269

 1     Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street is -- the incident site is marked with

 2     number 353 in this, and it's the street going upwards and intersecting

 3     the Mimar Sinana Boulevard.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Can we now please look at figure 65, please.  What

 5     does this photograph depict?

 6        A.   It is a photograph from the photo file where the red arrow around

 7     the middle of the photograph in the left-hand corner shows the impact of

 8     the mine --

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- the impact of the shell on the

11     curb, but this was not investigated by the CSB.  They just marked it and

12     then did not investigate it.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Thank you.  Can anything else be seen in this photograph and

15     what?

16        A.   The trace of earth which helps to determine the direction from

17     which the shell landed.  If you zoom in, you can also see that the CSB

18     officials in the far right-hand corner also marked the incident site in

19     Mihajla Pupina Street.

20        Q.   Could we now please see photograph 69 as it can facilitate things

21     for us so that we can see this.  It is shown the same area from a

22     different angle.  Could you tell us what we can see here.

23        A.   Aha.  Excuse me, I opened the document where the next photograph

24     is.  That's actually the site, the location where the impact of the shell

25     is marked on the previous photograph which has been repaved in the

Page 38270

 1     meantime with a new layer of asphalt.  This is what we photographed in

 2     September 2010, but on the upper photograph you can see what it looked

 3     like when Mr. Barry Hogan made a photograph.

 4        Q.   You mean figure 68?

 5        A.   Yes, yes, yes, yes.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please scroll up on the same

 7     page so that we can see the other photo.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a still from

 9     Mr. Barry Hogan's video.  It's obviously immediately before the corner

10     where the shell landed was repaved.  It's the shell that we discussed in

11     relation to the previous image where it's marked with a red arrow.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Thank you.  What does the CSB conclude, or rather, all the

14     investigations, what conclusions did they yield and on what basis?

15        A.   Well, according to their findings which are included in their

16     reports, they analysed the material physical traces, and on the basis of

17     such traces they concluded that -- rather, concluded where the

18     projectiles had arrived from.  However ...

19        Q.   Could we now please look at paragraph 69(b) because perhaps you

20     could help us there.  What was the basis on which, or rather, was their

21     conclusion correct?

22        A.   Considering the traces that we found in the photo files, we

23     concluded that they did not determine the directions well which can be

24     seen nicely in the photograph which is, or rather, the image which is on

25     the screen now.  This is the sketch of the site and we superimposed onto

Page 38271

 1     it the impact sites of these projectiles which are drawn onto

 2     Google Earth.

 3        Q.   Could we zoom in onto the sketch even more.  And please tell us,

 4     where is the north on the sketch?

 5        A.   You can see it in the left corner of the image; however, north as

 6     marked on the image is turned for 60 degrees which can be seen when we

 7     look at the actual situation and straighten out the street.  Then you can

 8     see how much the image from Google Earth had to be rotated properly

 9     because the actual figure north is marked by the figure N.  So due to

10     this error of 60 degrees they drew erroneous conclusions about the

11     direction from which the shells had arrived.  I think that KDZ166, the

12     witness, agreed with this when we presented to him the situation as

13     depicted here.

14        Q.   Thank you.  This rotation of the azimuth, the north in the

15     sketch, is that sufficient for a wrong conclusion to be drawn?

16        A.   Well, you see, of course it is.  If you make such a conclusion on

17     the basis of the sketch of the incident site.  I cannot image that

18     someone marked the sketch of the incident site wrongly and then on the

19     basis of that considered all other physical traces in relation to some

20     other north because their conclusions correspond with the situation.  Of

21     course the reports note that they used other traces as well, and those

22     other traces as we noted were not properly interpreted.

23        Q.   This is why I would like us to have a look at figures 74 and then

24     75 so that you can explain to us what they depict and then we shall move

25     on to figures -- the two following figures.  So figure 74 first, please,

Page 38272

 1     that's a sketch.  Can you just briefly explain to us what this incoming

 2     trajectory means and where would the dispersion pattern be found?

 3        A.   Well, this image depicts, first of all, the principle of the

 4     dispersion and fragmentation of the shell and the dispersion pattern at

 5     the moment of explosion.  This image shows how the impact would have

 6     looked if the shell had arrived from the direction of Energoinvest as

 7     claimed in the findings.  In that case, we would have fragment dispersion

 8     on the left wall and not on the right.  Judging by what we photographed,

 9     the situation is quite the contrary.  The fragment effect is to be found

10     on the right lateral wall.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Can we now please show image 75.

12        A.   This image also used -- is used for the analysis of fragmentation

13     effect in case that the shell had arrived from the positions of the BH

14     army, its fragmentation effect fully fits in with the fragmentation

15     effect which we can see in image 76 or figure 76.  This is a photograph

16     that we made while we were still there -- while we were there, and it is

17     still to be found there now.

18        Q.   Can we please show figure 76 now.  Is that the right wall that

19     you talked about?

20        A.   Yes, that's the right wall that I talked about.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now please show image 79.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Could you explain what this figure shows?

25        A.   On the basis of the traces in the snow in this figure we marked

Page 38273

 1     the incoming trajectory where the site of the impact is marked by the

 2     head of the arrow or the tip of the arrow.

 3        Q.   And how does that reflect to the right and the left areas from

 4     the point of impact?

 5        A.   As I said previously, the trace can be found below the explosion

 6     along the incoming trajectory and to the right and the left according to

 7     the diagram which we saw earlier as depicted in figure 75 -- actually,

 8     the fragmentation effect is as mentioned just now on the lateral wall,

 9     the right one, and forwards.  The remaining part stays where it is and

10     therefore there is no effect on the front left wall.

11        Q.   The left wall?

12        A.   Yes, it's the front wall if we go from left to the right.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Can we now please look at figure 80 which is signed

14     by Mr. Sabljica, unless I'm mistaken.  If this incoming trajectory were

15     correct, where would the traces of fragments and shrapnel and blackness

16     be found?

17        A.   Well, Mr. Sabljica did not agree with us and he marked the

18     incoming trajectory which he had primarily established.  But we can all

19     see that the point of impact was moved to the right for at least 2 metres

20     so that he could justify his claim that the projectile had arrived from

21     that direction.  However, for Mr. Sabljica to move the arrow to the point

22     of impact, if he had done that, once again there would be no effect on

23     the left wall.  There would be no pattern of fragments there.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Could we now please look at figure 81 so that you can

25     briefly explain to us what is depicted thereon.

Page 38274

 1        A.   Yes, figure 81 represents the site of impact of the shell which

 2     hit a footpath, and at this site of impact we can also see the pattern

 3     and the stabiliser and the stabiliser is embedded there and the site of

 4     impact was established on the basis of some knowledge of geometry and

 5     this is the approximate direction which was determined here and the

 6     following was established:  Namely, that the shell which we discussed

 7     just now and which landed on the curb of the concrete plateau and which

 8     was not established destroyed the earth between the concrete footpath and

 9     the point of impact.  And the shell which landed here and hit the curb

10     scattered the earth along its own incoming trajectory and then it was

11     established on the basis of analysis that the direction was the same, the

12     incoming trajectory was the same as with the shell which exploded in

13     Mihajla Pupina Street.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Do we need to see figure 83?  Would you recommend

15     that we should see it?

16        A.   Well, yes, yes, why not.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to call up figure 83.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can see clearly that the

19     direction of earth in the direction of the old crater, according to

20     Mr. Barry Hogan, he was the one who established that that was an old

21     crater, that trajectory differs quite clearly from the direction of

22     Lukavica for which it was claimed that that was the incoming trajectory

23     of the shell.  The traces that we discussed a while ago that you see up

24     here determined the incoming trajectory of the two shells, the second

25     that landed here, and the last at the same time.

Page 38275

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Very well.  Let's look at 84 and then 85 and 86.  I'm inviting

 3     your comments and I also would like to ask you to call for a new image

 4     once you're done with the previous one.

 5        A.   This is the shell that landed on the footpath and its stabiliser

 6     remained embedded in the footpath.  This is a classical appearance of a

 7     stabiliser embedded in a gravel surface covered with a layer of asphalt.

 8     You can see that the stabiliser has some numerical markings on its

 9     charge.  We studied the markings and actually we realised that it was a

10     Latinic letter N.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at figures 85 and

12     86.  I'm sorry, I did not ask for 85.  I would like to see 86.  When this

13     is blown up you can see the Roman letter N on the primary charge of the

14     stabiliser.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   What does this indicate?

17        A.   As far as I know, in the armament of the former Yugoslavia and

18     the Army of Republika Srpska there were no shells with Roman numerals or

19     letters; they were all in the Cyrillic script.

20        Q.   The appearance of the crater and the appearance of the stabiliser

21     in it, are they typical or uncharacteristic?

22        A.   They are typical of a shell whose stabiliser becomes embedded in

23     the surface, which means that a bigger charge was used in shelling this

24     location.

25        Q.   Were there any traces of manipulation in this crater?

Page 38276

 1        A.   No, I didn't see any traces or manipulation in this crater, but

 2     it has just occurred to me that during the investigations, the

 3     investigators were determining the trajectory and they referred to the

 4     position of the stabiliser which is depicted in figure 87.  Perhaps you

 5     would like to see that.  Mr. Sabljica said that the trajectory that he

 6     determined is confirmed by the position of the stabiliser and that can

 7     also be seen in a photo that was taken by the police.  But this is

 8     certainly incorrect because the stabiliser itself shows deformities which

 9     were not in contact with the surface.

10        Q.   I would like to go back to figure 78.  This is some ten pages

11     before the page that we're currently on.  Figure 78, 7-8.

12        A.   Yes.  You can see on the stabiliser itself that the wings on the

13     top part are damaged, which means that fins were not in contact with the

14     surface but are still damaged, which leads us to conclude that that

15     stabiliser had already hit the surface, ricochetted, and found itself in

16     this place.  However, this cannot be used as a parameter to determine the

17     trajectory of this shell.

18        Q.   Thank you.  And now I would like to draw your attention to

19     incident G9 which happened on the 2nd of December, 1994, I believe.  G9,

20     please, paragraph 93 where you also find a photo.  This stabiliser is not

21     where it originally landed?

22        A.   No, because its upper surface shows damaged fins which were never

23     in contact with the surface.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please comment upon this incident and what

25     would the physical evidence indicate?

Page 38277

 1        A.   During this incident there were allegedly two explosions.  In

 2     practical terms they were simultaneous or followed each other within a

 3     few seconds or within a minute.  The two explosions, according to the

 4     investigators, were caused by 76-millimetre projectiles.  Let me just

 5     look for the model and the year of production.  The 76-millimetre

 6     projectile, M70.  However, the physical evidence on the ground which can

 7     be found in the photo file deny that or refuted that.

 8        Q.   Can we please look at figures 92 and 93.  Do we know if we look

 9     at that aerial photo where those impacts happened?

10        A.   One impact was in Danila Ilic street, the one in photo 92, and

11     that was in the vicinity of the aerial photo that we have just seen in

12     e-court.  The crater that is here does not look like the explosion of a

13     shell that landed at number 2, which means there is a series of

14     ambiguities about this place and a lot of evidence.  There are some

15     objects which are scattered in the top part of the photo but they are

16     scattered just opposite to the centre of explosion and that pattern could

17     have occurred only if there was something that exploded under the stool

18     but it didn't because that was never registered.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the Doctor be provided with a

20     pen to mark the convexity of the objects that she just described as being

21     scattered all over the snowy surface.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Could you please draw a line or an arrow to indicate where the

24     centre of explosion would be in this particular case?

25        A.   This would be the line and this could have happened only if the

Page 38278

 1     explosion happened here and in this direction.  If it exploded in a

 2     different direction this convexity could not have existed.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Can we now look at figure 93 --

 4             JUDGE KWON:  If you would like to move from here, we need to keep

 5     this first.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, please.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Could you date and initial this picture.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And the date.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Today we are at the 14th?

10             JUDGE KWON:  14th.

11             THE WITNESS:  [Marks]

12             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  Shall we assign a number for this?

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D3541, Your Honours.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let's look at figure 93 together.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   What is depicted in this figure?  Which explosion?  What does the

17     physical evidence tell you?

18        A.   This photo is just an illustration in order to demonstrate the

19     range of traces from a shell with a similar charge as the projectile that

20     contained about 650 grams of TNT as far as I can remember.

21        Q.   Thank you.  And now can we look at the following photo which is

22     96.  I apologise.  Let's first look at photos 94 and 95 to see if we

23     could draw any conclusion from them, 94 and 95 are on the same page.

24        A.   Figures 94 and 95 show the results of an analysis of what we have

25     just discussed.  I don't know how much detail do you want to hear.  I can

Page 38279

 1     tell you that we concluded that some things could not be as they are

 2     represented.  We analysed the centre of explosion, and if it had been on

 3     the pipes that could -- they would not be covered with snow.  The darker

 4     traces of the explosion could not be here where they are and they are

 5     marked by number 1.  And the earth which was the consequence of a shock

 6     wave or an explosive process was -- is fragmented as shown in 94 on the

 7     right-hand side.  We also stated that there was some tampering with the

 8     traces, that the crater was manipulated, that the earth was moved from

 9     the crater.  In any case, the conclusion which is corroborated by these

10     two photos is that what happened here was an explosion of Trotyl round

11     which was not even in a metal casing at all and, as such, weird traces on

12     the ground are actually the consequence of an opening which directed the

13     combustion process as I indicated a little while ago.

14             One more factor indicates that is true, there was a witness who

15     thought he had heard the -- first the firing of the round and that there

16     was a subsequent explosion.  Those two explosions he perceived them

17     differently in [indiscernible] terms, and he never moved from his vantage

18     point.  That would not have been the case if the two were really

19     identical.  This is also corroborated by the fact that there is no

20     fragmentation pattern on the window that is nearby.

21        Q.   Figure 96, please.  Zoom-in.

22             Doctor, could you please explain what the figures depict?

23        A.   Both photos depict - and I apologise - they're both from the

24     photo file.  On the left-hand side are the shutters closed and there's

25     some piercings, some damage from the fragmentation.  According to the

Page 38280

 1     investigators, on the right-hand side when the shuttered are open and you

 2     can see fragmentation pattern on the inside of the shutters.  However,

 3     interestingly enough, neither the concrete surround of the window nor the

 4     wall around the window show any traces of fragmentation.  We established

 5     that when we visited the site and this can be seen in somewhat greater

 6     detail in photo 97.  You can see that there are no fragmentation traces

 7     in any place there.

 8        Q.   Figure 97, please.

 9        A.   I hope I don't have to explain that fragmentation effects or

10     pattern does not follow a said direction and it would be impossible for

11     the fragmentation pattern to exist on the shutters and not to exist

12     around the window itself.

13        Q.   Thank you.  What is your conclusion about this incident and what

14     were the conclusions that were drawn by the CSB, i.e., in investigation

15     group?

16        A.   The investigators concluded that two shells exploded in this

17     place -- I apologise, two artillery projectiles, 76-millimetres.

18     However, the traces and evidence at the site show that that was

19     impossible.  What we have just stated is not corroborated by the size of

20     the crater.  It is too large for it to be the effect of the 76-millimetre

21     artillery shell.  The crater that was shown in a different place close to

22     the site of the incident is shallow but it is huge, as you can see in

23     photo 98.  And it is also impossible for two artillery projectiles which

24     were fired from the same position which means that the starting positions

25     were the same including the angle of launch, which means that the angle

Page 38281

 1     of descent had to be the same for the both projectiles.  So it would be

 2     impossible for such two projectiles to result in such different craters.

 3        Q.   Can we now look at figure 98 to show what the Doctor is just

 4     talking about.

 5        A.   As I've already stated this would be impossible which is

 6     corroborated by a photo from the photo file and that photo was singled

 7     out by us.  These are -- this was shrapnel and you can see it in figure

 8     100 that with the result of the 76-millimetre projectile explosion, we

 9     took out the fuse.  So it is absolutely impossible for a fuse that

10     activates the projectile to remain intact and to be found about 30 metres

11     away from the point of impact, the point of explosion.

12        Q.   Can we now look at figure 100, please.  This is the fuse you were

13     discussing; right?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And what is the appearance of the pattern?  Would that tally with

16     76-millimetre projectile?

17        A.   Yes, it would.  But I would nevertheless have see it personally

18     live, as it were, to see what the casing is like.  At any rate, this

19     could not have been fired regularly.  And as I said, it is impossible for

20     a projectile to be fired and the fuse remain intact and be found

21     30 metres away from the point of impact.  Well, there is one explanation

22     of how it could have happened.  It could have happened in the case the

23     projectile was lying down along its length and activated with Trotyl

24     because that's what the crater would then look like as it is now.

25        Q.   Thank you.

Page 38282

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted into evidence?

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Any objection, Ms. Gustafson?

 3             MS. GUSTAFSON:  No objection.  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we'll admit this second report.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D3542, Your Honours.

 6                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we call up 1D7901.

 8                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Were you in charge of this expert report related to the

12     incidents --

13             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Before we move away from this

14     report, having reviewed the English translation, the Chamber is of the

15     view that it would be more benefitted to have the images to appear in the

16     translation as well.  So I would ask CLSS to provide us with a revised

17     translation.  Would there be any problem, Mr. Robinson?  I'm not sure how

18     that logistics is arranged.

19             MR. ROBINSON:  Yeah, I was actually going to volunteer that maybe

20     our Defence team can insert the images in the documents.  Maybe that

21     would be the easiest.  But if that's -- would somehow offend CLSS then

22     perhaps we can ...

23             JUDGE KWON:  If the Defence is able to do that, I take it that

24     CLSS is able to do that without any much difficulty.

25             You agree with this suggestion, Ms. Gustafson?

Page 38283

 1             MS. GUSTAFSON:  That's fine.  I agree, it would make it easier.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 3             Yes, Mr. Karadzic.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  That will help to

 5     relieve our resources somewhat because we are at the end of our tethers

 6     in terms of our resources.  I thought they would do it because it is part

 7     and parcel of their work.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Doctor, were you in charge of examining the incidents known as

10     Markale I.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Can I intervene at this moment because I wanted to

12     raise this issue at some point in time because this has been causing the

13     Chamber some concern lately.  It's related to the translation issues so

14     that's why I'm intervening now.  The Chamber has noticed that at the

15     moment quite a large number of written statements of witnesses called by

16     the Defence are just draft translations and, thus, unrevised.  In the

17     process of reviewing these statements, the Chamber has also noticed that

18     some of them contain mistakes which are of some concern.  By way of

19     example, the Chamber refers to statements of witnesses Savo Bojanovic,

20     the exhibit number of whose statement is D3076; Mile Ujic, D2909; and

21     Tomislav Batinic, D2930.  In particular, paragraphs 19, 3, and 4 of those

22     statements respectively.

23             In addition, extremely problematic is the statement of

24     Nevenko Samoukovic, D3062, where there is not only a discrepancy in

25     paragraph numbering between the English and B/C/S versions, but where

Page 38284

 1     paragraph 8 of the English translation is not present in the B/C/S

 2     version while paragraph 7 of the B/C/S version is missing from the

 3     English version.  The Chamber, therefore, orders the Defence to obtain

 4     revised translations of these four statements as soon as possible and

 5     upload them into e-court, notifying the Chamber and the other parties in

 6     this case.

 7             The Chamber finds this extensive reliance on draft translation to

 8     be highly unsatisfactory and is under the impression that it is the

 9     Defence that controls whether a translation prepared by the CSB is a

10     draft translation or a revised one.

11             So I'm asking you, Mr. Robinson, does it mean that the Defence

12     request to the CLSS are for draft translations alone?  And if so, why is

13     that so?

14             MR. ROBINSON:  Mr. President, when we submit a statement to CLSS,

15     we ask for a regular translation.  However, then when the witness comes

16     here and we make changes to the statement, then members of our team

17     revise the translation usually by adding some paragraphs.  I'm not sure

18     if the mistakes are made at that stage or if they exist from CLSS when we

19     receive the translation.  But we ask for regular translations of the

20     first statements we get from our investigators before the witnesses

21     arrive here.

22             JUDGE KWON:  So we are talking about statements which have

23     already been admitted?  So there is no problem on the part of the Defence

24     to ask for a revised translation of witness statements and documents?

25             MR. ROBINSON:  There's no problem.

Page 38285

 1             JUDGE KWON:  As regards the logistics of that exercise, the

 2     Chamber is of the view that the accused should make a serious effort at

 3     rectifying draft translations of witness statements and should do so as

 4     soon as possible and in co-operation with the CLSS.  So this would not

 5     mean that it is enough for the Defence to make a general request for

 6     revision of all the draft translations of statements in evidence in this

 7     case.  Instead, the Chamber prefers that the Defence -- the Defence team

 8     staggers the request to the CLSS in a way that would suit CLSS and result

 9     in the most efficient revision process.

10             Once the Defence has liaised with the CLSS, the Chamber would

11     like to be informed about the arrangement made and then updated

12     periodically as to how the revision exercise is progressing.  The Chamber

13     also instructs the Defence team that from now it should request revised

14     translation of witness statements from the CLSS as a matter of principle.

15             Yes, let's continue, Mr. Karadzic.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Allow me, Excellencies, to say,

17     that my concern over the accuracy of translations is even higher, not

18     just in terms of statements, but in terms of testimonies and the

19     transcript where a great deal of mistranslations are overlooked and I

20     would like to ask your help in asking the Registry to obtain the revision

21     of these 30- or 40.000 pages of transcript, although this is premature at

22     this stage.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Doctor, I suppose you heard what I asked you?

25        A.   I'm sorry, can you repeat what you said.

Page 38286

 1        Q.   Did you head, were you in charge, of this expert examination of

 2     all the various incidents that are known as Markale I and Markale II?

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Let's start from Markale I?

 5        A.   I'm sorry, I do have some corrections to make in this report as

 6     well.

 7        Q.   Please go ahead.

 8             MR. GAYNOR:  I'm sorry, Mr. President.  Sorry to interrupt.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Gaynor.

10             MR. GAYNOR:  There is, in fact, a discrepancy in the paragraph

11     numbering of the English and the B/C/S versions of the report that

12     Dr. Subotic is about to launch into the corrections of, just so we're

13     aware of that before she begins.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Let's see whether Doctor is aware of

15     this.  Let's continue.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my version it's paragraph 69,

17     footnote 266 or 267, I don't know, because there were modifications made.

18     At any rate, the text ends --

19             JUDGE KWON:  I already noticed the discrepancy of the para

20     number.  Those footnotes appear in paragraph 68 in English version.  Let

21     us upload the -- both versions.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   In Serbian, is this the page that you would like to make

24     corrections to?

25        A.   Beneath the figure 79, the footnote, yes, that's it.  And that's

Page 38287

 1     the footnote which ends with paragraph 1, whereas it should read "last

 2     paragraph, third line."

 3        Q.   There's a difference in my copy.  In my copy it's footnote 267,

 4     whereas we see 265 on the screen.

 5        A.   In my copy it's 267 as well.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  How does the footnote read?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The footnote reads:

 8             "Republic of BH, Ministry of the Interior,

 9     Sarajevo Security Services Centre, report on forensic investigation of

10     site ..."

11             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  And the number of the footnote is

12     268?

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 267.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And a moment ago we saw it in

15     e-court bearing number 265.  Yes, here it is.  It's the footnote that we

16     can see on the screen.

17             JUDGE KWON:  So number 265?

18             THE WITNESS:  5, yes.

19             JUDGE KWON:  What number do we have in English?

20             THE ACCUSED:  The same, I suppose, because --

21             JUDGE KWON:  No.  I think we have 268 in English.

22             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes, Your Honour.  There's obviously an added

23     complication that the B/C/S version that Dr. Subotic has and Dr. Karadzic

24     has is different to the B/C/S version that's been uploaded to e-court and

25     that I have.

Page 38288

 1             JUDGE KWON:  I don't think we can continue --

 2             MR. GAYNOR:  Certainly it will take an awful long time.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  -- in this way.

 4             Given the time shall we adjourn for the day and in the meantime

 5     the Defence could fix the problem?  And then upload the correct version

 6     so we can print another one, the correct document?

 7             THE ACCUSED:  I agree.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Doctor.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I can make one point.  The

10     correct version is uploaded in e-court.  I have an older version because

11     I did not have the version printed out after I had made my corrections in

12     it.

13             JUDGE KWON:  The more serious problem is that the English version

14     does not match the B/C/S version, which makes for the Judges and the

15     Prosecution impossible to follow.  So shall --

16             THE ACCUSED:  May I just -- I downloaded this version of mine

17     from the e-court and it's still not same as it is now in the e-court.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.

19             So the Chamber wishes to be informed from the Defence informally

20     the moment it has been corrected so that we can print that report at that

21     time.

22             Well, we'll continue tomorrow at 9.00.  The hearing is now

23     adjourned.

24                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.38 p.m.,

25                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 15th day of

Page 38289

 1                           May, 2013, at 9.00 a.m.