1 Wednesday, 15 May 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
7 Yes, Mr. Harvey.
8 MR. HARVEY: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning,
9 Your Honours. May I introduce Ricardo Izquierdo, who is from Venezuela
10 doing a masters degree here at the university in Amsterdam. Thank you.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
12 Yes, yesterday we received a correct version of Dr. Subotic's
13 report. I hope this time it will work. Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Excellencies.
15 Good morning, everyone.
16 WITNESS: ZORICA SUBOTIC [Resumed]
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 Examination by Mr. Karadzic: [Continued]
19 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Dr. Subotic.
20 A. Good morning.
21 Q. That was fast. We have to make pauses. Thank you.
22 Now I would draw your attention to your expert report which has
23 to do with the incident known as Markale 1.
24 A. I --
25 Q. Did you wish us to make some corrections?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Please, and I hope we can do that quickly.
3 A. Yes, the first correction which we did not manage to find
4 yesterday is in the version which I received too. I received it
5 yesterday and it is on page --
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have 1D07901.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's paragraph 68, footnote 265.
8 At the end of the footnote in the first paragraph it says "the first
9 paragraph" and it should read "the last paragraph, line 3."
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Were the other participants able to
11 find this?
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Perhaps it's paragraph 69?
14 A. Well, I have already moved on to looking for the previous one.
15 Excuse me, I'll check again.
16 JUDGE KWON: It's para 69, but if you find the footnote number.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 265. Yes, it was 265. At the end
18 of the footnote it says "first paragraph" and it should read "last
19 paragraph, line 3."
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. In the footnote itself?
22 A. Yes, yes. At the end of the footnote itself.
23 Q. Thank you. Please go ahead.
24 A. Please excuse me, the searching two documents is really going
25 slowly but there aren't many corrections.
1 The next paragraph is 75 under (d), first paragraph -- excuse me,
2 I cannot untangle myself with these two documents.
3 Q. Subsection (d) as Dubrovnik or (b) as Belgium?
4 A. (D) as in Dubrovnik, but I cannot untangle -- well, I have these
5 two documents. Perhaps during the break I can try to find it and locate
6 exactly the place where the correction should be made. Let me make a
7 note in the margin so that I don't forgot.
8 JUDGE KWON: In the new version I noted there are two (d)s, there
9 are two subsections under the title (d).
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you are right. That's a
11 mistake and possibly that prevented me from finding the right place. In
12 any case, I would ask you to allow me to look at this in more detail
13 because I noted everything here in the version I have; namely, it seems
14 that the pages I noted are wrong. I left two corrections on page 123, so
15 if I could just go through this once again during the break.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Thank you. Could you point out the next correction, please. If
18 that would be easier, Doctor, perhaps we could --
19 A. I have to find it in my version first and then in the new one.
20 Q. Perhaps we could go through all the corrections after the break
21 because we probably won't tender the document before we introduce the
23 A. Whatever, it suits me fine.
24 Q. Thank you. Could you tell us briefly and in general
25 terms - later on we'll move on to the details - what did you find on the
1 basis of physical evidence and did you have insight into all the
2 investigations that were conducted with regards to Markale?
3 A. Yes, I did examine all the investigations about which there are
4 any written traces, any documents that were available to us in this case
5 and on the Tribunal's web site.
6 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us how the scope of the investigations
7 looks and what did you as an expert conclude about these investigations,
8 not about what you did but about the investigations that have to do with
9 Markale 1 incident?
10 A. Well, there were various conclusions drawn in the investigations
11 with regard to this incident. The conclusions have to do with each of
12 the ballistics parameters which affect the conclusions. It was a rather
13 varied scope of results in terms of the angles of descent which varied
14 from 18 to up to 50-something, that was the azimuth. Also, the
15 investigators who investigated the angle of descent drew quite various
16 conclusions about the angle of descent which we examined and measured
17 here. I'm not looking at the precise figures in the findings right now,
18 but they are listed here as noted by each investigator separately.
19 Q. Thank you. We'll go into details later on. Could you please
20 tell us if you decided how this location, the Markale market, looked
21 immediately before the incident and on the basis of what could you make
22 such conclusions?
23 A. Immediately before the incident, there are some video-clips which
24 are practically simultaneous with the time of the incident, so it was
25 possible to conclude how the Markale market looked just before the
2 Q. Thank you. Did you notice something that needs to be noted with
3 regard to the look of the market, the distribution of the stalls,
4 anything that attracts attention?
5 A. Considering the video-clip, which as I just said is practically
6 simultaneous with the incident itself, one can see that the street which
7 joins Marsala Tita and Dzenetica Cikma Streets was blocked by stalls
8 which is unusual because that's a passageway and a path to move through
9 the market. All the previous videos or photographs of the market show
10 that it's the street along which goods and people are being moved or
11 transported and that can also be seen from photographs made after the
12 incident at Markale.
13 Q. Thank you. Would you recommend image or figure 13 or figure 15,
14 which of these two should we call up from page 41 in the Serbian version
15 so as to depict what you just described for us in terms of the
16 distribution of the stalls?
17 A. Well, I would rather opt for figure 15, but it's quite all right
18 if we choose figure 13. So it doesn't really matter.
19 Q. Then we could look at 15, please, yes.
20 A. Figure 15 perhaps because it was the final result of the
21 reconstruction. Yes, that's right. Yes. Here's what this is about.
22 I'm talking about the stalls which are here between Marsala Tita Street
23 and Dzenetica Cikma Street. That's the artery through which people and
24 goods move and circulate and which is according to the photos and videos
25 from before and after the incident is always unblocked. It's a free
1 passageway. But at the moment of the incident we noticed that the
2 distribution of the stalls was as depicted in this figure and I wanted us
3 to look at this image rather than the previous one for the reason that
4 this is the final reconstruction. And on the basis of the previous image
5 shot from above includes a correction which can be seen here, where you
6 can see a platform next to the building and a stall which leans onto the
7 platform. So what I want to say is that this is a more truthful version,
8 it's more precise than the previous one that we have.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could I please ask the member of
10 the court staff to help the Doctor with the electronic pen.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. So that you can mark it and we can tender the document. To mark
13 what you just told us, if you can place number 1 on the stalls which are
14 in the passageway.
15 A. Excuse me.
16 These are the stalls. Number 1. And this is the correction with
17 regard to the platform.
18 Q. Thank you. Can you mark the point of impact with a small circle.
19 A. It's already marked. And how is it? I mustn't touch it with my
20 hand; is that correct?
21 Q. If you can just ... if you can just place number 3 there.
22 A. [Marks]
23 Q. I did not manage to read what you wrote there with number 3.
24 Please --
25 A. I wrote the point of incident or the site of incident. I -- it's
1 not quite legible.
2 Q. Could you also mark on this sketch where the Markale 2 incident
4 A. Markale 2 was here along Marsala Tita Street. I think it was
5 somewhere around here.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we tender this?
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. And perhaps you could just mark Markale 2 and that location with
10 number 4.
11 A. [Marks]
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could this be admitted?
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D3543, Your Honours.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Now that we're dealing with this, Doctor, do you know what
17 "Cikma" means in Turkish?
18 A. I think that it means a boot, but I asked and I was told that it
19 means a boot.
20 Q. All right. But it's a dead-end street. All right. That will be
21 important when we get to the issue of evacuation because it's the least
22 opportune avenue for evacuating anyone --
23 JUDGE KWON: You're not giving evidence. Such comment is very
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, all right. I withdraw it,
1 but it can be found in a dictionary.
2 [Defence counsel confer]
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. You mentioned a video. Can we have a look at it. It's 1D05664.
5 4 minutes, 7 seconds, to 4 minutes, 14 seconds.
6 [Defence counsel confer]
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We'll play the video later.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Did you establish when the evacuation of the wounded began and
10 what did you conclude on the issue of evacuation?
11 A. According to the video that was made available to us, we
12 concluded that the evacuation of the wounded began practically right
13 after the incident --
14 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. How is this evidence related to
15 Doctor's expertise?
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the Defence asked Dr. Subotic
17 to look into all the matters that were logical and illogical, all the
18 pros and contras that existed in the investigations into Markale 1 and
19 Markale 2. But we have -- we can deal with the ballistics first, and
20 then if we have time left we can deal with the other matters.
21 JUDGE KWON: Deal with ballistics matter, please.
22 Yes, please continue.
23 I said deal with ballistics matters, please.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Can we look at figures 16 and 17, page 45 in my copy.
2 Doctor, can you tell us what figure 16 illustrates and when it
3 was photographed, if you know?
4 A. It was taken from a film that was taken by the police during the
5 on-site investigation. I must say that we didn't take this still for no
6 reason. It was an indispensable issue in our analysis of where the
7 incident happened and how it happened and how it was possible for that
8 incident --
9 Q. All right --
10 A. Yes, I'm sorry, I was waiting for interpretation. And how it was
11 possible for that incident to happen the way it did. That's why we felt
12 it was necessary to do two reconstructions. One was that of the layout
13 of the stalls in the market-place as per what was recorded in the video
14 footage taken by the police. And secondly, we had to reconstruct the
15 shape and dimensions of the stalls because we felt that they were not
16 accurately represented in the reports by Mr. Zecevic and his commission
17 as well as in the CSB reports. The shape of the stalls as indicated in
18 these documents did not accurately reflect their shape in reality, and we
19 felt that both the shape and the size of the stalls had to be looked into
20 and properly reconstructed as well as the layout of the stalls at the
21 scene of the incident. This figure, figure 16 which is basically a still
22 taken from police footage, enabled us to check the passageway, the aisle
23 between the two rows of stalls, which was the subject of the
24 reconstruction in that figure which we had on our screens a moment ago.
25 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us which building is this, the one that
1 we can see to the right? There are some stalls abutting it. Which
2 building is that, is that the 22nd December?
3 A. No, that's not the 22nd December, that's the UPI super-market
5 Q. Thank you. Can we see figure 17 and can you briefly explain what
6 it depicts?
7 A. Figure 17 which is also a still taken from the footage that I've
8 mentioned a moment ago is a still of the scene of the incident taken from
9 above indicating the stalls that do not have the roofing panels on them.
10 Q. Thank you. And what is the marking down below?
11 A. Well, I'm not sure if it was the investigators or colleague
12 Zecevic who made the markings, but they marked the site of the incident
13 and the trace evidence around it.
14 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us why this figure is significant and
15 why is it important that the stall doesn't have the roofing panel on it?
16 A. It's significant because the very site of the incident and its
17 distance from the stall can perhaps be gauged from this aerial view in
18 respect of the stall counter rather than the panel which is missing. Do
19 you understand? The distance cannot be seen, the distance in respect --
20 in relation to the roofing panel, but only the distance in relation to
21 the frame of the counter of the stall can be seen.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 JUDGE KWON: Please bear in mind that you should put a pause
24 between question and answers. Please continue.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. To be precise, between answer and question because the Doctor,
2 indeed, is making a pause and I'm not.
3 Can we have -- can the Doctor be given the pen, please.
4 And can you draw a red line to indicator the incoming
5 trajectory - as determined by the CSB Sarajevo, the United Nations - 1,
6 2, and 3, and in addition to that can you tell us where most of the
7 fragments would end up in the event of such an incoming trajectory?
8 A. This would be roughly the range that, based on several checks of
9 different types, we established as the possible and most probable
10 azimuth. Now, in what way did we check this? On the basis of the
11 splinter grooves, that's to say the pattern left by the fragments.
12 JUDGE KWON: I'm sorry. That would not help the Chamber very
13 much later on. Shall we delete it and put a number and then explain it
14 in the transcript. With the usher's assistance, you can delete it. The
15 building you marked, is it a supermarket or December 22nd?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's the supermarket building on
17 which surface the pattern of fragment grooves can be seen, and we checked
18 it because based on the physicalities of the dispersion of the shell, the
19 central cluster where the fragment effect is the highest is along the
20 axis of the angle of descent. And that's why we wanted to establish the
21 border azimuth along which the shell could have flown in, the minimum
22 one, so it was based on the fragmentation effect that we established the
23 base line azimuth. And then on the basis of the base line azimuth we
24 looked at the various azimuth findings in the different documents in
25 order to find which ones were the closest. So we had the results that we
1 found range between 18 and 23 or 25, depending on the document where it
2 was found.
3 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, I will leave it to you in terms of
4 numbering the markings Doctor has made.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In line 25 the Doctor said the
6 azimuth that was closest to the actual trajectory along which it was
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Is that what you said?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you. Can you mark the point of impact with number 1, the
12 supermarket building with number 2?
13 A. [Marks]
14 Q. And the range of the three incoming trajectories with number 3,
15 the azimuth ranging between 18 and -- well, it was plus/minus 5.
16 A. [Marks]
17 Q. Yes. And can we have your signature and date.
18 A. [Marks]
19 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, I don't follow your comment about
20 plus/minus 5. Doctor wrote differently.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In terms of the azimuth, one --
22 most of the findings established that the azimuth in this case was
23 18 degrees plus/minus 5.
24 JUDGE KWON: You are not giving evidence. Ask the Doctor.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. What are the ranges of the azimuth that were established and that
2 were the closest to the real one? And I mean the azimuth of the incoming
3 trajectory of the shell?
4 A. Based on the physical evidence that was found on the UPI 101
5 building, we established the base line azimuth and we compared it with
6 the azimuths found by the several commissions and investigations and we
7 found the range to be between 18 and 23, although I did kind of round it
8 off to 25. I'm afraid that Dr. Karadzic is recalling back the results of
9 Mr. Zecevic, who found that the azimuth was 18 plus/minus 5, and that
10 does not apply to what I'm saying. So what I'm saying is these results
11 are the most probable ones, but they also include the investigations of
12 UNPROFOR which found that the azimuth was 19, 20.5, et cetera.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll receive this.
15 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3544, Your Honours.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. You already said that the majority of fragments would actually be
19 held back to the incoming trajectory of the shell. Can you tell us, at
20 this angle what was the amount of fragments that hit these two abutting
22 A. Perhaps you misunderstood me. As the shell fragments, as it
23 bursts - yesterday we were able to see the way this happens in a
24 different incident - they -- the fragments will disperse centrally to the
25 left and to the right compared to the axis, and some of the fragments
1 will be thrown back. So this building was caught by these fragments in
2 respect of the incoming trajectory with the right side spray of the shell
3 and this was a significant portion. So in other words, the fragments
4 were not thrown back. So a significant amount of fragments hit this
5 building. I can't say exactly what the quantities were in terms of
6 percentages. We have extensive testings that we do in our testing
7 rounds, and then in respect of every single projectile - because of
8 course every projectile would have its own characteristics - I don't
9 really know what the amount would be of the fragments that could have
10 ended up there in respect of all of them.
11 Q. Can you draw a conclusion or give us an estimate of whether these
12 fragments were the cause of injury and death in view of the proximity of
13 the wall?
14 A. It is possible that some of them penetrated bodies depending on
15 what sort of position or obstacle they came across, and it is quite
16 possible that they would ultimately end up in the wall because it is all
17 very close together.
18 Q. Can we look at figure 64 now and let's focus on the crater, on
19 your analysis of the crater and on the analysis of the crater of others.
20 I think it's the first in a series of such figures, figure 64. Thank
22 Could you please tell us what this image represents. It seems to
23 be a frame from a BH clip. What do we see in this image?
24 A. Yes, this is a television frame and this image shows the point of
25 explosion, the point of impact with a lot of rubble that are all piled
1 up -- that is all piled up at the point of explosion. This is impossible
2 in practical terms because things scatter all over the place at the
3 moment of explosion.
4 Q. Thank you. Yesterday I asked you --
5 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Could you mark the place where
6 you -- what you think -- that you think is the point of impact.
7 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
8 JUDGE KWON: And date and initial, please.
9 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
10 JUDGE KWON: Exhibit D3545.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Yesterday I asked you on purpose whether the appearance of the
14 crater at Dobrinja was typical or not. You said it was a typical
15 appearance. There was a stabiliser but it was not covered in rubble.
16 Would this type of material be able to return to the crater on its own
17 spontaneously, as it were?
18 A. First of all, I believe that the ground in the market was similar
19 to the surface of the footpath. Judging by the photos from the photo
20 file, this is a pebble foundation covered by a layer of asphalt, and I
21 believe that the surfaces in both cases were very similar. What I said
22 yesterday about the typical surface meant the following: When a body
23 penetrates a surface at a high speed, the material of the ground has to
24 be pushed out by the penetrating body and it has to be either in the
25 vicinity of the place where the high-velocity-speed body penetrated or it
1 has to be scattered by the shock wave, although the shock wave precedes
2 the very event. Let's be clear on one thing, the process that occurs
3 during an explosion follows the following sequence: A projectile hits
4 the surface, it is activated, and then the explosive is activated because
5 it has to reach a certain pressure for the casing to be expanded and
6 broken. At that moment there is an explosion and the fragments of the
7 casing scatter and the shock wave exerts destructive activity in the
8 vicinity. When the casing is fragmented, the rear of the projectile is
9 also fragmented, and that includes the stabiliser. Depending on the
10 velocity of the projectile, the stabiliser either continues flying
11 towards the point of the explosion in the nearby area or becomes embedded
12 if its speed is higher than the speed of its rejection from the
13 projectile. If it is not higher, i.e., if the speed is less than the
14 speed of the projection from the projectile, it falls somewhere around in
15 the vicinity of the point of explosion or it is pushed backwards in the
16 direction of the incoming trajectory.
17 In this case, we would expect a totally different appearance of
18 the crater. We would expect for the surroundings of the crater were
19 littered with soil, pebbles, asphalt, everything else that may have been
20 pushed out by the embedding of the stabiliser, whereas the stabiliser is
21 either partially or fully visible like it was in the crater that we saw
22 yesterday. In technical terms, this is completely inexplicable.
23 Q. Thank you. And can we now look at figure 66.
24 A. This photo depicts the appearance of the crater after the
25 explosion and before the stabiliser was extracted. And in this photo we
1 see that the surface is practically intact, that the stabiliser is not
2 visible at all. From the film that was taken by the police, we can see
3 that that was heard by the investigators. They were looking for the
4 stabiliser on the roof and in the surrounding area because they could not
5 recognise what they saw. They did not understand that that was a crater.
6 Q. Thank you. Is this surface somewhat different from the surface
7 depicted in image 64 that we have just seen?
8 A. Yes, it is different in the sense that the previous image shows
9 that the rubble that covered the point of explosion was cleared and that
10 place of explosion, that's what I circled in that image.
11 Q. Can we look at image 64. Can it be placed on the left-hand side
12 of the screen, whereas image 66 should remain on the right-hand side of
13 the screen. So can we look at the two next to each other. Thank you.
14 Is there an explanation for the fact that the same point of
15 impact should look so different?
16 A. I apologise, it doesn't look different. It is just buried on the
17 right-hand side. The difference between the two images consists in the
18 fact that the rubble was removed.
19 Q. And now can we look at image 67 --
20 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Yes, yes, 67.
21 What you wanted to compare is 67 and 66, Mr. Karadzic?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, 67 and 68. We have just
23 compared 64 with 66 and now I want to compare 67 and 68.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Can you tell us something about these two images? How come the
1 first crater looks the way it does and the other looks differently? The
2 vicinity of the two craters is different. The material looks different.
3 Can you tell us something about the craters, the stabiliser?
4 A. The image --
5 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
6 MS. GUSTAFSON: These questions are extremely leading, this last
7 one certainly was.
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I apologise.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Doctor, could you please tell us what the characteristics of the
12 two craters are? Can you tell us something about the material that
13 surrounds them? Can you tell us something about the bottom of the crater
14 and the appearance of the stabiliser?
15 A. Image 67 depicts the penetration of a stabiliser into the
16 footpath. This happened on the 4th of February in Dobrinja, a day
17 earlier. The appearance is very characteristic. The material has been
18 pushed out, and you can see that around the penetration point the
19 material is pushed out and the stabiliser is completely embedded, but it
20 is almost fully visible. This is an expected appearance in view of the
21 process that I just described. This is an expected appearance of a
22 crater after such a penetration. Image 68 depicts a crater at Markale
23 and here we can see that it must have been dug out, which means that you
24 could not reach it if it hadn't been dug out. And you can tell that by
25 the material that has been taken out of that crater. And also, we can
1 see that there are two asphalt levels under which the crater is buried.
2 In the previous image we saw that it was completely invisible. The
3 material has clearly been dug out, but this is impossible.
4 Let me be more clear. Something like that could happen only if
5 we were to throw things into the water and the water would then close
6 above it. This is solid matter and an appearance like this is
8 Q. Could you please mark the two layers with an electronic pen. You
9 have mentioned the two layers or the two levels of asphalt. Can you
10 please mark them with an electronic pen.
11 A. [Marks]
12 JUDGE KWON: And, Doctor, by "previous image," did you mean
13 figure 66?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. You can't see anything in
15 that image if this is what you meant.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
17 Please continue.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Please put today's date and initial the image. And now I would
20 like to call up image 72 to replace image 67 on the left-hand side.
21 A. [Marks]
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll receive this separately.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3546, Your Honours.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Image 72, can I have it on the left-hand side. In the Serbian
1 version of the document it's on page 99.
2 Can you tell us what the image represents? How come that the
3 air spaces between the tail fins are larger than in image 68?
4 A. This is a frame from the video-clip which was recorded on the
5 6th of February by the police. We got this image from Mr. Zecevic. This
6 is P6361 from the Slobodan Milosevic case. The image shows the
7 stabiliser that Mr. Zecevic returned into the crater. According to his
8 statement, he just lowered it down and he measured the angle of descent.
9 That's why everything is so very well visible and clear in this image.
10 You can see the gravel or little stones with which he fixated that
11 stabiliser so it would remain in this position. And if you want me to do
12 so, I can mark the gravel that's fixed the stabiliser. This only means
13 that the opening was much bigger than the stabiliser itself because the
14 stabiliser had to be fixed in a certain position. I suppose that I don't
15 even have to say that the fixing of the stabiliser is an arbitrary
16 activity that any one of us could fix an object in a larger space as
17 whichever way we want to do that. This is also seen in the film that was
18 taken by the police on that day. However, interestingly enough - and I
19 have to mention that - is that the film shows in great detail the place
20 of explosion starting with 1300 hours up to nearly 1400 hours, and you
21 can see clearly that the place of explosion is completely covered. And
22 then there is a break of some 20 to 30 minutes in that film, and then
23 what appears is the image that we are looking at now.
24 Q. We are going to see the film in a minute, but before that can you
25 tell us if a stabiliser is fixed with a pebble and if it is moved by a
1 certain degree. What would be the resulting aberration in an area of
2 some 4 to 5 kilometres?
3 A. I would have to consult firing tables in order to be able to
4 answer your question. However, the -- any change in the angle of descent
5 changes the place from which the shell was launched. I could tell you
6 exactly if I were to consult my firing tables or if I were to give an
7 access to documents during the break, then I would be able to tell you
8 whether it's 500 or a thousand metres.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to show the video
10 under 1D7441 from the beginning to 8 seconds.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. This happened on the 6th of February; right?
13 A. Yes, the 6th of February, yes -- well, this is what my colleague
14 Zecevic marked. You can see that the stabiliser cannot be seen although
15 it has been zoomed in, and that was at 1319 hours.
16 [Video-clip played]
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Now can we see what happened between 9.00 and 9.30?
19 [Video-clip played]
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My colleague marked it here. There
21 it is.
22 JUDGE KWON: Shall we stop it?
23 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, I just want to make sure that an
24 error does not get embedded in the record. Mr. Karadzic in his question
25 said, "This happened on the 6th of February; right?" Now, it's clear
1 from even the title of the witness's report that the incident happened on
2 the 5th of February and the filming took place on the 6th of February. I
3 know Mr. Karadzic was obviously not trying to mislead the Chamber in that
5 JUDGE KWON: I understood that way, yes. The filming took place
6 on 6th of February; that's what you meant?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. In the video the date is
8 the 6th of February, 1994, and I wanted to draw the participants'
9 attention to the fact that it was not filmed on the 5th, but rather on
10 the 6th.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, that's the image which is
12 included in the report and it can be quite clearly seen that the small
13 stones were used to fix the position in the crater which is much larger
14 and did not exist an hour earlier or half an hour earlier in the same
15 video and that the place within the crater is fixed with the small stones
16 from left to right. There are, well, five. And as I said, at the
17 beginning of the video we could clearly see that the crater was not there
18 at all, or rather, that it was buried with rubble. And on the basis of
19 that, it can be concluded that my colleague Mr. Zecevic did not just
20 lower the stabiliser in the existing crater, but that the crater was made
21 after -- immediately after the stabiliser was lowered into the crater.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Is this identical with image 72 from your report?
24 A. Actually, this is the image.
25 JUDGE KWON: [Previous translation continues]...
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Can you also tell us why is there no dust between the wings and
3 why is this wider than in figure 60 --
4 A. -- 8.
5 Q. 68.
6 A. It's quite obvious. A bigger and wider crater was made in which
7 the stabiliser was later lowered, and there was no reason for the
8 existence of the dust in the wider crater. And it's obvious that the
9 stabiliser is fixed with the small stones which are also quite clearly
10 visible in this video because the video is good.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I tender these two extracts from
13 0 to 8 and from 9.00 to 9.30.
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes, any objections?
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: No. Thank you.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit --
17 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. So is it an excerpt from an
18 already-existing exhibit? We didn't admit Zecevic's video.
19 MR. GAYNOR: Your Honour, to be perfectly honest, I think this is
20 part of a video which we have played. Now, I don't know if these
21 specific parts have been admitted.
22 JUDGE KWON: But for clarity, we'll admit it separately.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3547, Your Honours.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Both extracts can be
25 under one number; right?
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we now please
3 look at figure 74.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Could you tell us, thanks to this image and the series of images,
6 what can be concluded on the basis of the examination of the stabiliser?
7 Figure 74 and 75, please. We can depict them on the whole screen, I mean
8 we can zoom in and remove this.
9 A. This is the stabiliser which as a piece of evidence relating to
10 the Markale evidence on the 5th of February is present here, in this
11 Tribunal. And the following can be noticed with regard to it. I just
12 have to mention for a second a fact because of which I will discuss the
13 stabiliser, namely it's the following: In his report and opinion, my
14 colleague Mr. Zecevic, together with his commission, concluded, or
15 rather, determined the angle of descent on the basis of the stabiliser
16 which we just saw and which embedded into the ground, according to his
17 claim, and allowed him to determine the angle of descent. First of all,
18 the method which my colleague Mr. Zecevic used is inexistent to this day,
19 15 years later, because such a method would be the result of a stochastic
20 process in which we cannot suppose what the margin of error is if we were
21 to use it as the method. The method depends on a series of parameters,
22 and I will just list the crucial ones. In order to be at least
23 approximately exact, then the breaking of the stabiliser --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Can the witness please slow down.
25 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Was I too fast again?
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Interpreters didn't hear after you said, "In
3 order to be at least approximately exact ..."
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In order for the method to be at
5 least approximately exact, it is necessary for several criteria to be
6 met, namely, the severing at the moment when the stabiliser is thrown
7 away would have to be axisymmetric with regard to the cross-section and
8 with regard to the longitudinal axis, which can be clearly seen from
9 image 74. That was not the case because the severance was not
10 axisymmetric. And another thing that would be necessary --
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. If I may ask you because of technical terms the interpreters are
13 having some trouble, so if you can please slow down as much as possible.
14 You said that it was excentric. So the --
15 A. The way it's severed is excentric with regard to the longitudinal
16 axis, which is clearly seen in figure 74. Another criteria that would
17 have to be met is that the ground has to be homogenous, which means that
18 it would have to be uniform rather than varying in terms of how compact
19 it is and what are the sizes of the stones, that there is asphalt which
20 is a different kind of ground and a different kind of material. So this
21 criterion hasn't been met either.
22 And finally, another criterion that would have to be met, the
23 effect of the shock wave would have to be completely symmetrical, the
24 shock wave of the explosive charge which can never be uniformly repeated,
25 regardless of how much we might try to make the casing so that it breaks
1 in one moment in all places. And regardless of how our colleagues who
2 are in charge of producing explosives may try to make the explosive fully
3 homogenous and repetitive by all its characteristics. So each explosive
4 wave which is produced during the explosion of a piece of ordnance is
5 something that cannot be repeated, simply because technologically we
6 cannot achieve this.
7 Q. Would you need the lower two figures if you are to continue with
8 the description of this?
9 A. Yes. All this had to do with figure 74. If we look at
10 figure 75, we see something that is seriously illogical, namely, that on
11 the fins of this stabiliser there are some traces, traces of penetration
12 and traces of damage caused by the material through which the stabiliser
13 pass. What is illogical here is that on the body of the stabiliser there
14 is not a single trace of penetration and it was the part that penetrated
15 first under the condition that the stabiliser was found at the spot where
16 we saw it on the previous photographs and in the following manner: The
17 shell exploded and it penetrated into the ground. All of this seems to
18 indicate -- first, what is down here indicates the fact that it did not
19 find itself in its crater in this way, and the upper figure seems to
20 indicate that such a method cannot be used to determine the angle of
21 descent not even an approximation of it. And we never verified it as a
22 method precisely for this reason.
23 Q. Thank you. What were the ways in which the stabiliser could have
24 ended up in this position?
25 A. Do you mean in the crater?
1 Q. Yes, in the crater and in the furrow.
2 A. Based on the physical traces which we have looked at already, the
3 shape of the crater is not characteristic, not only that it's not
4 typical, it's physically impossible. It couldn't have been like this.
5 By penetrating through such ground and to have the crater look as it does
6 with such an appearance, that wouldn't have been possible. We really
7 analysed this in detail. Could it have flown to the Markale market to
8 the location where it was determined it landed? We tried to confirm it
9 on the basis of physical parameters, namely, the shape of the stalls, the
10 dimensions of the stalls, the distribution of the stalls, and the
11 physical location of the explosion, that is to say the location at which
12 the explosion occurred.
13 Q. Could we now please see figure 80 so that we can see how
14 Mr. Zecevic depicted the stall and then we'll find the sketch of the
15 actual stall. So figure 80 is the one that we need now. Is this sketch
16 of the stall correct?
17 A. We have seen the videos and we can say that it's not correct.
18 The stall doesn't look like this at all. The only thing that we accepted
19 as correct is the width of the counter and also the height which
20 Mr. Zecevic measured and the sketch is incorrect if we compare it with
21 the videos that we watched. We asked both Mr. Sabljica and Mr. Zecevic
22 why the stall is depicted like this; however, Mr. Sabljica said that he
23 just took it over from Mr. Zecevic, he took over the sketch, and
24 Mr. Zecevic replied, as far as I remember, that such a shape of the stall
25 was taken in order to prove that the shell landed or something similar to
1 this. And I have no opinion about the reply because I don't understand
2 it. But in any case, we used it to reconstruct the actual shape and
3 dimensions of the stall on the basis of the videos and these two measured
4 values which I just mentioned.
5 Q. Thank you. Could we now please look at image 82. And if we
6 could keep the previous one on the left half of the screen and have the
7 other one on the right. Or perhaps you can just explain it to us, we
8 don't have to compare. Is this sketch of the stall correct and truthful?
9 A. Yes. This is a truthful reconstruction of the stall because the
10 height as measured by Mr. Zecevic has been adopted here and I previously
11 said that by the use of the video recordings we determined the
12 proportions, the angles, and all the necessary geometrical elements which
13 we needed in order to determine the actual shape and dimensions of the
14 stall, the dimensions in the first place. And what you called up in
15 e-court now is actually a depiction of the possibility, or rather, the
16 impossibility of the shell landing where it turned out to be because you
17 see X equals 1 metre. That's the distance from the stall counter to the
18 impact point measured by Mr. Zecevic's commission, and once all the
19 checks are done we can see that the shell could only have landed along
20 the direction marked with number 2, that is to say at a distance of 1.37
21 metres from the stall counter and not in any case at a distance of just
22 1 metre from the stall counter without hitting the roof of the stall.
23 Q. Thank you. Could we see figure 6 just for a moment, please,
24 page 36 in the Serbian language. Could you explain these angles for us,
1 A. Yes, certainly. The angles are taken over from the video. Let
2 me just see what the figure is. It's figure number 3 taken from the
3 video recording made by the police. We measured in AutoCAD the angles
4 and we then made a reconstruction of the stall. Now, of course we
5 measured 66.49 and 65.22 because that's the locksmith's work, so we
6 worked with the angle of 65 which was probably correct. The proportions
7 and the distances between the ground and the first cross-beam and the
8 height of the counter, these proportions were determined on the basis of
9 figure number 5 in AutoCAD, and then it was recalculated so as to arrive
10 at the actual dimensions.
11 Q. Thank you. So in figure 82, the lines 1 and 2 must follow or do
12 they follow the angle? How did you arrive at the direction and what
13 angle of descent do these lines follow? You told us that one couldn't
14 have landed at just 1 metre distance from the stall. If we can go back
15 to image 82, please.
16 Which angle do lines 1 and 2 tally with? What is the angle of
18 A. This was verified -- my apologies. I need a sip of water. This
19 was verified in terms of the maximum angle as determined by Mr. Zecevic,
20 65, from the azimuth of 23, not 18. Let me just say that the situation
21 is far more unfavourable when the azimuth is 18, and just to remind you
22 we determined the azimuth of 23 as the base line anticipated line of
23 azimuth based on the traces retrieved on the wall of the UPI 101 building
24 which can be seen in the background.
25 Q. Thank you. Do you mention the possibility of it being a
1 statically activated explosion?
2 A. On the basis of all the analysis we did - and we did very complex
3 analysis - we even assessed what the minimum angle would be in respect of
4 the point of impact in relation to the position of the stall. We did all
5 the various checks we could based on the information available to us, and
6 I think we went beyond our call of duty. We concluded that there was no
7 possibility for the shell landing in that point and being activated there
8 without hitting the roof of the stall in the process. The only
9 possibility for the shell to be activated at the point where it was was
10 for it to have been statically activated, or rather, that the shell was
11 statically activated in a certain position at a certain site. There is
12 no other technical explanation. We explored and checked all the
13 possibilities that were the parameters restricting the possibility for
14 the mine to land there, and all these checks returned with a result which
15 said that this was impossible. And we mentioned all these various
16 explanations in the report. There is a stall and there is an indication
17 that an explosion may have occurred beneath the stall, but I do stand by
18 my position that the shell could not have landed and impacted in the spot
19 where it did without having first hit the roof of the stall.
20 Q. Can you tell us which figure it is which indicates the
21 possibility that the shell was activated beneath a stall?
22 A. Just a moment, please. I had it a moment ago. That's figure 69.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have figure 69 shown,
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Can you tell us what should be observed in this figure?
2 A. Well, the stall indicated by this journalist, whomever he is,
3 that the stall was overturned by 180 degrees, which means that the
4 explosion happened in front of it and it upturned it. What is on the
5 bottom is the roofing panel of the stall, and above the head of the
6 person indicating this we can see the portion of the stall which shows
7 soot from the explosion and a bit is missing here. The experts who
8 concluded that the explosion took place on the stall must have been
9 confused by the fact that the stall is upturned as it is. However, it is
10 quite evident that what is now lying on the ground is the roofing panel
11 of the stall because you can see the part of the stall in line with the
12 head. We can see the frame, the central supports of the stall which are
13 now lying down on the surface of the ground -- or perhaps you want me to
14 mark it?
15 Q. That would not be a bad idea.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I ask the usher to activate the
17 pen for Dr. Subotic.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 A. Number 1 is the damaged counter of the stall. We can see its
20 bottom side.
21 Q. And what is the position of the stall?
22 A. The stall's roofing panel is on the ground. It's marked with D1
23 on this image as far as I can see it. It's probably to do with a text
24 that somebody drafted in connection with the image.
25 Q. Had the explosion not taken place under the stall, what would the
1 situation with this stall be?
2 A. It would have been overturned to the left or to the right if the
3 explosion took place in approximate vicinity. Depends on the shock wave
4 and the exact position.
5 Q. So instead of being upside down, it would be overturned on its --
6 lying on its side; right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Defence witness Derek Allsop said that he did not support the
9 thesis which indicated that this was a static explosion because the
10 stabiliser could not have become embedded in the ground in that way.
11 What is your opinion of it?
12 A. I viewed this testimony and the gentleman is right because he was
13 looking at a specific case. Had the static explosion taken place there
14 and the stabiliser been positioned on the shell, then it would not have
15 been possible because the shell did not fly in and there would not have
16 been that speed that we referred to. It would not have been possible for
17 the stabiliser to become embedded in the ground. I agree so far. But
18 this implies the fact that a shell complete with a stabiliser is
19 statically activated. That's the only scenario that is being considered
21 Q. So what are the other possibilities that would allow for both
22 these options, that the stabiliser would be embedded in the ground and
23 the explosion statically activated?
24 A. In -- we wrote this possibility in our expert report, and this is
25 what it is: The stabiliser could have been dug into the surface or the
1 ground previously. It could have been covered over with some material.
2 And then above, with a certain surface and at some angle, a shell without
3 a stabiliser could have been placed and remotely activated. This would
4 be the scenario that would fit completely with what we saw in all these
5 images so far. The crater had to appear the way it did. It wasn't
6 recognisable. The stabiliser was embedded, which was obviously necessary
7 in order to prove that the shell had flown in with a large charge. I
8 also saw that the Defence witness said that it was impossible to bury the
9 stabiliser in previously before the shell is activated because then the
10 crater would become widened, but that would only happen if the shell was
11 placed directly on that surface. In that case, what he said would indeed
12 happen; however, he did not take into consideration the scenario that I'm
13 discussing, and that is that the shell could have been placed on a
14 surface of its own. And this could have easily have been a wooden plank.
15 If you paid attention to the figures that we looked at, we had a wreath
16 produced by the shock wave which was wider than your normal central
17 crater. You will have seen that I marked these two levels with numbers 1
18 and 2. The situation you here is as if it had been somehow compressed
19 down, and that is not your normal appearance of a central crater produced
20 by an incoming shell which is activated.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this image be admitted as a
23 separate exhibit?
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Can I have your date and signature, please.
1 A. [Marks]
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I see the time and I leave it in
3 your hands to decide when the break will be.
4 JUDGE KWON: We'll admit this.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3548, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE KWON: We'll have a break and resume at three past 11.00.
7 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.
8 --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please continue.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Doctor, can I ask you to make corrections if you have them ready
12 before we finish this topic.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Did this document receive a number?
14 JUDGE KWON: Any objections?
15 MR. GAYNOR: Well, we haven't quite heard the corrections yet,
16 but as a general matter no objections to the admission of the report.
17 THE ACCUSED: I am talking about this exhibit that is --
18 JUDGE KWON: Oh, yeah. Have we not admitted as 3548?
19 THE REGISTRAR: That is correct, Your Honours.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I will tender the
21 entire document after the corrections have been made and after we've
22 addressed Markale 2.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Go ahead, Doctor.
25 A. Well, now over the break I have managed to find in this new
1 document that I received yesterday that it's on page 21, paragraph 1 --
2 Q. Please, others don't have the same copy.
3 A. I'm sorry. It's paragraph 75, I believe. Yes, paragraph 75,
4 subparagraph (b), the title is "angle of descent." So it's -- actually,
5 I apologise, sub-item (c), "crater." It's a rather long paragraph, I
6 apologise. Somewhere in the middle, approximately, of the second
7 paragraph it reads:
8 "Or partly visible item 48, figure 67. In figure 68 one can see
9 the extent of material that was," there's a word here which was a typo
10 and which should read, "which was necessary to dig out."
11 Q. This is correct in English.
12 A. All right. That was important because the word doesn't have any
13 meaning the way it is.
14 Now, the same paragraph, subparagraph (d), there's quite a few of
15 them, I'm sorry, at the top of page 122 it reads:
16 "Since the CSB Sarajevo and Berko Zecevic's commission
17 established that the shell landed at a distance of 1 metre from the edge
18 of the stall counter, a line was drawn parallel at a distance of 1 metre
19 from the stall, figure 82." And it says "which touches upon the edge of
20 the stall," whereas it should say that it is tangential to the roof of
21 the stall. That's the third line at the top of page 122.
22 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note we didn't find it in the
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. It's in the middle of the page in the English "since the
1 CSB ...," the sentence finishes with "figure 68."
2 THE ACCUSED: This is just middle of the page.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The sentence before the text that
4 is in bold.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Doctor, would that (d) be (e)?
7 A. I'm sorry. It was automatic numbering and that's perhaps how the
8 error came about, and then everything should of course be readjusted
9 because I do believe that paragraph (e) follows after this one.
10 Q. I don't think that there is an (e), so could we perhaps put it
11 down as (e) static explosion.
12 A. Right.
13 Q. Anything else, Doctor?
14 A. No, no, that will be all.
15 Q. Can we finish off the issue of Markale 1 with the following
16 question: Is there anything else in the material available which would
17 confirm, reinforce, or detract from your position that it was a static
18 explosion? And I'm not just referring to the ballistics but the entire
19 circumstances surrounding the incident. Is there anything out of the
20 ordinary in the documentation which would be contrary to your position
21 that there was this sort of manipulation? If you could list these items,
22 if any.
23 A. With permission, this is what I will say. Based on the material
24 and all the documents we reviewed, we established that there were many
25 events and actions which indicated that the incident did not occur all at
1 once or in some sort of natural process. The TV filming began
2 immediately after the incident happened. This was obvious to be seen
3 because we saw people running out of the market-place with shopping bags
4 in hand and there was manipulation on the side of Dzenetica Cikma Street
5 which is a small street and it's an impassable one. The vehicles were
6 moving along Marsala Tita Street in the opposite direction to the one
7 regulated. We saw individuals wearing official insignia. All of this
8 was filmed by the cameras that were there in an instant. We know that
9 the police arrived almost before the evacuation started. All of this was
10 quite unusual, quite unexpected. The entire evacuation was completed
11 within 15 minutes and we know that there were quite a few people -- quite
12 a few casualties. It is of course quite understandable that there was
13 such wide media coverage of it. I will not even go into that in detail.
14 However, we did observe that shortly afterwards there were manipulations
15 with the numbers of victims and we did present this in detail in our
16 expert report. And something that we were able to observe from the
17 documents that we reviewed was that on the following day with a cover
18 letter from the United Nations some 40-odd, I think 42, injured persons
19 were sent out. When we compared the lists, on that particular list there
20 were only 12 who were on the list of the injured at Markale itself.
21 JUDGE KWON: Shall we pause here. I just -- although this part
22 cannot be related to the expertise of Dr. Subotic, but I just let it go
23 because it might be related to witness's credibility as well. But,
24 Doctor, when you said "we," who did you mean by "we"?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I say "we," I mean myself and
1 my associates who worked hard with me in the collection and analysis of
2 the material that I listed in the document and my associates were named
3 in the document, that's Mr. Poparic.
4 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
5 Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
6 MR. KARADZIC [Interpretation]
7 Q. Let's just see this page 37, line 7, it turns out that you said
8 that the police arrived almost before the evacuation started. But I
9 believe that you said that the police arrived almost before the
10 evacuation was completed or after the evacuation.
11 A. I said that the police arrived at a point when the evacuation was
12 almost complete. The documents do indicate the time of the arrival of
13 the police as well as the time of the completion of the evacuation.
14 Q. Thank you. One other question. You say that 40-odd were sent
15 out. Where exactly were they sent?
16 A. I apologise. They were sent out to the United States for medical
17 treatment. I think that there were 40 family members and roughly the
18 same number of those who were injured at the market-place in Markale. I
19 think that Akashi drafted the letter. Don't ask me who was in charge of
20 the letter; we do have it cited in the document. We then compared these
21 lists and the list of persons sent out for medical treatment to the
22 United States contained only 12 persons who were injured at Markale.
23 Q. And from the point of view in ballistic terms, in view of the
24 angle of descent, the obstacles, the propagation of the wave and
25 fragments, how do you account for or explain the number of injured and
1 dead as reported by the Muslim side and as adopted by, of course, the
2 Prosecution in this case?
3 A. There is controversial data. We systemised that in a table
4 depicting the number of casualties, the dead, and the wounded from this
5 incident. All of these numbers that are represented as official numbers
6 in my view surpasses the technical capabilities of this asset for a
7 simple reason: According to the analysis and measurements that we
8 carried out when this type of asset was developed, its lethal capacity
9 was limited, it would all depend on the number of people who were there;
10 at the moment we provided the analysis of that in this document. So I
11 suppose that the Trial Chamber will be able to look at our method and
12 what aspects were considered in our analysis. What I would like to
13 mention at this point in time is the fact that during our analysis of
14 video recordings we considered something which was confirmed by our
15 colleague Zecevic, and that was yet another explosion site at Markale.
16 He signed that during his testimony. It is my impression that the
17 increased number of casualties was the result of two explosions, not just
19 Q. Thank you. The second explosion that you referred to, was it the
20 result of a mortar shell? Is there proof of the origin of the second
22 A. That second explosion is not referred to in any of the
23 investigators' reports or the documents that we analysed. When we
24 analysed the video recordings, we found traces on the street that
25 connects Dzenetica Cikma Street and the Marsala Tita Street, and on a red
1 stall we found fragments or a fragment pattern and that was in the
2 vicinity, and our colleague Zecevic agreed that that was indeed the point
3 of impact.
4 Q. Doctor, I would like to move to G19 incident which happened on
5 the 28th of August, 1995, and that case is a -- notorious under the name
6 of Markale 2. Could you please give us the characteristics of that
7 incident in a nutshell and all that based on the physical evidence that
8 you had at your disposal.
9 A. Before I move to that incident, I would like to apologise to the
10 Trial Chamber for my delay. I went to see a doctor yesterday --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Not for the delay, the interpreter's
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- for the cough. I went to see a
14 doctor yesterday who diagnosed me with bronchitis which is why I have
15 difficulties in speaking today and frequent bouts of cough.
16 JUDGE KWON: Doctor, if you at any time would like to have a
17 break, don't hesitate to let us know.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course. Thank you for
19 this. If at all necessary, I will certainly address you.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. In a nutshell, can you tell us what happened there and what was
22 said to have happened during G19 incident on the 28th of August, 1995.
23 We will show images and elements from your report according to your
25 A. Based on the investigations of the incident that were carried
1 out, on that day some 200 metres away from that place four shells
2 exploded and according to the same investigations and the results
3 thereof, one of them fell in front of the market on the pavement and
4 killed and injured quite a large number of people. The traces that we
5 found when we analysed the photos that were taken by the CSB were the
6 foundation for our analysis but there were some other documents we
7 managed to obtain with regard to this case; for example, UNPROFOR
8 investigations and UNPROFOR reports. These documents do not indicate
9 that that was indeed the case. They determined the lower angle of
10 descent which was 67 degrees, and we agreed with that as a base line. It
11 was based on the point of impact and the trajectory that the shell had
12 when overflying a building. There were two trajectories that were
13 established and the discrepancy between them is about 10 degrees. One
14 was established by the French Battalion and the other was established by
15 the investigators of the CSB together with UNPROFOR, I suppose. And that
16 was confirmed by Mr. Higgs. We established that his confirmation was
17 erroneous. In any case, there were two trajectories which can be argued
18 because one of them is correct. And we have an interesting phenomenon at
19 play here. There is a surplus of stabiliser in this investigation. In
20 the video-clips we can see two stabilisers who were marked during the
21 investigation by numbers 12 and 13. They were not fixated. One of them
22 was fixated, the other was not. And in my view there was also a
23 stabiliser which is now at the Tribunal which does not correspond to any
24 of the two stabilisers in the video-clip. I would like to say that one
25 of the two stabilisers was never shown in the investigation.
1 And finally, what I have to mention is the fact that an erroneous
2 conclusion was drawn during the analysis of ballistic trajectories when
3 it was said that the radar that was tasked with registering or recording
4 the incoming of the shell did not register this trajectory or the shell
5 coming in. And I'm afraid that this was a serious error that was done
6 during the analysis and during the reporting on the incident. It was
7 said that the trajectory went under the radar beam by consulting the
8 firing table. This -- it is a fact that this would be impossible.
9 Q. Thank you for this summary of the incident, and now I would like
10 to go through some of the details. First of all, can you please tell us
11 what was alleged about the fatal shell, which one of them was in a
12 sequence of the five?
13 A. As far as I could understand the documents, it was the fifth
14 consecutive shell, but there are statements to that effect. There are --
15 75 statements were taken from witnesses and UNPROFOR members. None of
16 them heard the launch of any of the shells or any of the explosions
17 resulting from those shells. And since the point of explosion or all of
18 the points of explosions are within the radius of 100 to 200 metres,
19 they -- the explosions had to be heard. I'm not denying that they
20 actually did explode, but not on that day.
21 Q. If the shells had exploded within the range of some 200 metres or
22 less, what would have happened to the crowd of people?
23 A. I suppose that the people would scatter if they heard that there
24 was an explosion very close to them, that there was shelling going on.
25 This is my only plausible assumption.
1 Q. Let's deal with the topics one by one. How was the angle of
2 descent determined? We will see this image 102. This was taken from the
3 documentation of the Ministry of the Interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina
4 as a result of its investigation. Could you please tell us why would the
5 minimum angle of descent be 67? What would happen if it had been 63 or
6 59, for example?
7 A. This minimum angle of descent --
8 Q. Let's wait for the image.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 102, please.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I've just told you the minimum
11 angle of descent was calculated based on the point of explosion and the
12 height of the building, on a condition that the shell had overshot the
13 building because it had to in order to reach the point of explosion.
14 Otherwise, it would have hit the roof, if the angle was lesser than
15 67.15, as is indicated in here.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Thank you. And now I would like to deal with the trajectory.
18 Could you please help us with the image number. Would it be 101 or
19 something else? No, it's not 101.
20 A. No.
21 Q. Perhaps we should first see the crater which was the basis for
22 determining the trajectory. I believe that this is image 98.
23 A. 98, 97 before it as well.
24 Q. Let's first see 97 then and then 98.
25 A. Image 97 depicts the point of explosion marked by number 1 before
1 the place was cleaned because the -- before the traces of blood, dust,
2 and other particles were cleaned, those that had resulted from the
3 explosion. And you can see that the crater is very shallow, barely
4 visible. The fragmentation pattern was practically covered up by the
5 dust and barely visible in the image. This was a photo that the CSB took
6 at the point of explosion before the area was cleaned. And now on to
7 98 --
8 Q. When we're talking about this, could I please ask you to tell us
9 how do you account for the fact that the following images after the
10 cleaning depict more traces of blood in the crater itself than before the
11 cleaning operation took place?
12 A. You mean image 98; right? What image do you have in mind?
13 Q. There are other images which depict more traces of blood.
14 A. Perhaps the place was not well cleaned. In image 98 there are
15 chalk markings as well as in image 101. That's why the traces are more
17 Q. Can we --
18 A. The white traces are the places where fragmentation took place
19 and those were marked with chalk.
20 Q. Based on the characteristics of the crater, how would you -- what
21 would you conclude about the velocity and the distance from which the
22 shell was launched?
23 A. We've already spoken about that today. When a shell flies at a
24 low velocity, its stabiliser has a higher speed of ejection than its
25 flying speed, and what happens is what happened here. The resulting
1 crater is shallow and the stabiliser cannot be found at the point of
2 explosion. However, there is another odd thing happening here. The
3 stabiliser, based on traces it is very clear that the flying velocity was
4 very low because the crater was -- is very shallow and the stabiliser was
5 found 29 to 30 metres laterally from the point of explosion according to
6 the sketch. And this is absolutely impossible. If the point of
7 explosion was not tampered with, if the stabiliser was not, for example,
8 kicked by somebody, the stabiliser cannot be found laterally. It can be
9 found at the point of explosion, at the point when the shell landed, or
10 in the direction of the trajectory, but it cannot be found 20 or 30
11 metres laterally after the explosion took place.
12 Q. What is missing is the word "backward, thrown backward."
13 A. In the direction from which the shell was launched.
14 Q. Thank you. Can we now look at image 98, and can you please tell
15 us who was it who defined the trajectory and the azimuth and how were
16 they determined?
17 A. This was taken over --
18 Q. I apologise. Are there more traces of blood here than before?
19 A. This has still not been thoroughly cleaned, I would say.
20 Q. Go ahead, please.
21 A. We took this over from Mr. Higgs' report and he in his turn had
22 taken that image over from the CSB photo file. His task was to control
23 the azimuth that was determined by the CSB and all the previous
24 investigators. This is his sketch. During the analysis of what he did
25 we established that he had applied a proper method to determine the
1 trajectory; however, he took into account a wrong part of the
2 Marsal Tito Street and a wrong azimuth. You can tell that from image
4 Q. Before we see that image, could you please tell us whether it is
5 of any significance that those angles are mentioned, 220 and 170, and
6 what trajectories do they indicate?
7 A. These are adjacent trajectories that he used to determine the
8 azimuth. 220 and 175, those are intermediate results. But what matters
9 is the fact that he determined a wrong azimuth of the street. His
10 azimuth was 275 for Marsal Tito Street and that is correct, but that
11 azimuth of Marsal Tito Street is not correct for the market, for the
12 place where the market is. The place where the market is located, that
13 angle or that azimuth is different and it can be seen in image 99 and it
14 is 255. Again, this was taken from Google Earth and you can see the
15 market-place there.
16 Q. Can we see 99, please, and then we will go to 100. Doctor, you
17 can call up any image you want.
18 A. You can see that part better on the sketch or on the map.
19 Mr. Higgs took the azimuth of the Marsala Tita Street at a wrong place
20 and he got the 275 azimuth as a result. We can see on Google Earth the
21 azimuth of the market itself which is 255. If we look at the city map we
22 can see the location where the market is and we can see also how
23 Mr. Higgs marked this and its location. So if you call up the
24 appropriate image, it will be easy to explain it.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Figure 100, please.
1 Can the Doctor please receive assistance with the electronic pen.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can explain it first and then if
3 necessary we can mark it, too.
4 Mr. Higgs drew the line where it says 275 degrees and that is
5 indeed the direction of Marsala Tita Street; however, the market is in
6 the slanting part ...
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Can you show where that part is which is different from
9 Marsala Tita Street by an arrow.
10 A. It's this section and the market is here. It's this red place,
11 if it's visible now; if not, I can correct it. This is the azimuth shown
12 on the previous image, that's the direction. The azimuth is 255 degrees
13 and Mr. Higgs made an error because he considered the other section of
14 the street and thereby included the error when determining the azimuth
15 and his result was 175 and actually when this is calculated his result is
17 Q. Can you draw a line along Titova Street, namely the section that
18 Mr. Higgs believed that the direction of these two streets were
20 A. Well, he believed that this was that and he connected it with
21 this line here marked by him. And the section of Marsala Tita Street
22 where the market is located is this other section and I marked here the
23 location of the market.
24 Q. Thank you. Can you please put number 1 for Marsala Tita Street
25 and number 2 for the market.
1 A. [Marks]
2 You mean Marsala Tita Street where -- in the section of it where
3 the market is or the part where Higgs considered that the market was?
4 Q. The Higgs is parallel.
5 A. You said that I should mark it with 1?
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. Here.
8 Q. Please also include the date and your initials.
9 A. [Marks]
10 JUDGE KWON: Next Defence exhibit.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D3549, Your Honours.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. As for other investigations, what were the incoming trajectories
15 that they noted and what was their range for this shell?
16 A. The investigations yielded varying results. I said that the
17 French Battalion determined the azimuth as 160 degrees. The CSB claimed
18 in their investigation conducted jointly with UNPROFOR that it was
19 170 plus/minus 5. And there are several reports in which it is noted
20 that all five shells landed with an azimuth between 220 and 240. The
21 five or four shells that we talked about and this one shell that landed
22 on the market-place. And of course the same report states that the --
23 all shells were fired in a same salvo, from one and the same barrel,
24 which is impossible. Whoever has any knowledge of ballistics, of
25 mortars, and the flight of such projectiles can clearly see that that was
1 the way they were launched. One shell cannot land 200 metres away or
2 200 metres closer. What I mean to say is that the range cannot be
3 reduced in such a manner. That was why they provided an explanation
4 which is also technically illogical; namely, that the fifth shell which
5 exploded at the market hit the roof, changed its trajectory because it's
6 clear that its azimuth was 170 or 160 - we'll see what it is before we
7 conclude - and for the others it was 220 to 240. And then this fifth
8 shell changed the trajectory because it hit the roof and landed as it
9 did. That is also impossible for the reason that no one found that there
10 was any damage on the roof, first of all. And secondly, if the shell had
11 hit the wall, it would have activated on the roof. And if it had hit the
12 roof and had not been activated, then it would land and would not
13 activate on the ground either because then its flight would have been
14 unstable. It could not change the trajectory for 50 degrees and then
15 continue flying regularly -- I mean, with the fuse forwards, oriented
17 So technically speaking, such a report is completely
19 Q. Thank you. Could we look at figure 115, please. While we're
20 waiting for the figure to come up on the screen, Doctor, if the mortar
21 azimuth was 240, could such mortar fire be helpful for a mortar at 160?
22 A. No. No, because any fire which is used and whenever a shell hits
23 is used for the correction of the range or the correction of the
24 direction itself. It is used as a sort of test firing.
25 Q. Can you tell us something about all of these firing trajectories
1 and which one did you rely on considering that Marsala Tita Street moves
2 in a slightly different direction close to the Markale market?
3 A. This figure depicts something else. It shows the trajectories
4 from the 150 to 175 azimuths which are drawn here, and these are actually
5 the azimuths within the range of which the CSB findings and the UNPROFOR
6 findings and the findings of the Joint Commission of the UNPROFOR and
7 CSB, actually, and the French Battalion as well and the findings based on
8 the physical evidence which we checked are based. This is drawn like
9 this in order to illustrate an overview of the configuration of the
10 ground where the azimuths are, considering also the ranges analysed in
11 the report with a view of the possibility of setting a mortar on this
12 ground and firing from it. So, as I say, this is something else.
13 Q. Thank you. Is there any indication in this figure where the
14 separation lines were or will we discuss that in a different way?
15 A. I don't know that. Excuse me.
16 Q. Thank you. Did you visit this section of the ground and what did
17 you determine about the possibility of precise targeting of Markale with
18 120-millimetre mortar?
19 A. Yes, certainly, I did visit the ground or the field with a view
20 of examining all the incidents in the area of Sarajevo, including the
21 position where the mortar may have been set. And we concluded that in
22 the whole range of 150 to 175 degrees there is no place where a mortar
23 can be set and fire from it. The only place was at an azimuth of 176
24 where there is a hillock as noted in the report. However, the traces at
25 the site, the physical traces, indicate that the correct azimuth was
1 actually 160, as calculated by Mr. Higgs as well when his error is
2 included in his report and then a recalculation is appropriately made,
3 which can be shown in figure 101. I think it's rather indicative. It is
4 extracted from the video recording that was filmed during the measurement
5 of the distance between the centre of the explosion and the wall of the
6 market-place and traces of the shock wave effects against the curve are
8 Q. [Microphone not activated]
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
10 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, could you repeat.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. [Microphone not activated]
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The Doctor mentioned figure 101, so
15 if we can please call it up.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. And, Doctor, please feel free to call up any figure that you need
18 from your report.
19 A. In figure 101 -- let us wait for the figure to appear on the
20 screen. There it is. Figure 101 very clearly depicts the -- on the
21 basis of the damage of the shock wave, this is one of the investigators
22 doing the measurements. The yellow line seen on the image is the tape
23 which the investigators used to measure the centre of the explosion from
24 the market, the distance between the two, that is. And in this image we
25 noted the traces of the border or end of the effects of the shock wave to
1 the right. The yellow line is a normal line in relation to the market,
2 and after all that is the trajectory which was determined towards the
3 market that we agree with. And the red line in the centre is assessed to
4 have been the centre of the explosion. If it were about 6 degrees to the
5 left of the yellow line which is used as the normal here, so if we take
6 that the azimuth of the market has been determined, once you've
7 recalculate everything appropriately, then you get the angle of around
8 6 degrees as a result. So based on the physical traces on the spot, we
9 checked and found out that the French Battalion had actually correctly
10 determined the incoming trajectory and also that Mr. Higgs properly
11 determined it if the correction is included because he had made an error
12 taking into account a wrong curve line. So it was erroneously concluded
13 that the azimuth was around 160 degrees here.
14 Q. Thank you. In line 21 on page 51, it was said that you marked
15 with number 1 the left and right borders of the shock wave. Did you say
16 both "left and right"?
17 A. Yes, both left and right, that's right, number 1 to the left and
18 number 1 to the right in relation to the yellow line. The centre of the
19 explosion is represented by the red line.
20 Q. All right. Can you please tell us in terms of the distance the
21 crater and what happens with the stabiliser what charges would be
22 necessary for a shell to land here and how would -- what would happen
23 with the stabiliser with different charges?
24 A. With different charges, as we already said, there are three
25 possibilities for the stabiliser: If the shell is launched with a charge
1 which is the base line of 3 or more, then the stabiliser would embed into
2 the ground; if it's launched with the first and the second charges, I
3 mean the first and the second because usually for security reasons the
4 120-millimetre shell is not launched with a basic charge, so the first
5 and the second charges, then the stabiliser should be found immediately
6 next to the point of impact or it would be propelled backwards along the
7 incoming trajectory. In this case, as I said, the stabiliser was found
8 29 metres laterally which is technically absolutely unexplainable.
9 Q. Thank you. Can we please show figure 113 to the Doctor, and
10 could you please explain for us what are the ranges of different charges?
11 Figure 113. We also have a radar in this figure so if you can please
12 explain everything that is relevant for this incident.
13 A. In this incident, as I have already noted, I believe, the report
14 drawn up the international units, a comprehensive report, said that the
15 radar which was turned on for 24 hours and which was set in such a way
16 and had such a task to detect any shell, the ordinate of which is around
17 550 metres can be detected, this was not accidental. It was done because
18 then in this way the radar was set to detect any shell considering the
19 ordinates and considering the location where the radar was in relation to
20 the centre of the city of Sarajevo. What can be seen in figure 113 are
21 the lower marginal trajectories by charges which would meet the angle of
22 descent that would be higher than the lower marginal trajectory which was
23 determined on the basis of this building. Unfortunately, as the radar
24 did not register the flight, it was not simple to determine whether the
25 shell had flown in over the building or not. My opinion is that this is
1 a serious mistake because this is what was at stake. The analysis was to
2 determine whether there was a trajectory by which the shell could land at
3 that spot and it was found -- yes, it could land there but not with this
4 angle of descent. Judging by that trajectory, the shell would hit the
5 roof of the building.
6 It is said that the trajectory somehow managed to fly below the
7 beam of the radar and we have here the lower marginal trajectories. So
8 no trajectory which is below these trajectories would be depicted in
9 different colours, and depending on different charges each of them would
10 hit the roof. Only with trajectory with ordinates that are higher than
11 these would satisfy the criterion of the marginal incoming trajectory.
12 If anyone had analysed it in this way -- it's obvious that they neglected
13 this angle of descent in their analysis and they drew the conclusion that
14 this trajectory was such that the shell could fly below the radar beam.
15 But it is shown here that such a trajectory actually does not exist.
16 Q. Can you tell us, would this 120-millimetre shell with the first
17 charge whose ultimate range at an angle of 67 degrees of 900 metres,
18 would it have been registered by the radar beam? In reference to
19 figure 113.
20 A. Yes, of course. Do you mean the red?
21 Q. Yes, the first charge, 900 metres.
22 A. No, it would not have been registered because it is within the
23 area controlled by the radar unless --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Can the witness please repeat what she said.
25 JUDGE KWON: Could you repeat your answer, Doctor.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This trajectory would be within the
2 area controlled by the radar. It would have been too close.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. And on whose territory would it have been based on your knowledge
5 from the material?
6 A. It would have been under the control -- in the territory under
7 the control of the BH army. I am, however, convinced that this happened
8 so as to hear the firing, or rather, I suppose the sound of the shell
9 being fired would have been heard.
10 Q. [In English] If this happened, I suppose. If this happened.
11 A. Because there were devices which registered the firing by sound.
12 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you. Can you tell us what would have
13 become of this shell 1.700 and would those two distances then have
14 rejected the stabiliser and the stabiliser would not have ended up
15 embedded in the ground, 1.700 and 900?
16 A. As you mean the distances? I didn't understand the question.
17 I'm sorry.
18 Q. Had the shell had the first and the second charges, where would
19 the stabiliser have ended and would the second charge have been caught by
20 the radar?
21 A. The second charge would have been registered by the radar, as can
22 be seen on this image, that's number 1. As for the second issue, with
23 the second charge the stabiliser would have ended up in the close
24 proximity of the point of impact.
25 Q. Thank you. The other charges 3, 4, 5, and 6, would they have
1 been registered by the radar and where would stabiliser have ended?
2 A. All the charges, 3 through 6, would have been registered by the
3 radar and the stabiliser would be embedded in the ground, in the surface.
4 Q. Thank you. Can we now look at what happened at the site. Can we
5 look at figure, or rather, figures from the beginning, the figures
6 depicting the injured. Figure 87 to start with. And can you explain to
7 us which particular moment in time this is and what the image depicts?
8 A. This is the point in time not -- well, yes, immediately after the
9 explosion because there are still the injured there. They have not been
10 evacuated yet. Just as in Markale 1 the filming started immediately.
11 And we can see that they are at a very small distance from the centre of
12 impact of this 120-millimetre shell. It is a bit unusual the way they
13 are positioned, since they are close to the centre, 1 and a half to
14 2 metres away from the centre of explosions, still they seem to be seated
15 and calling for help.
16 Q. Thank you. Can we see now figure 88.
17 A. Again, we see the same scene, the man at some 2 metres from the
18 centre of explosion in a seated position calling for help. We are
19 talking about image 88, aren't we?
20 Q. Yes. Can we look at image 89.
21 A. This image is very interesting and technically inexplicable when
22 we consider the technical capabilities of the asset itself. The injury
23 as displayed here cannot be caused by the fragmentation effect of a
24 120-millimetre shell or of any more destructive projectile than the
25 120 shell because the effect does not take place in a concentrated
1 cluster so as to remove the significant part of one's body. Another
2 illogical aspect of this image is that there is an exceptionally small
3 amount of blood beneath this man for an injury as devastating as this is.
4 Q. Can we see the next figure, figure 90.
5 A. The next image was also taken out from a film made by the CSB
6 during their investigation. We can see a man lying on the pavement,
7 injured, with a spray on his body and his bag of something that is the
8 result of fragments and their effect, although I must say that the
9 pattern does not look like any splinter pattern but as a spray of
10 pellets. And let me say that the shell within its construction does not
11 contain pellets. Pellets can be found in other types of shells and in
12 defensive hand-grenades.
13 Another illogical aspect to this image is that close to the
14 electricity post or closer to the edge of the pavement - and this is
15 visible in other images from this film - there is a large quantity of
16 shattered glass. Now, if an explosion occurs outdoors, then it is quite
17 normal that large quantities of shattered glass would be propelled
18 inwards, whereas a small quantity of glass close to the building itself
19 would be out on the pavement. This is another matter for which there is
20 no physical explanation from the point of view of my own profession and
21 in terms of physics itself.
22 Q. Can you tell us where in relation to this man is the point of
23 impact and was it logical for him to fall in this particular direction,
24 or would it be more in line with the laws of physics had his position
25 been different? So where was the explosion in relation to him, on top or
2 A. The bottom of the image. And when you look at the video footage
3 of the area surrounding this frame, there is another illogicality, which
4 is that opposite to this position, close to the electricity post, there
5 are penetration defects on the post which are on the side opposite to the
6 point of impact. So they were not caused by the fact that from the
7 direction of the centre of explosion they flew and passed along this
8 side, rather, the direction in which these fragments acted was the
9 opposite one.
10 Q. Thank you. Can we look at figure -- so they came from the
11 opposite direction; right?
12 A. Yes. They came from the opposite direction. It was along the
13 same line, as it were, but the direction was the opposite one.
14 Q. Can we look at figure 92. You mentioned the nature of the traces
15 on this bag which seemed to have come from pellets. Can you tell us what
16 can be concluded on the basis of this image?
17 A. This is another injured person from Markale where you can see the
18 circles made by Dr. Milosavljevic who drew these circles around the
19 pellets or their marks on the stretcher and the person himself.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have figure 93.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We have yet another injured person
23 here who seemed to have been a casualty of a fire-arm rather than the
24 fragments of a shell.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Perhaps my question was not right. When I spoke about the
2 direction into which this person with a bag fell on the ground, my
3 question was: Was his position to be expected and consistent with the
4 centre of the explosion or not?
5 A. The shock wave propagates along the radius from the centre of the
6 explosion radially outwards. Of course dominantly it would propagate in
7 the same direction which caused the explosion. However, where the wave
8 comes across an obstacle such as a person or something else, then it is
9 only to be expected that the way the wave propagates, the direction in
10 which it propagates, the wave would actually knock the person down. And
11 contrary to what is expected, the person is lying face with his head
12 towards the centre of the explosion, whereas it would be expected for him
13 to lie in the opposite direction.
14 Q. And this is related to figure 90, isn't it?
15 A. Well, yes, I was referring to the man who was lying down and had
16 this spray of marks on his body and back.
17 Q. Yes. Figure 90. Can I now kindly ask you to explain to us what
18 the situation was like with the stabiliser. Based on the analysis, what
19 can be concluded? Can we first look at figure 104.
20 What did they say? Which stabiliser was this?
21 A. A moment, please. Let me find the figure. According to the
22 markings indicated in the film, that's to say number 12, this is the
23 sketch of the point of impact and this stabiliser was found 29 metres
24 laterally away from the centre of explosion. And if I recall, it was
25 close to a wall. Perhaps there is an image of it as well, but if I
1 remember correctly, the video footage and the sketch of the scene, it was
2 found right by the wall.
3 Q. Can we have figure 105 on the right-hand side of the screen,
4 please. [Microphone not activated]
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Is there a difference in the way the fins of both these
8 stabilisers were flattened? The condition of the stabiliser in terms of
9 it being burned, charred, eroded and in the way its fins are positioned,
10 is it the same or is it different?
11 A. Based on these images, the deformations are similar. That's to
12 say apparently these two stabilisers were photographed from different
13 angles. So I don't want to speak about the deformations of the fins.
14 However, this sort of deformation can be the result of a vehicle driving
15 over the stabiliser and we could produce 20 such deformations, and these
16 fins are made of tin sheets and it's very easy to deform them. However,
17 what we see in image 105 is the stabiliser photographed by the
18 French Battalion. One can clearly see erosion on it. This is something
19 that when it comes to the other stabilisers mentioned and analysed in
20 this particular case cannot be found. The erosion is something that is a
21 physical process acting upon the material and cannot happen only with the
22 natural firing of a shell. It is absolutely impossible. This can only
23 occur as the result of the activity of an explosive charge and the
24 physical removal of the material.
25 Q. Thank you. Can we look at figure 107, the stabiliser shown here
1 which the Prosecution has at its disposal, does it indicate any traces of
3 A. Image 107 --
4 Q. The erosions as seen in the previous photo?
5 A. I said no, no. However, there is a fracture on this stabiliser.
6 This fracture is typical of the moment when the stabiliser is rejected
7 from the rest of the shell at the moment of explosion. In this case it
8 is completely different from the stabiliser in the position of this
9 Tribunal. As we indicated here, there are the ends which are folded
10 back, whereas the stabiliser doesn't show that we saw it. We took a
11 photo of it, and this is a stabiliser which -- I apologise, there is a
12 stabiliser in figure 106. Please bear with me. There are traces of
13 erosion, but the fracture does not look the same as the fracture on the
14 stabiliser in the position of this Tribunal. This stabiliser never
15 reappeared in any of the reports as a piece of evidence.
16 Q. Could the doctor be assisted with the electronic pen and could
17 she be asked to mark the place and the shape of the fracture that you
18 have just discussed. Can you do it in both images and can you use the
19 blue pen, please.
20 A. [Marks]
21 Q. Thank you. Could you please put today's date and initial the
23 A. [Marks]
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the images be admitted as a
25 separate document?
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D3550, Your Honours.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 Scroll up the page, please. The image is not marked by any
5 particular number.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Could you please tell us what you conclude.
8 A. Yes, there is a number, 108.
9 Q. I can't see the number.
10 A. Below the capital letters, or rather, big letters of the title.
11 Q. Oh, yes, now I can see it. Go ahead. What do these figures
12 depict? Which stabiliser are these? How do they differ? What do they
13 depict? What do the yellow lines denote?
14 A. These are stabilisers that were found in the photo file on the
15 left-hand side, that is. In the middle there is a -- stabilisers which
16 exist in this Tribunal and is in evidence and we made geometrical
17 comparisons based on the characteristics which are constant in a shell.
18 And it was established that the stabiliser whose image was found in the
19 photo file and in the video-clip which is on the right-hand side based on
20 the position of the openings for fixing the charge with regard to the
21 fins is the same stabiliser. However, it was also demonstrated that the
22 stabiliser that is at this Tribunal is not the stabiliser from the
23 video-clip and the one whose photo is in the photo file. This was
24 confirmed in another way which is shown in image 109.
25 Q. Image 109, please. On line 17 there is a word missing, but I
1 suppose this will be corrected when the whole transcript is reviewed.
2 A. You can see that in the photo file this is not a piece of
3 evidence in the courtroom. The stabiliser is on the video-clip. The
4 position with regard to the series of charge is limited, and if this is
5 branded during the manufacture and with regard to the position of the
6 tail fins, it is very clear that this stabiliser in the courtroom is not
7 actually the stabiliser that was depicted in the photo file and in the
8 video material that was recorded by the police.
9 Q. With regard to the position of the holes, can this be changed
10 simultaneously without using any force?
11 A. No. Once this is fixed, it remains fixed.
12 Q. And now can we go to image 110. Could you please tell us what is
13 the significance of stabiliser number 13?
14 A. It is the stabiliser we have already discussed. It was marked
15 but it was never mentioned during the investigation either by our
16 investigators or CSB investigators or UNPROFOR investigators or any
17 others that were involved in the investigations of this incident and
18 establishing physical evidence at Markale market. As we can see, it is
19 also far from the place of the incident; however, we have also noticed
20 that this stabiliser is more or less on the azimuth or the same line of
21 the shells that had fallen on the square in front of the theatre. I
22 can't establish a link in any case. That's the same direction, the same
23 line, the same azimuth, as it were. And it is clear that the shell could
24 not have two stabilisers that had ended up in the same place.
25 Q. However, the theatre is over 200 metres away?
1 A. Yes, indeed it is. However, what I'm saying is that this
2 stabiliser was 20 or 30 metres away just like the other one, but it is on
3 the pavement in the direction that corresponds to the other direction or
4 trajectory. However, it could not belong to any of the mines that had
5 exploded there. When it comes to the presence of the stabiliser at the
6 point of incident, I don't have any technical explanation for it, save
7 for a possibility that somebody may have brought it here from somewhere
9 Q. Thank you. In your view, what happened at Markale? And when it
10 comes to the number and names of the casualties, would that be of any
11 assistance for you to draw your conclusions? I'm talking about
12 Markale 2. What happened during that incident?
13 A. You see, it's much easier to say what didn't happen during this
14 incident than what did. Based on the traces, the evidence, and the
15 technical capabilities of the shell and the system which was used to
16 detect the trajectory from the VRS positions towards Sarajevo, and based
17 on the testimonies of over 72 people who were interviewed as well as
18 based on the statements provided by those who were present at
19 check-points, we can claim the following: The shell did not possess
20 technical capabilities to fall at the place of the incident without
21 having been caught on radar. It also didn't have any technical
22 capabilities to have been launched from the place alleged by the
23 investigators of the international community because if it had been fired
24 from there, it would have been caught on radar, first of all. And second
25 of all, if that had been the trajectory that they defined it would have
1 ended up on the roof. Based on the traces found in front of the market,
2 it is abundantly clear that the launching had taken place at best with
3 the standard charge. We can say that this may have taken place from the
4 positions under the control of the BiH army, but in that case I believe
5 that the moment when the shell was fired would have been heard.
6 Another thing that we can say that it is certain that those four
7 shells had nothing whatsoever to do with this particular incident. There
8 are some technical ambiguities; for example, the presence of two
9 stabilisers, the difference between the stabiliser that was handed over
10 to the Tribunal as evidence which is part of the technical documentation,
11 and the others. There is a stabiliser there which clearly shows signs of
12 erosion for which there is no explanation. There are many other
13 technical indicators; for example, the impact on the vicinity of the
14 incident in terms of the shattered glass pallet caused injuries for which
15 we don't have any technical explanation with regard to the shell which
16 impacted the area here, i.e., the 120-millimetre mortar shell.
17 Q. Thank you, Dr. Subotic. I have no further questions for you
18 during my examination-in-chief.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the report be admitted?
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll receive it.
21 Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
22 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, at page 25 of the English version of
23 the report there's a CV of an individual who's not named as an author of
24 the report, and the CV does not appear in the B/C/S version of the
25 report. So it might be that the CV has been placed there in error or it
1 might be that it did, in fact, have something to do with the compilation
2 of this report.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, may I say something?
4 When it comes to my -- or rather, my colleague Vracaric's CV there is a
5 mistake. It was omitted intentionally. We had a preliminary version
6 that we drafted and we wanted to analyse something from Mr. Berko's
7 analysis with regard to Markale 1. Those were technological
8 considerations of a meteorologist about the fragmentation and his
9 comments that accompanied his analysis. However, we omitted that part of
10 the report and our colleague Vracaric's CV has been kept by mistake.
11 JUDGE KWON: So that page should be redacted. And also I --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 JUDGE KWON: -- request the CLSS to upload the images or figures
14 that appear on the original on to the English versions as well. With
15 that caveat we'll receive this.
16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3551, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE KWON: Very well. We'll take a break after which we'll
18 hear the cross-examination. We'll resume at 20 past 1.00.
19 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.36 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 1.24 p.m.
21 JUDGE KWON: So what's the division of work between you and
22 Ms. Gustafson, Mr. Gaynor?
23 MS. GUSTAFSON: Your Honours, I will be cross-examining the
24 witness on the mortar incident report, and Mr. Gaynor will be
25 cross-examining on the Markale report and the air bombs report.
1 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. So you'll start, Ms. Gustafson?
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: That's right.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please proceed.
4 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
5 Cross-examination by Ms. Gustafson:
6 Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Subotic. And just before we begin so I know
7 how I should address you, I notice that Dr. Karadzic referred to you as
8 Dr. Subotic. I didn't see a doctoral degree in your CV. I see that you
9 have a masters -- a bachelors and a masters in science. The masters is
10 referred to as a "magistar nauka" - pardon my pronunciation - in Serbian.
11 So is it -- would it be -- how should I address you?
12 A. I hold a masters degree in science which my CV says, so you can
13 address me as such. I don't know why they have addressed me as they did.
14 Q. Thank you, Ms. Subotic. That's helpful. Now, on Sunday when we
15 met, and I'd like to thank for agreeing to meet with myself and
16 Mr. Gaynor in advance of your testimony, we asked you about the fact that
17 your -- the three reports that you've been discussing in your testimony
18 are all co-authored by one or more individuals. And you explained that
19 you collaborated with the other listed authors in your reports but that
20 you were the primary author of these three reports; is that right?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. And you confirmed to us that regardless of the contributions of
23 others, you stand by all the conclusions in those three reports; right?
24 A. I have confirmed this to you. Perhaps I should clarify some of
25 the doubts that may have arisen during the interview when I told you that
1 they co-operated with me. That implies that we collected the materials
2 together, analysed it, dismissed what in our opinion should not be
3 included in the findings and opinion, but I was the one who wrote it, of
4 course with their assistance. So there are no special sections or parts
5 that were written by separate persons while compiling the report. We
6 were simply associates during the preparation and work covering the
7 extensive materials. Personally I'm of the view that whoever
8 participates in some work should be listed or assigned. This is usual
9 when projects like this are handled, what I could have seen in the Galic
10 case. My Professor Stamatovic [phoen], and his assistant
11 Colonel Viritic [phoen], and my colleague Mr. Vukasinovic also were all
12 three listed as the authors of a similar report.
13 Q. Thank you. Now I'd like to move on to another topic. The
14 central axis method of crater analysis - and again we discussed this a
15 little bit when we met - this is the --
16 A. Excuse me.
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. I could not hear you well because I couldn't hear what you were
20 Q. Okay. I'll start again.
21 A. All right.
22 Q. The evidence in this case indicates that in general the
23 investigations into shell impacts that were carried out at the time
24 utilised what is known as the central axis method, and this is where the
25 two outer edge edges of the shrapnel traces on the side where they're
1 more pronounced are drawn back to the centre of the crater. The angle
2 they create is then bisected with what is called the central axis and
3 that the bearing of that central axis is measured to determine the
4 incoming direction of the shell. Now, you agree that the central axis
5 method that I just described is the standard accepted method of
6 determining the direction of fire of an incoming shell; right?
7 A. I just have to say that I'm not sure whether you are saying what
8 I received as the interpretation. I will repeat what you said so that it
9 would be stated correctly.
10 First, the description you provided is technically incorrect, at
11 least in the interpretation that I received. It is the following: The
12 end points of the impression made by the fragments at the moment of the
13 explosion are the end points which are marked by the left and right fork,
14 and the axis of the angle is the bearing which marks the direction of the
15 shell because -- is that what you wanted to ask me? Because co-ordinates
16 were mentioned and I cannot turn the co-ordinates into the angle. So
17 excuse me.
18 Q. Maybe there was some confusion in the translation because I
19 didn't mention co-ordinates. So I think we're more or less on the same
20 page. The -- you said the end points of the impression made by the
21 fragments are the end points which are marked by the left and the right
22 fork. So you have two end points, you use sticks or lines to bring them
23 to the centre of the crater, and then the line that bisects those two end
24 points is the direction from which the shell came?
25 A. The line which bisects the angle is the incoming trajectory of
1 the shell.
2 Q. Thank you. And you would agree that unless you have a
3 specialised radar system designed to determine the origin of a
4 projectile, that this central axis method is the most accurate and
5 reliable method to determine the incoming trajectory?
6 A. The accuracy of the method is defined with a margin of error of
7 plus/minus 10 degrees or 5 depending on the traces on the ground, but
8 generally speaking according to the literature the accuracy of the method
9 is plus/minus 10 degrees. So it can be used for an approximate
10 determination of an incoming trajectory. So the accuracy is plus/minus
11 10 degrees. That's what the method can yield in terms of results.
12 Q. Okay. I understand that you are acknowledging that there is a
13 margin of error with these determinations, but my question was more that
14 this -- this is the best way to determine the incoming trajectory of the
15 shell unless you have a radar system to do so; is that right?
16 A. It is true that it is an approximative method and the
17 investigators on the ground did not have a better one at their disposal.
18 When I talked to you, I told you that the method was conceived to be used
19 during the war in order to establish approximately when a shell is coming
20 from somewhere so that a commander of a unit, a commanding officer, could
21 assess where the projectile that they were hit with had arrived from so
22 that he could return fire.
23 JUDGE BAIRD: But, Doctor, is it the best way in the absence of
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is an approximate method with
1 the accuracy that I mentioned, with a deviation of between 5 to
2 10 degrees. That's the margin of error. Because, as I repeat, it all
3 depends on the location where a shell lands. Sometimes the impression is
4 really good, sometimes not, and simply there is another element that
5 affects the accuracy and that is the subjective assessment of the person
6 who is doing this.
7 JUDGE MORRISON: But it isn't simply a question of azimuth; it's
8 also a question of range, isn't it? A radar will give you a back plot
9 which assists in the range. But simply seeing the direction of fire
10 will -- may give you an approximate azimuth of fire but it won't assist
11 you as to the range for return fire?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is certainly correct. In
13 this way, only the direction can be determined. The incoming trajectory
14 and approximately if the crater is a good one, then on the basis of the
15 ellipses which it left then very approximately the angle of descent can
16 also be determined. You can see that in various incidents this method
17 was used both by the CSB and some other participants in investigations,
18 namely, determining approximately the angle of descent. And yes, it's
19 also correct that the radar determines the incoming trajectory and also
20 the place from which a shell was launched. And that is why the radar is
21 part of the contemporary equipment of units, perhaps not units that we
22 are talking about here, but a bigger artillery system certainly.
23 JUDGE KWON: All the Bench is involved in questions.
24 Ms. Subotic, I don't think you answered the question by
25 Judge Baird. Is there a better method in the absence of radar?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, there is no better method when
2 there is no radar, but this method does have its degree of accuracy, if
3 that's an answer that satisfies you.
4 JUDGE KWON: Your answer to Judge Baird's question is yes?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
7 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you, Your Honours.
8 Q. And Ms. Subotic, you'd also agree that over time, as time passes,
9 the shrapnel marks in the ground caused by the exploding projectile will
10 erode and deteriorate and it will become harder to identify those marks
11 on the surface and harder to distinguish those marks from other marks
12 that may be on the surface; right?
13 A. In principle, that is so. However, no serious investigator would
14 ever work with traces that are not reliable and that do not provide a
15 degree of accuracy to his or her results. So that's quite true. Erosion
16 due to the weather conditions and the time that elapses certainly affects
17 the traces, but let me repeat no investigator would, I suppose, use
18 traces that are not reliable.
19 Q. And the crater itself, the crater formed by the falling
20 projectile, that will also erode due to weather and human traffic, and it
21 will become harder to determine the central point of the crater as time
22 passes; right?
23 A. Yes, that's correct.
24 Q. And because of these factors, the ideal time to conduct a crater
25 analysis would be immediately after the explosion, when the marks are
1 fresh, the crater is fresh, and that's when you're most likely to get the
2 best and most reliable results; right?
3 A. Yes, that's certainly true and I said that in the courtroom that
4 that's the usual practice of forensic technicians, that whenever an
5 incident occurs, whether in war time or in peace time, first of all, the
6 place of the incident, the site, is secured and then so that no traces
7 would be jeopardised an on-site investigation is conducted. So you're
8 absolutely right and that is the practice in forensic technical
9 investigation, that nothing should be moved at the site so that the
10 conclusions would be correct.
11 Q. And in terms of analysing crater impacts in person versus through
12 photographs, it's also -- there are some disadvantages, I would suggest,
13 through analysing photographs. For example, if the photograph is taken
14 at any distance there will be perspective issues. It's more difficult to
15 determine angles. You're also limited by the distance of the photograph.
16 You can't actually go and examine the traces up close. Factors like that
17 will make crater analysis on a photograph more difficult than one
18 conducted in person; right?
19 A. That's true in principle, but you disregarded one contemporary
20 technology which allows for each such photograph to be placed in a
21 vertical position by computer analysis, and thereby remove the angle from
22 which it was filmed and deformations caused by the photography that can
23 all be removed. And thanks to the new techniques which are now
24 available, especially computer analysis, it's possible to remove that.
25 So generally speaking you are right, unless we also take into account
1 this: Namely, that we use it as something that is needed and necessary.
2 Of course we try to make sure that any investigation is not burdened with
3 such elements because then we'll be more accurate and more reliable.
4 Q. Okay. But even if you have this technology available, you still
5 can only see what's on the photograph. You can't get any closer than the
6 photograph to examine the traces, whereas if in person you would be able
7 to go as close as you like to examine the shrapnel and the crater, and
8 that would assist the analysis; right?
9 A. Yes, and we noticed the difference when we went out into the
10 field and found the traces which we could then examine from close up. So
11 you are right.
12 Q. And in -- on that note, you explained to us on Sunday that you
13 were not in Bosnia during the war, certainly not in Sarajevo during the
14 war, and the first time you went to the locations of these incidents to
15 examine the incident sites was in 2010; is that right?
16 A. Yes, that is true. I did not visit the incident sites before
17 that occasion and I was not in Bosnia during the war, nor at the incident
18 sites in the Sarajevo area. So that is true.
19 Q. So it follows then that all the crater analyses you've done for
20 your various reports are conducted -- were -- sorry, were conducted
21 either on the basis of these visits to the sites in 2010 or later, or on
22 the basis of photographs or video stills of the sites or some combination
23 of those. That's right, isn't it?
24 A. Yes, that's right.
25 Q. And you also told us on Sunday that although you had learned the
1 methodology of the central axis method during your studies, that it was
2 not part of your job at the Belgrade Technical Institute to conduct
3 crater analyses and that in your 35 years of employment at the institute
4 you had not conducted a crater analysis; is that right?
5 A. That's right, though I am obliged to explain what the matter is
6 here. The analysis of the craters was made on the basis of the basic
7 principle, the absolutely basic principles. It's unimaginable that
8 someone doesn't know them and did complete the sort of school that I have
9 and was of the same profession as me. What I said on Sunday is that such
10 analysis is only done in case of war, and they're intended primarily for
11 military units so that they could make an approximate assessment as to
12 the places from which they were fired at. And the analysis of this kind
13 is made primarily for them and at the military technical institute we had
14 no need to do that sort of analysis for the simple reason that we were
15 not at war and we did not have such craters to analyse. So, excuse me,
16 these are elementary things which are taught, and it's unimaginable that
17 someone who has reached his third year of university studies would not
18 know this and precisely.
19 Q. Okay. So is it right then that the only crater analyses you have
20 conducted are the ones you did for the purposes of your report or
21 reports? Sorry.
22 A. Yes, that's correct.
23 Q. So then it's right as well that you have never in your life
24 conducted a crater analysis on a freshly formed crater in person; right?
25 A. Excuse me, I have to remember. Perhaps during one of the
1 experiments we did do such an analysis. I really can't remember now.
2 It's possible that during some of the experiments at the training-ground
3 in Nikinci we did analyse that if, for example, one of our projectiles
4 deflected from its trajectory, but I can't remember because even if we
5 did do it then it was such an unimportant analysis that I can't even
6 recall it.
7 Q. Okay. It's clear from your CV and your publications that you
8 have significant experience in the area of ballistics, but I don't see
9 anything in your CV about any publications in the area of crime scene
10 investigations. You haven't published in the area of crime scene
11 investigation, have you?
12 A. That's not correct. That's not correct. In my CV there are more
13 than 100 findings which were made for courts, and in each of these I did
14 visit the crime scene. I don't know how you missed that.
15 Q. All right. But that was for -- those related to specialised
16 findings in ballistics. But in terms of general crime scene analysis,
17 that's not an area that you've published in, general crime scene analysis
18 techniques or processes?
19 A. General or whatever, but there are 105 findings on expert
20 analysis listed here, and in each of these I visited the crime scene in
21 order to be able to write the report. And there are also several papers
22 that have legal elements. I wrote them for legal journals. One of them
23 that I remember is the determination of the place from which a projectile
24 was launched on the basis of an audio-recording on an answering machine
25 of the damaged party when they shot at him from three different
1 directions and he was at home. The report is listed here and I think
2 that it was published at least in two legal journals and also presented
3 at a conference. I remember that in particular. Therefore, several
4 papers that are linked with the investigations and ballistic expert
5 analysis conducted on the crime scene, and I suppose that you have seen
6 the one report here and also the list of the expert reports that had to
7 be drawn up for the needs of courts. In each case, I have to visit a
8 crime scene because what is usual in our parts is that when the
9 investigating judge goes out to the scene, he calls the expert to
10 accompany him for the reason that it might happen that not all the
11 necessary traces which are important for determining this are recorded.
12 And that's the particular aspect and that -- those are the on-site
13 investigations conducted by relevant experts at the crime scene.
14 Q. Thank you. If we could now go to your report on the mortar
15 incidents, which is D3542. Just so you're aware, Ms. Subotic, I'm going
16 to start with incident G5, which is the 12th of July, 1993, incident at
17 the water-line where the 82-millimetre mortar round struck. And the
18 reason I'm going to start with that one is because this is one that I'll
19 go through in a bit more detail than the others, although I'm limited in
20 my time so I can't cover everything. And then we'll go back through the
21 scheduled incidents in order and I will cover the other ones in somewhat
22 less detail.
23 Now, according to your report your position for this incident is
24 that the shell in this case could --
25 A. Just a second, please, so I can find it in the hard copy.
1 JUDGE KWON: Paragraph 49.
2 THE WITNESS: Thank you. [Interpretation] I have found it in the
3 meantime. It's easier for me to recognise it on the basis of the figures
4 or images.
5 MS. GUSTAFSON:
6 Q. So your position here is that the shell could not have been fired
7 from the west/north-west, which is what the contemporaneous
8 investigations concluded. You conclude that the shell was fired from the
9 north/north-east, and that conclusion can be found in paragraph 62(g).
10 Now, I'd like to start with -- at paragraph 56, which is page 82 in the
11 B/C/S and page 37 in the English. And here you note that the --
12 A. Paragraph 56?
13 Q. Yes, that's right. You note here that the investigation file,
14 which is P1438 in this case, states that at 1515 the police warned the
15 citizens not to loiter in the area because the nearest confrontation
16 lines were 200 metres away. And you conclude that since none of the
17 witnesses testified that there had ever been such a warning before that
18 this leads to the conclusion that the police had been tipped off in
19 advance that a shell would be fired. And I'd like to ask you a couple of
20 questions about that. The evidence you refer to simply indicates that
21 the police warned people in the area not to loiter. The evidence doesn't
22 say one way or another whether the police had given such warnings on
23 other occasions; right?
24 A. It is not stated here; however, the police issued a similar
25 warning in the event of the incident of the 4th of February when
1 humanitarian aid was being distributed. At that time the police also
2 issued a warning that people should not gather at the plateau because
3 shelling was anticipated to take place there -- was expected to take
4 place there. So there were other such instances. This is not an
5 isolated case.
6 Q. Well, the witness you actually cite here in footnote 201 and this
7 is witness AE from the Galic case did say that the police had warned them
8 that day not to queue in the area and witness AE confirmed that there was
9 a risk, and the risk was:
10 "The risk concerned you leaving your house every day. You could
11 be killed."
12 And this is at transcript pages 6021 to 6022 of the Galic trial.
13 And the evidence in this case confirms that there was a great
14 deal of shelling in Dobrinja. And I would refer to Dzevlan at
15 page 11750. So, Ms. Subotic, in the circumstances where the area of
16 Dobrinja was coming under regular shell fire it's logical, is it not,
17 that the police would warn people not to loiter in the area and this
18 doesn't even begin to suggest that the police were tipped off that this
19 particular shell would be launched, does it?
20 A. First, I wish to say that Dobrinja was not shelled. Rather, from
21 what I could gather from the documents there was fighting going on there.
22 There was evidence of the fighting having taken place there and that this
23 was not the result of shelling but rather the result of fighting where
24 shells landed from all quarters. So that's not correct. And all the
25 evidence shows that this was exactly the case. That's number one.
1 Number two, let me say that it is quite odd - and we did write it down
2 and it wasn't an explicit assertion - but we did notice that several
3 minutes earlier people were warned and then a shell landed, and that
4 afterwards it took a very long time before the CSB was contacted and
5 called to conduct an investigation. I think that it was quite a long
6 time after the event, as far as I remember from this report. So it's not
7 an explicit statement. It was merely an indication of a possibility.
8 Q. Okay. You said:
9 "First, I wish to say that Dobrinja was not shelled."
10 Are you disputing the eye-witness testimony in this case that
11 shells fell in the Federation-held parts of Sarajevo, in Dobrinja?
12 A. No, far from it. Now, when you say that Dobrinja was shelled
13 from the perspective of my profession this is the way it would appear: I
14 am somewhere on the side and shelling this Tribunal non-stop and you are
15 sitting there doing nothing. This is the distinction that I want to
16 draw. I am not disputing the statements that shells fell; rather, what
17 I'm saying is that on the basis of the evidence that we had, it was
18 visible that what was at play was some sort of fighting. So this is the
19 issue of my professional view and the way of how what you said was
20 interpreted to me.
21 Q. Okay. I'd like to now turn to paragraph 58, the next paragraph,
22 where you discuss the UNPROFOR report on this incident. And if we could
23 pull that up, it's P1442. And it is your position that UNPROFOR received
24 from the local investigators information about the type and calibre of
25 shell, number of casualties, time of the explosion, et cetera. And then
1 at paragraph 62(g) you go a bit further and you state that it is clear
2 that the UNPROFOR report and the Bosnian report used the same data. And
3 you conclude that these were not two independent reports whose results
4 match. And I don't think it's disputed that these two reports, P1438
5 which is the CSB report and P1442, the UNPROFOR report, do have matching
6 results that the shell flew in from the west/north-west.
7 So if we go to page 2 of this document and the subject is crater
8 analysis mortar attack. And then under crater characteristics it says:
9 "The form of the spray shows the direction of 5100 mils
11 And as I think you point out in your report, 5100 mils is
12 287 degrees --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, it does go on to say that the 82-millimetre mortar shell fin
15 found at the site was given to the crater analysis officer by local
16 officials, but on its face this report indicates that on the key issue of
17 the trajectory of the shell UNPROFOR conducted its own analysis and drew
18 its own conclusions on the trajectory; right?
19 A. This is certainly what would appear on the basis of what is
20 written here; however, I continue to stand by the statement that we were
21 saying, after all, that they did not have at their disposal the
22 stabiliser itself to review it because as far as I was able to glean from
23 the documents the stabiliser had been handed over to the CSB for
24 analysis. And on the other hand it is impossible for two analyses to be
25 fully consistent. You were able to see that we analysed something that
1 was very exact and yet the difference between our analysis and the
2 analysis of those who were there at the time was of several degrees. I
3 stand by my view that these were not independent reports, especially
4 because --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Can the witness please repeat what she said.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And it is quite -- it is not to be
7 expected at all that people would not be exchanging their information --
8 JUDGE KWON: Interpreters didn't hear you, in particular at the
9 end of your answer. Could you repeat from, "I stand by my view ..."
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that it cannot particularly
11 be concluded explicitly that it was done jointly or not. So it -- one
12 cannot conclude either that they conducted the investigation
13 independently or jointly. However, the investigation was conducted
14 simultaneously and the data indicate that the stabiliser -- handed over
15 the stabiliser, or rather, the CSB handed over the stabiliser to the KTZ.
16 And of course the stabiliser would have confirmed which shell was active
17 in the incident and that the marks at the scene were atypical because the
18 projectile had been activated at a certain height above the ground in
19 mid-air. Had this been the case, then they would have had to establish
20 what the calibre was. My conclusion was that they exchanged information
21 and that therefore the investigations were not independent.
22 MS. GUSTAFSON:
23 Q. Okay. On Sunday when we spoke you explained that you
24 comprehensively reviewed the material that the Defence provided to you
25 and that you could access from the internet with respect to these
1 incidents from the Galic trial record. That's right, isn't it?
2 A. No, no. You asked me if I had access to the documents that were
3 confidential; that's the way I understood your question. I really don't
4 know that I did have access to a document which was - how do you call it
5 here? - under seal. So I said that I was not aware that I had access to
6 any document that was confidential. And yes, we did use everything that
7 we could gain access to on the Tribunal's site and everything that we
8 received here from you as the supporting documentation from the
9 Prosecution and our team when we were looking for something or when we
10 found something that may shed light on a fact.
11 Q. Okay.
12 MS. GUSTAFSON: Could we move into private session for a moment?
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Shall the Chamber move into private session
15 [Private session]
13 [Open session]
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we are now in open session, Ms. Gustafson.
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: Thank you.
16 Q. Paragraph 60(a), that can be found on page 39 of the English and
17 85 of the B/C/S. And here, Ms. Subotic, you claim that the --
18 A. A moment, please. 60(a)?
19 Q. That's right. It should be page 85.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, here you state that the Skoda car that the shell exploded
22 behind was facing south-east rather than east, as you say that
23 Mr. Cavcic, the ballistics expert, stated in his ballistics report. And
24 you state:
25 "This fact is important for the determination of the direction
1 from which the shell was fired."
2 So you seem to be claiming that Mr. Cavcic based his direction of
3 fire determination on the orientation of the car and because the
4 orientation of the car was incorrect his determination of fire was also
5 incorrect. Is that what you're saying here?
6 A. No. Firstly, the orientation of the car has not been erroneously
7 determined. The car is situated in front of the building next to the
8 fence of which the projectile was activated, and it's at an azimuth of
9 157 which is the east -- south-east.
10 Q. Sorry, my question I think was a bit confusing. Let me try
11 again. Are you saying that because Mr. Cavcic --
12 A. The orientation is not wrong, the orientation of the Skoda. It
13 is parked in the position of the south-east. You can see that at
14 paragraph 43 and at figure 60(a), or rather, figure 44.
15 Q. Sorry. I think my question was a little confusing, so I'm going
16 to try again.
17 I think what you are saying here is that Mr. Cavcic wrongly
18 stated that the direction of the Skoda -- that the Skoda was facing east,
19 when in fact as you point out it was facing south-east. Because he got
20 that wrong and he based his -- and you also -- I think you're concluding
21 that he based his determination of the direction of fire on his
22 determination of the direction of the car, and because the direction of
23 the car was stated erroneously, the direction of fire was also erroneous.
24 Is that what you're saying?
25 A. No, no, from the beginning to the end. First of all, it wasn't
1 on the basis of the orientation of the car and the car's position that
2 Mr. Cavcic determined the direction of fire. First of all, this isn't
3 something that he did in his document. He explained in detail the way in
4 which he determined it. I'm sorry, it must have been down to the
5 translation that you concluded what you just said in your question. None
6 of the things stand this way. Mr. Cavcic determined the incoming
7 trajectory the way he described it here and in his testimony, and we did
8 relate it here in detail, but I didn't relate it in this way nor did I
9 think that it was because of this reason that his conclusion was wrong.
10 His conclusion was erroneous primarily because it lies on a number of
11 assumptions which are not correct.
12 Q. Okay. Because the reason I ask is because you have cited to
13 Mr. Cavcic's ICTY witness statement in your discussion of this incident,
14 and that's footnotes 210 and 215. And in that statement Mr. Cavcic
15 specified that when he made determinations of direction of fire he used a
16 compass. So if he used a compass, as he said he did in his statement,
17 then whatever he said about the orientation of the car wouldn't matter
18 because he made his determination based on the analysis of the marks and
19 a compass; right?
20 A. I have to underline again that his statement about the
21 orientation of the car had nothing to do with his determination of the
22 actual direction of fire, the direction from which the shell flew in, nor
23 was it taken as a parameter to challenge this conclusion. So the
24 orientation of the car, regardless of how he described it in his report,
25 was not taken as one of the reasons why his conclusion would be
1 considered erroneous. The way in which we determined the direction of
2 fire was on the basis of physical evidence and the tenets of the
3 profession that we belonged to, which is presented here in detail.
4 Q. Thank you. That's clear now. Now I'd like to turn now to your
5 determination of the direction of fire. So, first of all, you agree that
6 you were at a couple of disadvantages vis-a-vis the people who
7 investigated this incident at the time. Firstly, the only physical
8 evidence that still remains at the scene are the remains of shrapnel
9 damage to the asphalt which you examined in 2010, so 17 years after the
10 incident. So not only is the shrapnel damage -- it has weathered over 17
11 years, but also you were not able to examine in person the shrapnel
12 damage to the car or the fence which the contemporaneous investigations
13 took into account; right?
14 A. I cannot agree with you. I can agree on specific points, but not
15 with your entire question. Under 1, as far as the shrapnel marks on the
16 asphalt are concerned, they are very well preserved, as can be seen in
17 the photograph that we submitted. Under 2, if we observed the
18 photographs from the photo file, you will agree that the photo file was
19 produced on the day, in other words, not later after items were removed
20 and the crime scene was tampered with and that it was clearly put
21 together. Now, if you put the car back in the position where it was and
22 if you look at the various directions from which the deformations were
23 produced, it's completely clear how the shock wave acted, from which side
24 it acted, and in what way. It was on the basis of these very good
25 photographs that one could determine at which height the explosion took
1 place. In particular, one could determine the position of the stabiliser
2 ahead of the rear right tire of the car, which could not possibly have
3 ended up there had the shell flown in from the direction that the
4 investigators and Mr. Cavcic determined. Let me not name each and every
5 one of them, but they are physical marks. This is physical evidence that
6 was established at the moment it happened. So it isn't deformation we're
7 talking about. We're talking about the main trajectory. We're not
8 talking about whether the trajectory was 5 degrees to the left or
9 5 degrees to the right. We're talking about the trajectory which is
10 physically impossible if it was to happen the way the investigators said
11 it did. It was especially -- it is especially unacceptable if you read
12 what Mr. Cavcic wrote, and I'm sure you will be able to find the relevant
13 part, that all the evidence and marks that he was able to retrieve he
14 established all converged on the hip of the injured person. And we all
15 know that the person could not possibly have been in that position where
16 all these imaginary lines of his converged. Because had the shell flown
17 in the way these investigators imagined that it did, that person could
18 not possibly have been there.
19 Q. So --
20 A. I apologise if I was too fast for the interpreters.
21 Q. Just to go back to something you said earlier in your answer, you
22 said that:
23 "As far as the shrapnel marks on the asphalt are concerned, they
24 are very well preserved."
25 Now, earlier you said that you had never conducted a crater
1 analysis on a freshly formed crater except possibly once at a firing
2 range but it was so unimportant you can no longer remember. So it's
3 difficult for you to say how well preserved the shrapnel marks are when
4 you've never really analysed an incident where the shrapnel marks are
5 fresh; right?
6 A. No. You have to bear in mind that I have examined a great deal
7 of projectiles for their fragmentation effect. I know exactly what the
8 shrapnel acts -- what it does to the surface. We had never tested a
9 projectile without knowing what its fragment would do, and this is
10 something that we would do in our testing rounds. So I did investigate
11 the effect in this way. However, there is one thing that I have to say.
12 The mark is either discernible and clear, or it is not visible and not
13 clear. What we found on the ground was marks that were very visible and
14 clear. We marked them ourselves. They had a defined arc which you can
15 see -- or a curve which you can see on the figure there. And to
16 illustrate the direction, which I repeat, we did not determine as a
17 specific figure but as an approximation. And I do believe that this is
18 what is written in our report. I say "we," because my associate Poparic
19 and myself were there as well as with an entire team of Bosnian
20 policemen. We were all there.
21 THE ACCUSED: Transcript.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
23 THE ACCUSED: In line 22 it should be written "we had never
24 developed any projectile without testing," "developed" is out.
25 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
1 MS. GUSTAFSON:
2 Q. Ms. Subotic, you said the mark is either visible and clear or it
3 is not visible and not clear. Now, my point is that if the mark is not
4 visible and not clear because it's been on an asphalt surface for
5 17 years, eroding and deteriorating and being weathered, then you didn't
6 see it and you didn't mark it; right? And you don't know whether there
7 were marks that were no longer visible and not clear, do you?
8 A. We marked, or rather, your question is hypothetical. Whatever we
9 saw, all the visible traces, we marked. They can also be seen in photo
10 files, on photos that were taken 17 years later. They do not differ in
11 terms of their positioning. What we marked and what we did was much more
12 correct than if we had done it based on a photo that is exactly
14 If you look at the photo file of the crime prevention services,
15 you will see that those traces are absolutely identical in terms of their
16 distribution and positioning after 17 years. We did not add a single one
17 and we did not ignore any that we saw. It is possible that we did not
18 see some of them because of the lapse of time; however, there was a
19 sufficient number to enable us to confirm that what we found in the photo
20 file was accurate and the photo file was available and accessible to both
21 you and a me.
22 Q. Okay. Let's go then to page 88 of your report. And you've
23 just --
24 A. Paragraph?
25 Q. I'd like to look at the figure, so if you could just go to
1 page 88.
2 A. Very well then.
3 Q. Now you've -- in your answer you've placed a lot of emphasis on
4 the fact that the marks in the photo file were identical to the ones you
5 saw when you visited the scene. So if we could zoom in on the photo on
6 the left-hand side. Now, this is -- you've marked here with white
7 circles what you consider to be the shrapnel marks in the asphalt.
8 That's right, isn't it?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And it's clear you've drawn three circles on the sidewalk and one
11 just on the edge of the sidewalk, end of road. Now, if we could bring up
12 side by side to this page 93 of your report, in particular figure 52.
13 And if we could zoom in on the middle of the photo on the right-hand side
14 and slide it over so we can see what's on the right-hand side. Now, in
15 this photograph you've again marked in with circles what you could see in
16 terms of shrapnel marks in 2010, and it's clear that there are on the
17 order of 20 shrapnel marks identified on the sidewalk here. So we've got
18 three shrapnel marks on the sidewalk when you marked the photo and
19 roughly 20 when you went to the scene. So these are not consistent at
20 all, in fact. Your shrapnel markings on these two -- on the photo versus
21 what you saw in 2010 are totally inconsistent; right?
22 A. It is not correct, no. Look here, we did not do our job to
23 illustrate every single piece of shrapnel for you based on those that we
24 found in photo file. From here I can see the traces that we did not mark
25 on the left-hand side photo. We didn't consider that we had to do it.
1 We did not look for the consistency of the two findings of the site of
2 explosion. From here I can see at least 15 traces on the pavement that
3 we did not mark. This was marked only to show the trajectory or either
4 the main curve is marked, not every shrapnel trace. If we zoomed in on
5 this photo, if we were to mark every single piece of shrapnel, there
6 would be an exact match. If it's of any interest to you, I can do it for
7 tomorrow and I can in that case perhaps do away with your dilemma.
8 Q. Sorry, Ms. Subotic, correct me if I am wrong but your line number
9 4 in figure 46 is the line that you claim is the middle of the arc of the
10 shrapnel that you have marked in this photograph; right?
11 A. It's just the approximate trajectory. It's not the middle of the
12 arc. This is what we marked. However, this is just the approximation of
13 the trajectory within which all the traces fit, especially the traces on
14 the Skoda car that we saw from the back. You can understand that the
15 analysis of a crater of this kind is not a classical analysis because the
16 shell was activated at 65 centimetres above the ground so the arc cannot
17 be typical of what we are accustomed to when we analyse similar craters.
18 Q. Ms. Subotic, at paragraph 40 -- sorry, 60(d), and this is at the
19 bottom of page 41 in the English, you state with respect to the photo on
20 the left:
21 "In order to clarify this vital detail in figure 45, the visible
22 damage to the asphalt has been marked white on figure 46. This makes it
23 easy to observe the regular pattern characteristic for the fragmentation
24 of a shell."
25 And then you say this is a partial representation of
1 fragmentation because the shell exploded at a height above the surface.
2 And you say:
3 "Yet it allows us to determine the direction from which the shell
4 had come in with some accuracy. This direction is marked in figure 46
5 with a yellow line 4."
6 Now what you said there is quite categoric and it is
7 contradictory to what you said a few moments ago about this being an
8 approximate trajectory based on some but not all of the shrapnel marks
9 visible in the photo, isn't it?
10 A. Perhaps this looked categoric to you, but it says here it may be
11 concluded with reliability that the direction of -- from which the
12 projectile arrived was north or slightly eastwards. This is just an
13 approximation and I report this is not the exact angle to the millimetre.
14 Do you understand? We know that the curve is 157 and I suppose that all
15 of us see here that the angle is left to the curve 157, and if we look at
16 Google Earth you will see that it is either north or a bit eastward and
17 we are talking about the place of launch and not the place where the
18 shell landed.
19 Q. Okay. Sorry, I'm going to move on in a moment but before we do
20 you claimed that you could see additional shrapnel marks on the sidewalk
21 on this photo. So I'd like to zoom in on the photo in figure 46 and have
22 you mark these shrapnel markings that you claim are visible here. And I
23 think you said there were at least 15 of them.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Would Madam Gustafson agree the
25 markings to be put on the left-hand side which was not done before?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And can the photo please zoomed in
2 on a bit more, please.
3 MS. GUSTAFSON:
4 Q. Ms. Subotic, if you'd like the photo to be zoomed in, that can be
5 done, because once we move the photo the markings disappear.
6 JUDGE KWON: Let's zoom in further.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is enough. This is enough.
8 Thank you. You don't have to zoom in any further. Very well now.
9 JUDGE KWON: Would you wait.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I?
11 MS. GUSTAFSON:
12 Q. Just to remind you at line 15 of page 91 you said:
13 "From here I can see at least 15 traces on the pavement that we
14 did not mark."
15 A. I would very much like to delete the last trace I marked. So you
16 want me to mark only the traces on the pavement?
17 Q. Well, that's what you asserted you could see, so the ones on the
18 pavement -- yes, on the sidewalk that you can see.
19 A. Yes.
20 JUDGE KWON: You wanted to delete something?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I may have not been very precise
22 when I made my circles, but it's really neither here nor there, is it?
23 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well. Can I now continue
1 JUDGE KWON: If you could put your signature and the date,
3 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
4 JUDGE KWON: We'll receive it as a Prosecution Exhibit.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P6319, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE MORRISON: Ms. Gustafson, before you continue, because I
7 may not get another chance to ask these questions, there are a series of
8 short questions I'd like to put to the witness at this point.
9 The first is a general one: Have you ever been to the scene of a
10 mortar explosion in the minutes after it detonated where injury or death
11 was occasioned?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Just the testing grounds where
13 we examined mortar shells. It was there that I saw quite a huge number
14 of such detonations.
15 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes. I was particularly asking with reference
16 to the injuries caused.
17 The second question - these questions are not definitive and
18 they're not designed to stop either Ms. Gustafson or Mr. Gaynor from
19 asking or expanding on them, it's just that I'd like them to be on the
20 record - do you agree that a mortar round can have an impact fuse with
21 immediate effect or delayed fuse, where the -- a detonation doesn't take
22 place for a set period after impact?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you're right. All mortar
24 rounds have fuses with immediate effect. Each of the fuses in question
25 has a safety pin which is connected to certain inertia and it is
1 primarily used to prevent such projectiles to be activated at the
2 beginning of their trajectory and to protect the launching crew. Is this
3 what you have asked me?
4 JUDGE MORRISON: No. That is something that we've already heard.
5 What I'm asking is: Do you know or accept that there are mortar fuses
6 which detonate upon immediate impact and some fuses which are initiated
7 upon impact but the detonation doesn't occur until a variable time
8 afterwards depending on the nature of the delay fuse?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As a matter of fact, I did answer
10 your question. All mortar rounds in our country are fitted with a
11 so-called UTI fuses which are contact fuses, which means that they have
12 an immediate action but there is a safety pin that protects the crew at
13 the beginning of trajectory. Our 82- and 120-millimetre rounds have that
14 kind of fuses. There are all sorts of fuses and they are fitted to all
15 sorts of rounds in accordance with the requirements of the tactical
16 authority. You are right, there are such things, but our 82- and
17 102-mortar [as interpreted] rounds are fitted with the so-called UTI
18 fuses which is the abbreviation that stands for a contact fuse and it has
19 exactly the properties that I have explained just now.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let's be of some assistance with
21 the interpretation. The UTI, what is this?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the contact inertia fuse.
23 The inertia applies to the safety clause that I mentioned in -- earlier
24 in the transcript.
25 JUDGE MORRISON: I think we all understood that. Thank you.
1 Going on to explosive effect, explosives can create both blast
2 and vacuum, can't they, so that sometimes an explosion will cause, for
3 instance, next to a building debris to be injected into the building and
4 sometimes the vacuum effect of explosive, depending on how far it is
5 away, will have a sucking-out effect of debris. Would you agree with
6 that proposition?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, I did not understand
8 the interpretation very well. I don't know what the debris may be in
9 this case, or at least the word that was used for the word "debris" is
10 not clear to me.
11 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, irrespective of the debris, there can be
12 explosions which have the effect of creating a vacuum into which debris
13 is drawn, i.e., towards the explosive. There are also instances where an
14 explosion pushes debris away from the point of detonation in the opposite
15 direction. Both phenomena can be observed in some explosions. Do you
16 agree with that?
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise. May I be of
18 assistance? If the Doctor received the interpretation fragments, meaning
19 shell fragments, there is no inertia that would pull them towards the
20 centre. I would say debris, the material fragments from the ground, from
21 the point of impact. That's what I would use.
22 JUDGE MORRISON: I'm not talking about fragments of the shell
23 casing. I'm talking about external material. It can have both effects.
24 Do you agree with that proposition?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to be certain that I
1 understand you properly. You're saying that under certain conditions
2 when there is a detonation or an explosion within an environment which is
3 defined in geometrical terms, a vacuum can be created and that it can
4 cause an unexpected movement of bricks, for example, or certain parts of
5 that kind that may be found in the vicinity. Is this the gist of your
6 question? Did I understand you properly?
7 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes, in other words debris can be brought
8 towards the point of detonation by the vacuum effect?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These would be very specific
10 conditions and these conditions are defined by the point of impact and
11 the area where the detonation takes place. When a detonation happens in
12 a large open space or at least an open space this is quite improbable or
14 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, I'll leave for others to develop that if
15 they wish. I'm just talking about the general principle.
16 The other matter I want to deal with is secondary debris. You
17 talked about injuries caused by the fragmentation of the casing of a
18 mortar bomb. Did you take into account when looking at the photographs
19 of the injuries the possibility of injuries caused by debris that was
20 blown by the force of the explosion into the victim as opposed to the
21 shell casing or shrapnel itself?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we are looking at the injuries
23 that happened on the 28th of May and that major lesion, I didn't take
24 into account the possibility of injuring due to debris in the form of a
25 large object. That was a possibility. However, there was no blood under
1 the injured person that may have corroborated that theory and justified
2 such a large injury in such a place. Having said that, you are right,
3 that injury may have been caused by a stone or the -- a grenade. In any
4 case, a secondary debris of larger proportions.
5 JUDGE KWON: Did you say 28th of May?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was Markale 2, was it the
7 28th of May?
8 JUDGE KWON: August.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, it was in August
10 indeed. I have a lot of problems with the dates because there were a
11 number of incidents.
12 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, I think we all understand what you meant.
13 And the last question I want to pose is this: If an explosive
14 charge, for instance, an artillery shell or a mortar round, is detonated
15 remotely, i.e., not by impact but being detonated remotely, that is going
16 to require a device to be attached to the mortar round or to the shell
17 and a primary -- and an explosive charge in order to cause the secondary
18 detonation. That's correct, isn't it?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. And the initial action had to
20 be over, the fuse had to be eliminated and that's what is the initial
21 part of its construction. In order to be activated, it has to achieve a
22 distance, and then it can be activated. That's why I said it was the
23 initial action and that initial part has to be blocked in that fuse. And
24 then what you mentioned can occur subsequently. So one action has to
25 precede the other.
1 JUDGE MORRISON: And therefore, unless it is vapourised, there is
2 going to be the opportunity at least for physical evidence of that
3 secondary device that's been attached to the bomb or the mortar round to
4 be found at or near the scene?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that should be the case. It
6 should be found in the vicinity. If we're talking about certain specific
7 devices. If it's not a TNT round which doesn't leave traces, a Trotyl
8 round is just a piece of TNT which contains the detonating casing and
9 that does not leave any traces. It explodes together with the mother
11 JUDGE MORRISON: Thank you very much.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript, please.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On page 98, line 17, when the stone
15 is mentioned and that is a stone that would have been projected by a
16 shell. On 99 "armoured" was not properly interpreted. This is the
17 initial arming of the shell. I hope that Your Excellencies understood
18 that. The Doctor said that when speed is achieved the shell is armoured,
19 i.e., the initial fuse is prepared for explosion and I can't see that
20 recorded in the Doctor 's answer. And on line 17 she said that it could
21 be a rifle grenade or a brick, anything that was pushed or projected by
22 the explosion. If we have the time, maybe you should ask the witness to
23 explain what armouring is, why this happens, and what she said about the
24 stone or a piece of brick.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm convinced that everybody here
1 have already mastered the terminology because we have been discussing the
2 same things for a long time, but in any case let me try. The
3 professional term for making the fuse capable of initiating an explosion
4 is called armouring. When we say the inertia contact fuse means that the
5 fuse is restricted or limited before it is armoured, i.e., before it is
6 brought to a state where it can initiate the explosion. In technical
7 terms this was resolved in the following way: Once a speed of flying is
8 achieved together with inertia, the fuse is released and it can be
9 activated. I also mentioned that we are primarily talking about the
10 reasons of safety of the crew which launches such projectiles.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
12 We'll stop here for today.
13 Yes, Mr. Tieger.
14 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be brief. As the
15 Court must be aware, the accused took about four times the estimated
16 period for his examination-in-chief, consuming an almost extra two days.
17 Not surprisingly, that had an impact on the upcoming schedule and next
18 week's witnesses in particular. The proposed solution by the Defence has
19 been to submit a revised schedule, but that belatedly revised schedule is
20 quite problematic for the Prosecution. I met immediately with
21 Mr. Robinson to see if we could reach some accommodation that would work
22 for both parties. So far we have not been successful, but it may be the
23 case that the success of our discussions may turn on the availability of
24 extra or extended sessions either tomorrow or next week. So I wanted to
25 bring that to the Court's attention to see if that could at least be
1 explored to see if it's feasible. We'll obviously continue to discuss
2 the matter to see what we can do short of extra or extended sessions.
3 But as I say, that might be an adjustment that might just be sufficient
4 to bridge the gap. And I wanted to raise it in case it could be thrown
5 into the mix. Thank you.
6 JUDGE KWON: How much extension do you have in mind when you are
7 talking about tomorrow's hearing?
8 MR. TIEGER: Well, I think what we were talking about, as we
9 discussed it, was an extra hour or hour and a half for two of the four
10 days remaining between now and Thursday of next week. At least that was
11 part of our discussion as it took place. We're going to continue to work
12 on it. I presume we may identify some greater specificity or more
13 refinement in what is needed as we do so, but that was the nature of the
14 discussion as it took place thus far.
15 JUDGE KWON: If either of the parties could e-mail our staff as
16 to this more detailed information so that we can understand more
18 MR. TIEGER: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE KWON: We'll continue tomorrow at 9.00. The hearing is
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.59 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 16th of
23 May, 2013, at 9.00 a.m.