1 Wednesday, 22 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, please continue Mr. Gaynor.
8 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 WITNESS: ZORICA SUBOTIC [Resumed]
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 Cross-examination by Mr. Gaynor [Continued]
12 Q. I would like to start with a correction to one of my
13 calculations. Yesterday at page 38584, I asserted that the pie slice
14 which appears at page 161 of the B/C/S version of your report, which is
15 D3551 has an area of 4.5 million square metres. The correct figure is,
16 in fact, 5.45 million square metres.
17 Now, I don't believe that should have any impact on the answer
18 that you provided, but if you do have any further comments you wish to
19 make, you're free to do so.
20 A. Yes, of course, I do. I did check that as agreed with you. The
21 exact surface is indeed 4.51 million, which is obtained in such a way
22 that the pie slice --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Can the witness please repeat the figure of the
24 surface area, because it was too fast.
25 JUDGE KWON: Could you repeat.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course. The latter figure,
2 5454153.9. This is the entire circular piece. However, from that piece,
3 another piece should be extracted which was under the BH Army control
4 which is 872.664, so that in fact you did provide the exact figure in
5 your first calculation.
6 MR. GAYNOR:
7 Q. Very well. Thank you very much. Now, I just would like to note
8 a transcript correction of the same page, 38584. The angle of the pie
9 slice is 25 degrees, not 125 degrees as appears in yesterday's
11 I'd now like to play a video which is P1450. In your report on
12 this incident, which is the Markale II incident, you say at paragraph 79,
13 which is on page 84 of the English version, that based -- you say:
14 "The evacuation of the casualties was filmed from the very
15 beginning by BH TV. Based on video recordings broadcast on the news
16 bulletin on BH TV, we can conclude that BH TV cameramen filmed the
17 evacuation from start to end."
18 Is it your position that the TV camera crew was part of the
19 conspiracy in this particular incident?
20 A. That definitely is not my position. I only noted down my
21 observation that the filming started practically before the incident
22 itself, that the TV crew was present at the incident scene at
23 Vasa Miskina and that it filmed its movement from that point to the
24 incident site which can be seen. I'm not maintaining that the TV crew
25 was part of any conspiracy but that it was present there and that it
1 filmed what it did and what can be seen from the footage. So that's an
3 Q. We'll now play P1450, and we'll stop a few times during the video
4 and discuss aspects of it which are discussed in your report.
5 [Video-clip played]
6 MR. GAYNOR: Stop, please.
7 Q. Now, we have stopped -- we've stopped at 45.7 seconds. In the
8 middle of the screen we see a man who appears to have had both legs cut
9 off at approximately above the knee. In your report, at page 128 in
10 B/C/S and page 84 in English, you say:
11 "The unusual thing about this man is not only how he could have
12 survived the explosion of a mortar shell without protection but also how
13 such a strong explosion did not turn him parallel to the street."
14 That's the end of that quote. Now, can we agree at least that
15 both his legs have been cut off and that he is still alive at this point?
16 A. Yes, of course. That's what the report says.
17 Q. Now, are you suggesting in your report, or today, that he was
18 placed there after the detonation?
19 A. No. For heaven's sake, how could I be able to -- how would I be
20 able to claim something like that? Had I claimed anything like that,
21 then I would have put it in the report.
22 Q. Well, then could you please explain to the Trial Chamber what
23 exactly you meant when you said in your report:
24 "The unusual thing about this man is not only how he could have
25 survived the explosion of a mortar shell without protection but also how
1 such a strong explosion did not turn him parallel to the street."
2 What exactly are you getting at?
3 A. This is what I want to say. When the explosion occurred or when
4 an explosion of such a projectile occurs as is the 120-millimetre mortar
5 shell, then the blast wave or the shockwave at this short distance is of
6 great strength, and it is only natural that the person should be turned
7 along the length of the street and thus not this way. What we spotted as
8 a fact was that he was positioned in a different manner. If you look at
9 the scene that we have now, you can see people lying down with their
10 heads down the street, so along the length of the street, and that's
11 consistent with a shockwave. It is only unusual, although possible, that
12 people should survive such a shockwave, but it is highly unusual that
13 they should survive such a shockwave without having been behind some sort
14 of cover, without having been shielded from it in any way. So this is an
15 observation that was made in that regard.
16 Q. Mrs. --
17 A. It was observed that the position their bodies were in was not
18 consistent with the propagation of the shockwave. Right in front of the
19 people carrying someone you have, indeed, people who are positioned in
20 accordance with the propagation of the shockwave. What that can suggest
21 is another thing. I mean, what I have done is I have made an observation
22 without any ulterior motives. Please read my text without any
23 insinuations and without any subtext. Since you did read this carefully,
24 I can tell, you could find that there are observations there which simply
25 had to be made because they are of an unusual nature. As a scientist and
1 a professional, I find it a duty to note that down.
2 Q. Mrs. Subotic, do you accept that after this man was struck by the
3 tremendous force of the shrapnel which took both of his legs off from
4 approximately the knee down that he could have been turned in the air
5 and, quite frankly, neither you nor I know exactly what the trajectory of
6 his body was after he was struck by that enormous force?
7 A. Of course I will agree with you. However, what the most probable
8 trajectory was was the one indicated there, and consequently, his body
9 should have been oriented in such a way as to lie in parallel to the
10 length of the street. Well, he may have landed on the ground in such a
11 way because of an obstacle that was in his way, but definitely not
12 because the shockwave would have turned him this way, would have knocked
13 him down this way.
14 MR. GAYNOR: We can play on, please.
15 [Video-clip played]
16 MR. GAYNOR: Stop. We've stopped at 1 minute, 20.3.
17 Q. Now, I want to ask you, in the past few seconds we've seen what
18 appear to be bodies strewn along this street. Do you accept that these
19 are, in fact, bodies of persons who were killed in the detonation at this
20 place and on this day?
21 A. I don't see why I wouldn't accept it. I never claimed that they
22 were brought to that place.
23 MR. GAYNOR: Very well. If we can play on, please.
24 [Video-clip played]
25 MR. GAYNOR: Now, we've stopped now at 1 minute and 26.2.
1 Q. We see here a body of a person which is hanging over a rail.
2 This is discussed in your report at page 129 in B/C/S, page 85 in
4 You discussed this at length. Among other things, you say:
5 "The wound is of such a nature that it is difficult to explain
6 that it was caused by the explosion of a 120-millimetre mortar shell."
7 Now, is it your position that the sabotage team which
8 orchestrated this incident placed this body in civilian clothing at this
9 location after the detonation?
10 A. It is my position that there are indications... first and
11 foremost, I stand firmly by the position that this is not an injury
12 inflicted by the mortar shell shrapnel, nor could it ever be, no matter
13 at what distance. That’s one.
14 Two. This body is far from the centre of explosion, in a
15 position which would be very hard to explain as to how it came
17 Thirdly, there is a very small amount of blood around the body,
18 and I had a photograph, a still which was very clear. So this body --
19 or, rather, the injuries there were not the result of a mortar shell, and
20 as we can see, this is the centre of the explosion. We can see it in the
21 background of the still. Nor is the blood around the individual
22 consistent with the injury that we can observe on his body, nor does the
23 photo documentation that we were able to review indicate that this
24 individual is listed among the injured. So I don't know what sort of
25 conclusion you could draw save for the fact that this body did not end up
1 there as a result of the explosion of the -- a mortar shell for the
2 above-stated reasons at the explosion site. It could not have been the
3 result of that explosion, seeing the sort of injury it has and the
4 position that the body is in.
5 This is simply an observation. Let's be clear. I come from a
6 different profession. And as for the injuries that can be inflicted by
7 the sort of weaponry that I have been dealing with for the past 35 years,
8 that is something I can talk about. Perhaps I cannot speak about certain
9 medical aspects of this injury. However, as for the aspects that concern
10 my profession, I absolutely stand by what I said.
11 Q. Now, Mrs. Subotic, we can see from this screen shot a radius of
12 1 metre around this body, and I do not see an impact point within 1 metre
13 of this body. What is it that makes you claim that the body is about a
14 metre from the centre of the explosion?
15 A. I didn't say it was away 1 metre from the centre of the
16 explosion. I rather said that the centre of the explosion is in the
17 depth of the still, behind, further away from the post that we can see
18 there, further down into the depth of the still.
19 Q. The transcript of your evidence reads:
20 "The body about a metre from the centre of explosion."
21 Now, I'd like to press you on your assertion that this injury is
22 inconsistent with the detonation of a 120-millimetre projectile. Do you
23 accept, first of all --
24 JUDGE KWON: Just a moment. Could you give the transcript page
1 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. It's page 6 in today's transcript, at the top
2 of the page.
3 JUDGE KWON: Page 6 and line?
4 MR. ROBINSON: Line 10.
5 JUDGE KWON: Why don't we confirm with the witness.
6 The transcript reads like this:
7 "Secondly, the body is about a metre from the centre of
8 explosion, and it is very hard to explain how this injury came about."
9 Do you confirm having said so?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't say that it was 1 metre --
11 the body was 1 metre away from the centre of explosion. I said that it
12 was hard to establish how the body came to be in the position that it was
13 relative to the impact site, and that such a type of injury could not
14 possibly have been produced by a mortar shell, because when a mortar
15 shell is activated, the spray is dissipated rather than concentrated in
16 its effect. And I said that it was not possible for there to be such a
17 small amount of blood around the body given that the injury is so
18 devastatingly great.
19 JUDGE KWON: Very well. I'll ask the CLSS to check the recording
20 of today and to confirm whether doctor had really said that body was
21 about a metre from the centre of explosion. We'll check it out.
22 Please continue.
23 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Q. I would like to put to you that you are not in a position to
25 dismiss any of the number of the reasons why this body ended up in this
1 place at this time, one of which is that he may well have been terribly
2 injured and staggered to this location where he died. Another is that he
3 died primarily through blast injury rather than shrapnel injury.
4 Do you accept that there are other explanations for why this body
5 was at this place, and those explanations are consistent with him having
6 been killed by a 120-millimetre mortar detonation?
7 A. I mentioned a moment ago, and I have to mention it again, the
8 aspect of for how long a person may live after sustaining such an injury
9 is not something I can testify to. I am not a medical doctor. For how
10 long a person may live after sustaining such an injury is not something I
11 can speak about or want to talk about.
12 Now, the injury as seen here is indicative to me of an injury
13 caused by a rifle-launched grenade or a solid object. Let's not
14 speculate which sort of object that would be. At any rate, the fact that
15 such a part of body is missing on the lateral side without an arm or the
16 head missing is highly implausible.
17 Q. I must press you on your explanation which does not appear in
18 your report that this injury might have been caused by a rifle-launched
19 grenade. Could you explain clearly to the Trial Chamber your theory
20 about how this body in civilian clothing with these injuries ended up at
21 this location if he was not killed in the Markale II detonation?
22 A. I cannot explain something that I do not have evidence or
23 parameters for. I only said that the body is indicative of injuries or
24 the body has sustained injuries that were not sustained by a
25 120-millimetre mortar shell, and had they -- the injury been sustained at
1 this spot, then there would have to have been a great deal more blood
2 than there is, indeed, and that's what you have in the report. So the
3 images that we see on our screen, there is a shadow, in fact, and the
4 red-colour area that would be indicative of blood is practically minimal.
5 What else can I add without going beyond the bounds of my profession?
6 MR. GAYNOR: If we could play on, please.
7 [Video-clip played]
8 MR. GAYNOR: Stop, please. We've stopped at 2:25.9.
9 Q. Now, this body is -- appears at page 129 of your report, and
10 that's at page 85 in English.
11 Now, I just want to read a little part of what you said about
12 this body. You said:
13 "This man's bag has many shrapnel holes, although it was
14 concealed by his body. Seventeen holes have been counted in the bag. If
15 we take into account the undisputable fact that some shrapnel could have
16 had enough energy to penetrate both the man's body and the bag, the
17 number of holes is still too large. It is especially inexplicable why
18 the holes have the same dimensions and a circular shape."
19 So, first of all, can you give the Trial Chamber an estimate
20 based on your expert knowledge of the number of pieces of shrapnel which
21 result from the detonation of a 120-millimetre mortar projectile?
22 A. It's certainly a very large number, and your conclusion does not
23 affect what we wrote here. The order of magnitude is in the thousands.
24 This is based on our experiments and it's a theoretical number. In
25 practice it is never exactly the same. The density per square metre
1 diminishes logarithmically in proportion with the distance from the
2 centre of the explosion. It diminishes very fast.
3 Yesterday, you said yourself that the lethal effect of this shell
4 is until a distance of 17 metres, and it was also -- and at that distance
5 there is one impact per square metre, one particle impact per square
6 metre. What must be borne in mind is a circular shape, and we think this
7 is a very unusual thing. If you take a better look at this bag, you will
8 see that it is indeed circular, and this is basically impossible to
9 achieve in an explosion of mines and shells. This is especially
10 corroborated by the fact that in the photographic documentation there was
11 at least one dead body on the stretchers of which pellets were found, and
12 this was observed by forensic doctors, and I would like to point that
14 Q. Have you personally ever examined a human body which had been
15 killed following the detonation of a 120-millimetre mortar projectile?
16 A. No. I personally, together with forensic doctors, examined many
17 bodies that were killed with -- from shotguns and hand-held firearms, but
18 I've never been in a war, and I never had the opportunity to perform such
19 an examination. And, by the way, that's for forensic doctors to do and
20 not for me. I'm only present sometimes on such occasions.
21 Q. Could you clarify for the Trial Chamber why you are so certain
22 that the man's bag was concealed by his body at the moment of detonation?
23 A. Based on the body on the -- the position of the body on that
24 street, and I think it is a dead body, my answer would be affirmative.
25 He is holding something in his hand. There is no handle that goes over
1 the shoulder so as to be on his back.
2 Q. So you are able to tell on the basis of this video alone the
3 direction in which the man was travelling and whether his body was
4 concealing his bag or was not concealing his bag at the moment of
5 detonation? Is that your expert evidence?
6 A. Not only on the basis of this video but also on the basis of the
7 position of the body and the laws governing the propagation of
8 shockwaves. It wouldn't -- for it not to result like this, he would have
9 had to carry it over his shoulder, but that adds to the oddity, but does
10 not allow for conclusive statements. However, the fact that there are
11 shrapnel holes of a circular shape is something inexplicable because it's
12 impossible to achieve.
13 Q. Well, Mrs. -- Mrs. Subotic, you've been alluding to that a couple
14 of times. I want you to come straight out about what your theory is
15 here. Is it your theory that this man was killed with some kind of
16 small-bore weapon at a different location and then he was transported to
17 Markale Market and he was scattered among -- or placed, rather, among the
18 bodies of people who had been killed in that explosion? Please explain
19 your theory clearly to the Trial Chamber as to how this body ended up in
20 this location at this time.
21 A. There is not a word saying that this body was brought there, so I
22 can discard that immediately. I don't know how you came up with the
23 thesis that it was brought there.
24 What was observed here is the following: There is a dead body at
25 the site that suffered injuries from a large number of small projectiles
1 of a circular shape and they cannot be found in the centre of the
2 explosion. This does not exclude the possibility that something else
3 exploded there that contained pellets such as a hand grenade. Anything
4 that contains pellets, that may also have exploded there.
5 There is a fact here, namely that the body that is there, and I'm
6 not talking about bringing bodies there or taking them away, this body is
7 in an unusual position, technically speaking, and it suffered injuries
8 from small projectiles of a circular shape, and we can see that on that
9 person's clothing and back. And I repeat, a 120-millimetre mortar shell
10 does not contain any pellets. So this man could have come to harm right
11 there, but how we cannot say because there is no material evidence, or
12 there are no investigation results contributing to the -- to a -- to a
13 clarification, but the fact is that the body is there.
14 Q. I just want to --
15 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On page 12, line 19, it says: "[In
17 English] They cannot be found in the centre of the explosion."
18 [Interpretation] The witness did not say "in the centre of explosion" but
19 "in such an explosion." I don't think she mentioned the centre of the
21 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
22 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Q. I note, Mrs. Subotic, in your report there's not one mention of a
24 simultaneous detonation of a hand grenade. That's an explanation which
25 you've come up with today for the first time. Isn't that correct?
1 A. I did not venture into speculation, and that's why there's no
2 mention of it. You asked me whether it was brought there, and I only
3 spoke about possibilities, because pellets are contained in the assets
4 mentioned. I did not speculate. I analysed traces. I drew conclusion
5 based on hard evidence, and what I found is listed as a fact rather than
6 a speculation of mine about what might have happened if something else
7 happened and so on. I cannot deal with that. It's a fact, however, that
8 this body was found where it was found and in the state in which it was
10 MR. GAYNOR: Can we play on, please.
11 [Video-clip played]
12 MR. GAYNOR:
13 Q. We've obviously skipped forth in time to a time where some of the
14 first UNPROFOR troops attended the scene. We've stopped now at 3 minutes
15 and 48.6 seconds.
16 My question to you is this: In your report you have set forth
17 only two possibilities for the Markale II incident. One is that it was a
18 static detonation by a device placed presumably in the middle of this
19 busy street, the second that it was a roof-top delivery.
20 Have you seen in any of the reports by those who physically
21 inspected the site, such as these two men here, or in the reports
22 prepared by the BiH MUP persons who physically inspected the site to
23 suggest that they thought that this was either a static detonation in the
24 middle of the street or a roof-top delivery?
25 A. Not as far as I remember.
1 MR. GAYNOR: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE KWON: I just received -- just a second.
3 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
4 JUDGE KWON: While the interpreters will listen to the audio
5 recording again, but I just received an informal report from the court
6 reporter that Mrs. Subotic actually said as was noted in the transcript.
7 I'm referring to the part where she said:
8 "Secondly, the body is about a metre from the centre of
9 explosion, and it is very hard to explain how this injury came about."
10 This is how it was -- she listened to the section, and that was
11 how it was interpreted into English.
12 Yes. Mr. Karadzic.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Good morning,
14 Excellencies. Good morning to everybody.
15 Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
16 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mrs. Subotic.
17 A. Good morning.
18 Q. I will start with the most recent things. Today, on page 11, you
19 were asked whether you had ever examined a victim of a 120-millimetre
20 mortar shell. Since you were a court expert, are you familiar with the
21 characteristics of wounds inflicted by various assets?
22 A. Yes, certainly, because together with my colleagues, forensic
23 doctors, I must draw conclusions, and there are books dealing with the
24 details of this matter. What I want to say here is that any statement of
25 mine about the possibility of wounding, firstly and foremostly refers to
1 lethal assets, and from that point of view such a wound is impossible. I
2 mean, it's impossible that such a wound should have been inflicted by a
3 120-millimetre mortar shell.
4 Q. Thank you. Today you mentioned you didn't want to speculate
5 without an investigation and a thorough study. Since you are a court
6 expert, have you ever heard of cases where the dead are evacuated before
7 the living? Is that usual?
8 A. I have never seen an evacuation of the dead before an evacuation
9 of the living.
10 Q. Thank you. Would you expect -- expecting a priority to be given
11 to the wounded, an on-site investigation with measurements, photographs
12 being taken, and so on?
13 A. It is usual for an on-site investigation to be conducted before
14 changing anything at the site. That is standard procedure, what can be
15 found in any textbook, but of course that doesn't mean that the wounded
16 should not be removed.
17 I took part in many investigations where the dead were still at
18 the site when we arrived, and that is considered normal procedure.
19 Q. Thank you. It was not recorded that I said in my question
20 "before moving the dead," meaning that the living should certainly be
22 Is all we see in the footage of these two incidents such as the
23 manner of evacuation, the handling of the wounded and dead bodies, the
24 dragging of the bodies and so forth? Does that tally with your
1 A. First of all, I must say that I have no experience with such
2 massive incidents. I only know with instances of a smaller number of
3 people being harmed, but after removing the -- after removing the
4 wounded --
5 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- everything should have remained
7 unchanged for an on-site investigation to be conducted.
8 JUDGE KWON: So it is your testimony that the bodies should have
9 remained there until there was some kind of on-site investigation.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It would be customary procedure.
11 According to the customary procedure --
12 JUDGE KWON: Customary -- custom in where?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In any crime investigation
14 procedure including an on-site investigation. It is the same everywhere.
15 It's not a local procedure. This is how on-site investigations are
16 conducted according to textbooks. It would be a customary procedure
17 for ...
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. The Defence is very grateful to you for having presented several
21 possibilities as to how things happened. However, we are even more
22 grateful to you for having presented your analysis based on hard evidence
23 as to how things didn't happen. The Prosecution obviously did not --
24 MS. GUSTAFSON: Sorry. Is this a question? What -- what's going
25 here? This is -- this looks like total commentary to me.
1 JUDGE KWON: Are you wrapping up your re-examination?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, Excellencies. I'm moving to a
3 different topic, but with all due respect, Madam Gustafson's questions
4 were two or three pages long. I'm just trying to do a little
5 introductory of perhaps two or three sentences into my next topic.
6 JUDGE KWON: I think it's an inappropriate comment. Just ask
7 your question.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Yes. Please, did the Defence ever ask you to establish how
10 things happened or how things did not happen or what was unusual with
11 regard to those cases?
12 A. I apologise. The Defence did not ask me either to establish how
13 things were or how things were not. As a court expert and based on my
14 long years of experience, when I am faced with an incident or five or ten
15 incidents, however many happened here, my task is to analyse all the
16 material available to me, and based on all the material and hard
17 evidence, my task is to try and establish first and foremost how things
18 happened and if -- of course if that is possible, to spot all the
19 inconsistencies and omissions, and based on that, my task is to come up
20 with the most likely outcome, i.e., how things evolved. As a result of
21 that, we can also conclude how things didn't happen, but this is just a
22 byproduct, which is necessary because in this case we found quite a large
23 number of inconsistencies that happened during the investigations.
24 I'm not going to go into the reasons why these inconsistencies
25 happened. I'm not judging the professionalism, the custody of the
1 material or any such thing. What I had in my hands was hard evidence
2 based on the investigations carried out by other people and based on my
3 own investigation that I carried out on the spot.
4 The objective was to establish, if at all possible, and if that
5 was not possible, it was our task to establish why that was not possible.
6 Q. Thank you. Here we were shown a stabiliser and several photos.
7 Do you remember if you carried out the physical inspection of that object
8 that you were given yesterday during your previous testimonies and -- or
9 during your previous stays here, and was somebody from the Defence
10 present when you did that?
11 A. It was at the end of 2010, courtesy of the Prosecution, I had an
12 occasion to inspect the stabiliser. Mr. Marko Sladojevic was present
13 while I was doing that. We also took photos on that occasion.
14 Q. On that occasion, did you observe the mobility of the ignition
15 cap as we witnessed yesterday?
16 A. First this is not an ignition cap. It is the standard charge.
17 We did not notice that. We even checked that, and yesterday I
18 testified -- testified to that effect in the courtroom.
19 Q. Thank you. That primary charge or the casing of the primary
20 charge, could it dry out in any way? Could it be become loose over the
21 time between the first inspection and what you were able to observe
23 MR. GAYNOR: Objection --
24 JUDGE KWON: Before you answer.
25 MR. GAYNOR: That's clearly a leading question of the highest
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes, the first part in particular was very leading.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. My question is this: How could something like that happen?
5 Could it become looser spontaneously?
6 A. Then I have to say -- or describe precisely how things are done.
7 I suppose that in this courtroom there is a hunter, at least one hunter.
8 The standard charge is very similar to the bullet for a hunting rifle, or
9 a jacket for the hunting rifle bullet.
10 Q. Could you please slow down for the sake of the transcript.
11 A. I don't know how far we got. It looks like a -- the jacket of a
12 hunting rifle to a large extent. There is a jacket, and on that jacket
13 there are imprints that we saw yesterday. The ignition cap is in there.
14 This is the central metal part that we observed yesterday. And there are
15 two openings or holes for the tools with which the bullet is mounted in
16 the stabiliser. It is fixed by way of a coil or with the help of a coil
17 which, as you know, locks itself. However, from the moment it is fixed,
18 something has to be added like cement or shellac or something similar.
19 Once that is dry, it serves as the additional security from uncoiling or
20 unscrewing. It's a safety mechanism. The conclusion is that that jacket
21 over the period of time could not have become unscrewed without the use
22 of force. So it could not become as mobile as we could see that it had
23 become yesterday.
24 Q. Did Mr. Sladojevic show interest, and did he ask questions about
25 the mobility and the nature of that ignition cap during the first
2 A. During that inspection I believe that there was a representative
3 of the Prosecution present, but I don't remember who it was. Perhaps it
4 was even Mr. Gaynor, but I'm not sure.
5 We discussed that matter, because we noticed in the documents
6 that we perused before that, and I told Mr. Sladojevic that it was a very
7 firm bond, and he even checked my words on the spot.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to call up 1D7454 in
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Please look at the two photos in the top row and can you describe
12 the position of the little holes. Can you also tell us whether in your
13 view the distance between the fins in the top row is the same or is it
14 perhaps much bigger on the left-hand side?
15 A. The distance between the fins where? I did not understand your
17 Q. The arch between the fins --
18 MS. GUSTAFSON: Sorry. If Dr. Karadzic is going to repeat this
19 question, then I ask that he do it in a non-leading way and not the
20 leading way he did it the first time.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Very well. We'll come back to this later. I'm interested in the
23 arch, whether it is identical or not.
24 Could you please tell the Trial Chamber, based on the comparison
25 between the photos of the stabiliser that was taken on the 5th of March,
1 2010, where do the opening for the key meet, and what is their position
2 in the two different objects? Are they identical? If they're not, why
3 are they not identical?
4 A. Of course it's not identical. You can see it in the photos.
5 Courtesy of Mr. Gaynor yesterday, I saw something that I could not find
6 in the documentation, because the photos were not clear. Yesterday, I
7 dictated that for the record. I'm very glad that I had an occasion to
8 see that.
9 What we see here are two projectiles which were not fired from
10 the same asset, and it's quite visible in both photos, the top photos and
11 the bottom photos. The difference exists, but as much -- as far as I can
12 see in the top row that is marked and in the lower photos, the ignition
13 cap has been altered, I claim with full responsibility. This is a hole,
14 and this is the jacket of the primer which can be seen based on the lines
15 that have been drawn, L1 and L2, the place where the pin hit the primer,
16 and we saw a mark yesterday. It's a piece of forensic evidence that
17 cannot be refuted by any claims. This is hard evidence in forensic
18 terms. This is the imprint of the pin of the primer, and you can see
19 that it is completely different. It is in different places. It is very
20 discernible in the photos, and I claim with full responsibility that
21 these two projectiles were not fired from the same mortar.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can either the top right or the
23 bottom right photo be zoomed in, because I would like the witness to mark
24 something for us. It's a much better view if you zoom in on the lower
25 right image. So zoom it in as much as you can, the bottom right image.
1 JUDGE KWON: Shall we move the -- yes. Would you like to zoom in
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, please.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Please use the pen and mark what you have just explained for us.
6 What exists here? What doesn't exist there? The position of the holes
7 and alterations on the primer or the detonating cap.
8 A. Number 1 denotes the position of the holes, and as for the primer
9 or the detonating cap and the imprint on it is marked by number 2.
10 Q. Thank you. Please sign and put today's date, because we have to
11 have photos admitted one by one, and in a minute I'm going to ask you to
12 mark the other one. Today we're the 22nd.
13 A. Thank you. [Marks]
14 JUDGE KWON: So before we admit this, Mr. Karadzic, is it your
15 case that what we saw yesterday, the actual stabiliser, is not the
16 identical one which we see in the exhibit?
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe that we see that in this
18 photo. However, the other one, the one that was found in the photo file,
19 is not the same.
20 JUDGE KWON: I don't follow. So it is your case there exists two
21 stabilisers. So what we have at the moment, actual material, had come
22 from different source. Is it your case, Mr. Karadzic?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is the position of the Defence
24 that this stabiliser is being ascribed to the shell which exploded at
25 Markale II, but it is not the same stabiliser. Either there was some
1 sort of manipulation done in the photo file or the Chamber was given a
2 different stabiliser.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Can Mr. Karadzic repeat what he said last.
4 JUDGE KWON: Could you repeat what you said last.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So there are two stabilisers, two
6 different stabilisers, whereas there should only be one. It was either
7 the case that the photo file which was produced right over there, there
8 was a stabiliser planted, or the Chamber was sent a different stabiliser.
9 It is not the same.
10 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me, Mr. President. If I could just add
11 something for the record since you've asked about our case, and I think
12 it's probably more accurate for us to say that it's our case that it
13 can't be established beyond a reasonable doubt which side fired the
14 mortar that landed in Markale on the 28th of August, 1995. As part of
15 the testimony of this witness, we are asserting certain things about the
16 stabiliser that is her conclusions, and we're attempting to show why
17 those conclusions would be reasonable, but it's not -- our case is not
18 dependent on the existence of one or two different stabilisers.
19 I thought I just should make that clear so that in your judgement
20 we don't have any confusion. Thank you.
21 JUDGE KWON: I was just trying to understand the point of the
22 question. Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
23 We'll admit this.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3553, Your Honours.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Can we now --
3 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
4 JUDGE KWON: In order not to be confused, there exists two
5 stabilisers in your custody? Yes, Mr. Gaynor?
6 MR. GAYNOR: No -- well, yes -- I mean, there's a Markale I
7 stabilisers and there's a Markale II stabiliser. What we're looking at
8 right now is the Markale II stabiliser. I understand that the Defence's
9 position on this, to be a little more specific, is that both of the
10 stabilisers look as though they've been run over by a vehicle. Both of
11 the stabilisers bear the markings MKM74 KB9307, both of the stabilisers
12 are almost identical in appearance apart from the positioning of the
13 holes at the top of that -- that part of the stabiliser which
14 Your Honours were rotating with your own fingers yesterday. So I
15 understand that that is the Defence position. Why exactly one would want
16 to produce two stabilisers, I have no idea, and that is entirely unclear
17 in the Defence's submission so far.
18 JUDGE KWON: This is the amount of time for which you should
19 pause between the question and answer. Please continue.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we have the
21 left-hand side, and on the right-hand side can we at least keep the
22 circle. Good. Thank you.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Can you tell us now which features on the right-hand side of the
25 screen are not matched by that on the left, do not exist?
1 A. As for the standard charge jacket on both the left and the
2 right-hand side, across that particular jacket we have a line drawn which
3 on the left-hand side was marked with L1. It is a reference line
4 enabling us to observe the trace that was, in forensic terms, different
5 with these two stabilisers. What we can see clearly is that the imprint
6 of the primer which touches the bottom parts -- the bottom indentations
7 that are there for the tools to screw or unscrew, and as for the jacket
8 of the standard charge which we can see in the photo file, that
9 particular imprint of the standard charge jacket is positioned
10 differently on the stabiliser that was shown to us in the courtroom
11 yesterday. So there's a difference between that one in the photo file
12 and the one shown in the courtroom. And this is forensic evidence to the
13 fact that the two projectiles were fired from two different mortars,
14 because the imprint that the firing pin makes is something that is
15 typical of the mortar and not the projectile. If you want me to, I can
16 mark it on this image.
17 Q. Please do so. It may be more helpful to have both images side by
18 side. And can you also tell us how you would estimate the degree of the
19 arches between the fins left and right. If we look at 360 degrees, what
20 would the arch be on the one on the left and on the one on the right?
21 A. Well, you can tell that it's not the same. I don't think it's
22 necessary to mark the arch at all. We saw yesterday that depending on
23 how we rotate, the position will be different. This isn't necessary.
24 The key and basic reference information is the line that goes across the
25 standard charge jacket which is solid, because it will rotate always as
1 one part, whereas if we rotate the outer ring, then the position of the
2 line will be different. Since it's already been moved from its initial
3 position, and that it has been moved from its position is something that
4 we were able to glean yesterday, had it not been moved, then it would
5 make sense to discuss this. As things stand, I don't see what the point
6 of it would be.
7 Q. Thank you. Can you use the electronic pen and mark on the primer
8 itself the differences between the two images and especially the line
9 that is indented in the primer on the right-hand side.
10 A. Can I have the assistance of the usher, please. [In English]
11 Thank you. [Marks]
12 Q. Can you tell us the distance between the imprint that the pin
13 made from L1 line and the distance between the imprint and the L2 line?
14 A. Well, I think that the point is that the imprint is positioned
15 differently. As for the centre, perhaps we should put it in AutoCAD and
16 then measure the distances. As it is now, I would simply be guessing.
17 If you want an accurate answer to the question, we could transpose the
18 image into AutoCAD and make exact measurements. This wouldn't be
19 difficult at all. Although the difference is quite obvious, even to
20 those who are not members of the profession. And I can tell you again
21 that no expert can be found who would disagree with me, because this is
22 the elementary basic parameter against which one would assess the
24 Q. Can you make the marking, please.
25 A. [Marks]
1 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, given that the witness has clarified
2 her evidence on this point, I wonder if we are not wasting an enormous
3 amount of time. She said that it's --
4 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber has discussed it. It is for the Defence
5 how to proceed, so we left it.
6 MR. GAYNOR: Very well, Mr. President. Thank you.
7 JUDGE MORRISON: But, Mr. Gaynor, I have to say I understand why
8 you made the intervention.
9 JUDGE KWON: We'll receive this.
10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3554, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE KWON: Just for the record, I'd like to make a --
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 JUDGE KWON: -- comment. Shall we zoom out from this photo. See
14 the original 1D7454 in its entirety.
15 It is Defence that noted the ERN number at the bottom of the
16 document. I think it should read -- the last two digits of ERN number
17 should read 29 instead of 27.
18 Please continue.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Excellencies. I tender
20 all the four photographs, the bottom two indicate the distance between
21 the imprint and lines 1 and 2. That's 1D7454.
22 JUDGE KWON: Very well. We'll receive it.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3555, Your Honours.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Let's finish the issue of Markale. I have to say again that the
1 Defence is interested in proving that it didn't happen, and of course it
2 is up to the Prosecution to prove how and that it was.
3 Were you the first ones to take the view about the activation of
4 the device at Markale I site?
5 A. No. That particular view was something that I certainly came
6 across in the documents that I was made available by the Tribunal. There
7 were various documents taking up that view, so, no, I was not the first
8 one to take up that position or to advocate it, no. I merely took that
9 view on the basis of physical evidence.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we have P1441.
11 Thank you. Can we now have the last page. I apologise. Page 26 in
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. I will now read for you what the team, and I think it's the
15 French team, concluded. Item 2:
16 [As read] "[In English] The crater itself and the damage of the
17 stall around the crater, the trajectory of the splinter was upwards,
18 indicated that the explosion happened at ground level."
19 [Interpretation] How does this fit with your position?
20 A. What I received in interpretation was that everything indicated
21 that the explosion occurred at ground level; right?
22 Q. Yes, based on the traces and the damage to the stalls.
23 A. Yes. Well, that would fit with our conclusions, and we did say
24 that the explosion -- and there is damage to that effect which was
25 filmed, that there is damage to the bottom side of the stalls. This is
1 consistent with my conclusions, and I think that I did comment as much in
2 relation to that photograph.
3 Q. Pages 19, 16, 23, 25 of the same document contain quite a few
4 elements indicative of tampering with the crater by different people and
5 with various tools.
6 JUDGE KWON: No, Mr. Karadzic, that's a totally inappropriate
8 Would you like to add anything, Ms. Gustafson?
9 MS. GUSTAFSON: No, that was it, Your Honours, or if it is the
10 preface to a question, then it's a leading one. If he wants to show her
11 particular aspects of the document and have her comment on them, then he
12 should just do that without this leading commentary.
13 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. While the objection is well
14 founded, before we take our break I would like to ask that you direct the
15 Prosecution to select one of them to make objections to the testimony.
16 We did allow both of them to participate in the direct examination, and
17 we didn't have any problem with that, but I think it's only proper that
18 one person be designated to make the objections to Dr. Karadzic's
20 JUDGE KWON: I see the time. It's time to take a break. Just
21 for planning purpose, how long would you expect your re-examination to
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Not long. Less than one session.
24 A lot less than one session. What I cited, the pages that I cited, was
25 for the participants, for their reference, to find the information I
1 wished to refer them to. It wasn't for the witness.
2 JUDGE KWON: You didn't refer to only the page numbers. You said
3 something else about the content.
4 We'll take a break for half an hour and resume at 11.00.
5 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
6 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Gaynor.
8 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, I made some submissions earlier about
9 the Markale I stabiliser and the Markale II stabiliser. They weren't as
10 clear as they could have been. I'd like to clarify the position for the
12 The Markale I stabiliser is P1967. The Markale II stabiliser is
13 P1454. Both are available for inspection by Your Honours. Both are in
14 the custody of the Registrar, not the Prosecution. The discussion this
15 morning concerned a comparison of the Markale II stabiliser which
16 Your Honours personally inspected yesterday, which is P1454, compared
17 with the contemporaneous photo file of the Markale II stabiliser. I hope
18 that's a little clearer than my earlier explanation.
19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. And I received an interim report from
20 the CLSS that there was indeed an interpretation error. What was
21 recorded as: "Secondly, the body is about a metre from the centre of
22 explosion" should have read, "Two, this body is far from the centre of
23 explosion, in a position which would be very hard to explain as to how it
24 came about."
25 I expect that the CLSS would file an official record about this.
1 Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Before I break I asked you whether you were the first and the
5 only one who mentioned the possibility that an explosion had occurred at
6 Markale I.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please let us see 1D26766.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Please take a look at what is
9 written here. The date is the 9th of February. It says -- it mentions
10 Fahrudin Orucevic. Do you know that name?
11 A. Yes. Mr. Orucevic, as far as I know, worked for that institute
12 over there, and I also think that at a certain point he worked for
14 Q. Thank you.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this document.
16 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. What is this?
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The thesis here is that --
18 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, in order to tender some document, you
19 need to put some foundational question to the witness so that the Chamber
20 is satisfied as to its provenance, et cetera. This is a news clipping in
21 "Tanjug"? Yes. You should put the question --
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Excellency.
23 JUDGE KWON: -- put the question to the witness.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, I asked a
25 question before the break whether Mrs. Subotic was the first or the only
1 one who put forward such a thesis, and she answered in the negative, that
2 there had been such indications of others holding the same position.
3 I'm showing this document which was produced four days after the
4 document, and Fahrudin Orucevic is trying to avoid Sky News because he
5 felt uneasy due to his presence at the site.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Gaynor or Ms. Gustafson.
7 MR. GAYNOR: I'll deal with this one. First of all, this is, of
8 course, emanating from "Tanjug," the Belgrade-based news agency of the
9 Belgrade authorities.
10 Second, this is a matter which could have been raised in the
11 direct examination of this witness and does not appear to arise directly
12 out of the cross-examination.
13 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President.
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
15 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. Gaynor's first point goes to weight. The
16 second point is that he called into question during his cross-examination
17 her theory about the market-place -- the detonation being by remote
18 control, so it's perfectly proper for Dr. Karadzic to show -- try to
19 introduce some evidence which corroborates her testimony.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE KWON: We'll receive this.
22 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3556, Your Honours.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. On the first day, on page 70, you answered that the direction was
1 established based on a drawing of the shrapnel -- the position of the
2 shrapnel. Was -- were directions thus established in criminal cases.
3 You probably know what I'm talking about. You spoke about the trajectory
4 of the shell based on the dispersion pattern on the ground. Apart from
5 establishing the source of fire, was -- is that method also used in
6 criminal proceedings?
7 A. I spoke about the accuracy of the method and its use and the
8 reasons for introducing such a method. Its primary purpose is what you
9 mentioned, namely, to establish the trajectory in order to be able to
11 As for criminal proceedings, I have not yet seen it being
12 applied. It's a -- it's the best method that was available, although it
13 is not perfect.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Figure 52 from the G5 incident.
15 That is the shelling report. D3542. In Serbian it's page 93. Can we
16 please zoom in. Even more. Thank you.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Can you draw the left limit of the arch around this dispersion
19 pattern using your electronic pen, please.
20 A. [Marks]. Is this what you wanted?
21 Q. Yes, thank you. Please sign and date this.
22 A. [Marks]
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can this be admitted?
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As D3557, Your Honours.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Let us now look at image 46 on page 88 in the Serbian version.
4 And please tell us under what conditions can such a dispersion pattern
5 occur in the centre of the street if the trajectory is as marked here?
6 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat her answer.
7 JUDGE KWON: Could you repeat the answer.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said this dispersion pattern will
9 be completely differently oriented, and it would be shaped as in
10 image 48, marked red.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Thank you. Ms. Subotic heard the question, but the English
13 interpretation was not complete.
14 If a shell had flown in as alleged in the indictment, what would
15 be the left arch be like? Can you tell us about this fence? If things
16 had happened as alleged in the indictment, that is, if the shell had
17 flown in as alleged there, what kind of angle would have been required
18 for it to miss the fence?
19 JUDGE KWON: Mrs. Subotic, could you repeat your answer. Please
20 put a pause before answering the question.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. First of all, the
22 descent angle should have been large, because the impact was very near
23 the fence. On the other hand, the fence would certainly be much more
24 heavily damaged. I don't know if we would see it, but this fence would
25 have been more badly damaged, because it would show traces in the rear
1 and the centre part, bearing in mind that the explosion occurred at a
2 height of 65 centimetres. Maybe the shockwave would also cause some
3 deformation. It's hard to say because we're talking about the gate that
4 is a movable part.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MS. GUSTAFSON: I'd just like to put it on the record that the
7 question was framed in the hypothetical in terms of what would have
8 happened if the shell had flown in as alleged in the indictment.
9 However, in the answer, the witness stated that the height of the
10 explosion was 65 centimetres, and I just want to point out that that is
11 the height based on her theory of what happened. There is no specific
12 height indicated in the contemporaneous investigation documents.
13 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Let's continue.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Please tell us, in the investigation of such explosions, is there
16 a hierarchy of evidence? What is most valuable in determining the impact
17 of a mortar shell? Which are the most important elements? The crater,
18 the dispersion pattern? What is the most important thing?
19 A. The most important evidence is the pattern on the ground at the
20 site of impact. That means the traces of shrapnel.
21 Secondly, any other trace caused by the explosion, also the
22 position of the stabiliser, but we depart from what is left over at the
23 site, and in this case it's, firstly, the pattern on the asphalt and the
24 traces of the shockwave on the vehicle next to the fence. I must say,
25 however, that in this case everything matches. Even the stabiliser is
1 found in such a position as to match the trajectory and the descent
2 angle. Here the position of the stabiliser matches all other physical
4 Q. Thank you.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
6 JUDGE KWON: Microphone.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Page 67. The same document as before. Who took this photograph,
9 and what does it represent?
10 A. Photographs 1 and 2 were taken by us when we went to see the
11 site, and I believe it was in September 2010.
12 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter is not sure about the year.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Is this the same crater --
15 MS. GUSTAFSON: Sorry. There's a lot of overlap. I think we're
16 missing a lot of information in the transcript as a result.
17 JUDGE KWON: When were these photos taken?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These photos were taken on the
19 11th of September, 2010, when we visited the site as instructed by the
20 Defence and the Trial Chamber.
21 JUDGE KWON: From there please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Please tell us what these images represent.
24 A. This image shows two craters, crater one where the first shell
25 landed, and crater two where another landed.
1 Q. Thank you. Which azimuth was determined, and are they the same
2 or similar?
3 A. I did not understand your question. When you say "identical,"
4 identical to what? You mean identical to what the investigators had
6 Q. I had in mind the two photos, the two craters. Did you determine
7 the azimuth? What was it? Does it point to the same launching place?
8 A. First of all, these are two craters, and when the CSB
9 investigated them they said that they found only one crater. That would
10 be my first remark as regards the facts.
11 And the second remark is as follows: It says further on in the
12 text that these azimuths -- or, rather, that one of them is not
13 identical. The azimuth that was determined by the investigator is not
14 the same, and we already discussed that during the cross-examination.
15 The investigators erroneously established the azimuth, and you can see
16 that also in the figure --
17 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter could not understand the last
18 bit of the witness's answer.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Which of these two craters were investigated by the
22 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. No, no, no. It's impossible.
23 Mrs. Subotic, please speak very slowly. The interpreters were not able
24 to catch up with your speed. And could you --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I apologise.
1 JUDGE KWON: Could you start over from the second point.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know where the interpreters
3 caught up with me. In any case, the investigators who did their work in
4 1995 investigated just one crater because they did not locate the second
5 one. They simply couldn't find it. And they determined an erroneous
6 azimuth for the crater that they investigated. In the courtroom, we
7 showed that a couple of days ago, and it can only be seen in photo
8 number 37. That azimuth, as determined by the investigators, is
9 erroneous, because the compass was placed in a wrong place and on a wrong
10 slant, and we double-checked all that based on the traces that we found
11 on the spot, and we established that there is a difference of some
12 33 degrees in what they established and what we could establish.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Thank you. Can we now look at figure 55. Is this where the
15 shell landed in Klare Cetkin 22 on the 22nd of January, 1994?
16 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the witness's
18 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Could you start over again.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This is the impact point in
20 Klare Cetkin Street near number 4, and the photo was taken on the
21 18th of September, 2010. The incident happened on the 22nd of January as
22 was stated in the question that was put to me. The photo was taken on
23 the 22nd of January.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Can you please mark the part of the curb that was not later
1 covered with concrete. Can you see that? The part of the curb that was
2 damaged in the incident that was not covered with concrete subsequently.
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. Thank you. And how does that tally with the claims on the size
5 of the crater and the shell calibre?
6 A. You can see based on the red markings on the metre or the
7 tape-measure, you can see that the crater was about 60 centimetres or
8 even more than that, more than that, actually, and that that would
9 correspond to a 122-millimetre shell.
10 Q. Date and initial.
11 THE INTERPRETER: 120-millimetre shell.
12 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Admission, please.
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D3558, Your Honours.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Figure 63, please. Could you please tell us what was the
18 trajectory that was determined by the CSB as opposed to the trajectory
19 that was determined by Captain Verdy?
20 A. We marked the two. The blue marking denote the trajectory that
21 was determined by the CSB Sarajevo, whereas Captain Verdy determined the
22 trajectory that was marked in red. And in the case of Klare Cetkin
23 incident, we checked the physical evidence, and as for the second shell,
24 we checked that based on the video-clip, and we got a match, which was
25 very good, and that's why we decided to use Captain Verdy's findings,
1 because we considered them to be confirmed.
2 Q. Where do the trajectories meet in Captain Verdy's case?
3 A. They meet -- I believe that the trajectory was 3.270 from the
4 place of the incident.
5 Q. Thank you. Does the difference in determining the trajectory --
6 what -- could it happen by mistake? Could it be just an error?
7 A. I'm afraid not, because all the physical evidence on the ground
8 that we inspected and the photos from the photo file that was compiled by
9 Barry Hogan clearly point to the fact that Captain Verdy was right. So I
10 wouldn't agree that it was just by mistake, although mistakes do happen.
11 Q. Thank you. And now I would like to draw your attention to one
12 part of your report dealing with modified air-bombs. You were asked on
13 page 95, on the second day, by Mr. Gaynor about FAB-100 with retarding
14 system. Is retarding used when a rocket is launched from the ground?
15 A. In ground delivery of a FAB-100 the retardation is not used
16 because it would be pointless.
17 Q. Thank you. You were also asked about the ways the engines are
18 checked. Are only new assets checked, or is every series of old assets
19 also checked? What is checked before it starts being used by the troops?
20 A. Before assets are used or become part of weaponry everything is
21 checked. Every segment of such an asset is checked in great detail and
22 very precisely. However, it seems to me that you asked me about every
23 new series. During the manufacturing process, every series is checked
24 and double-checked before it is used to complete lethal weapons. Every
25 segment that is manufactured, every new series has to undergo a complete,
1 military control at every level of production in order to be used to
2 complete any other assets. So if you're talking about charges, every new
3 series of charge is tested and then it is used to complete warheads.
4 Also the same applies to warheads, to the explosive that is built into a
5 warhead. So every series of every product is treated as a new product
6 which needs to be tested before being used.
7 THE ACCUSED: "As it was for the first time." In transcript,
8 should be ended: "As it was for the first time."
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is after the production. All
10 controls of the series are made to see whether the products meet all the
11 standards. If it is concluded that not all the standards are met, the
12 product is returned for additional checks, and if it is established that
13 the error is not going to have an impact on the function, it will still
14 be received for use, but that has to be done by a commission depending on
15 the use of the product that is being used to complete a certain asset.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. What was a common practice at Pretis with this regard?
18 A. I don't know what Pretis did in that regard. However, Pretis
19 could not do anything differently than the JNA regulations, and the JNA
20 regulations were what I just told you. So they could not act outside of
21 the system that they operated within. Everything functioned in the same
22 way. Everybody had to comply with the same rules. There was no single
23 company that produced for the army that could apply their own practice
24 that would fall out of the rules of the JNA.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we now look at
1 1D7452. There is no translation.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].
3 Q. I'm going to ask you to read or perhaps I will read. We'll ask
4 you to read, but do it slowly. 1D7452.
5 The heading, date, and text.
6 A. "The Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska. Logistics
7 sector. Technical department. Strictly confidential, No." And then 1.
8 I can't read what -- /34/2-2- -- and this could be 685 or 665. Date,
9 20 July 1995. "To be delivered to the command of the 27th POB 1" or "I.
10 HD Pretis," probably holding, "for their information."
11 Under 1:
12 "The command of the 27th POB will deliver to HD Pretis 50 pieces
13 of rocket engines, K13 (out of the total of probably 200) which need to
14 undergo checks and a technical examination."
15 Under 2:
16 "In the accompanying transport, the 27th PB -- POB," or, rather,
17 probably, "in the transport on the way back, the 27th POB will hand over
18 to the HD Pretis also an ME rocket (in parts)."
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we now look at who
20 it was who sent out the letter. Thank you.
21 Can it be marked -- admitted and marked for identification?
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. How does this fit with your knowledge of the interaction between
24 the logistics base and Pretis with regard to rocket engines?
25 A. Well, obviously engines are being sent over for testing.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can this be admitted?
2 MR. GAYNOR: No objection, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we will mark it for identification.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As MFI D3559, Your Honours.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have 1D28719. There is many
6 of them, but I'll just take this one.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. You said a moment ago that each series is tested. Can you please
9 read out slowly the top part, because the bottom part is
11 A. Well, the heading says: "The Technical Testing Centre, Nikinci
12 grounds, sent to Pretis. Subject --"
13 Q. Just take it slowly, please.
14 A. The subject is: "Testing of ammunition on testing grounds."
15 Q. Can you tell us what ammunition is being sent? You don't have to
16 read everything.
17 A. It's the ammunition of the 120-millimetre shell, which is a light
18 contact fuse.
19 Q. Is it a marked series?
20 A. Yes, of course. The sort of testing required is also designated
21 on a number of performances including extreme temperatures and the points
22 are indicated here or items which refer to the so-called PKP document.
23 It's a document which reads: "The regulations governing the control and
24 quality of product," and the items listed here are references to the same
25 items contained in the PKP manual, indicating exactly the performances
1 that are requested to be tested.
2 Q. Can we have a look at who the sender is. Can you read this out,
4 A. "Director of Quality Control of the Pretis, Milo Jokic," a
5 graduate of mechanical engineering.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Can the accused please repeat the date that he
8 JUDGE KWON: Did you note the interpreter's request?
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I merely repeated the date,
10 3 January 1994. And can it be admitted and marked for identification?
11 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President, I presume the accused is tendering
12 this because it happens to contain the letters MKM74 in the middle of it.
13 I'm perplexed as to why he hasn't questioned the witness about that.
14 Those are the letters which appear on the Markale II projectile. But I
15 have no objection to its admission.
16 JUDGE KWON: Where do we see that?
17 MR. GAYNOR: Under the third indent under the words "sastav
19 JUDGE KWON: Could you read out that line, Mrs. Subotic.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Standard gunpowder charge MKM74."
21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Yes, we'll mark it for identification.
22 THE REGISTRAR: As MFI D3560, Your Honours.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, a response to
24 Mr. Gaynor. I could not address this in the examination-in-chief because
25 it was only during the cross-examination that the fact that the assets
1 were being tested was challenged. It's the army that would ask for
2 testing, and this is evidence of the fact that assets were being sent out
3 for testing, every series.
4 JUDGE KWON: I don't think that was -- that was the point of
5 Mr. Gaynor, but let's continue.
6 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us, at page 92, line 9, you were
8 asked -- or, rather, you were given the assertion that the rockets were
9 not designed for simultaneous but for consecutive launch. Can you tell
10 us, when it comes to a multi-barrel rocket launcher with three or four
11 rows, what is exactly being fired simultaneously and what is being fired
13 A. I haven't really fully understood the question, but at any rate,
14 the rockets designed for a multi-barrel -- could the Chamber and those
15 present in the courtroom bear in mind that when I say "rockets," I mean a
16 military asset which has a rocket engine and a warhead -- and a warhead,
17 and of course when I say a "rocket engine," I mean something else. So
18 when we're talking about assets of rocket artillery such as multi-barrel
19 rocket launchers which launch rockets from barrels, from tubes, the
20 so-called land rocket artillery, projectiles are always fired in single
21 shots or in bursts or in salvos, and it's the same rockets that will be
22 fired. Of course, depending on the objective that one wants to achieve,
23 rockets can be fired in different ways.
24 I'm not sure that I have understood the question properly. At
25 any rate, to the best of my understanding, always the same rockets are
1 being fired. And now whether they would be fired in single launches or
2 in salvos, that will depend on the target chosen and on the situation at
3 the front line. It is a fire support weapon, as I said, which would be
4 fired across one's troops and therefore calls for a certain degree of
5 certainty, since one would be firing across one's own troops. There has
6 to be a degree of safety.
7 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us what are rocket engines initiated
9 A. They are initiated instantaneously with a small device called
10 Shafiro's [phoen] head or something similar. It's a small device which
11 on the basis of -- which ignites it with electrical resistance. It's all
12 done electrically, basically. It's a device which has a number of
13 options depending on the target that you've chosen, but at any rate, it's
14 being ignited electrically.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Can the accused repeat, please, what he
16 referred to.
17 JUDGE KWON: Could you repeat your question.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Is that the piezoelectrical effect?
20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter's note: We're not familiar
21 with the term.
22 THE ACCUSED: Piezo. Piezo.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Well, very well. Does that ensure the simultaneity, and can the
25 simultaneous launch be done without any delays if this sort of electrical
1 igniter is used?
2 MS. GUSTAFSON: Objection, leading.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. What is the effect of electrical ignition on the simultaneity of
5 launch? Does the electrical impulse reach it simultaneously at a
6 distance of 10 centimetres?
7 MS. GUSTAFSON: Sorry, this is again leading.
8 JUDGE KWON: You could have stopped at the first sentence. The
9 last part was leading.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't think Ms. Subotic, given
11 her expertise, can be led in anyway. I'm simply asking, since the
12 simultaneity of launch was challenged during the cross-examination, I'm
13 simply asking what sort of effect would this piezoelectrical ignition
14 have on the launch being simultaneous? Does it ensure that it is
15 simultaneous or does it not?
16 MS. GUSTAFSON: As far as I can tell, the only evidence there has
17 been of this piezoelectrical effect is from the accused himself, so any
18 question that has this in it is already -- has this built-in assumption
19 that the witness has testified about this and it's leading. She has not.
20 JUDGE KWON: I don't remember having heard about piezo so far
21 either. So the question is: What is the effect of electrical ignition
22 on the simultaneity of launch? Can you answer that question?
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. That's a good
24 formulation of my question.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course I can. What arises from
1 your question, to my understanding, is the following: The ignition
2 itself, the electrical ignition, when it is being tested, we're talking
3 about milliseconds of difference which is a margin that is allowed, in
4 technical terms, by that PKP document. If the electricity does not
5 ignite the device within these bounds that were tested, then it will not
6 ignite it at all. The question is quite simple. You either have the
7 electricity or you don't, and the order of magnitude of dispersion and of
8 reaction to that impulse is measured in milliseconds.
9 Please don't ask me to pick out the information from the PKP off
10 the cuff because I don't know it by heart, but the PKP is there, and you
11 can consult it for any of the products, for any of the assets. I'm sure
12 that your department for co-operation will deliver it to you.
13 Q. Thank you. What was also challenged was that the police alerted
14 the population not to join the queues for water.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's footnote 102, page 82,
16 paragraph 56. That's where I'd like to direct the attention of the
17 Trial Chamber to. I said that's footnote 102. Can we see that in
18 e-court, paragraph 56.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Footnote 202, interpreter's correction.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 82. In English it's 37.
21 MS. GUSTAFSON: I think this is in the document D3542.
22 JUDGE KWON: Mortar report?
23 THE ACCUSED: Thank you. Footnotes, please. 202.
24 MS. GUSTAFSON: And I'd just like to put on the record that the
25 accused stated that what was also challenged was that the police alerted
1 population not to join the queue for water. That's not correct. What
2 was challenged was that the fact that the police alerted the population
3 not to join the queue or warned the population was due to the fact that
4 they had been tipped off in advance. That was the assertion that was
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Perhaps the difference lies in the
7 fact that what is described by her here are soldiers, but the fact of the
8 matter is, do we have evidence to the effect that this was something that
9 occurred routinely? That's not something that we could conclude on the
10 basis of this statement.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Was this statement in footnote 202 something that you bore in
14 A. Yes, and that's why it was cited here and quoted. The statement
16 "That morning as we headed towards Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street,
17 we were stopped by three --" is this what we're talking about; right?
18 "... three Bosnian soldiers who told us Dobrinja was a dangerous place
19 because of intense shelling and constant gunfire. They tried to persuade
20 us --"
21 Q. "Not to go there."
22 A. Well, I was waiting for the transcript. "... to persuade us not
23 to go there. But since we did not want to give up, they told us that if
24 we heard gunfire, we had to head home immediately. They also told us
25 that if we heard a shell fall, other shells usually followed."
1 Q. Thank you. Thank you. I will not trouble you any longer. Thank
2 you for your testimony.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no further question for the
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.
6 JUDGE KWON: Judge Morrison has a few questions for you,
7 Mrs. Subotic.
8 Questioned by the Court:
9 JUDGE MORRISON: Mrs. Subotic, your theory is that persons who
10 were already dead were brought to the scene of the explosions to be
11 placed amongst the people killed by the explosions in order to amplify
12 the scale of the killing; is that correct?
13 A. I apologise, do you mean the Markale I incident of the
14 5th of February? Is that what you're referring to?
15 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes.
16 A. You see, video footage points in that direction. The number of
17 deaths which we looked at a couple of days ago, it was given in that
18 table, was a terrible consequence that we cannot at all view within the
19 limits of the firepower of this weapon. That's one fact.
20 We tested, as you were probably able to see, the estimate of the
21 number of deaths. Not taking into consideration only the limits of the
22 firepower of the weapon, we looked into other elements, there are two or
23 three ways in which it was possible to check the number of deaths, and it
24 was all very different from what was given in the table as the official
25 number of dead, the official number of fatalities which you could see
1 ranged between 150 and 300-odd.
2 We observed that there were indications, and we documented them,
3 and in this way we pointed to our inability to in any way bring together,
4 on the one hand, the number of fatalities with, on the other, the
5 firepower of the weapon and the physical evidence on the site. And
6 everything that we observed, we noted down in our report. There were
7 also forensic examinations that were consistent with our position, and we
8 cited them all. We simply could not overlook something that we observed
9 in the course of our investigation and review of these documents.
10 JUDGE MORRISON: So is the answer to my question "yes"?
11 A. Yes.
12 JUDGE MORRISON: It would therefore be necessary for people who
13 are already dead and who had suffered wounds consistent with a mortar
14 explosion to be stored somewhere in readiness to be brought to the scene.
15 That must follow from the theory; is that correct?
16 A. That's correct. But I have to say that the injuries caused by
17 mortar shells were an everyday occurrence, because that was simply the
18 weapon that was most frequently used in the clashes in that region, as we
19 know full well. At the very start of the footage, I drew the attention
20 to the military lorry which was there even before the evacuation. We can
21 see it on Marsala Tita Street at the very start of the evacuation. There
22 were elements in the footage that I viewed which were indicative of a
23 great many things, but I do not want to construct a story on the basis of
24 something that does not allow us to be conclusive in any way.
25 JUDGE MORRISON: But nevertheless, your theory is that this was a
1 deliberate act resulting from a conspiracy on behalf of somebody to add
2 to the numbers killed in the explosion; is that correct?
3 A. It fits with the entire context provided by the physical evidence
4 above all.
5 JUDGE MORRISON: Then in respect to the -- if that theory is
6 right, the bodies, the people who were already dead before the explosion,
7 their deaths could not have been previously reported or any medical
8 examination conducted upon those bodies, because otherwise the conspiracy
9 would be immediately foiled, because a relative who, for instance, knew
10 that his brother, father, mother, or sister had been killed in a mortar
11 explosion several days beforehand would be surprised to read in the press
12 that they had been killed at Markale I and would be likely to raise a
13 query, would they not?
14 A. I presume that they would. However, in the Markale II incident,
15 we have one fatality who was listed as having been killed in that
16 incident, whereas we found a document which stated that he had been
17 killed in fighting and that he was a BH Army soldier. I'm citing this
18 example, because it was a document that happened to be in our hands. I
19 suppose that the case would indeed be as you put it.
20 There was another instance, which I think we cited in our report,
21 of a fatality. The body was in the morgue and had been -- or, rather,
22 that had been on the counter of one of the stalls, and by looking at her
23 you would say that she was dead already at the market-place. However,
24 what I want to say is that the lists that were drawn up revealed a --
25 what was an utter confusion. We found it very difficult to follow the
1 lists drawn up in hospitals, the lists of those killed. It is really
2 incredible the condition the lists were in. There were pages missing,
3 and we were at great pains to sort through the papers that were official,
4 let alone others.
5 JUDGE MORRISON: But you have agreed, I think, with me previously
6 that you have never experienced a visit to a scene of a mortar explosion
7 where people were killed or injured in person, and that you have no
8 forensic medical training. Are both of those observations correct?
9 A. Yes, they are, of course.
10 JUDGE MORRISON: And lastly, there was a query about whether or
11 not dead or injured people should be moved first. I simply raise this:
12 Would you accept or not that if you inexpertly move an injured person,
13 you might do them more harm than good, for instance, if that person had
14 suffered neck or spinal injuries?
15 A. Yes, of course. That's what we're all taught at first aid
16 courses. Yes, you're right. Inexpertly helping people can be very
17 dangerous, and we shouldn't do anything unless we're sure what the nature
18 of the injury is. Everybody with a driving licence had to go through
19 such a course.
20 JUDGE MORRISON: Thank you.
21 A. Thank you.
22 JUDGE KWON: Very well. That concludes your evidence,
23 Mrs. Subotic. Thank you for your coming to The Hague yet again to give
24 it. Now you are free to go.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you for giving me the
1 opportunity to present my work.
2 [The witness withdrew]
3 THE ACCUSED: If your Excellency thinks of break, I think you are
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes --
7 MR. GAYNOR: Mr. President.
8 JUDGE KWON: -- the Chamber is minded to take a break now.
9 MR. GAYNOR: Very well, Mr. President. Just for the record,
10 Mrs. Subotic as she was exiting the courtroom attempted to give me a
11 piece of paper on which were some calculations and I declined her offer.
12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. We'll take a break for an hour and
13 resume at quarter past 1.00.
14 --- Recess taken at 12.15 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 1.17 p.m.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 JUDGE KWON: Good afternoon, sir. Would you make the solemn
18 declaration, please.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
20 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Mr. Katanic, please be seated and make
22 yourself comfortable.
23 WITNESS: DANE KATANIC
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 JUDGE KWON: I take it you understand my words in the language
1 you understand.
2 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Yes, please proceed, Mr. Karadzic.
4 Examination by Mr. Karadzic:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Katanic.
6 A. Good afternoon.
7 Q. I would kindly ask you to perhaps move a bit closer to the
8 microphone, but do sit comfortably, and both you and I should speak at a
9 moderate pace and make a sufficiently long break between question and
10 answer to enable the interpreters to interpret everything.
11 A. All right.
12 Q. Did you give a statement to the Defence team?
13 A. A few days ago when I went to see you.
14 Q. And before that did you give a statement to our team which we
15 reviewed before we met now?
16 A. Yes, I did. It was in December.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D07007, please.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Can you see that statement in front of you?
20 A. Yes, I can.
21 Q. Thank you. Have you read and signed it?
22 A. Yes, I read and signed it.
23 Q. Thank you. Just wait a moment before you start speaking after
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown
1 page 2 so as to enable him to identify his signature.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Is this your signature?
4 A. Yes, this is my signature.
5 Q. Thank you. Does this statement faithfully reflect what you said
6 to the Defence team?
7 A. Yes, it does.
8 Q. If I were to ask you the same questions now, would your answers
9 be essentially the same?
10 A. Yes, they would.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I tender this
13 JUDGE KWON: Any objection?
14 MR. COSTI: No objection.
15 JUDGE KWON: We'll receive it.
16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3561, Your Honours.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I will now read the
18 summary of Mr. Katanic's statement in English.
19 [In English] In July 1995, Dane Katanic was President of the
20 Executive Board of Skelani municipality.
21 Mr. Katanic met with President Karadzic in late June and on
22 11th of July, 1995, to express his concern over the attacks by Bosnian
23 Muslims from the Srebrenica enclave into Skelani and the vulnerability of
24 Skelani to Muslim attacks.
25 On the evening of 11th of July, 1995, after the fall of
1 Srebrenica, Mr. Katanic attended a meeting in Bratunac at the invitation
2 of Miroslav Deronjic. Deronjic informed him that President Karadzic had
3 appointed him civilian commissioner for Srebrenica. There were
4 disagreements between those from Skelani and Deronjic over the personnel
5 who should be in charge of Srebrenica municipality and how to organise
6 things there. Deronjic agreed to make an appointment for a meeting at
7 President Karadzic's office to discuss these matters.
8 On July the 14th, 1995, Mr. Katanic attended a meeting in Pale
9 with Miroslav Deronjic and President Karadzic. Momcilo Krajisnik also
10 participated in part of the meeting. Mr. Katanic objected to Deronjic
11 being appointed civilian commissioner when he was from another
12 municipality, Bratunac. They discussed this matter for two or three
13 hours. President Karadzic insisted that Deronjic should be the head of
14 the War Presidency and that there should be nine members. Deronjic
15 provided the names to President Karadzic, who accepted them. During this
16 meeting there was no discussion about any killings of prisoners from
18 President Karadzic came to Srebrenica a few days before the fall
19 of Knin in late July or early August 1995. They again discussed whether
20 Skelani and Srebrenica would be one or two municipalities and the
21 implication -- and the implication of that. There was no discussion
22 about any killings of prisoners from Srebrenica.
23 [Interpretation] This was a brief summary. At this moment I have
24 no questions for Mr. Katanic.
25 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, would you kindly ask the witness to
1 read paragraph 5 of his statement and expand a little bit -- expand a
2 little bit about that, what he meant there, because I don't follow well.
3 Mr. Katanic, do you see paragraph 5? We can collapse the English
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Should I read it out?
6 "In the morning of the 11th of July, 1995, after victims on the
7 Serb side on the 9th and 10th of July, I went to Pale with Milenko Canic
8 and Momcilo Cvjetinovic to tell President Karadzic that if the line
9 between Srebrenica and Skelani were to be pierced, nothing would be left
10 to defend Skelani. President Karadzic listened to us but he gave no
11 indication of his plans. He said that our positions around Srebrenica
12 were being shelled."
13 I could only add here: "By the international community." Am I
14 to explain anything?
15 JUDGE KWON: "Our position, Srebrenica, was being shelled by
16 international community or NATO," that's what you meant?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
18 JUDGE KWON: And what did you mean that in the morning of
19 11th July there had been some Serbian victims? Or Serbian victims on the
20 9th and 10th. What did you mean?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to say that there was
22 fighting, and on the 9th and 10th some Serbs got killed, and I was afraid
23 that the lines would yield. From the site of the fighting to Skelani
24 there were -- the distance was about 30 kilometres. There was nobody
25 left there. Everybody had gone. So if the -- if our defence line were
1 to be pierced, then Skelani would have been taken. That's why we went to
2 Pale to inform the president of our opinion and our fear made us go to
3 Pale to inform the president.
4 JUDGE KWON: Did you know or did you not at the time that an
5 operation by the Drina Corps was taking place at the place?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I knew, but I didn't know that
7 it was not an option for the lines to yield. I didn't know that nothing
8 bad would happen to the Serbian people, and I don't believe anybody of us
9 there knew that.
10 JUDGE KWON: You met Mr. Karadzic twice on that day.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. We met on the 11th at Pale.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes, I understood.
13 Mr. Karadzic.
14 THE ACCUSED: No more questions, Excellency.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes. As you noted, your evidence in chief in this
16 case, Mr. Katanic, has been admitted in writing, that is, through your
17 statement. Now you will be cross-examined by the representative of the
18 Office of the Prosecutor. Do you understand that?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Costi.
21 MR. COSTI: Good afternoon, Mr. President. Good afternoon,
22 everyone in the courtroom.
23 Cross-examination by Mr. Costi:
24 Q. Mr. Katanic, just to follow up on what you just been asked by the
25 President, when you're talking about Serb victims, we are talking about
1 Serbs that died in the -- in the occasion of military operation; correct?
2 A. Yes, that's correct.
3 Q. Thank you. On 17 September 2009, you gave an interview. You
4 were interviewed by the Office of the Prosecutor. You told the truth
5 during that interview; right?
6 A. I've always told the truth, and I'm telling the truth now, the
7 truth about what I remembered and what I was able to say.
8 Q. All right. So in interview you said that you joined the SDS in
9 1992; correct?
10 A. Well, I think I joined the SDS in 1992. It may have been a month
11 earlier or a month later, but I don't think that's important.
12 Q. In April 1992, the Serb municipality of Skelani was established,
13 and you were appointed as the first President of the Executive Board of
14 the municipality Assembly; correct?
15 A. Correct. I went to Skelani in April, and started working in
16 mid-April 1992 as President of the Executive Committee of the Municipal
17 Assembly of Skelani.
18 MR. COSTI: Can we have 65 ter 17477, please.
19 Q. Now, you probably recognise this document. This is 16 of June,
20 1992, appointment of the War Commission in the municipality of Skelani.
21 Do you recognise your signature at the bottom of the document?
22 A. Of course I recognise it. It bears my signature too.
23 Q. So you were also member of the War Commission starting from
24 16 of June, 1992; correct?
25 A. This is not a war commission but of a totally different body
1 which is called "ratno predsjednistvo" in Serbian.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: "Ratno
4 JUDGE KWON: Which means?
5 MR. COSTI:
6 Q. Well, yeah, that's exactly -- what does it mean in English? I'm
7 not sure. The translation we have indicates "War Commission."
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Both words "komisija" and
9 "povjerenistvo" are translated as "commission" into English.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may, it is difficult to
11 translate differently, but the word "povjerenistvo" stems from the word
12 "povjerenje," "trust, confidence." [In English] "Entrusted by the
13 central organ," something like that.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I?
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This body was established and
17 Dragan Djokanovic was the wartime commissioner for the Birac region for
18 five or six municipalities, and based on the then laws and regulations,
19 an assessment of the needs was made and it was decided to establish this
20 wartime commission. Dragan Djokanovic was in charge of the Birac region,
21 and he was a member of every wartime commission of the municipality, and
22 apart from him there were some four or five more members per
23 municipality. I was one of the members as stated here.
24 MR. COSTI:
25 Q. Very well. Now, in your interview, at page 13 you said this, and
1 I quote:
2 "Ever since 1998 or 1999, I was forbidden by international law
3 any work in municipality and government bodies."
4 Now, I'm asking you, you were referring here to a decision of the
5 Office of the High Representative of the BiH to ban you from political
7 A. I mean the officials of the international community. At that
8 time, there was an appellate subcommission or something. I'm not sure
9 what role they had. I'm not familiar with their organisation, but the
10 representative of the international community banned me from -- from
11 political activities.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the last
13 sentence with the date.
14 MR. COSTI:
15 Q. Could you please repeat the last sentence, because the translator
16 couldn't catch up.
17 A. I was saying that the ban was lifted in 2006, and it was imposed
18 in 1998.
19 MR. COSTI: Your Honour, can I -- can I ask - I'm sorry, I keep
20 making this mistake - the admission of the document we discussed a minute
21 ago, 65 ter 17477.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll receive it.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6331, Your Honours.
24 MR. COSTI:
25 Q. Now, moving on, on July 1995, in your statement at paragraph 6
1 you said that in the evening of the 11th of July, after the fall of
2 Srebrenica, you were called to a meeting in Bratunac. Now, at the
3 meeting, Deronjic informed you that he had been appointed civilian
4 commissioner for Srebrenica. In your -- in your interview, in more
5 details than in your statement, you discussed the disputes and
6 disagreements between the Skelani delegation on the one hand, meaning
7 you, Milenko Canic, and Momcilo Cvjetinovic, and Deronjic on the other
8 side, and you expressed your disagreement because you thought that it was
9 up to the political leadership in Skelani to be in charge of Srebrenica,
10 and not Deronjic, who was from Bratunac; is it correct?
11 A. Yes, that's correct.
12 Q. Now, in your interview, you also said the following at page 33:
13 "We find out that Miroslav of course had more influence. He was
14 closer to Radovan. We could express our -- that we were unhappy but
15 couldn't do much more about it."
16 So if I understand correctly, you could express your
17 disappointment, but there was not much you could do because Deronjic was
18 closer to Mr. Karadzic. It is correct?
19 A. Well, who was closer than the other, I thought that Radovan
20 respected Miroslav because he was the deputy president of the party for
21 the Birac region. So naturally he would have been closer to the
22 president than the rest of us who were mere members in a region such as
24 Q. Now, two days later, you kept discussing this matter, and you
25 drove together with Momcilo Cvjetinovic and Milenko Canic. You drove to
1 Pale to meet Karadzic and Deronjic, as you said at paragraph 7. Now, in
2 that context, you were informed that Deronjic would have been the head of
3 the Srebrenica War Presidency; right?
4 A. Yes, that's correct.
5 Q. And again, you tried to show your disappointment for that
6 decision. There was a discussion, and then at the end Deronjic gave to
7 Mr. Karadzic a list of names that, and I read what you said in your
9 "None of us had any influence in terms of one single name for the
10 War Presidency."
12 A. Correct. The president asked Mr. Deronjic to make a list of nine
13 names, which he did. After a long discussion, after many comments,
14 suggestions, remarks, Miroslav made a list of names the president
15 accepted, and they were the members of the wartime Presidency of Skelani
17 Q. And that was the 14 of July; correct?
18 A. Yes, that's correct.
19 Q. In any event, you and Cvjetinovic made it to the War Presidency
20 and you were part of it. You were appointed as member of it. But again
21 in your interview, you explained that Deronjic was the one with the real
22 power, the one linked to Karadzic, and you said at page 41:
23 "You know, Miroslav Deronjic was a link between him," meaning
24 Mr. Karadzic, "and all the others of us. As long as the War Presidency
25 existed, he was the one to make decision."
1 So it was Deronjic and not you who was the one to take the
2 decision because he was close and linked to Mr. Karadzic; correct?
3 A. Miroslav Deronjic took decisions. Of course we played our part.
4 But not because he was close to Karadzic, because at the time it was his
5 position. In professional terms, he was president of the SDS for the
6 region, and clearly Deronjic had more of a say than I did, because I was
7 a mere member. I was rank and file, as it were.
8 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Costi, I'm not sure we heard the answer from the
9 first part of your question.
10 Mr. Katanic, is it true that you and Mr. Cvjetinovic were
11 appointed as members of the War Presidency?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct. The decision
13 clearly shows that we were members, and the decision was public and
14 available to -- accessible to everybody, I think.
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
16 MR. COSTI:
17 Q. Now, although you didn't mention it in your statement, in your
18 interview you explained that on 13 of July you went to Bratunac with
19 Momcilo Cvjetinovic and Milenko Canic. Is it correct?
20 A. That's correct. We were in Bratunac indeed.
21 Q. And you went there in the morning, and you came back late in the
22 afternoon; correct?
23 A. We went there in the morning in order to get there in time. We
24 wanted to see the president in Pale and talk to him about the
25 appointments and the functioning of the municipality. Miroslav was
1 appointed as the civilian commissioner. We had a meeting. We left in
2 the morning. Pale's not far. We arrived in Bratunac in the afternoon,
3 and then we came back. I don't know exactly when we arrived, when we
4 returned. In any case, we made it there and back on the same day. So
5 from Skelani to Bratunac and back all on the same day.
6 Q. And just to make it clear, so on the 13th you went to Bratunac in
7 the morning, if I understand your testimony which reflects what you said
8 in interview, you went there because you said you thought that you would
9 have had the meeting with Karadzic that day, and that for some reason the
10 meeting didn't take place so you drove back to Skelani; correct?
11 A. Yes, correct.
12 Q. And you spent some times at the SDS office that day; right?
13 A. We had to go to the SDS office. Where else would we have found
14 Miroslav? We were there in the office. I don't know for how long, but,
15 yes, we were there. We were there long enough to learn that we wouldn't
16 go to Pale, that a new meeting would be scheduled when conditions allowed
17 for that meeting to be scheduled with President in Pale.
18 Q. Now, in your interview you also described -- you were asked about
19 the event in Bratunac on 13 July, and you talked about organised
20 activities for the transportation of Muslims from Srebrenica, Potocari,
21 and Bratunac, and you said at page 43:
22 "There were organised activities and transportation of people.
23 Buses were coming from Zvornik, Bratunac. Petrol was needed and diesel."
24 Is it correct? Do you stand by what you said?
25 A. Yes, I stand by that because that's how it was. People were
1 transported by buses, and there's nothing there that is not well known,
2 that was covered up.
3 Q. So you -- you saw those buses, and you're referring to buses
4 passing by Bratunac, or you also saw buses stopping in Bratunac?
5 A. Sir, I did not watch. There was no need for me to observe the
6 buses. I didn't spot them either stopping or passing through. I was in
7 Bratunac. I could see that there was a lot of people. There were buses
8 which passed by, but I didn't notice whether they stopped or double
9 parked or stopped for a short while and then continued. It was not up to
10 me to watch. There was no need for me to watch. I don't know what to
11 say. I was not that interested. I had arrived to go to Pale. I wasn't
12 there to count buses and to see whether they were stopping or passing
13 through or double parking. There was somebody in charge for -- of that,
14 and they did their job. I am not such a busybody to be looking where I'm
15 not supposed to look.
16 Q. I understand you weren't there to look at buses, and I understand
17 it probably wasn't even your task to look at buses, but I don't
18 understand what you said when you said that you were not looking where
19 you were not supposed to look.
20 A. Well, now you are saying that I was there to watch whether a bus
21 stopped or didn't stop or double parked and then proceeded. You're
22 asking me questions that doesn't make too much sense. They don't mean
23 much. I don't know what your questions mean. What do you mean when you
24 ask me whether I saw if the buses had stopped or not? I don't know what
25 those questions mean to you. They don't mean anything to me, that's for
2 THE ACCUSED: May I -- may I help about -- witness is getting --
3 or probably Mr. Costi is getting different translations, because witness
4 didn't say that he was not supposed to watch, but he said that he was not
5 there to -- for that purpose. Didn't intend to count and to --
6 MR. COSTI: Well, if I look at page 66, the last line --
7 JUDGE KWON: I think he's referring to that. There was some
8 slight translation issue.
9 MR. COSTI: That's possible, yeah.
10 JUDGE KWON: Let's continue.
11 MR. COSTI: Yeah.
12 Q. In any event, I'm not suggesting you were there to count buses
13 and I'm not asking you were to report exactly where and which bus and
14 whatever. I'm saying that if we look at what was happening on that day,
15 and we heard testimonies in this Chamber, in this courtroom, that there
16 were thousand of Muslim prisoners at that time in Bratunac, I wonder
17 whether you notice anything, and how can you say that it wasn't something
18 that mattered to you?
19 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know whether there were thousands of
20 them. I personally don't think that there were thousands of prisoners in
21 Bratunac. Believe me, I don't know. I cannot go that way. I did not
22 see that. It was wartime. There are always people in the street. I
23 didn't go there to observe people in the street, to take stock of the
24 situation. I am familiar with Bratunac, and things were happening the
25 way they were.
1 I was on my way to Pale. I dropped by the SDS office. I learned
2 that we would not be proceeding towards Pale, and as far as I was
3 concerned, my business in Bratunac was finished. I don't know how much
4 time we spent there, if we met somebody or not. Maybe we had a cup of
5 coffee or -- I don't know. There were no bars or pubs there. There was
6 no place where you could go and have a bite to eat or a glass to drink.
7 I did pass through Bratunac, and if there were buses there, of
8 course I saw them, but it was not my purpose. This was not my intention.
9 I didn't go to Bratunac to observe buses at all. I don't know if you
10 understand what I'm saying.
11 Q. Now, you know Milenko Katanic, because I believe he's a relative
12 of yours; right?
13 A. I know him. I know him.
14 Q. So in his testimony in this case, which is P04374 at paragraph --
15 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Did we hear his answer, whether he's
16 related to him?
17 MR. COSTI: You're right.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am related to him.
19 MR. COSTI: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Q. Now, he testified and he said at paragraph 79 of his statement
21 that there were buses with prisoners in various streets of the town. The
22 prisoners were held in the school and the stadium, and the citizens from
23 Bratunac were concerned for their security in light of the amount of
24 prisoners detained there.
25 Now, again I understand you weren't there to look at buses, but
1 it strikes me as surprising that you spent time at the SDS office and you
2 haven't had the opportunity to discuss the issue or to be concerned with
3 the issue yourself.
4 A. Why would I discuss those issues with anybody? Please tell me.
5 Pray tell me, why would I ever talk to anybody about that? At that time
6 I did not discuss the whereabouts of those people and who they were.
7 Pray tell me, why would I discuss that matter with anybody?
8 Q. Because it was a reason for major concern in the whole town at
9 that point, and it's surprising that you went and went back to Skelani
10 without noticing the details of what happened.
11 A. Mr. Prosecutor, people were concerned there from 1990. They're
12 still concerned. In 1992, people were dying. It is not that only in
13 1995 something happened. People led a good life. They went to work.
14 They came back. They went to football matches. They went to the
15 theatre. And then in 1995 all of a sudden something happened. From 1992
16 we buried our people. We bled, we died on both sides. We were at war in
17 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995. Of course we were concerned all that time. We
18 were also concerned in 1995. Of course we were, but we were also
19 concerned in 1992 and every day in 1993, 1994, 1995. We were always
20 concerned. We are still concerned to this very day. And if you want to
21 put it in a context of a good life and at one point we all became
22 concerned, that's -- that's a nonsense. We were all concerned all the
23 time. Of course we were concerned. But that concern of ours has never
24 stopped, and that's the whole essence.
25 You're asking me, trying to portray our life as being good and
1 then I arrived in Bratunac and something was going on. This is a normal
2 situation, and it has been that way since 1992, unfortunately.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I suggest something? Mr. Costi
4 is assuming that both the prisoners and Mr. Katanic were in Bratunac at
5 the same time. Why wouldn't he give us a time-frame and tell us when the
6 prisoners arrived and to -- up to which point was Mr. Katanic in
8 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, I don't think it was appropriate at
9 this time. We can continue.
10 MR. COSTI: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 Q. Now, it's interesting you mention 1992, because in 1992, in
12 exactly the same locations in Bratunac, in a slightly similar situation,
13 if you wish, prisoners --
14 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Is the witness from Bratunac?
15 MR. COSTI: No, he's not, Your Honour, from Srebrenica.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Yes, please continue.
17 MR. COSTI:
18 Q. Very similar incident took place in Bratunac with prisoners
19 detained at the stadium, at the school. They were beaten. They were
20 killed. And as you said, you were concerned, so probably you knew about
21 it even if you were not from Bratunac, and you probably were not there in
22 1992. Then all of a sudden in 1995 you go to Bratunac. You spend there,
23 as I understood you said, you got there in the morning and you came back
24 the same -- later the same day in the afternoon. All this is going on.
25 You recognise and you see that there is an organised transportation, but
1 when I ask you whether you notice and what you saw, you say, "I wasn't
2 there for that. That wasn't my business."
3 JUDGE BAIRD: So, Mr. Costi, what is the question?
4 MR. COSTI: I'm sorry. No, the question is whether he actually
5 saw something. And I'm insisting on this because I believe this is the
7 JUDGE BAIRD: Thanks.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what do you suppose I
9 may have seen? I really don't know. What was I supposed to see? And
10 you know I saw it, and I don't want to tell you. Pray tell me. Pray
11 enlighten me.
12 MR. COSTI:
13 Q. Let me move on to another topic. Now, on 13 July, the same day,
14 you heard of the killings at the Kravica warehouse. In the interview
15 that you gave to the Prosecution, you explained that you were informed
16 because one of your men, or one man from Skelani, Krsto, was killed. And
17 this is page 45 of your interview. Is it correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. And you also heard that over a thousand prisoners were executed
20 that day; correct?
21 A. I did not hear that. I don't know that they were executed.
22 Perhaps you know that.
23 Q. So you're saying that today here you do not know whether
24 prisoners were executed at the Kravica warehouse? Is this your
1 A. The question as you have phrased it now is completely different.
2 If you want me to tell what I know, I will tell you, but don't phrase
3 your questions differently.
4 In the first question you asked me whether I know that over a
5 thousand people were executed, and now you want me to say that I don't
6 know that people were executed. Your questions are phrased differently.
7 They're two different questions. And if that is the gist of your
8 exercise, but if you want me to tell the truth, if you are keen on
9 learning the truth, I am here to help you, because I -- I have sworn to
10 tell the truth and now you're forcing me not to tell the truth or not to
11 give you any information for that matter.
12 JUDGE KWON: No, no, no. Rest assured, Mr. Katanic, there's
13 nothing that you should be concerned about.
14 To the first question you answered that you didn't know that
15 there was execution at the time, and the second question was now do you
16 know that there was execution?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. I apologise. No. I
18 apologise. The Prosecutor, as far as I understood, asked me if I knew
19 whether over 1.000 were shot dead on that day. I don't know that on that
20 day over 1.000 were shot dead. And then in the second question he asked
21 me, "Are you saying that you do not know that people were executed
22 there." So these are two different questions and they have nothing to do
23 what -- with each other. Of course I know that people were killed there,
24 but I don't know that over a thousand were shot dead on that particular
25 day, and on that particular day I didn't know that. That's the gist of
1 my answer.
2 MR. COSTI:
3 Q. Very well. I'm sorry if there was some confusion, but I
4 understood your testimony saying that you don't know now that people were
5 executed there. That's why I asked you whether you know now. And I
6 understand from the rest of your testimony now that you, yes, can see
7 that you today know that people were executed there.
8 Now, what --
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript. Transcript. Line 8.
10 What is missing is: "I did not know on that day that people were
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I didn't know the number.
13 Certainly I was not aware of the number that the Prosecutor has now
15 JUDGE KWON: Please continue.
16 MR. COSTI:
17 Q. So did you know or you didn't on the evening of the 13th that
18 people were executed and killed -- or killed at the Kravica warehouse?
19 Let me put it properly. Executed.
20 JUDGE KWON: Sorry, what is your question?
21 MR. COSTI: Well, I'm still confused as to whether the witness
22 has testified that knew or he didn't --
23 JUDGE KWON: When?
24 MR. COSTI: On the 11th -- on the 13th of July, at that time,
25 that people were executed at Kravica warehouse. No matter the numbers.
1 I'm just --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not know that on the 13th
3 people were executed in Kravica. What I knew is the following: I heard
4 that a Serbian soldier Krsto had been killed. I heard that because he
5 hailed from Skelani and I was told that. I was told that the Muslims who
6 were there snatched Krsto's rifle and killed him with it, and then
7 another soldier came, grabbed that rifle from him and unrest followed.
8 And that's all that I knew on at that day that had to do with Kravica.
9 MR. COSTI:
10 Q. Can I ask you what kind of unrest followed as far as you knew at
11 that time?
12 A. That there was shooting and killing, but when, how, and how many,
13 that I did not know.
14 Q. Well, as to the when, you probably should because you were
15 informed on the 13th that one man from Skelani was murdered that day.
16 Therefore, the when must be on the 13. As to the how, what was -- what
17 was told? What was told to you? What did you know? How many people
18 were killed in this unrest?
19 A. To this very day I don't know how many people got killed during
20 the unrest, and on the 13th, how was I supposed to know? Please
21 enlighten me. If you say that I was supposed to know, then please
22 enlighten me. How was I supposed to know that? Go ahead, be my guest.
23 Q. Do you know Milenko Trifunovic?
24 A. I do.
25 Q. And you know, don't you, that in September 2009, the BiH state
1 court convicted him of genocide for taking part to the execution in the
2 Kravica warehouse as a commander of the 3rd Skelani Platoon, which was
3 part of the Skelani Battalion from your own little town. So what I'm
4 asking you is whether you were only informed that one man that
5 happened -- from Skelani that happened to be there was killed or whether
6 you were actually told that independent -- the Skelani Independent
7 Battalion was actually there shooting prisoners together with
8 Milenko Trifunovic at that time.
9 A. Mr. Prosecutor, when you asked me about Milenko, you put it to me
10 that I know that he was convicted by a court. I don't know that. I know
11 that he's serving a sentence.
12 Second of all, I only heard that on the 13th, Krsto was killed in
13 Bratunac. I don't know how. And that is all I know. I didn't know that
14 Milenko was there, Milenko Trifunovic. I didn't know that he opened fire
15 on them or not. Please do not put it to me that I knew things if I
16 didn't know things. I didn't know then. I don't know to this very day
17 that the court in Bosnia found him guilty of something. It is not my job
18 to follow those developments. It's your job. You're supposed to know
19 who was convicted of -- of what and when and where. I have another job.
20 I make my living in a different way. Please do not put words into my
21 mouth. Please do not tell me that I know or knew something that I don't
22 know and didn't know.
23 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Katanic, when you do not know, it is sufficient
24 for you to say you don't know. Rest assured.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is a confusion in the
2 transcript. Mr. Katanic said, "I know he was found guilty in -- at the
3 court in Bosnia, but I don't know why," and this is the essence of his
4 answer. This is the crux. And -- what I'm reading here is that he did
5 know, didn't know. Why --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor says that I know,
7 and I don't know, and don't put words into my mouth. Don't tell me that
8 I know things that I don't know.
9 MR. COSTI:
10 Q. I'm asking if you know. I'm not putting any word in what you're
11 saying. I'm asking you whether you know that he was convicted of
12 genocide, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and I'm not assuming you know.
13 I'm asking you whether you know. So these are questions, not statements.
14 Nobody's trying to tell anything.
15 So why were you surprised when you were told that one man from
16 Skelani was actually murdered there if you didn't know, as I understand
17 you just said, that the Skelani Platoon was there?
18 A. Mr. Prosecutor, the Skelani Battalion was a unit and you're
19 saying that Milenko Trifunovic belonged to it. But he didn't. You are
20 confusing the matter. That's one thing. And secondly, when you ask me
21 if I know, then that's okay and then I'll answer, but you're putting
22 things to me. You are saying "you know that" instead of saying "do you
23 know that." That's the difference. At least this is how things are
24 interpreted to me here. This is the interpretation that I'm receiving.
25 I don't know whether this is your words or not. You can ask me whatever
1 and what I know I will answer. I will never lie, but do not put words
2 into my mouth. Do not tell me that I know things that I don't know. I
3 don't have a single reason not to answer either you or anybody in the
4 courtroom and tell you the truth. Whatever I know, I will tell you.
5 However, if you're putting it to me that I know things that I don't know,
6 please don't do that.
7 Q. I'm asking my question also to give you the opportunity to
8 explain whether you know or you don't know, et cetera --
9 JUDGE KWON: Just continue.
10 MR. COSTI: Exactly.
11 Q. Now, the following day, and we're talking about 14th at this
12 point, you drove together with Momcilo Cvjetinovic and Milenko Canic to
13 Pale and you drove from Bratunac, Konjevic Polje, and Pale. You passed
14 by Kravica, didn't you?
15 A. Of course we did. We had to pass through Kravica, of course.
16 Q. Now, did you notice anything in Kravica, or you passed by and you
17 saw nothing?
18 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know what I was supposed to notice in
19 Kravica. Kravica was --
20 Q. I'll tell you in a second what you're supposed --
21 A. -- destroyed on Christmas --
22 Q. Let me tell you what I think you were supposed to see.
23 Aleksandar Tesic is a Defence witness who testified in this case. Now,
24 he was travelling along that road around noon on the 14th of July, and he
25 testified in case that from the bus he was travelling, he saw a huge
1 number of dead bodies lined up in front of the warehouse. In his
2 testimony on 13 March at transcript page 35325, he said:
3 "I figured there must have been at least between 200 and
4 300 bodies lying there piled about 1 metre and a half high."
5 This is the first thing I'm asking you whether you noticed. Did
6 you see a pile of bodies like Aleksandar Tesic?
7 A. No, I did not see anything. I didn't see a pile of bodies. I
8 didn't notice anything on the 14th on my way to Pale to visit
9 President Radovan. I did not see anything, and that is the truth. As
10 far as I'm concerned, this is correct. Perhaps he did see things I
11 didn't. I don't know whether he was telling the truth or not. I don't
13 Q. Aleksandar Tesic also testified that the street in front of the
14 Kravica warehouse was crammed with soldiers, making it difficult for the
15 bus to move. So basically they were stuck in a sort of a traffic jam in
16 front of the Kravica warehouse. And this is D03118 at paragraph 40. You
17 didn't notice anything like this? You didn't notice a street crammed
18 with soldiers when you passed by the Kravica warehouse?
19 A. Mr. Prosecutor, this is no street. It's a road, a road between
20 Bratunac, Konjevic Polje, on to Milici. There is no street. There was
21 just the road. The only thing I noticed, if I recall correctly, was
22 police or soldiers by the road. I didn't stop by. I didn't notice what
23 Tesic said. It's his responsibility to say what he saw. I went by that
24 road on the 14th, and I can tell you for a fact that there was no traffic
25 jam there at the time I passed along that road. What Tesic saw and what
1 stopped him, that was something he saw. If we had been there at the same
2 time, I would tell him that there was no traffic jam of any sort.
3 Q. Now, another witness for --
4 A. And let me just tell you --
5 Q. You answered the question. If I may continue because we have
6 very limited time. So another witness in this case, another Defence
7 witness, Jovan Nikolic testified that the execution in front of the
8 warehouse were still ongoing that day and that the bodies were moved and
9 buried in Glogova, which you probably know is a little village on the
10 same road that you were driving through. And this is D03126 at
11 paragraphs 56 and 59.
12 So we are talking about still the day you passed by, so the
13 14th of July, you passed by the Kravica warehouse. The day before one
14 man from Skelani was killed and you were told that he was killed and
15 something happened after. You were passing by. You didn't stop because
16 you didn't think that there was any need for stopping and find out what
17 happened to one of the men from your city, and in any event, you noted no
18 crowd, no soldiers, no dead bodies, no killings, and no trucks. This is
19 your testimony.
20 A. I observed soldiers. I observed people in police and military
21 uniform by the road, but no lorries or anything like that. I passed
22 through Kravica on the 14th. There was no traffic jam, and I did not
23 notice anything else other than policemen and soldiers by the road, and
24 that's exactly how it was.
25 Q. Now, you also testified that obviously when you met with
1 Karadzic, Deronjic, together with Canic and Cvjetinovic in Pale, you
2 didn't discuss any of these issues. So while on the 11th for five or six
3 Serbs killed, as you said in your interview, between the 9th and the
4 10th of July, you felt the need to drive all the way to Pale to discuss
5 about these people killed, on the 14th there was no need to discuss any
6 of these incidents, not a word.
7 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I didn't go to Pale for the sake of five people
8 who were killed and so I did have these discussions on -- for their sake,
9 but I did not for the sake of those other unfortunates who were killed.
10 No. I went to Pale because I was afraid that the front line would yield
11 and that would result in the fall of Skelani, so don't make erroneous
12 conclusions. Don't formulate things in an erroneous way. I didn't go to
13 Pale for the sake of five people and then omitted to speak about
14 5.000 [as interpreted] people. That's not true. I went to Pale on the
15 11th because I was afraid that the line would yield and that Skelani
16 would fall and that bad things would happen. So don't -- please don't
17 put words into my mouth that I never uttered.
18 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Katanic, we were talking about your visit to
19 Pale on the 14th of July, are we not?
20 MR. COSTI: Yes.
21 JUDGE KWON: So the purpose of your visit has nothing to do with
22 the front line of Skelani. Correct?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. That wasn't the reason
24 why we went there on the 14th.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Back to you, Mr. Costi.
1 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, I just wanted -- I was almost going
2 to object to this question but if you see the question on lines 2, 3, and
3 4, Mr. Costi brought in the fact that the visit on the 11th had been for
4 one purpose and was contrasting it for -- as to what might be discussed
5 on the 14th, so I think that the witness's answer was responsive to that
6 question, confusing as it was.
7 MR. COSTI: Yeah. That was -- that's what my understanding of
8 the witness answer too.
9 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The transcript, line 15. He didn't
11 say "5.000," he said "thousands." "So I'm concerned for five people but
12 not for thousands."
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Please continue.
14 MR. COSTI: Now, can I have 65 ter 25103.
15 Q. Mr. Katanic, this is -- the one you will see on the screen in a
16 second is a picture that was taken in a demonstration or a rally
17 organised by Momcilo Cvjetinovic in 1996 in Srebrenica in support of
18 Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic. Now, do you recognise yourself as the
19 man standing behind the little kid with a cigarette in his mouth?
20 A. Yes, that's me.
21 Q. And do you recognise also Momcilo Cvjetinovic as the man on your
22 left with a coloured shirt, black jacket, beard, smiling; correct?
23 A. Of course. Of course I recognise Momcilo.
24 Q. And finally, the man squatting with the beard who makes the three
25 finger signs is Milenko Canic; right?
1 A. In the background over there you mean?
2 Q. In the first row, squatting, with the white shirt and a long
3 beard. Do you see Milenko Canic in the picture? Let me put it this way.
4 A. I guess it's him, but it's a bit ...
5 Q. Now --
6 A. I guess it's Milenko. His beard looks far darker and the man
7 seems to be of heavier build than Milenko is really.
8 Q. Now, can you tell us what the sign board say?
9 A. It says, "I'm a war criminal."
10 Q. Now, in his interview, Cvjetinovic explained that this Tribunal
11 and the BiH corps are pretty much politicised and partial. If you want,
12 I can read you the full passage, but this is literally one line of what
13 he said. Do you agree with the statement?
14 A. Well, how should I know in what context Momcilo said that? If
15 you take that sentence out of the whole context, you may in fact change
16 the gist of what he wanted to say. So I can't comment on that one
17 sentence unless I can see the entire conversation.
18 Q. Sure. I can give you the context. This is what he said at
19 page 7 of his witness statement, which I don't think we don't need to
20 brought up. I can simply read it to the transcript if Your Honour agree.
21 At line 24 and 29 he said:
22 "I personally do not deem him," Karadzic, "responsible for
23 whatever, for all those things that he's been charged. To see at least I
24 believe that he's as much guilty as the representatives of the other two
25 nations in BiH which, as we can see, have managed that without being
1 subject to any procedure, which, when I take a look at the result of the
2 BiH court, brought me to the conclusion that both courts are pretty much
3 politicised and partial."
4 This is the full context. Would you agree with his statement?
5 MR. ROBINSON: Objection, Mr. President, irrelevant.
6 MR. COSTI: I will say, Your Honour, that it's relevant to the
7 credibility of this witness.
8 THE ACCUSED: And -- and witness is only now getting translation.
9 And witness is only now getting translation.
10 MR. COSTI: And, Your Honours, obviously what I probably forgot
11 to say, Mr. Cvjetinovic said this in context of later in the statement,
12 then explaining the picture and the demonstration.
13 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber agrees with Mr. Robinson's observation.
14 We do not find it relevant. Please continue.
15 MR. COSTI: Very well.
16 Q. Do you remember participating to the demonstration, though?
17 A. I have no idea where this is. I'm trying to recall where this
18 is, and believe me, I don't know. I didn't take part in demonstrations
19 frequently, but there you go. Here I am in the picture. What can I tell
21 MR. COSTI: I think I'm up with my time and I don't have any
22 other question.
23 JUDGE KWON: You're not tendering this photo?
24 MR. COSTI: Yes. I will have to --
25 JUDGE KWON: In your question you didn't hear -- you said
1 demonstration, rally, organised by Momcilo Cvjetinovic in 1996 in
2 Srebrenica in support of Mladic and Karadzic.
3 MR. COSTI: Correct.
4 JUDGE KWON: And you didn't ask him.
5 MR. COSTI: Well, I asked the witness whether --
6 JUDGE KWON: And your question is just whether he recognised
7 himself and that's what we heard, "Yes, that's me." Since you're not
8 giving evidence, I expected you put that to the witness.
9 So, Mr. Katanic, I'm asking you whether you agree with
10 Mr. Costi's statement that it was taken at a rally or demonstration in
11 support of Mladic and Mr. Karadzic in 1996.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Believe me, I don't know where it
13 was taken or when. I really don't know. If I did, there would be no
14 reason for me not to say.
15 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Although you don't know where it was
16 taken and when it was taken, do you agree that it is part of
17 demonstration in support of Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Mladic?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With the board -- reading the sign,
19 well, it couldn't be anything else but a sign of support to Mr. Mladic
20 and President Karadzic. I think that, though I don't know where and when
21 or where this was, the gist of it was that it was a sign of support to
22 President Karadzic and General Mladic.
23 JUDGE KWON: We'll receive this. Shall we give the number.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P6332.
25 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Costi.
1 Mr. Karadzic, do you have any re-examination?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Several questions only.
3 Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
4 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Katanic, on page 60 you answered that in
5 mid-April you went to work in Skelani. Can you tell us where it was from
6 that you went to Skelani and from which work post?
7 A. I used to work in Srebrenica is as a director of the revenue
8 administration of the municipality of Srebrenica, and I think it was
9 sometime around the 14th, I think it was a Friday, that I went to Skelani
10 to work as the chairman of the Executive Committee. So I was the
11 director of the tax and revenue administration in Srebrenica.
12 Q. Thank you. Were you familiar with the negotiations intended to
13 create one or two municipalities?
14 MR. COSTI: I --
15 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Just a second. Yes.
16 MR. COSTI: This issue didn't arise in the cross-examination,
17 whether there was a negotiation and the process through which the
18 municipality was [overlapping speakers] --
19 JUDGE KWON: Whether it was not related to the issue, which
20 municipality should be in charge of Srebrenica.
21 MR. COSTI: I think there are two separate issue. Here we are
22 talking about the establishment of the Skelani --
23 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Just a second. I'll hear from the
25 Mr. Karadzic, how did it arise from the cross-examination?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Firstly, the witness was told that
2 he was banned from office. Second, he said that he went to the newly
3 established municipality from -- and what he left was a job that he had
4 been doing. He had not been laid off. And this was within the scope of
5 Prosecutor's questions about his career. And we have a document about
6 his appointment to the commission.
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll allow the question. Please continue.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I was working in Srebrenica in
9 the post of the director of the revenue administration in 1991 and 1992,
10 the Municipal Assembly of Srebrenica was in the process of dividing the
11 municipality into Skelani and Srebrenica. The Municipal Assembly set up
12 a commission charged with the division of the municipalities, and I was a
13 member -- one of the members of that commission charged with working out
14 the division of the municipality of Srebrenica into the municipalities of
15 Skelani and Srebrenica. Unfortunately, this never materialised because
16 war hostilities broke out.
17 Q. Thank you. You say that sanctions were imposed in 1998. What
18 did you do from 1995 to 1998?
19 A. I was the president of the Executive Board of the municipality of
20 Srebrenica. When the authorities were set up in Srebrenica, I continued
21 in the same post that I had in Skelani, and that was the president of the
22 Executive Board of the Municipal Assembly of Srebrenica.
23 Q. Thank you. Will you tell the Chamber what became of the
24 municipality of Skelani.
25 A. The municipality of Skelani continued functioning post-1995. The
1 same structures and duties that a municipality normally discharges
2 existed in Skelani as well. I think it was in 2000 that the
3 international community abolished the municipality of Skelani.
4 Q. And the territory, under whose jurisdiction did it end up?
5 A. Under that of the municipality of Srebrenica. So again, Skelani
6 and Srebrenica became a single territory in terms of it being a
7 municipality with the seat in Srebrenica.
8 Q. And currently where are you working? You're occupying which post
9 and in which municipality?
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes, your answer?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I began working again in the
12 municipality of Srebrenica as head of the department for the economy.
13 Together with all the people living in Srebrenica, we are trying to
14 contribute to some sort of prosperity for the Muslims and Serbs and
15 everyone living in Srebrenica, to be able to earn a decent living, and
16 that's the least that the people living there deserve, to have a better
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Thank you. When sanctions were imposed on you, were you
20 suspected of anything that was done during the war or post-Dayton? Why
21 these sanctions?
22 A. I was not suspected of anything. I was sanctioned because, to
23 tell you the truth, some sort of sub-appellate commission was there. It
24 had to do with elections. There was only one piece of paper which said
25 that I did things that were unheard of, but if you ask the people who
1 were responsible for imposing this sanction on me why they did so, I
2 don't think they would be able to tell you. I think that it had to do
3 with the elections in 1997 in Srebrenica. Unfortunately, the Muslim
4 Bosniak population was not present there. Some bags were brought over,
5 and we were asked to accept the implementation of elections which were
6 not in effect organised. As some sort of local official, I asked from
7 the government, which was at the time was in Banja Luka, I asked the
8 government or the Assembly to provide me with some sort of document. I
9 even told categorically to a representative of the international
10 community, Bring me a piece of paper from a cigarette box, anything, just
11 give me something that would confirm my position as a local official that
12 would entitle me, but I cannot confirm the legitimacy of the elections.
13 This can only be been the government and parliamentary bodies. I tried
14 to adhere to some sort of rules that were in place.
15 Q. Thank you. Aside from this political sanction, were you the
16 subject of any criminal proceedings or conviction?
17 A. Well, under the pressure of the international community, I was
18 accused of abuse of office, and some several years later, I don't know
19 how many years later, five years, the charges were dismissed as unfounded
20 and that's where it all ended. In other words, I was never convicted for
21 anything and was never handed down with any sentence.
22 Q. Thank you. Can you help us clarify the 13th now. On the 13th,
23 in the morning, you were in Bratunac, at least that's what you told us.
24 When did you leave Bratunac and go to Skelani?
25 A. I don't know. Believe me, I don't know exactly. I know that it
1 was in the afternoon that we returned to Skelani, but I can't tell you
2 exactly when. I don't remember.
3 Q. Thank you. Did you observe in what direction the buses were
4 headed? Were they arriving in Bratunac or were they passing through
6 A. Mr. Karadzic, a moment ago I said that I didn't observe them. I
7 knew that people were charged with transporting the civilian population
8 from Srebrenica and Bratunac to the territory of the federation. I knew
9 that people were charged with that. But I didn't observe that. When I
10 was heading toward the centre of town perhaps there were buses in the
11 centre as the Prosecutor was saying, but I didn't observe it and I did
12 not pay attention to it. The fact is that people were there so there
13 must have been buses there. If people were being transported in the
14 course of those days, then there must have been buses there, but to -- to
15 tell you that I did observe them, no, I did not.
16 Q. Thank you. One more question. You were asked if you had heard
17 of the executions at Kravica, at the Kravica warehouse. Did you hear
18 that people were shot by firing squad there and executed or what exactly?
19 A. Let me repeat what I heard, Mr. President. I heard that Krsto
20 got killed and as a result there were problems, shooting, killings. I
21 don't know to this very day how many were killed, whether there were
22 executions or perhaps not. I really don't know. I never inquired. I
23 only heard in the media. I read all sorts of things, but I officially
24 never inquired. I never even asked Milenko Trifunovic or anybody else
25 about that. I didn't ask him to tell me what happened, where, how, why.
1 To this very day, if you have lie detectors, you can check if I'm telling
2 the truth when I tell you that to this very day I don't know what
3 happened and how. That's as far as I'm concerned. I'm not saying that
4 things did not happen, that those things didn't happen, but I don't know.
5 I can't say there were executions of which I knew because I didn't know.
6 I don't know to this very day. Of course people were killed because they
7 gone missing, but I don't know that for a fact.
8 Q. Please, can you tell us how did you understand this? Were you
9 alarmed on the 13th when you heard about that event?
10 A. Mr. Karadzic, it was wartime. People get killed in war.
11 Unfortunately, there was not just one Kravica. There were a lot of
12 killings in 1992. We got hardened. How was I supposed to understand
13 things? If you were a normal person, how could -- how could you react
14 when you heard that people were getting killed? A person got killed.
15 There was a situation, and a similar thing could happen the following day
16 or if not worse. Things that were even worse happened before that. I'm
17 not talking in percentages, but bad things happened from 1992 onwards.
18 There was always something bad going on. It is not like we were living
19 peacefully and then Kravica happened, which shocked us. Things were
20 happening in continuity from 1992 onwards, and then finally when Croatia
21 attacked us, all the people were taken away and they kept on killing. We
22 just heard news about people who got killed, but war went on. People got
23 killed, and you took it all in your stride. That's how things were.
24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Katanic, for your testimony. Thank you for having
25 come here. I have no further questions for you.
1 JUDGE KWON: Very well. That concludes your testimony,
2 Mr. Katanic. On behalf of the Chamber, I thank you for your coming to
3 The Hague to give it. You're now free to go.
4 Given the time, we'll adjourn for today and continue tomorrow.
5 The next witness is Mr. Kosoric, I take it.
6 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE KWON: The hearing is adjourned.
8 [The witness withdrew]
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.43 p.m.,
10 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 23rd day
11 of May, 2013, at 9.00 a.m.