1 Thursday, 30 May 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 8.59 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
7 Before we begin today, there's a matter I'd like to deal with.
8 The Chamber refers to the accused's motion for revision of trial
9 transcripts filed on the 27th of May, 2013, in which the accused requests
10 that the Chamber order the Tribunal's language section to listen to the
11 audio recordings of all B/C/S-speaking witnesses in his case and,
12 together with the court reporters, produce an accurate revised transcript
13 of this testimony.
14 The Chamber would like to hear from the Registry on this issue,
15 and therefore invites the Registry to file a response to the motion
16 pursuant to Rule 33 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
17 This response should be filed by the close of business on the 10th of
18 June. Should the Prosecution wish to respond to the motion, it should do
19 so by the same date.
20 In addition, the Chamber notes that in support of the relief
21 sought in the motion, the accused refers to the Chamber's recent order of
22 14th of May, 2013, that all so-called draft translations of witness
23 statements of Defence witnesses be revised by the CLSS. In that respect,
24 the Chamber notes that on the 22nd of May, 2013, the accused filed a
25 report on the progress of this exercise in which he states, in paragraph
1 2, that contrary to the Chamber's impression he and his team never
2 requested draft translations from the CLSS and that the decision to
3 provide such translations was made by the CLSS.
4 Accordingly, the Chamber considers that the Rule 33 submission
5 which is to be filed by the 10th of June should also address paragraph 2
6 of the accused's report on draft translation of witness statements, filed
7 on the 22nd of May, 2013. In doing so, the Registry should provide a
8 short description of its procedure for translation requests and shall
9 also address the issue of the specific 59 draft translations referred to
10 in the accused's report, including how they came to be draft rather than
11 fully revised translations.
12 As for the hearing for today, I take it the parties have been
13 informed of the revised sitting schedule? Very well. Then please
14 continue, Mr. Karadzic.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Good morning,
16 Excellencies. Good morning, everybody.
17 WITNESS: MILE POPARIC [Resumed]
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 Examination by Mr. Karadzic: [Continued]
20 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Poparic.
21 A. Good morning.
22 Q. I kindly ask you to focus your attention on your incident
23 report -- actually, your report about incident 7 and please tell us what
24 was said about that incident and what the physical evidence showed.
25 A. This incident happened on the 25th of May, 1994. According to
1 the indictment, a projectile fired from infantry weapons hit a bus at the
2 intersection of Nikole Demonje Street and the former Avnoj boulevard.
3 Now it's called Branilaca Dobrinje, I believe.
4 According to the indictment, the projectile was fired from the
5 direction of the theological faculty at Nedzarici. We visited the site
6 and went to that faculty at Nedzarici and found out that there is no line
7 of sight between that place and the site of the incident. We were also
8 able to show that based on the altitude of the Faculty of Theology and
9 the site of the incident. The Faculty of Theology has a lower altitude
10 and between that facility and the incident site there are also some
12 Q. [No interpretation].
13 THE INTERPRETER: Please repeat the question and do not overlap.
14 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, please put a pause between the
15 question and answers. Could you repeat your question.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I asked image 68 from page 104 from
17 document 1D7902 to be put on our screens.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Please comment on this photograph.
20 A. This photograph shows that the distance between the Faculty of
21 Theology and the incident site is 1.527 metres, which is a substantial
22 instance, whereas a machine-gun is used up to a distance of 1.500 metres
23 and a sniper rifle up to 1.200 metres. In other words, the distance is
24 greater than that at which a machine-gun can be used.
25 Q. Thank you. Why did you choose the Faculty Of Theology, given the
1 fact that the OTP is not sure that the projectile was fired from there?
2 A. The Faculty of Theology is often mentioned as the place from
3 which the projectile was fired. All other buildings are at a lower
4 altitude, all other buildings surrounding it, so that it's not possible
5 for the projectile to be -- to have been fired from any other nearby
7 There are other houses between that place and the bus, but the --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Please start over with the answer. The
9 interpreter cannot follow.
10 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Interpreters were not able to
11 follow. Could you repeat it.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. I believe that you said [In English] "so that it's not possible
14 for the projectile to be -- to have been fired from any other nearby
15 building. There are other houses between ..." and so on --
16 MS. EDGERTON: Your Honour --
17 JUDGE KWON: No, no, he's read the transcript where it was
19 So if you could repeat from there.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will repeat the part about the
21 other end of the street relative to the bus.
22 From that direction no projectile could have been fired from the
23 positions of the VRS because the separation line at the end of that
24 street was moved 200 to 250 metres toward the Faculty of Theology, which
25 was confirmed by the commander of the Dobrinja Brigade, General Ismet
2 Moreover, somewhere halfway down the street there was a barrier
3 that blocked the line of sight toward the bus. That barrier was placed
4 in front of the Dobrinja Brigade command and it was a standard way of
5 protecting commands in Sarajevo. I was able to see some photographs of
6 the command of the 105th Motorised Brigade at Trampina Street where it
7 was also impossible to snipe because there were protective barriers,
8 which is normal in war time. So there was a Dobrinja Brigade command and
9 there must have been armed BH army soldiers securing the facility. It's
10 almost certain.
11 There is another piece of information that rules out the
12 possibility of the fire -- of the bullet to have been fired from the
13 positions of the VRS around the Faculty of Theology because a bullet
14 fired from infantry weapons from this distance would have had about 90
15 per cent less energy than the amount it would have had at a distance of a
16 hundred metres.
17 According to the reports, the bullet first hit the tire then
18 ricochetted, pierced the panelling of the bus, and then wounded two
20 After the ricochet, the bullet additionally loses some 30
21 per cent of its energy at least and it is certain that it wouldn't have
22 had enough energy to pierce both the metal panelling of the bus and
23 continue its trajectory to wound one woman and then another at the other
24 end of the bus.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Thank you -- or do finish.
2 A. Based on all these facts, it is fully certain that in this case
3 the bullet that hit the bus was not fired from the positions of the VRS.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now get image 69 on page
6 105. [In English] Next page.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Can you explain what this image shows.
9 A. It shows the terrain profile along this line from the Faculty of
10 Theology to the incident site.
11 Q. Can you tell us --
12 A. We can also see that the Faculty of Theology is at a lower
13 altitude than the incident site marked F7 here and if we take into
14 account the height of the faculty building of some 15 metres, then the
15 spot where there were some firing positions at the Faculty of
16 Theology - and there were, we ascertained that - through the courtesy of
17 the faculty staff we got some photographs that they made after the end of
18 the war and it is clear that there were some firing positions, but it was
19 impossible to see the incident site from there. Since there are other
20 houses there, the line of sight is completely blocked.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please see image 67 and 67a,
22 page 103 in the Serbian.
23 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
24 Mr. Poparic, I couldn't read the letters which is inside the
25 small black boxes in the image 69.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh, in the profile. This is --
2 these are some Google markings. They only show the spot where incident
3 F-7 took place. This is -- this profile is a bit longer than 1.500
4 metres. The spot marked F-7 on the upper line was lowered down on this
5 scale here.
6 JUDGE KWON: What does number 614 represent, if that's 614 in the
7 middle of that graph?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really cannot read this.
9 JUDGE KWON: Very well. We'll leave it at that. We can zoom in
10 with the computer --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Or I can explain. When we make
12 such a profile, it has a sliding scale that enables you to read the exact
13 values. It shows the altitude and so on. This hasn't really anything --
14 JUDGE KWON: For the --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- to do with this. This is what
16 Google gives you automatically and it can be moved --
17 JUDGE KWON: Further to the right. In the upper part do you see
18 the small black box 614v? Shall we zoom in further?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's the altitude of that spot, as
20 given by Google. You can move this to the left or right and get the
21 altitude for any spot.
22 JUDGE KWON: Why that place? Why that location?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's picked at random. It doesn't
24 matter. I could have moved it to the end --
25 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- but the altitude doesn't matter
2 to me. It's only this profile that matters.
3 JUDGE KWON: Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. In what relation with regard to the projection is the incident
6 site to this altitude of 614?
7 A. The yellow arrow indicates the incident site, so it's higher up
8 than 614 metres.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now get image 67 and image
11 67a on page 103.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Can you tell us how the faculty is oriented, the direction it's
15 A. They are not facing the site of the incident, but this terrace
16 here -- well, there are no weapons nests here. So if we look at 67a, it
17 was taken in the direction towards the incident site, so the terrace is
18 roughly at the level of these gun holes and the gun holes are roughly 90
19 degrees in the other direction, roughly towards Alipasino Polje and to
20 the east if we are speaking in geographical terms.
21 Q. Who mentioned the Faculty of Theology as the source of fire?
22 A. Well, it was mentioned by expert Weijden, it was mentioned by
23 this witness, that it came from there. There are perhaps some other
24 documents. I think the police established that it came from the
25 direction of the Faculty of Theology.
1 Q. Thank you. The other Serb positions, the other Serb positions
2 that were closer, was there visibility and could it have --
3 A. Absolutely not. As we see in image 66, this is the area with
4 these houses that are roughly the same height. So if we take into
5 account that from this house that can be seen in the back, there was
6 another 250 metres approximately to the line of separation, it is
7 absolutely impossible I mean to have targeted from there. Otherwise, a
8 building could have been seen from which one could fire.
9 Q. Thank you. Could we now please focus on incident number 8.
10 Could you please briefly tell us what is claimed in relation to this
11 incident and what your expertise established.
12 A. This is the incident of the 19th of June, 1994.
13 Q. It's page 108 in Serbian and it's paragraph 112 in English.
14 Please go on. I'm sorry.
15 A. What is claimed is that a bullet was fired from a side-arm and
16 wounded several persons. It was fired on a tram and it is claimed that
17 the fire came from the Jewish cemetery, from the positions of the Army of
18 Republika Srpska.
19 On the basis of photo documentation, it was very easy to
20 establish that the bullet had not been fired from the direction of the
21 Jewish cemetery and that can clearly be seen if one looks at the place
22 where the bullet hit the panelling of the tram and where it exited.
23 There is a major difference in terms of height and also in terms of
24 direction. A bullet that would have been fired from the positions of the
25 Army of Republika Srpska, the Jewish cemetery, would have hit the tram
1 under an angle that is very close to 90 degrees. But the angle of
2 descent would be a few degrees, 5 or 6 degrees.
3 Now, what does that mean? That means that in that case the place
4 where the projectile entered the panelling would be 2 or 3 centimetres
5 above the point where it exited in terms of height, and in terms of
6 direction it would almost be in the same place, or rather, it could have
7 been moved a few centimetres in relation to the point of entry.
8 On the basis of photo documentation, it was established what the
9 point of entry and the point of exit of the projectile was - there is a
10 major difference there. Obviously the tram had been hit from a direction
11 which is opposite to the direction in which the tram was moving. At a
12 small angle in relation to the horizontal plain, or rather, in relation
13 to the axis of the tram on the horizontal plain and on the vertical plain
14 the angle of descent was very large.
15 Q. Thank you. 78 on page 116, could you explain that to us?
16 A. On page 78 we see the incident site, that is point F8. Direction
17 2 is the approximate position of the Army of Republika Srpska by the
18 Jewish cemetery and direction 1 is the approximate direction showing
19 where the bullet had been fired from. And this direction was established
20 and confirmed also on the basis of the opening at the entry point. It
21 was a high-quality photograph and it was possible to establish what the
22 direction was on the basis of the profile of this opening at the point of
23 entry. It just confirmed that obvious fact that was shown in image 76,
24 where one can see the point where the projectile entered the panelling.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have image 76.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. On this image we see the
2 point that is circled on the left-hand side. That is the point where the
3 projectile entered the panelling and the police marked that with this
4 white arrow. This other point down here is one that we marked on the
5 basis of the photograph, I don't know if we provided it -- yes,
6 photograph 75. It shows the point of exit on the tram panelling, and
7 this is the approximate position as far as we could assess, but there is
8 no major error there.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Thank you. On the external panelling of this tram, can you mark
11 the point of exit from the panelling where this impact was?
12 A. Let's mark it with a number 1.
13 Q. Thank you. Can we now see image -- I beg your pardon. Can you
14 initial this and could you please put the date there as well.
15 A. It's the 30th today, isn't it?
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll receive it.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3637, Your Honours.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could I now please have photograph
19 71a, it's on page 110 within paragraph 117 in English.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Can you tell us what can be seen in this image?
22 A. This image shows the trace of the bullet that passed through the
23 panelling of the tram and it hit the railing of the chair. This image
24 can be useful for us because it shows that the bullet had considerable
25 energy and that indicates that it had been fired from a relatively short
1 range because it had to pierce two panelings on the tram which is rather
2 thick, and that decreases energy. And then it still had the energy to
3 cause this damage in this metal railing of the chair. So we see that the
4 impact is very strong. It almost pierced it. That indicates the high
5 energy of the bullet.
6 Q. Thank you. Who marked these two arrows?
7 A. It was the police that marked this. This is from the photo
9 Q. Can you tell us whether they mark only the point of impact or
10 also the direction?
11 A. Well, well, once the bullet got through the panelling it hit this
12 chair and then -- I think it's on the other side, and then it fell and
13 it's marked on the right-hand side with a number 1. The police noted
14 that and it was 7.9 millimetres. That's what they believed.
15 Q. Thank you. And what about the blue circle on the left-hand
16 photograph, what does that show?
17 A. The blue circle on the left-hand photograph shows some damage
18 that I did not manage to decipher on the basis of this photograph. They
19 measured something, some distance, but the chair is on the other side.
20 So it is not of any relevance in terms of determining the direction.
21 These photographs just show roughly that this bullet had a high degree of
22 energy and this shows that it was fired from a relatively short range and
23 that is --
24 Q. [No interpretation].
25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not hear
1 Mr. Karadzic.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is no doubt that --
3 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Interpreters didn't hear your
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. The question was: What was your conclusion?
7 A. The conclusion is that the bullet was fired from the
8 Executive Council building. We could not establish the exact height and
9 the position within the building itself because of the relatively small
10 image, so it is only natural that there are some errors. But undeniably
11 all these traces show that this had been fired from the building of the
12 Executive Council.
13 Q. Thank you. Can we now deal with incident F9 on page 117 in the
14 Serbian version and the paragraph number is 126. Again, I'm kindly
15 asking you to explain what the physical evidence shows and how this
16 incident was portrayed.
17 A. The 26th of June, 1994, the street of Djure Jaksica, Sanela
18 Muratovic was shot in the shoulder. It was an exit/entry wound. It is
19 claimed that a projectile was fired from the direction of the Institute
20 for the Blind that is about 100-something metres away from the site of
21 this incident.
22 There is very little information about the incident itself.
23 Everything is based on the testimony of one person who was next to Sanela
24 Muratovic, the wounded person. In her statements there are two versions.
25 According to one version that the OTP presented, the two of them were
1 standing by a trench next to the building in Djure Jaksica number 17.
2 There is a line of sight, there is optical visibility from there
3 towards the Institute for the Blind, but only the upper part of the
4 window can be seen and it's rather big. It's about 3 metres, which
5 indicates that if the marksman was there he had to be at some height, so
6 practically towards the top of that room in order to be able to target
7 this position.
8 Since there is a relatively short distance between this building
9 and -- well, I find this highly improbable, although I cannot say that
10 with any degree of certainty because the marksman would have been exposed
11 to great danger. He could easily have been hit with an Osa Zolja rifle
12 grenade and so on and it doesn't seem logical to me that that would have
13 been a sniper position.
14 This building is often referred to in various statements as a
15 source of sniper fire, but I did not find any documents that would
16 indicate that there was indeed -- I mean a photograph, a film, that there
17 really was something there that would indicate that that used to be a
18 sniper position.
19 On the assumption that the bullet had been fired from this
20 institute, Sanela Muratovic would have been hit in the front part of the
21 shoulder as described by this witness and the exit wound would be towards
22 the left. The angle could have been about 5 or 6 degrees.
23 Unfortunately, there is no medical documentation that says anything about
24 the nature of this wound except for it being an exit/entry wound. So
25 that's the only thing that we know, that it was an exit/entry wound.
1 Now, where the entry was, where the exit was, what the direction was, we
2 don't have any information about that.
3 Another version of Medina Omerovic's was that she and
4 Sanela Muratovic were in the street of Djure Jaksica and that soldiers
5 cautioned them that they should hurry because sniper fire was starting.
6 They started running and at that moment a gun-shot was heard and Sanela
7 was hit. Then they ran to the trench where the soldiers gave them aid.
8 So if this version is correct then Sanela was hit in Djure
9 Jaksica Street and then she ran to that trench. However, if it's in
10 Djure Jaksica, then the view from this place at the Institute for the
11 Blind is such that they probably could not have been seen in that place.
12 There is no information that it was on the front side of the institute, I
13 mean that there was some kind of opening or something through which they
14 could have been seen there.
15 So practically what we have here is very scant information on the
16 basis of which we could establish where fire had been opened from. We
17 can only establish what an entry/exit wound would look like if she had
18 been hit from one place or another, but I don't find that to be very
19 useful. There is a basic document, that is the medical report on the
20 wound itself, and in cases of wounding with small arms fire that is of
21 crucial importance. In such situations, the ballistic and the forensic
22 aspect is taken into account. In this report, it's missing.
23 Q. Thank you. Do we have any information as to how far they ran
24 until Sanela was hit?
25 A. We don't have the exact information; however, judging by the
1 position of the trench and the size of the building - the building is
2 about 15 metres wide - and we don't know where exactly they were in Djure
3 Jaksica Street, I suppose that they may have run for some 20 metres or so
4 in total. But this is just an assumption. They were in Djure Jaksica
5 Street, and in figure 81 it is on the right-hand side behind the
6 building. Let me check if there is a better image where I could point to
7 it -- no, I can't see it.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 A. We can assume that it was about 20 metres.
10 Q. Thank you. From the point of view of ballistics and from the
11 point of view of establishing the intention of targeting these people, is
12 it a fact that they were running of some importance?
13 A. Well, if it were possible to establish whether the testimony is
14 true - and I can't be the judge of that - I just stated that one and the
15 same person provided two different statements and I don't know which
16 one's correct. I'm saying if it is true that they had been running and
17 that they were shot before they reached the trench, then they were not
18 shot from the Institute for the Blind. I suppose that there must have
19 been an exchange of fire or a ricochet or something of that kind. And if
20 they were on the border of the trench, as was shown in that video-clip,
21 there is a theoretical possibility that the marksman was at the level of
22 the ceiling in that room and that he opened fire from there. But this is
23 another assumption and in my view it's very improbable that the
24 marksman's position was that.
25 Q. Now this may not be a ballistics question. Is the vicinity of
1 the trench of any importance? But you don't have to answer that. No.
2 A. We don't have enough information. I don't know what was going
3 on. We don't have a full picture.
4 Q. And now can we look at F11 which is on page 131, paragraph 147
5 for the English version. Again, tell us what was said about this
6 incident, and on the other hand what does the physical evidence show?
7 A. This was a complex incident.
8 Q. I would like to call up figure 90.
9 A. This happened on the 8th of October, 1994. According to the
10 indictment, two trams were hit at the crossroads of Franje Rackog and
11 Zmaja od Bosne Streets, and after that some passers-by were wounded.
12 Something that surprised me as a layperson is the fact that in
13 the footnote for this incident it is stated that one person was killed,
14 whereas in the indictment, in the body of the indictment, it is stated
15 that some persons were wounded. I'm -- I find it surprising that a dead
16 person was mentioned only in the footnote.
17 Unlike in the previous case, we had a lot of video material for
18 this incident. There were a lot of statements as well; however, I have
19 to say that we didn't have all the material that is available here in the
20 court and it would have been of much use to us if we had had it at the
21 time. However, we still managed to establish where that fire was opened
22 from and how the events actually unfolded.
23 According to our findings, the first tram number 206 was hit
24 somewhere around the building of the Executive Council close to the
25 containers that served as protection between the Executive Council
1 building to the old tobacco factory.
2 Q. Can you tell us which point denotes the place where tram 206 was
4 A. It would be the dotted line with an arrow and it is corrected
5 with -- connected with a curve with two arrows that leads towards tram
6 206. Where it says "Tram 206," that's the place where the tram finally
7 stopped, and you can see it in the video-clip that it is actually
8 standing in front of that tobacco factory, 206.
9 Q. What street is it in the place where the tram was hit?
10 A. You mean --
11 Q. The projection of the point of impact across the river.
12 A. This is the Vrbanja bridge and it is the street that leads
13 towards the Vrbanja bridge. I believe that it was Djure Danica Street,
14 but I really can't remember. The bridge here is the Vrbanja bridge. You
15 can see the Assembly building and the Executive Council building as well.
16 The first tram was hit somewhere around the place where it was passing in
17 front of the Executive Council building, but it is not possible to say
18 that with precision.
19 Q. The first tram that was hit was 206?
20 A. Yes, and immediately after that tram 236 followed and it was hit
21 approximately in the place which is depicted in the figure in front of
22 the Executive Council building. And this was also recorded on the
24 Number 2 denotes the area in front of the Executive Council
25 building and the School of Philosophy and that's where passers-by were
1 shot as they were walking in the direction of the centre of the city.
2 When they found themselves in that open area, a burst of fire was opened
3 on them and television recorded that. That film I believe was shown in
4 the courtroom.
5 Q. Thank you. What about number 1?
6 A. Number 1 denotes the place where the tram was according to the
7 police, a place across the road from Metaljka, the crossroads of Franje
8 Rackog Street and Zmaja od Bosne Street.
9 Q. And what about the street south of number 1? What's its name?
10 A. Its current name is Ferdo Hauptman Street.
11 Q. What was its main name?
12 A. I believe it was Djure Danica Street, if I remember it properly.
13 Q. No. I'm asking you about the projection of number 1.
14 A. Number 2?
15 Q. What about number 1?
16 A. Number 1 is Franje Rackog Street which leads to the Metaljka
17 building. This is the notorious crossroads.
18 Q. And with respect to number 1, where is the so-called S-curve?
19 A. The red line which encircles number 1 is at the beginning of that
21 Q. Thank you. Please tell us what does it say in the reports?
22 Where was the tram when it was hit and why are you claiming that it was
23 hit in the projection of Djure Danica Street?
24 A. According to the reports, the tram was hit at the crossroads
25 which is marked by number 1. We claim, however, that it was hit where it
1 is marked as tram 236 and we claim that based on the video-clip and
2 several witness statements provided by the people who were passengers on
3 the trams.
4 Q. And now I would like to show a photo --
5 A. The best proof of that is photo 92 and also 93.
6 Q. And now can we look at page 135.
7 A. [No interpretation].
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness and the accused please be
9 asked not to overlap and slow down.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe we should first look at 90 --
11 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
12 Yes, I take it, Mr. Karadzic, you noted the transcript. Because
13 of overlapping, the interpreters didn't hear your entire -- your
14 questions and answers. So page 135, we start over from there.
15 THE ACCUSED: Yes, I notice that and I apologise.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Mr. Poparic, could you please tell us what is the building in the
19 A. In the background we can see the building of the
20 Executive Council and the building that is a bit lower than that is the
21 School of Philosophy, and here we see tram 236 standing next to the
22 Executive Council building. The upper photo, number 92, depicts tram 236
23 and next to it we see a lot of shattered glass.
24 Q. What does that mean? Who took that photo?
25 A. That photo is a clip from the -- a still from the video-clip.
1 There was a crew that was filming things as they unfolded, so it's a
2 still from the video-clip. And what does it mean? The shattered glass
3 on the street is the glass from the tram. Several witnesses confirmed
4 that they heard a shot, the tram was hit, the glass was broken, and they
5 started shouting to the driver, "Go on driving, go on driving." The
6 driver, however, did not drive on. He stopped immediately, and here you
7 can see that with respect to this broken window the tram moved for
8 another metre or two which is probably the time that the driver needed to
10 Q. And now can we look at figure 95 which is on page 137.
11 A. Yes. This is another still from the film that was shown here, I
12 believe, which depicts the passers-by being shot at as they were walking
13 from the School of Philosophy towards the Executive Council building.
14 The red ellipsoid shape points to a column of dust which was
15 caused by the impact of the bullet on the soil. Based on that column of
16 dust which is virtually vertical to the surface, we can conclude that the
17 projectile had arrived at an acute angle of descent. If it had arrived
18 at an angle of 2 or 3 degrees, that column of dust would be almost
19 horizontal, it would follow the trajectory of the bullet.
20 The second thing that can be discerned from this photo is the
21 height of the column. On the left-hand side we can see an APC which is
22 over 2 or even 2.5 metres high, and this column of dust is about the same
23 height if not higher, which says that the energy of that bullet was
24 really high and that the bullet was shot from -- for a relatively close
1 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell us about the building on the
2 left-hand side. What is it?
3 A. The building on the left-hand side is the building of the School
4 of Philosophy, and further down is the building of the Land Museum in
6 Q. Thank you. Can you now take the electronic pen and make a
7 projection of Djure Danica Street and Franje Rackog Street on both sides
8 of the School of Philosophy and mark them with numbers 1 and 2
10 A. Franje Rackog Street goes in this direction between these two
11 buildings and Djure Danica Street leads by the School of Philosophy.
12 Franje Rackog will be number 1 and Djure Danica Street will be number 2.
13 Q. Thank you. What is the street that the bullets travel along, to
14 put it that way?
15 A. The bullets travel along Djure Danica Street, which is marked by
16 number 2.
17 Q. What is on the other side of the street in the projection of the
18 School of Philosophy?
19 A. On the other side of that street there is -- what do you mean?
20 On what side? In the direction of the centre of the city? In the centre
21 of the city as the tram tracks go further on is the Executive Council
22 building and the Assembly building.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to call up 139.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. And before that, I need your initial and the date.
2 A. [Marks].
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll receive this.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3638, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, we'll take a break for 15 minutes and
6 resume at 14 past 10.00.
7 --- Recess taken at 9.59 a.m.
8 --- On resuming at 10.20 a.m.
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes, let us continue.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Please let us focus on incident F14 which is on page 149 in the
12 Serbian version; in English it's part of paragraph 175. How is this
13 incident presented and what were your findings and what were they based
15 A. This incident happened on the 23rd of November, 1994, when a tram
16 was hit between the technical school and the Marsal Tito barracks.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we get image 103, please, on
18 page 150.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Please go ahead.
21 A. According to another version, the tram was hit at the
22 intersection by the Metaljka building. It's the intersection of Franje
23 Rackog Street and Zmaja od Bosne Street. The police found out that the
24 tram was hit by one bullet and that two persons were injured in the
25 process because the bullet fragmented. But immediately something
1 illogical was noticed. They say that the bullet entered through a
2 half-open window and fragmented in the process, but that's impossible.
3 Q. Based on this image, please tell us where the impact on the tram
5 A. Number 1 is roughly the underlined spot --
6 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Wait for a moment. We would like to
7 zoom in on the proper picture.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. The pen.
10 A. This is the position of the tram according to the first version,
11 that of the tram driver, because he said that the tram was at the switch
12 toward the railroad station which is here. And the second position is
13 based on the statement of a witness who was wounded then and she marked
14 this spot, hereabouts.
15 JUDGE KWON: For the record, the witness marked number 1 for the
16 first point and marked number 2 for the second point.
17 Please continue.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us what is in the projection from spot 1
20 toward Grbavica, that is which street, and what is in the projection of
21 spot 2?
22 A. The projection from 1 -- from spot 1 to Grbavica is a side-street
23 which goes -- which runs between buildings 4 and 3. And in the
24 projection of spot 2 there is Franje Rackog Street which runs toward the
25 Metaljka building, I suppose.
1 Q. For the transcript you said that building 4 was the Land Museum
2 and number 3 was the Museum of the Revolution and that the projection
3 runs between these two buildings; right?
4 A. Yes, it is a side-street. I don't know if it has a name.
5 Q. Whose variant is number 1?
6 A. It's the version of the tram driver. He described in detail how
7 he reached that conclusion. He said that he heard the shot when the tram
8 was at the switch toward the railroad station which is to the right.
9 There's the Marsal Tito barracks and the switch toward the railroad
10 station is next to it. And position number 2 was described by a witness
11 who was injured on that occasion and she thinks that's where the tram was
13 Q. Thank you. The witness said that the Marsal Tito barracks is
14 marked 5 in this photograph and this was not recorded.
15 Could you please mark the street that runs to the station.
16 A. Here it is. I'll mark it 6.
17 Q. Thank you. What did the police accept? Which version?
18 A. The accepted version was that involving point 2, which means that
19 the fire -- that the shot was fired from Metaljka. There are also these
20 high-rise buildings marked by this dotted ellipse.
21 Q. What did you find out?
22 A. We established that it is impossible for a bullet to fragment
23 after passing through an open window. It was claimed that the two
24 fragments hit two different persons.
25 It is also very important to say in what positions these two
1 injured persons were and to describe the nature of their injuries. Based
2 on their respective positions and the wounds on their bodies, we
3 concluded that they couldn't be hit from the positions of the VRS because
4 in that case they would have been hit in the shoulder, that would have
5 been the entry wound, whereas the exit wound would have been elsewhere on
6 their bodies; whereas in reality they were hit in the shoulder and the
7 exit wound was in the upper arm. That is one -- in one of them. In the
8 other, the exit wound is also in the shoulder.
9 They were hit in the front part of their bodies and the exit
10 wound was in the rear part, and the angle of descent was great. The
11 angle of descent of a bullet fired from VRS positions couldn't have been
12 like that because the distance is pretty great. The angle of descent
13 would have been around 10 degrees depending where the shot was fired
14 from, be it from these high-rise buildings, the white high-rise
15 buildings, or the Metaljka building.
16 In this case, the situation is the opposite. The only place from
17 where they could have been hit in this manner is from the direction of
18 the Executive Council.
19 Q. Can you mark it in relation to buildings 1 and 2?
20 A. Let this be 7 and the direction in this case is marked 8. As we
21 can see here, this angle is relatively small relative to the axis of the
22 tram. So if the bullet enters the body in the front part of the
23 shoulder, it can exit in the rear part of the body. Certainly it
24 couldn't have been in the upper arm. The differences between the exit
25 wounds and the entry wounds according to the report is great in terms of
1 height, and this points toward a great angle of descent, which indicates
2 that it would have been the Executive Council from where the shot
4 And let me explain how the bullet could have fragmented without
5 the police noticing. They didn't find out where the bullet entered the
6 tram. The only possible place, taking into consideration the respective
7 positions of the two persons, was the central pliable part, the joint of
8 the tram. And the bullet may have hit something there that made it
9 fragment and the police didn't notice that. But if the bullet was fired
10 from the VRS positions on Grbavica, the bullet couldn't have hit this
11 joint and then fragmented to hit the two persons, which means that the
12 bullet could not have been fired from the VRS positions.
13 Q. Thank you. Please date and initial this. And please mark the
14 Executive Council with a number 9.
15 A. [Marks].
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Exhibit D3639.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we get image 104 on page 151.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Can you tell us who marked this photograph and who took it?
21 A. It was marked by Afeza Karacic, one of the two persons who were
22 injured in that tram. She marked the approximate position of the tram
23 with this red arrow, whereas position 05 probably refers to the incident
24 in which Dzenana Sokolovic was hit. It's the position that she showed as
25 hers in that video-clip. Number 5 has nothing to do with this incident,
1 but the red arrow does.
2 Q. Thank you. If we consider this version, what would have been the
3 trajectory of the bullet if it had come from the Serbian side?
4 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Yes.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Metaljka building is in this
6 direction so let's draw this line, and the angle would have been somewhat
7 smaller if the bullet came from the white high-rise building. But this
8 place is not visible from those buildings. There was a photograph made
9 for the Milosevic -- for the trial of General Milosevic and it shows that
10 there is no optical visibility.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Thank you. Please mark the line pointing to Metaljka with number
13 1 and the line pointing to the white high-rise buildings number 2.
14 A. [Marks].
15 Q. Is it possible for the bullet to have come from either of these
17 A. Absolutely not. I can also mark the position of one part of the
18 tram, and I'll also indicate the joint of the tram. The persons were
19 right here, right behind the joint and its bellows, as it were, and the
20 projectile must have entered the tram in front of the joint in order to
21 hit them; otherwise, it's impossible. I'll mark the joint with a number
22 3 and number 4 marks the tram. It's impossible for the bullet to hit the
23 joint and the two persons sitting right behind it.
24 Q. Please mark the trajectory as it must have been according to your
1 A. This must have been it next to the Faculty of Philosophy. It
2 goes through the joint and hits the two persons, direction 5.
3 Q. What is on the other -- at the other end of this line?
4 A. It's the Executive Council. The distance is relatively small
5 from this point to the Executive Council.
6 Q. Thank you. Does the angle of descent and the angle of the
7 trajectory match your conclusion?
8 A. Yes, they do, absolutely.
9 Q. Please date and initial this.
10 A. [Marks].
11 JUDGE KWON: We'll receive this -- just a second.
12 Yes, Ms. Edgerton.
13 MS. EDGERTON: Just for information, the unmarked original
14 photograph was P116 in the Dragomir Milosevic case.
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D3640, Your Honours.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Am I right if I believe that this original exhibit in Milosevic
19 had this red arrow?
20 A. Yes, I took that from the documents that we received. It has to
21 do with this witness.
22 Q. Thank you. Could we please focus on incident 15 now. The page
23 number in Serbian is 154 and in the English version, paragraph 184. What
24 did the police establish here, what was taken over by the indictment, and
25 what were your findings?
1 A. This incident took place on the 25th of February, 1995, and a
2 tram was hit with a burst of gun-fire, eight to ten bullets, and there
3 was a total of ten traces. Eight bullets ended up in the panelling of
4 the tram, four of which pierced the panelling and four remained in the
5 panelling. On the same occasion a few persons were wounded.
6 On the basis of the description provided by the police, it was
7 noted that four projectiles ended up in the panelling of the tram, that
8 is to say they had not pierced it. The police claimed that the
9 projectiles had been fired from the white high-rise building in Grbavica.
10 In respect of the position of the white high-rise buildings and
11 the site of the incident, it can be noted that the angle of the
12 trajectory in relation to the axis of the tram is almost 90 degrees.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please see photograph
14 number 106 on page 155. Thank you.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Is this helpful in terms of what you have been saying?
17 A. Well, partly. This is the stop in front of the revolution -- of
18 the Museum of the Revolution. According to the witness statements, the
19 tram stopped there and then when it left - so it was 20 metres later or
20 whatever - it was hit. The white high-rise buildings are opposite this
21 museum, so obviously the tram stop cannot be seen from the white
22 high-rise buildings. Obviously the tram either had to go further away
23 where there was more visibility -- so the white high-rises are basically
24 almost straight ahead. That shows that the angle is almost 90 degrees
25 and that's what really matters here.
1 So if this angle is almost 90 degrees and in view of the distance
2 involved, the distance at which these white high-rise buildings are, and
3 if we look at the height of the white high-rise buildings, the maximum
4 angle of descent on the vertical plain could be about 10 degrees.
5 Now, what does this mean specifically? That means that the
6 bullet that hits the tram has an exit opening on the panelling only a few
7 centimetres below that of the opening at the point of entry. That means,
8 in other words, that a bullet that is fired from the white high-rise
9 buildings cannot have such a trajectory; that is to say for the bullet to
10 remain in the panelling, it has to pierce it 8 to 10 centimetres. There
11 is metal there and then some other thermo-isolation material and then
12 there is more -- there is another layer. Perhaps it is a plastic layer
13 rather than metal, so that would not be a problem for the bullet to get
15 Those bullets that remained in the panelling could not have been
16 fired from the white high-rise buildings. The police compiled photo
17 documentation on that occasion and their attention was focused on one
18 trace only, that is number 3.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see photograph 109 on page
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps 107 would be better.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. I beg your pardon. Let's start with 107 then.
24 A. Yes, let's.
25 We see part of the tram in this photograph where the traces are
1 marked, 1, 2, and 3. That is -- those are the entry points of these
2 bullets from the burst of gun-fire consisting of ten bullets. The
3 difference in height is very small, as you can see. It's about 30
4 centimetres. Had the burst been fired for -- from a distance of over 300
5 metres, as far off as the white high-rise buildings, the dispersion would
6 have been far greater.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 A. And now we can note trace 3 that the police devoted particular
9 attention to.
10 Q. Do we need to look at image 108?
11 A. Yes, yes, 108, so that we can see what it looks like from the
12 inside. The police took a photograph of that place from the inside too
13 and they established that trace 3 is at the same height as trace 3 is on
14 the external side, which corresponds to what I was saying a moment ago;
15 namely, that in that case the bullet had been fired from the white
16 high-rise building because there is a very small difference in height
17 between the exit and entry points, and that can be seen if you remember
18 the position in the previous image. This is trace 3 as well and that's
19 what the police wrote in the comment attached to this photo
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we see image 109 now.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now, in this image like in the
23 previous one - and we'll explain it now - it is very easy to see the
24 point above the radiator above the chair, projectile number 3 marked on
25 the external side, not this thing up here.
1 This trace 3 that the police marked as the exit point is a point,
2 or rather, a dot that was marked using a marker pen, and that can be seen
3 very nicely in this photograph; namely, the thickness of this arrow that
4 was also marked using that same kind of marker is of the same thickness
5 as this dot, obviously the colour and everything else. And there is
6 no -- well, it doesn't look the way an exit point usually looks. The
7 exit point opening is the one down here and we can see how big the
8 difference is, and that indicates that this projectile also came at a
9 large angle of descent, that is to say from very nearby.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Thank you. Can you put a circle around this and put, say, number
12 4 --
13 A. I do apologise. This is the actual exit opening. That would be
14 number 4.
15 Q. Thank you. Can deformities in the metal be seen at opening 4?
16 A. Yes, that can be noted and this is characteristic for an opening
17 that is the result of a bullet.
18 Q. The difference in height in their version, it's 2 millimetres.
19 And what about here?
20 A. Here, the height difference would be between 20 and 25
21 centimetres. I established that -- I measured that. I measured the
22 different heights in the tram, so it is with a high degree of certainty
23 that I can claim that it is between 20 and 25 centimetres.
24 Q. What is your ultimate conclusion, your final conclusion? These
25 shots -- actually, first of all, the VRS, did it have sniper rifles that
1 could fire bursts of gun-fire?
2 A. No. First of all, this is not due to sniper fire. This is a
3 classical burst of gun-fire, either from an automatic rifle or a
4 machine-gun, it doesn't matter. According to all of these traces,
5 obviously this was fired from some building nearby, that is to say from a
6 short distance and a relatively considerable height. It could have been
7 the Museum of the Revolution or the next building. I think it's a
8 building that used to be the building of Union Invest. All of that is in
9 this area of, say, 30 to 40 metres.
10 Q. Thank you. Can we look at 3 and 4 now -- sorry, yes.
11 A. [Marks].
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll receive it.
13 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3641, Your Honours.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we briefly look at
15 a series of photographs, 2, 3, and 5.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Since you are familiar with weaponry and ammunition, can you tell
18 us what these projectiles are shown in Van Lynden's film? And the Army
19 of Republika Srpska, did it have anything that looked like this when
20 fired? It's page 34 in Serbian and it's within paragraph -- paragraph 7,
21 7 in the English language.
22 So images 2 and 3 -- oh, yes, we have it. Thank you. Can you
23 describe this to us, what your findings are.
24 A. Yes. This is an excerpt from a film that shows some kind of
25 bursts of gun-fire during the night. We see a lot of illuminated
1 circles, a series of them, but there are others that do not follow the
2 series. According to the number of these circles, one might conclude
3 that this is a burst of gun-fire from some anti-aircraft gun, that is to
4 say it could be 20 millimetres, 30, possibly 57. Ammunition for these
5 artillery pieces does have a tracer that gives some light off and that is
6 how one can follow its trajectory, correct fire, et cetera.
7 Now, what is illogical in these photographs? It's the size of
8 these illuminated circles. It exceeds, by far, the size of this
9 illuminated trace that is left by bullets from an anti-aircraft gun.
10 Also, this tracer looks like a comet, if you will, so it's elongated,
11 especially if it's filmed on camera. Only if it is filmed from a very
12 great distance, then it can look different.
13 I think that this was taken relatively close up. I think that in
14 image 3 you can see Mr. Lynden, you see his silhouette here, and that
15 shows that this is -- there was no zoom used and that's important. 100
16 to 150 metres, these illuminated circles. Obviously this is not a trace
17 that comes from anti-aircraft ammunition. What actual traces like that
18 look like can be seen in another part of the film. You can see how the
19 camera registers traces of a true anti-aircraft projectile; that is in
20 image number 4.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Next page, please -- I beg your
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Dynamically --
25 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. So image number 3 comes from where?
1 Is that in our evidence, Mr. Karadzic?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Excellency, Van Lynden
3 admitted to us that he had edited this, although at first it had seemed
4 that he was doing this live.
5 JUDGE KWON: Do you -- I'm asking you whether you have an exhibit
6 number now for that and the time-frame for this frame?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's cited here, the film and the
8 time, in footnotes 9 and 10.
9 JUDGE KWON: I think footnote 9 is for image 4, not image 3.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's the same film. If it's not
11 cited --
12 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the rest.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, yes, we have footnote 8, but I don't know the
14 exhibit number. I'll leave it at that.
15 Let's continue.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Before we see image number 4, could you please tell us something
18 about the dynamic behaviour of the tracer bullets in question?
19 A. The dynamic behaviour of these projectiles is not typical of the
20 anti-aircraft ammunition that I referred to because you can see with the
21 naked eye that they move slowly. It depends on the cannon actually, but
22 it is obvious that the cannons or the rhythm of these projectiles is much
23 lower than of the true anti-aircraft projectiles.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we go to the following page?
1 JUDGE KWON: Can we see image number 2 and number 3 at the same
2 time? And to be clear, could you mark what is noticeable from this
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will mark this. This would be a
5 burst from a one-barrelled cannon; however, at the far left end you can
6 see that two tracer bullets overlap and that cannot be. The far left
7 side --
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Can you mark that?
10 A. I will mark just one of them, and the second circle is below.
11 Q. And the next one?
12 A. The origin of this and those above it cannot be accounted for by
13 the fire opened from this particular type of weapon. The two have
14 nothing to do with each other. There are actually two or three
15 illuminated objects that fly independently of each other and they cannot
16 be linked to the burst of fire. They could not have been fired either
17 from artillery or rocket weapons because we wouldn't be able to see them.
18 The origin of these that I'm going to mark, I'm going to mark
19 burst number 1, and one on the left-hand side will be 2, the one below it
20 will be 3, and there will be 4, 5, and 6. And these last three ones have
21 nothing whatsoever to do with the previous bursts of fire nor can their
22 presence here be accounted for in any way.
23 Q. Thank you. Could you please put today's date and sign this
24 image. Can we see Van Lynden in the photo?
25 A. Yes, I can see his silhouette and I can trace the silhouette if
1 that will be of any assistance to you. This photo shows that zoom was
2 not used, so nobody can think that the circles are much larger on account
3 of the zoom that was used because it wasn't.
4 Q. The date and the initial, please.
5 A. [Marks].
6 JUDGE KWON: We'll receive it.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3642, Your Honours.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And now can we look at image 6,
9 page 36, paragraph 7 for the English version.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, we had to show figure
11 number 4 to show --
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Yes, number 4, page 35, please.
14 A. I don't know whether you can actually notice things here. It may
15 not be that easy. I'm going to try and -- I apologise. Look at this
16 trace here and here. I believe that there's another one here. Yes.
17 This is an anti-aircraft projectile with a tracer. And it was recorded
18 at dusk and you can see clearly the light that it leaves behind. The
19 camera lens is slower than the projectile itself. It makes 20 to 30
20 shots in a second, whereas the projectile is somewhat faster. So the
21 trace seemed to be longer. It should look like a comet when photos are
22 taken with a camera.
23 Q. Where was this taken from?
24 A. There is a reference. Again, we're talking about Lynden's
1 Q. Thank you. The date and the initial.
2 A. [Marks].
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted, Excellencies,
4 and can we please look at the photo below.
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll admit it.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D3643, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE KWON: And the Chamber will take a somewhat earlier break
8 and we'll break for half an hour, resume at 1.35 -- oh, 11.35.
9 --- Recess taken at 11.06 a.m.
10 --- On resuming at 11.38 p.m.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Poparic, the text is rather self-explanatory in terms of the
15 two consecutive frames. Why did you choose them from Van Lynden's video?
16 A. Well, you can notice something illogical here. On the left-hand
17 side, the last illuminated circle is small in comparison with the other
18 three. At the next moment, and the photo is on the right-hand side, we
19 can see that that that small circle all of a sudden is faster than a
20 large circle and now it is third in a row instead of fourth in a row.
21 And this is impossible when it comes to a burst of fire. A bullet that
22 was fired later cannot reach its target sooner.
23 Q. [No interpretation].
24 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the --
25 Mr. Karadzic's comment.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Unless the projectile had been in training. That was the joke
3 that I made. Thank you.
4 I believe that everything else is self-explanatory from the
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, I would like to
7 tender this report pursuant to Rule 94 bis.
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Edgerton, any objection to the admission of
9 the small arms fire report?
10 MS. EDGERTON: Your Honour, yes, I do, on a number of grounds,
11 but I'll just focus on what I think is the prevailing one.
12 One of the fundamental thresholds -- one of the most significant
13 thresholds for the admission of an expert report is that the
14 Trial Chamber should be able to rely on its -- to rely on it. So the
15 report needs to be transparent; this is not. The report needs to be
16 reliable; this is not. The report is far and away in many places outside
17 of this witness's professed area of expertise. We've heard evidence over
18 the last couple of days relating to statistics. We've heard evidence
19 about horticulture. We've heard evidence relating to criminal
20 investigations. We've heard legal evidence. And the probative value
21 when you put all of those things together, Your Honour, is, in my
22 submission, so low that the report is of no assistance to this
23 Trial Chamber.
24 JUDGE KWON: Did you reflect such objections in your response to
25 the notice of expert evidence, Ms. Edgerton?
1 MS. EDGERTON: We did reflect in our submissions the fact that
2 these matters -- any number of the items I have just cited were far and
3 away outside of this witness's area of expertise. I could find,
4 Your Honours, in a couple of moments the relevant citation in the
5 footnote if that's of assistance.
6 JUDGE KWON: And as a result of that objection, the Chamber
7 ordered some redaction of the expert report .
8 MS. EDGERTON: Correct.
9 JUDGE KWON: And you are now objecting to the admission of the
10 remainder of the report?
11 MS. EDGERTON: Correct.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
13 MS. EDGERTON: It's without -- the assertions in the remainder of
14 the report are without foundation, outside of the witness's area of
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
18 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. You've already ruled in your
19 decision of the 12th of March, 2013, concerning matters that were outside
20 of the witness's expertise. You've excluded those that you found
21 necessary to exclude. You've noted that others which could not be
22 conveniently excluded would be given appropriate weight by the Chamber.
23 And I think that there's enough basis to admit the report and leave it to
24 you to decide what weight to give to it.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE KWON: Having had the opportunity to hear the witness's
2 evidence, the Chamber will consider the issue further and will give its
3 ruling later on, in due course.
4 Shall we continue?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 And now I would like to call up 1D5600 in e-court.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Mr. Poparic, would you please tell us what is this report, or
9 rather, a comparative analysis that you drafted together with your
10 associates who were your co-authors?
11 A. As we worked on the numerous incidents of shelling, we observed
12 that the two experts, Berko Zecevic and Richard Higgs, in their reports
13 present some elements that we couldn't agree with in professional terms.
14 We could not agree with the methodology of work that they employed.
15 That's why we produced a separate document where we would provide our own
16 opinion, if that would be of any use, because this shows why we do not
17 agree with their methodology.
18 Let me tell you briefly what our main objection to that
19 methodology was. In terms of Berko Zecevic's findings, in a large number
20 of cases he introduces an assumption based on which he then draws
21 extensive conclusions without offering any sources for the claims that he
22 presents. Let me just tell you briefly by way of example, when it comes
23 to air bombs he introduces an assumption that they were produced without
24 any documentation, that there were no conditions in place for their
25 manufacture, that there were no firing tables, still they were fired, and
1 so on and so forth.
2 Our information was contrary to that, and in order to corroborate
3 our information we provided some other cases that were eliminated from
4 the report so that the report now does not bear the same weight that we
5 originally wanted it to bear. If we had provided examples that would
6 corroborate our claims, the case is similar with Mr. Higgs' report. He
7 himself stated that his task was to review all of the cases and to verify
8 the accuracy of the investigations that were carried out by the Sarajevo
10 According to our opinion, he did not focus on verifying those
11 investigations to the extent he should have done that. He explained some
12 things in order to prove that the allegations by the police were correct.
13 For example, in the incident that happened on the 22nd of January, 1994,
14 he presented a claim, according to which the Serbian forces intentionally
15 targeted children from the Institute for the Blind. They claimed that
16 they had seen where the first shell had fallen and then they aimed their
17 subsequent fire to the second group of children who were some 200 metres
18 away from that place. In that he ignored the fact that the place of the
19 incident was absolutely invisible to anybody who was standing at the
20 positions by the Institute for the Blind.
21 Q. Thank you. All these contradictions, have they been dealt with
22 in this document?
23 A. Some were dealt with here and some there. We also wanted to show
24 some other examples, but they ended up being redacted. So these examples
25 have not made it into the report. Therefore, we do not have a complete
1 picture that we wanted to present. Since these are not incidents from
2 the indictment and in our view they were very characteristic, but they
3 have been redacted which is why we wanted to provide an additional
5 Q. Did you study the incidents that have been eliminated from the
7 A. Yes, we did.
8 Q. What is your conclusion why they were eliminated? In other
9 words, how would the analysis of those eliminated incidents reflect on
10 your findings? Why are they striking, in your view?
11 A. When it comes to the findings of Mr. Higgs, I would like to
12 tackle the incident in Livanjska Street. In these proceedings that
13 incident has been mentioned. UNPROFOR concluded that the shell had been
14 fired from the BiH army positions. Mr. Higgs used a photo and based on
15 that photo, while ignoring the distortion of the image, he established
16 that UNPROFOR erroneously measured the size of the crater. And in that
17 way, he proved that UNPROFOR had made a mistake and that the shell had
18 been fired from the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska.
19 Q. Thank you. Perhaps the Defence will also analyse the eliminated
20 incidents; however, you owe me -- or rather, I owe you a question about a
21 sniping incident for which you said that the person who was killed in the
22 incident found a place in the footnote, whereas the person who was
23 wounded made it into the body of the indictment. Can you tell us whether
24 you're familiar with the nature of the wound in the dead person?
25 A. Yes, yes. That happened on the 8th of October. I believe that
1 the incident number is F11. Let me just check to see if I'm right.
2 Yes, F11. In the official report it is stated that that person,
3 that that man, was killed and that the entry wound was on the right-hand
4 side of his face, whereas the exit wound was on the left shoulder-blade.
5 This points to the fact that the descent angle of the bullet that had
6 been fired was large. However, when we drafted our report, we did not
7 have a high-quality photo available to us and that is why we did not
8 analyse the case for the purpose of our report, because we could not get
9 confirmation that that description was indeed correct.
10 In the month of February of this year, in the case of
11 General Mladic, a witness, Edin Suljic, testified. He had been involved
12 in the investigation of that incident.
13 MS. EDGERTON: Your Honours.
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
15 MS. EDGERTON: I didn't realise for a moment we'd gone back to
16 the small arms report, but now I see where this is going and the witness
17 is referring to the testimony -- one of the two testimonies which was
18 included in the 19 documents we were notified of late that I raised a
19 very strong objection to.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we call up the document and
21 maybe then you can decide? 1D7474.
22 JUDGE KWON: But what -- I was just reading again what
23 Mr. Poparic just has said. What does it have anything to do with his
24 expertise? You can use material in your submission later on. Let's see
25 where you are heading.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, the Defence is
2 concerned about the blatant examples that are crucial for judgement have
3 been eliminated from the indictment or have ended up in footnotes. I
4 believe that we will ask from the expert to analyse all of the eliminated
5 incidents which are -- exist in other indictments and they have been
6 omitted from mine. We would like to know why they have been omitted,
7 according to which pattern or model.
8 But if you will, why don't we look at 1D7474. You don't have to
9 admit it, but let's at least have a look at it.
10 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. I think the Chamber made it clear
11 the Chamber would not hear evidence from this witness with respect to the
12 unscheduled or redacted incidents. I think we made it clear in our
13 decision. I would like you to comply with that decision. So I'm not
14 sure whether this has anything to do with it or not.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But this incident was admitted and
16 we are pointing at the footnote which was the main victim --
17 JUDGE KWON: Just a second --
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- and these --
19 JUDGE KWON: -- so are you talking about the F11 incident?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 JUDGE KWON: Probably before we proceed, probably we need some
22 clarification from the Prosecution about the format of F11. The main
23 schedule refers to the only wound, while the footnote says evidence shows
24 there is a dead man. Let me be precise. Yes, the footnote says: "The
25 evidence also shows that one person was killed." And there's an
1 additional nine wounded.
2 What does it mean? Mr. Tieger, are you in the position to answer
3 the question? What was alleged by the indictment?
4 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Mr. President, you caught me in the middle of
5 something else, but let me consult with Ms. Edgerton. I'm not entirely
6 sure it bears on -- precisely on -- or is dispositive to the issue raised
7 here, but --
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes --
9 MR. TIEGER: -- I will consult with her.
10 JUDGE KWON: Probably you need to think about it, while we will
11 allow the accused to continue.
12 Please carry on.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Can you tell us how, given these facts, the shooting from
15 incident 11 and the physical evidence, what do -- does that point to?
16 A. All physical evidence indicates that fire was opened from the
17 building of the Executive Council.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 A. And if I may finish, the victim mentioned here - and the entry
20 and exit wounds of that victim were described in the official report -
21 indicate that the projectile hit the body from under a great angle of
22 descent. While we were working on this, we didn't have a good-quality
23 photograph, but we saw such a photograph for the first time later. It
24 was not available to us. The official report states that he was hit by a
25 bullet under a great angle of descent.
1 JUDGE KWON: Just a second --
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It was not recorded that the
3 projectile may have come from the Executive Council and that Edin Suljic
4 confirmed that the angle of descent was very great, Edin Suljic, in
5 February this year in the Mladic trial.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Edgerton.
7 MS. EDGERTON: Mr. Tieger will --
8 MR. TIEGER: Oh, I'm sorry, either one of us are prepared to
9 quickly respond to the Court's inquiry. It happened that I was on my
10 feet and then it was difficult to see at this angle.
11 If I understand the Court's inquiry correctly, it's confirming
12 what I think is fairly clear from the language of the indictment and the
13 footnote, and that is that the -- what is charged here are the injuries
14 to the victim named in -- in the scheduled incident. There's also a
15 notation in the footnote that others were wounded or killed at the same
16 time. They are not charged in this indictment. And that's -- but for
17 whatever purposes of clarity may be served at any given time by that
18 additional information, it was included. But the charged incident is
19 identified in its totality in the body of the indictment under scheduled
20 incident 11, not in the footnote.
21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With all due respect, Excellencies,
23 in our system this would be called concealing or distortion. We are
24 fully authorised to know everything that was a consequence of this
1 MR. TIEGER: Well, let me respond to --
2 JUDGE KWON: No, just let's stop --
3 MR. TIEGER: Okay.
4 JUDGE KWON: -- and leave it there.
5 Having heard the clarification, I take -- I find your comment
6 very inappropriate, Mr. Karadzic. Let's continue.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I said "in our system."
8 Now let's see 1D7474. I don't understand the criteria of
9 selection of victims from the same incident, why only one victim was
10 selected and only one injured person, although there were several
12 MR. TIEGER: Mr. President, I know you don't want an argument on
13 this and I don't intend to enter into it. But if Mr. Karadzic will
14 continue to try to provoke a response, I will rise and offer the
15 opportunity for a response if the Court wishes. I think he should desist
16 or he's going to hear more than he wants.
17 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, this is not a time for submissions.
18 Please focus on your examination-in-chief of Mr. Poparic.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Poparic, can you help us with what you have stated? It's --
22 can we please see page 8790. This is 8716. This is further away. Now
23 let us focus on line 18. I'll read out in English.
24 [In English] "Mr. Ivetic: If we can look" --
25 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
1 Yes, Ms. Edgerton.
2 MS. EDGERTON: Your Honours, now we have a part of the evidence
3 of Mr. Suljic before this Chamber that Dr. Karadzic is going to proceed
4 to read in, and I think this frankly needs to stop. And if Dr. Karadzic
5 wants to call Edin Suljic as a witness in his Defence case, he can take
6 the appropriate steps.
7 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. What did you mean by "we have a part
8 of the evidence of Mr. Suljic before this Chamber"?
9 MS. EDGERTON: This is what -- this is what we see on the screen
10 now is the transcript of Mr. Suljic's evidence --
11 JUDGE KWON: In the Mladic case.
12 MS. EDGERTON: -- in the Mladic case that Dr. Karadzic is
13 proceeding to read in before this Chamber, and I don't think that's
15 JUDGE KWON: Why?
16 MS. EDGERTON: If Dr. Karadzic wants to ask a question based on
17 some assertion that Mr. Suljic may or may not have made, a hypothetical
18 question, that's perfectly permissible, of course, Your Honours, but it's
19 not the situation where he should be reading in the evidence of the
21 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson.
22 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. First of all, I'm struck at
23 how often Ms. Edgerton is objecting to things that the Prosecution itself
24 has been doing with its own experts. There's information which is
25 presented to its experts which does not have to be admissible - witness
1 statements, videos, things like that - and the expert can take all of
2 that information and use it in making their conclusion. And then when
3 they're being asked in the full transparency that is required of experts,
4 they can tell why they relied on and made certain conclusions and why
5 they didn't.
6 Now, that's what Mr. Poparic is doing here. He's saying what
7 conclusion he drew and he's explaining why, and it's based on information
8 that came in this case, in the evidence from the Mladic case. We're not
9 offering this transcript. We're simply using it as a basis of showing
10 why the expert reached a particular conclusion that he did. And there's
11 nothing different that we're doing than the Prosecution did with its
12 experts when they presented material to them for their review and when
13 they tried to justify the conclusions that they reached.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber agrees with Mr. Robinson.
16 Yes, please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Can we see the bottom of the page.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. From line 18 on this page till line 16 on the next, does this
21 contain what you mentioned about the great angle of descent? He says in
22 his answer --
23 A. I cannot see this here.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I get the following page?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh, I apologise. I was looking at
1 the wrong side. Can this be enlarged? This is hard to read.
2 Yes. It starts in line 12. Yes. That's the part where
3 Mr. Suljic confirmed based on the photograph that this was fired at a
4 great angle of descent. Maybe I can explain the situation. I said that
5 in the official report there was a description of this wound, that the
6 entry wound was on the right side of the face and the exit wound at the
7 left shoulder-blade. Such a description of the wound indicates a great
8 angle of descent of the projectile, which rules out the option that it
9 was fired from the Metaljka building, as was alleged.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Does this evidence confirm that?
12 A. Even without all the evidence that we found, this would suffice
13 to show that it was fired from the Executive Council building. I said
14 that I didn't include this in my report because I didn't have a
15 good-quality photograph at my disposal to conclude for myself that the
16 police report was accurate.
17 I saw that photograph for the first time at General Mladic's
18 trial. There were other images shown there too which we didn't have,
19 such as a design of the -- a blueprint of the design of the tram. But
20 certainly this photograph matches the description in the official report
21 and that confirms that the projectile was fired from a high altitude and
22 came in at a great angle of descent. The only possible source was the
23 Executive Council building, and that tallies with our conclusions.
24 Q. Thank you. When was that photograph made and that design of the
1 A. It was made during the on-site investigation. It's police
3 JUDGE MORRISON: Just one matter, I mean that assumption is
4 predicated on the basis that the victim was in a vertical or
5 near-vertical position at the time of the impact of the round. If he
6 had, for instance, been leaning over at the time of the impact of the
7 round, that assumption wouldn't stand, would it?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct. If he was leaning
9 over, that can be called into question. But the other evidence led also
10 shows that the angle of descent was great and that the fire originated
11 from the Executive Council building. The tram was near that building.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The Defence can only be sorry that
13 it did not have that design of the tram and that other evidence while
14 the -- during the Prosecution case.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could the accused please repeat his last
17 JUDGE KWON: What did you say at the end?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I seek to tender the report 1D5600.
19 It will be useful for the Chamber, and as for probative value that's for
20 you to decide.
21 JUDGE KWON: What is 1D5600? The inconsistency report?
22 Yes, Mr. Gaynor?
23 MR. GAYNOR: We have no objection, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE KWON: We'll receive it.
25 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3644, Your Honours.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no further questions for
2 Mr. Poparic at this point.
3 JUDGE KWON: Will you begin, Mr. Gaynor?
4 MR. GAYNOR: I will indeed, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Gaynor:
7 Q. Mr. Poparic, can I invite you to keep your answers as concise as
8 you possibly can.
9 First of all, is it correct that you have no formal training in
10 criminal investigation?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You have no formal training in forensic pathology?
13 A. I don't. I'm not a doctor.
14 Q. You have never worked as a sniper?
15 A. I must say here that my military specialty was not sniping, but I
16 do have training in the use of infantry weapons. I was a professional
17 military officer and we did have annual training with infantry weapons,
18 various rifles, pistols, and so on.
19 Q. You never served as a sniper in a combat environment; correct?
20 A. No, I never fought in a war.
21 Q. You have never been a sniper instructor; correct?
22 A. I have never been one.
23 Q. Now, you have with Zorica Subotic and others co-authored five
24 reports which have been presented to this Trial Chamber. Do you stand by
25 the conclusions in all of those reports?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did you see Mrs. Subotic when she recently testified in this
3 trial, by which I mean did you follow her testimony?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you speak to her after she testified?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Why not?
8 A. Well, she went back home. I mean, we spoke briefly, we saw each
9 other briefly, but we did not have an opportunity to sit down and discuss
10 things in great detail. We just met here because the plan was that she
11 would testify for a shorter period of time and that I would testify after
12 her, and somehow it got longer. And then I stayed on and then she went
14 Q. For how long did you discuss her testimony with her?
15 A. Well, I cannot say. How long? Say an hour. We didn't discuss
16 the testimony for very long. We discussed other things too.
17 Q. I'd now like to call up the modified air bombs report which has
18 been admitted as D3540. This you co-authored with Mrs. Subotic, and if
19 we could go, please --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- to page 209 in the B/C/S, page 214 in the English.
22 MR. GAYNOR: Could I ask the Registrar to zoom in on the bottom
23 right-hand corner of the B/C/S version.
24 Q. The bottom right-hand corner, I think it's fair to say that this
25 part of this map was not authored by you, but it says there:
1 "If, following the model for the combat disposition of this 102nd
2 Motorised Brigade, the positions of the other brigades of the 1st Corps
3 of the BH army in the city were to be marked on a map showing the
4 disposition of both sides, it would provide a realistic picture of
5 Sarajevo as one more or less single large military target ..."
6 Do you share that view?
7 A. This is not my text. We used the text of General Radinovic who
8 is a military expert, and we just used this as a guide-line in terms of
9 the deployment of military units in the city of Sarajevo. We did not
10 deal with that at all, whether Sarajevo was a military target. That was
11 not the subject of our paper.
12 Q. Right. My --
13 A. [No interpretation].
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not hear what the
15 witness said.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you were to ask me personally, I
17 don't think it was the entire city. If you're asking me as an officer,
18 it's just the area where the army is and where fire is being opened from.
19 That can be considered a military target, not the entire city, by no
21 MR. GAYNOR:
22 Q. Now, I'd like to turn to the question of the accuracy of modified
23 air bombs used to target Sarajevo, and I'd like to turn to page 181 in
24 B/C/S and 188 in English.
25 On the page previous to this when you're introducing this data,
1 you say that when estimating probable deviations in terms of direction,
2 distance, and probable cruising deviation, it was assumed that the
3 average range of bombs was 6.000 metres.
4 So I take it that the dispersion data specifically in columns 6
5 and 7 is on the assumption that the modified air bombs were launched from
6 6.000 metres away from the target; is that right?
7 A. No. No. This is on the assumption where the target roughly was
8 on the basis of the claims made. If it were 6.000, then it would all be
9 the same; right? So probably it depends on the distance from which the
10 fire is coming and it differs for each and every range, doesn't it?
11 So ...
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript. Transcript. The
13 witness did not say "probably it depends." It was a different syntax.
14 He said "probably the dispersion depends," et cetera.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course all of these values are
16 tentative because no one can establish exactly the position from where
17 the firing came, so this is tentative. 500 metres, a kilometre more, it
18 doesn't matter. These -- the dispersion data is basically there. That
19 is the essence.
20 MR. GAYNOR:
21 Q. Well --
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon. Just one thing.
23 It should be stated this way: "the probable dispersion." [In English]
24 That is one syntax, "the probable dispersion."
25 MR. GAYNOR:
1 Q. Mr. Poparic, in this report you have indicated a Vd for every one
2 of these air bombs of 43 metres, you have indicated a Vp of 77 metres for
3 the FAB-250, and a Vp of 98 metres for the FAB-100 in each and every one
4 of these incidents. Do you see that?
5 A. Yes. Now I'll explain this to you. This is practically a
6 rocket, a rocketised projectile. We are saying that these are modified
7 bombs, but actually it's a rocket.
8 In the case of rocket projectiles there is a characteristic in
9 terms of the probable deviation that differs from classical projectiles,
10 and dispersion is much bigger at shorter range than at longer range. And
11 the dispersion in terms of direction is smaller, at smaller ranges, and
12 it grows at longer ranges.
13 This is a bit the other way around in terms of what is
14 characteristic of classical projectiles. So then the results turned out
15 to be more or less the same. These are approximations, perhaps not in
16 terms of the decimal point; however, there is greater deviation in terms
17 of direction because that is the characteristic of these rocket
18 projectiles. This is a general characteristic because the dispersion
19 increases with the increase of the range, and at first glance this may
20 seem illogical but that is the way it is.
21 Q. Now, if we turn to the previous page in both languages, please.
22 I want to clarify the data that you've given here. Now, if you take the
23 opportunity to read to yourself paragraph 151, it's quite clear that the
24 data is presented on the assumption that the projectile is fired from a
25 distance of 6.000 metres.
1 MR. GAYNOR: Perhaps the Registrar could --
2 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Gaynor, shall we take a break now?
3 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, certainly.
4 JUDGE KWON: And we'll resume at quarter past 1.00.
5 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.29 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 1.18 p.m.
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please continue.
9 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 Q. Mr. Poparic, before we broke I asked you to re-read paragraph 151
11 of the modified air bombs report. And can you now confirm that on the
12 basis of that paragraph the table reproduces data on the assumption that
13 the projectile was fired from a distance of 6.000 metres?
14 A. Yes, I believe so. May I look at the table? Because I -- well,
15 perhaps I didn't see it well, but it's in the text and probably that's
16 the way it is.
17 Q. Very well. Now, if we turn to the table -- and we're all
18 laypersons in this room, so in a moment we're going to get to the meaning
19 of the terms "Vd" and "Vp." But for the moment can I confirm that it is
20 your position that if you fire a FAB-250 from a distance 6.000 metres
21 from the target, the Vd is 43 metres and the Vp is 77 metres?
22 A. Yes. Just an additional explanation because I can see it better
23 now. These are different bombs here. This Vd and Vp was obtained on the
24 assumption based on a mathematical model of an air bomb, and we gave
25 these results and some diagrams, but in -- I mean in one report. But
1 that text was redacted; that's why we don't have it.
2 According to these results, in the case of all of these bombs,
3 the Vd is the same. You know, the Vp varies. So if we look at the
4 table, depending on the bomb, then the Vp is different. So basically I
5 confirm what you said a moment ago so is this -- actually, I can explain
6 why 6 was taken [as interpreted]. We just had to take one distance in
7 order to be able to compare.
8 Q. Very well. And it's also clear from this table that if you fire
9 a FAB-100 from a distance 6.000 metres from the target, the Vd is 43
10 metres and the Vp is 98 metres, according to your evidence?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, we'll get to the lexicon which explains the terms in a
13 minute, but translating that into layman's terms, it's correct, isn't it,
14 that you're saying that if you fire a FAB-100 6 kilometres away from the
15 target, there is a 50 per cent chance of it landing in an elliptical area
16 of 196 metres by 86 metres?
17 A. It would be more correct to say that it will fall plus/minus 98
18 in relation to the point because you do have this point in the sight and
19 there is a deviation to the left/right, up and down. So that would be
20 correct to put it that way. The physicality is different, although it is
21 the ellipse that you're talking about.
22 Q. Now, the ellipse if you were to fire --
23 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
24 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
25 THE ACCUSED: Line 25 on 58 page should be "6.000 was taken."
1 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
2 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you.
3 Q. And translating your evidence in respect of the FAB-250, you're
4 saying that there is a 50 per cent chance that a FAB-250 fired 6
5 kilometres away from the target would land in an elliptical area of 154
6 metres by 86 metres; correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, to help those of us who do not have your level of military
9 knowledge, can we call up please 65 ter 18915A. What's coming up, if we
10 go to page 2 in the original and page 2 of the English, is a military
11 lexicon published in Belgrade in 1981.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Would you kindly repeat the number, Mr. Gaynor.
13 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. It's 18915A.
14 THE REGISTRAR: It doesn't appear to be released.
15 MR. GAYNOR: Very well. We'll come back to that.
16 Q. I'd now like you just briefly to confirm that Vd is a dispersion
17 of hits according to distance and Vp is a dispersion of hits according to
18 direction and probable deviation is a measure of the dispersion of hits
19 whose value in metres is chosen so that it is equally probable that half
20 the hits are less than and the other half greater than this value.
21 THE ACCUSED: I'm not sure that it was --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could not understand. I did not
23 understand this.
24 MR. GAYNOR:
25 Q. Can you just explain very briefly in layman's terms, what does Vd
1 mean and what does Vp mean in the table that you've presented?
2 A. Irrespective of the table, the very concept is not linked to the
3 table. Some values are provided here that show the Vd and the Vp. Vd is
4 the range error probable. That definition in itself shows that it is a
5 statistical thing. It is probable dispersion. It shows what the
6 deviation will be in relation to the sighting point. So that is the
7 statistical deviation from that point.
8 How does one obtain this Vd? This Vd is obtained --
9 Q. Can I stop you there. We don't need to look into that right now.
10 I'll call up the lexicon. It's 18715A, please.
11 We see on the next page that this was published in Belgrade in
12 1981 by the military publishing house. And if we go to the next page,
13 could you please direct your eye to the entry for probable deviation, the
14 next page in the B/C/S, please. It's at the top left, if we could zoom
15 in on the top left entry.
16 And we see there a description of Vd and Vp, and in particular
17 they give an example further down where they say:
18 "For example, the information for a mortar Vd equals 5 metres."
19 It says that:
20 "Half of all shots lie within the range plus or minus 5 metres
21 around the mean impact point, while the other half deviate (diverge) by
22 more than 5 metres."
23 A. Yes, that is precisely what I said a moment ago if we understood
24 each other correctly. So in 1 Vd we have 50 per cent of hits. Just to
25 be clear, that is one of the main characteristics of all --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness start
2 answering again, speaking slower and more clearly. Thank you.
3 MR. GAYNOR:
4 Q. Could you start again speaking more slowly, please.
5 A. I wished to say that probable dispersion is one of the
6 characteristics of all projectiles that is provided in firing tables, and
7 it helps a user know roughly what the probability is of hitting the
8 target. With 1 Vd probable dispersion we have 50 per cent and, for
9 example, with 3 plus/minus Vd we have 97.5 per cent, so that is almost a
10 certain hit. That is the practical importance of this.
11 Q. Yes. And in your table you appear to be referring to 1 Vd,
12 correct, where you say "Vd" in your report?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Very well. Now we're going to turn to the very same analysis for
15 the 122-millimetre Grad rocket.
16 MR. GAYNOR: Before we do so, could I tender this, please,
17 Mr. President?
18 MR. ROBINSON: No objection.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll receive it.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P6346, Your Honours.
21 MR. GAYNOR:
22 Q. Now, at page 3 of your report you've confirmed, Mr. Poparic, that
23 you participated in the development of the 122-millimetre Grad rocket
24 during your career at Pretis.
25 A. Yes. Let me just say that I took part in the initial stage.
1 Later on I moved to other work. I know Grad and Oganj.
2 Q. Very good. Now, it's true that Grad is just a nickname. The
3 correct or more formal name for the Grad 122-millimetre is the M-21-OF?
4 A. Yes, we can put it that way. The calibre is 122 millimetres.
5 Q. Very well. I'd like to look at the firing table in question.
6 MR. GAYNOR: Could I please ask the Registrar for 65 ter 24036,
7 and if we go to page 12 in B/C/S, page 12 in English, please.
8 Q. Now, I think if we just take the B/C/S, please, if we turn it up
9 the right way you can see from the header of this, Mr. Poparic, that this
10 is the firing table for the M-21-OF when it is used without a spoiler;
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now I'd like you to look at the values, please, for when it is
14 fired from 6.000 metres, and I believe we can see that when it is fired
15 from 6.000 metres the Vd is 202 metres and the Vp is 34 metres. Could
16 you confirm that, please?
17 A. Just a moment, please. It's a bit small. The print seems very
19 Q. Perhaps if we could focus on the left-hand side of this. Thank
21 A. Could I see the names in the columns? That's how I can follow.
22 The first line there. Now I found the column. Now it can be moved up.
23 Actually -- yes, can you go ...
24 You said 6.000 metres, 202, and 34; right?
25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please
1 be asked to speak into the microphone, and could all other microphones be
2 switched off. Thank you.
3 MR. GAYNOR:
4 Q. Yes. You've confirmed what I said to you; is that correct,
5 Mr. Witness?
6 A. I don't remember what you said, but there is 202 and 34. Those
7 are the two possible deviations.
8 Q. Yes, the deviation by distance is 202 metres. The deviation by
9 direction is 34 metres; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So essentially if you're firing a fully tested 122-millimetre
12 Grad rocket from a fully tested rocket-launcher located 6.000 metres away
13 from the target, there is a 50 per cent chance that the rocket will land
14 within an ellipse which is 404 metres by 68 metres; correct?
15 A. This is correct.
16 Q. So essentially what you're saying is that both the FAB-100
17 modified air bomb launched from a modified rail launch system and the
18 FAB-250 modified air bomb launched from a modified air -- rail launch
19 system were a hell of a lot more accurate than the 120-millimetre Grad
20 rocket when fired as a rocket.
21 A. No, no. There is an error here in the methodology. If you were
22 listening to me carefully when I was talking before the break about
23 probable deviations, you would have heard me say that in case of rocket
24 projectiles we have a somewhat unusual phenomenon present. The reason is
25 the reactive force and the influence of the wind.
1 At shorter ranges there is a larger dispersion of hits in
2 comparison with the dispersion along the direction when the distance is
3 longer --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat the last bit that he
6 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Poparic, you are speaking very fast.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.
8 JUDGE KWON: Could you repeat from "At shorter ranges ..."
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At shorter ranges, rocket
10 projectiles had a bigger dispersion in comparison with longer ranges,
11 whereas dispersion along a direction is less for bigger ranges and bigger
12 for bigger ranges.
13 Rocket projectiles such as Grad, they have a range of 21
14 kilometres, and the range in question of 6.000 -- or 6.000 metres is its
15 initial phase for it. It's the short range. And as we can see from the
16 table if we move downwards, you will see that at a distance of 8.000
17 metres the probable deviation is 173 metres, and along the direction it
18 has increased to 45 metres. This is what I'm talking about.
19 We did not choose an adequate comparison. When it comes to air
20 bombs, the range of 6.000 metres is almost its ultimate range. I believe
21 that according to our tables it can fly for 8.000 metres, 10.000 metres
22 at the most, but that's a different part of its capabilities. This is
23 for Grad the initial phase, hence big deviations, and that can be seen in
24 the table as well.
25 MR. GAYNOR:
1 Q. But you've nevertheless claimed to this Trial Chamber, it's your
2 expert evidence that at 6.000 metres both the FAB-100 and the FAB-250 are
3 more accurate than the rocket when it's launched as a rocket; that's what
4 you're asking this Trial Chamber to accept.
5 A. No, no. This kind of comparison in practical terms is
6 impossible. We obtained our results based on a model which is also
7 applied in these type of rockets. In other words, every projectile has
8 its own characteristics, its mass, pressures, velocity, and so on and so
9 forth. So all of that has an effect on its external ballistics
11 And according to the programme that can be applied here and that
12 has been tested on similar projectiles, we arrived at a certain range of
13 dispersion. I'm not saying that this is absolutely correct. It cannot
14 be absolutely correct because we enter with certain assumptions which are
15 customary or commonplace, because for us it was a completely new
16 projectile. But it was customary that in the initial development stages
17 that we base our estimates on assumptions. You don't need absolute
18 figures for estimates, but I'm sure that when we did that, we did not
19 make a big error.
20 Q. Now, when we go, please, to page 5, B/C/S page 5 in English, this
21 is a point that you've alluded to earlier. But the Grad 122-millimetre
22 rocket when it was used as a rocket and fired, presumably from a fully
23 tested rocket-launcher, was not supposed to be used for distances under
24 5.000 metres; isn't that right? And I'd invite you to look at the
25 portion under the table which says:
1 "The use M-21-OF projectiles for distances up to 5 kilometres is
2 possible in extraordinary cases and only in situations where there are no
3 friendly troops in the direction of fire, since a significant amount of
4 short rounds are possible, caused by a large disperse of the projectile
5 at these ranges."
6 I'm putting it to you, Mr. Poparic, that --
7 A. I apologise. What table is that? I cannot find my bearings in
8 the document.
9 Q. Please look at -- under -- right in the centre of the page where
10 you are, section 2, the first paragraph -- sorry, excuse me. I've given
11 it to you the wrong -- it's right at the foot of the page. It's the last
12 two lines right at the foot of the page in your version.
13 JUDGE KWON: When you're done, we'll show you the next page in
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I don't see anything unusual
16 here. I can explain why not.
17 MR. GAYNOR:
18 Q. Well --
19 JUDGE KWON: Next page. I think it continues to the next page.
20 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, we can go to the next page in the B/C/S.
21 Q. So I'm putting it to you, Mr. Poparic, and I think you've
22 essentially already acknowledged the point, that it would be highly
23 irresponsible to use this particular rocket as a rocket for distances of
24 under 5.000 metres; isn't that correct?
25 A. Are you referring to Grad rocket projectile?
1 Q. I'm referring to the Grad 122-millimetre rocket projectile.
2 A. Yes, this is very normal because -- let me explain why this was
3 introduced. Grad is a rocket whose range is 21 kilometres. When it is
4 fired at ranges up to 5.000 metres it has a larger dispersion. At
5 shorter distances, it has larger dispersions because this is a
6 characteristic not only of the Grad projectile but of all the other
7 rocket projectiles.
8 It is only logical that such a warning is given. This is not a
9 ban; this is just a warning of an imminent danger. And in order to avoid
10 short rounds and putting friendly troops in jeopardy, Grad is used from
11 the rear and usually rockets are launched over friendly troops, hence the
13 We saw that dispersions are small and the same would apply in air
14 bombs. I'm sorry that that part is redacted. We have provided all of
15 those curves. And the same applies to air bombs where there's a large
16 dispersion at a distance of 1.000 metres. There is nothing illogical
17 here, either here or in what we came up with. Both is in line with the
18 basic characteristics of those projectiles.
19 Q. And this rocket, just to close out this point, we can agree it's
20 designed and tested to be fired from a range of between 5 and 21
21 kilometres, it's an area weapon, and would you agree that it should be
22 used for a situation such as destroying small vehicles in the open?
23 A. Grad is a rocket for fire support. It is primarily used for
24 shelling a larger area before an infantry attack is launched. Artillery
25 support implies large-scale shelling of an area in order to suppress the
1 enemy forces and allow an easier attack of infantry units. So the main
2 purpose is to fire from the rear at larger distances.
3 So this is just a formality, when it says 5.000 metres, because
4 it never happens unless there is a very exceptional situation. But I
5 don't see any connection with air bombs. We -- there's no comparison
6 between the two. We're talking about major differences in the ranges of
7 those two projectiles.
8 Q. Well, you have touched on a very important point because earlier
9 on you said - this is at page 57, line 1 - you were talking about a
10 modified air bomb and you said:
11 "This is practically a rocket, a rocketised projectile. We are
12 saying that these are modified bombs, but actually it's a rocket."
13 It's true, isn't it, that a modified air bomb and a rocket are
14 totally different objects ballistically and in every way possible when it
15 comes to launching them and determining where they're going to go; isn't
16 that right?
17 A. No. No. In ballistic terms this can be seen as the same type of
18 projectile. In terms of appearance it deviates from the usual image we
19 have of a rocket projectile. If a cover was put around the rocket
20 engines, the term for that is capotage, which is a French term. It would
21 look like a rocket projectile and everybody would say: Here you have it,
22 a rocket projectile. In terms of its ballistic characteristics, it fully
23 falls under the category of rocket projectile.
24 Q. Now --
25 A. In terms of the deviation, I repeat that I'm sorry that we don't
1 have the diagram because I would be able to show you that there is the
2 same characteristic of probable dispersions, both in Grad rockets as well
3 as in air bombs. In ballistic terms they correspond to the
4 characteristics of rocket projectiles and they have nothing in common
5 with air bombs in ballistic terms.
6 Q. Well, let's just take one issue, and that is the warhead. It's
7 correct, isn't it, that the warhead on a rocket has the exactly same
8 diameter as the rocket, whereas the warhead on a modified air bomb is a
9 massive, great big air bomb, which is a much bigger diameter than the
10 rocket; isn't that right?
11 A. No. If we take into account that there are four rocket engines
12 in the biggest air bomb and the calibre of those is 122 millimetres, when
13 this is distributed this would be the diameter of the warhead or somewhat
14 bigger. But this doesn't change anything in its characteristics. The
15 resistance may be a bit bigger or range may be somewhat smaller.
16 However, when it comes to the function and ballistic characteristics, it
17 still falls under the category of rocket projectiles.
18 Q. You've touched on the cross-sectional area of the two objects.
19 It's true, isn't it, that a modified air bomb could be up to 3 and a half
20 metres in length and with a breadth considerably greater than a Grad
21 122-millimetre rocket; that is to say both the length and breadth of a
22 modified air bomb are greater than a rocket, giving rise to a much
23 greater cross-sectional area and giving rise to greater interference from
24 cross wind.
25 A. When you say "width," did you mean the calibre or the
1 cross-section? What did you mean? It was translated as "width" to me,
2 whereas I believe that you meant diameter. Is that what you meant?
3 Q. Yes. The diameter and the length of any of the modified air
4 bombs that you accept were fired by the VRS is much greater than the
5 diameter and length of the 122-millimetre Grad rocket.
6 A. It is correct that the calibre and the length are bigger, but
7 that doesn't diminish the characteristics of the air bomb. It has
8 nothing whatsoever to do with the Grad rocket.
9 Q. Now, in your report you've referred to the use of different kinds
10 of launchers for the Grad rocket; however, they're all barrel launchers;
12 A. The interpreter did not understand your question, sir. This is
13 the interpretation that I have received. They would like you to repeat
14 your question, please.
15 Q. The rockets described in your report were launched -- were
16 designed and tested to be launched from barrels or tubes; correct?
17 A. Yes. If you are asking me about the Grad rocket launcher, yes,
18 we're talking about barrels, just like we are when Plamen and Oganj are
19 referred to.
20 Q. And the modified air bombs were launched from rails; correct?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. The modified air bombs with three and four rockets required
23 absolutely synchronous ignition of those rockets; correct?
24 A. Absolutely synchronised ignition does not exist; it's impossible
25 to achieve. I would like to explain what requirements had to be
1 satisfied. There had to be a delay of each engine within certain limits
2 and those were milliseconds.
3 And let me tell you how ignition can be delayed. When a rocket
4 engine is ignited, there is a small element that we called a Schaefers
5 head. It's a pyrotechnical mixture packed into a small ball where there
6 is a thread, a wire thread, just like in a classical bulb, for example,
7 and it is connected to a source of electrical energy. It ignites the
8 pyrotechnical mass that in turn ignites the rocket. This is very
9 strictly controlled and there shouldn't be a delay in ignition of more
10 than a millisecond. And that delay can have absolutely no impact on the
11 function of the trajectory of an aerial bomb. I could explain that
12 better on the diagram that we saw about the pressure of the rocket
14 Q. The modified air bombs required as close to possible synchronous
15 ignition, whereas a rocket fired as a rocket is never fired synchronously
16 with other rockets; isn't that true?
17 A. Your term "absolutely synchronous ignition," this is a
18 requirement on both a rocket as well as an air bomb. There is a
19 justification for that and you mentioned it yourself. This has an impact
20 on the stability of the multi-barrel launcher. There shouldn't be a
21 large delay. That's why there should be a very small delay in the
22 ignition of a rocket engine.
23 The guarantee for a short delay is also the guarantee of the
24 reliability of that rocket engine. This means that this will not result
25 in a faulty ignition during the launch. This is the guarantee that we're
1 looking for.
2 Q. Mr. Poparic, we're going to move on to another topic in a second,
3 but can you answer the question that I asked you. The question was this:
4 The modified air bombs required as close to possible synchronous
5 ignition, whereas a rocket fired as a rocket is never fired synchronously
6 with other rockets; isn't that true?
7 A. It is partly true. It depends on the mode of launching. If we
8 have a multi-barrel launcher, such as we have for Grad and Oganj, there
9 are various possibilities of launching. You can launch one rocket and
10 you can also issue an order to launch all the rockets. When we have a
11 lot of rockets --
12 Q. Mr. --
13 A. -- then it happens -- shall I finish my explanation, please.
14 Then it happens that we have a simultaneous launch of rockets from
15 various parts of the launcher.
16 For example, if a rocket was launched from the lower left barrel,
17 then another rocket is fired from the upper right barrel in order to keep
18 the balance. So that is also one kind of simultaneity.
19 There is a programme, an algorithmic programme, how to launch
20 rockets at the same time. It is true that air bombs are launched at the
21 same time; however, their ignition is interconnected, which means that
22 they are -- that all the three or all the four rockets are ignited at the
23 same time. The possible delay in ignition is in the order of 1
24 millisecond and this doesn't have an impact on the function of that air
25 bomb on its trajectory.
1 If you could show me that diagram and to everybody in the
2 courtroom, then I could make myself more clear and explain why this is
3 the case.
4 Q. Well, I think we'll move on.
5 MR. GAYNOR: Could I seek admission of the firing tables which is
6 65 ter 24036?
7 JUDGE KWON: How many pages does it have?
8 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
9 JUDGE KWON: So shall we admit the cover page and the relevant
11 MR. GAYNOR: Very well, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes --
13 MR. GAYNOR: I've shown several pages to the witness.
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll admit those pages shown to the witness.
15 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you.
16 JUDGE KWON: And cover page.
17 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6347, Your Honours.
19 MR. GAYNOR:
20 Q. Now, I want to move on to the question of the time taken to
21 develop a new weapons system in the weapons industry in the former
22 Yugoslavia prior to the conflict in Bosnia.
23 Now, I believe that in your expert report which is the
24 inconsistencies report, if we could turn, please, to page 76 in English
25 and page 80 in B/C/S of the inconsistencies report which is 1D05600 - it
1 does have a D number, D3644 - and in this paragraph you are discussing
2 the question of fuel air bombs. Now, setting aside for a moment the
3 entire debate about fuel air bombs, you appear to agree with Mr. Zecevic
4 that developing a new weapons system would take around five to seven
5 years in the former Yugoslavia. Do you agree with that basic assertion?
6 A. That is information from practice. It is more or less true, but
7 we mustn't -- we mustn't neglect that it says "complete." Here the idea
8 of developing a fuel air bomb is discussed. That would be a new asset
9 and we're talking about a typical duration to develop such an asset.
10 Q. Very well. The -- it's fair to say that your words "which is
11 true" appear on the next page in English.
12 Now, how long did it take to develop the modified air bombs
13 systems used by the VRS to your knowledge?
14 A. To be honest, I don't know when the development started. The
15 first use was in 1995 in Sarajevo. I believe it was on the 7th of April.
16 So it could have taken up to three years. I must also add that this was
17 not a completely new projectile. There is -- there was the propulsion
18 group of a Russian manufacturer which was thoroughly tested and --
19 tested, which was very important. We had complete engines and complete
20 air bombs. The task of the engineers was to make a synthesis of an air
21 bomb and the propulsion --
22 Q. The --
23 A. -- which required aerodynamic calculations to determine the size
24 of the fins. And there was also the problem of connecting the engine to
25 the air bomb. In parallel, the launcher had to be developed.
1 So I don't agree that five to seven years were required to
2 develop such an asset because it was basically the integration of two
3 well-tested products that were produced in series.
4 Q. Now, that's exactly where I think we might have to seek your
5 clarification. If you are integrating two well-tested products, welding
6 them together, putting them onto a launch system which is itself new and
7 untested and you are using this system with different weights of air
8 bombs and with different numbers of rockets, it's absolutely vital that
9 you should carry out exhaustive testing of each kind of air bomb and each
10 configuration, depending on how many rockets you are attaching to it;
11 isn't that right?
12 A. This is a long and complex question so let me answer in stages.
13 To complete such a system, based on my experience, it's realistic
14 to expect six months to one year for all the calculations, for defining
15 all parameters, for testing at ranges, for making firing tables, and so
17 As for the launcher, that is a parallel process, and from the
18 documents that were available to us, some of them were -- refer directly
19 to launchers and some of them were made by the Hadzici maintenance centre
20 which was used for all such assets in former Yugoslavia. And according
21 to what I saw, the parts of existing artillery weapons were used, which
22 again is not a totally new system.
23 So there was -- there were existing supporting bipods and the
24 launcher itself was the least of our problems. And we know that these
25 launchers were tested. A year must have been enough to do all that. Up
1 to one year, that's my estimate.
2 Q. You'll certainly agree that the Vd and Vp for, for example, a
3 FAB-250 would be different depending on whether it had three or four
4 rockets welded to it; correct?
5 A. I'm not sure if this was interpreted to me correctly because the
6 engines are not welded but screwed on.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the last part
8 of his answer.
9 MR. GAYNOR:
10 Q. Could you repeat the last part of your answer, please.
11 A. As for dispersion, range dispersion, in connection with these two
12 models you mentioned, I agree that there must have been some difference
13 but the difference cannot be great because in all rocket projectiles,
14 including artillery projectiles, dispersion is always in correlation with
15 the range. So expressed as percentages, they're always very similar.
16 There can be a difference of 5 to 10 metres, but for such an asset this
17 is not significant. There can be no drastic dispersion.
18 Q. I'll note for the record --
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
21 THE ACCUSED: Line 4 and 5 on 76 page, it's rather confusing.
22 Witness said there were lafets - I don't know how to translate it - that
23 were well tested, and it was not problem and that it was our problem --
24 it was least problem. But lafets have been used as another element that
25 was well tested.
1 JUDGE KWON: Do you confirm that, Mr. Poparic?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
3 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you.
4 Q. I'll note for the record that in the Vd and Vp data that you
5 provided to the Trial Chamber in the table we were looking at earlier on,
6 you did not distinguish between FAB-250s with three rockets compared to
7 FAB-250s with four rockets, nor did you distinguish between FAB-100s with
8 one rocket and FAB-100s with three rockets.
9 A. I can explain why. I've already said that this is an analysis of
10 some systems that are -- with which we were not completely acquainted.
11 That's why we made a comparative analysis of all these systems, for us to
12 enable to -- for us to be able to compare them. That's why we chose the
13 range of 6.000 metres and that was the basis for our analysis.
14 As for your assertion that there is a difference, well, some
15 values are almost the same. There is dispersion -- range dispersion.
16 It's too bad that we don't have the diagram which shows these values by
17 range and by type of projectile.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we perhaps be shown the diagram
19 upon which the witness relies?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was redacted; that's why it's
22 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, we can probably bring up the relevant page
23 later on.
24 Q. I'd just like to just return to the question of the time for
25 development of the new weapons system, and could I call up, please,
1 65 ter 25062. This is a statement of Djordje Djukic, who is described as
2 assistant commander for logistics of the VRS, taken on the 4th February
3 1996. It appears to be taken by the RBiH MUP. It was provided to the
4 ICTY by AID Sarajevo on the 29th of February, 1996.
5 At the end of the first paragraph we see that this is a
6 supplementary statement regarding the creation, use of, and
7 decision-making on the use of a modified rocket system armed with aerial
8 bombs. Now, I'd like to take you to the first words of the part under
9 the heading "Supplementary Statement." And he says:
10 "As far as I can recall, this method of using aircraft bombs that
11 are launched by rocket engines was first mentioned approximately a year
12 after the air force of Republika Srpska was forbidden to fly."
13 Now, I want to put it to you - and I can give you evidence of
14 this if you want - that it was in October 1992 that the Security Council
15 prohibited -- passed a resolution prohibiting the flight of military
16 aircraft over the air-space of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Do you accept
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, if we go further on through this, I'd like to take you, it's
20 the same page in both languages, further down where the witness says:
21 "I know that the first systems used a single-rocket engine for
22 propulsion and that this is what probably caused the launches to fail.
23 After the rocket battery was built with two or three engines, the
24 launches probably became more successful and in my judgement the modified
25 system with four engines should be the most accurate."
1 Now --
2 A. I haven't found this last part, but I accept that what you read
3 out is correct.
4 Q. Yes, I'll just read on. It says:
5 "I think that the maximum range of this system is somewhere
6 around 2 kilometres ..."
7 If we could turn to the next page in B/C/S, please. It then
9 "After Mladic" --
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown the next
11 page in Serbian.
12 MR. GAYNOR:
13 Q. It says there I believe, Mr. Witness:
14 "After Mladic probably satisfied himself that the system was
15 efficient, he issued an order to all the corps to proceed with building
16 launchers. I know that Mladic ordered all corps of the Republika Srpska
17 Army to build these launchers and he did so in contacts with corps
18 commanders during meetings with commanders. The launchers were built in
19 the corps."
20 Now, first of all, there's a reference there to a maximum range
21 of 2 kilometres. Now, that's somewhat at odds with --
22 A. If I understood correctly he spoke about an air bomb with a
23 single rocket engine which could correspond to that range. In the
24 initial phase they only had one engine. We didn't see this type in
25 Sarajevo except in one case at the Faculty of Transportation Sciences.
1 Q. Now I'm going to put it to you that if the 122-millimetre Grad
2 rocket cannot responsibly be used for less than 5.000 metres, then to
3 attach it to an air bomb and to use it at a range of 2.000 metres is
4 highly irregular, if not irresponsible.
5 A. No. No, you didn't understand my explanation why Grad is not
6 recommended. It can be used but it's not recommended. We saw that the
7 dispersion of rocket projectiles at smaller ranges is greater than at
8 longer ranges. Grad is a long-range asset and the 5.000-metre range is
9 small for Grad. At such small ranges, it has great dispersion as you
10 have shown, whereas an air bomb has a smaller range. 2 to 3 kilometres
11 is a longer range for that kind of projectile. So we cannot compare an
12 air bomb with Grad. That's the mistake. We cannot compare these two
13 because they have totally different characteristics.
14 Q. Furthermore, in -- according to this statement, Mladic ordered
15 all the corps of the VRS to build these launchers. Now, it's certainly
16 highly irregular for new complex launch systems for new projectiles to be
17 built by the corps of the army, isn't it?
18 A. First of all, the corps cannot have made them, you can be sure of
19 that. I saw in the documentation that the corps were sending some assets
20 such as the supporting bipods, gun carriages, to be used to make these
21 new assets. The corps cannot make new weapons because they don't have
22 the equipment requirement.
23 A corps can always have faulty or defective assets that they send
24 to the maintenance or repair centre, and they were indeed sent to
25 Hadzici. There are also documents showing that air bombs were sent from
1 the units to Pretis to be modified. I don't know how exactly it
2 functioned and I don't know which assets they exactly had, but they had
3 some assets and they sent part of those assets to be modified.
4 The corps certainly was in no position to make a launcher because
5 they have no way of doing that. A corps is a military unit. This can
6 only be done in a factory or in a technical repair centre. The centre at
7 Hadzici is an institution which could do that very well and successfully.
8 After all, that's why it was founded in the first place, and it
9 functioned like that for a number of years.
10 Q. If we could turn to the next page in English, please, and to page
11 4 in B/C/S. And at the top of this page in B/C/S, Mr. Witness, it says:
12 "In connection with the use of these rocket systems, I need to
13 point out that I know that it was the corps commander who would propose
14 their use and that it was General Mladic personally who would approve
15 their use. On one occasion, I was present at a conversation between
16 General Mladic and one of the corps commanders when Mladic, in a
17 conversation with this corps commander of the Army of Republika Srpska,
18 approved the use of this weapons system. I am sure that no one except
19 General Mladic could approve the use of this system and that each single
20 use was approved personally by Mladic."
21 And previously we see a reference to fall of 1994. First of all,
22 can I get your confirmation that it is not usually the role of a general
23 in the army to approve a new weapons system for use?
24 A. I don't think this question is very precise. It says here that
25 General Mladic approved the use of an air bomb, which means that the bomb
1 was in a unit. Somebody else must have checked the bombs, not
2 General Mladic, it is for sure. And it is not unusual that
3 General Mladic demands that he be the one to approve the use of these
4 bombs. That's not unusual in an army because assets of great value, or
5 rather, the use of such assets is often approved by high command. An
6 asset worth 200.000 to $300.000 cannot be subject to decisions of a
7 lower-ranking commander. A higher level decides about the use of such
8 assets, and that's customary in an army.
9 Q. Witness, Mr. Poparic, earlier on I ready to you a sentence which
11 "After Mladic probably satisfied himself that the system was
12 efficient, he issued an order to all the corps to proceed with building
14 That suggests, doesn't it, that it was General Mladic who
15 approved the use of this brand new improvised weapons system.
16 A. No. There is a difference in your approach. In the JNA - I'll
17 start like that and then return to this sentence - the practice was that
18 the decision of the development of an asset was taken by the tactical
19 bearer, such as the artillery administration, for example. They decided
20 what they needed for the strategic tasks and they would make a request
21 with the party in charge for something like that to be developed.
22 I don't know how it was organised in the VRS, but we see here
23 that Mladic ordered the development of such air bombs. And he was in a
24 position to do unless there was a specific organ in the VRS, which I
25 don't know. But in any case that was not outside his remit. But he
1 didn't approve. He just ordered something like that to be developed for
2 the VRS because he was able to see for himself that these were efficient
3 and useful.
4 Q. In any event I want to return to the question of the time taken
5 to use the weapons system. If we agree that the no-fly zone was ordered
6 in Bosnia on 9th of October, 1992, and if according to this witness the
7 first mention of modified air bombs was a year later, which would be
8 October 1993 at the earliest, then would you agree with me that this new
9 weapons system was certainly brought into use in a much, much shorter
10 time-frame than the customary five to seven years?
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I must intervene. I have a
12 remark --
13 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It should be exactly related to the
16 witness. In 1993 it was mentioned and in the fall of 1994 the engines
17 were first procured. You cannot delude the witness with your question.
18 JUDGE KWON: No, I think the question is fair enough and the
19 witness should be able to answer the question.
20 Yes, Mr. Poparic.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I've already answered that
22 question and I'll repeat it once again. These modified air bombs were
23 not a completely new asset. There are two very important key elements,
24 the warhead which was the air bomb and also the rocket engines, the
25 propulsion Russian-manufactured, imported. And this did not imply the
1 development of a completely new weapon that would be included in this
2 group of the development of new weapons that requires five or seven years
3 of research and development. My assessment was that a weapon of such
4 complexity could have been made in a period from sixth months to one
5 year, and I claim that with full responsibility because I worked on such
6 matters for many years.
7 I'd like to note another thing. In peace time development was
8 regulated by a set of rules, UPRF2. All stages were defined there and
9 all the tasks that had to be carried out before a weapon would be
10 introduced, starting with the very beginning of development and then
11 moving on to who decides that this weapon should be included in the
12 weaponry of the army.
13 Also, this rule book had a part that regulated the development of
14 weapons in war time.
15 MR. GAYNOR:
16 Q. Okay --
17 A. It allowed certain stages to be skipped because of the
18 extraordinary circumstances involved. So I don't see anything unusual
19 about that; namely, that in my estimate the development could have lasted
20 from six months to one year and that it would prove to be a good thing,
21 as was indeed the case.
22 Q. Have you ever seen contemporaneous firing tables for any of the
23 modified air bomb systems? Or have you, during your long career at the
24 technical test centre in Belgrade from 1991 to 2007, seen comprehensive
25 test data for these modified air bomb systems?
1 A. I personally at the time was not working on that, but I do know
2 that there were some firing tables. That was a colleague of mine who
3 worked on that and these tables certainly did exist. Probably they could
4 be obtained if the appropriate authorities were asked for that.
5 May I remind you of something? The Army of Yugoslavia introduced
6 the Koseva system in its own weapons, very similar to this system. As a
7 matter of fact, it was even presented at an exhibition partner in 2000
8 something. I cannot recall the exact year. It was even offered for
10 Q. Could I -- the document you were hoping to see, Mr. Poparic, is
11 available as a 65 ter number 25082, if we could look at that, please.
12 In the meantime, can you just confirm that you have never seen
13 with your own eyes contemporaneous firing tables or contemporaneous test
14 data for any of these modified air bomb systems; correct?
15 A. I saw the tables but I don't know exactly what year it was. I
16 saw it on the man's desk. I wasn't interested. I could not confirm the
17 year, whether it was 1995 or later, but I know that the tables do exist.
18 Whose they were and who made them, I do not know. What was the second
19 part of your question?
20 Q. Contemporaneous test data?
21 A. Well, I wasn't involved in this kind of work so I don't have
22 contemporaneous test data, which is not to say that this does not exist
23 if I don't have it.
24 Q. Well, if you do come across those firing tables, I'm sure the
25 Trial Chamber would be happy to receive them.
1 If you could look at the table in front of you and make whatever
2 observations you would wish to make to the Trial Chamber about this
3 table, I believe this is the one you indicated you wanted to look at.
4 A. Oh, no.
5 Q. Which table did you want to see, sir?
6 A. No, no. I spoke about diagrams where you can see the dispersion
7 at the beginning of the trajectory and that it's bigger than and then it
8 decreases, and also probable dispersion according to direction. It's
9 probably the other way around -- well, never mind. I think we showed
10 that with the table for Grad, and that table clearly shows that
11 dispersion in terms of range increases with the increase of range; and
12 then when range is increased -- well, it's quite clear from that table
13 and I think that suffices for the time being. Let us not torment
14 ourselves with that now.
15 Q. Very well. I'd like to move on to the Markale 2 incident which
16 is subsequentially the first issue addressed in your report. First of
17 all, let's sort out a French language issue. Could I call up, please,
18 page 113 B/C/S, page 112 English of your inconsistencies report.
19 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Before you move away from this
20 document, this is the part of the redacted report?
21 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, this is a part of -- which has been redacted
22 from the inconsistencies report of this witness, which is D3644.
23 JUDGE KWON: And the witness referred to some graph which seems
24 to appear at the end of this document.
25 MR. GAYNOR: Very well, Mr. President. I'll defer to you on that
1 one. I wasn't sure which graph it was.
2 JUDGE KWON: The last page of this one, excerpt, this
3 65 ter number. Did you mean this?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're right --
5 JUDGE KWON: Just a second --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I meant -- that's one of the
7 examples. You see this here, the red line, it shows the deviation in
8 terms of range depending on the range. The ranges are down there and the
9 blue line is deviation in terms of direction.
10 Here we can see that at the beginning of the trajectory it's
11 bigger and then it decreases, and that is quite evident from the Grad
12 table. That is a joint characteristic of all rocket projectiles. That's
13 the way it is with each and every rocket projectile. However, the
14 situation is different as far as artillery is concerned. This is just to
15 show it in visual terms, what it looks like.
16 JUDGE KWON: I leave it to you then. Please continue,
17 Mr. Gaynor.
18 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Q. We have time I think to sort out one French language issue. It's
20 page 112 in English, page 113 in B/C/S of D3644. Do you speak French,
21 Mr. Poparic?
22 A. Well, I used to but it's been a while now that I haven't. I do
23 understand you.
24 Q. Could we please look at footnote 211, and in that footnote you
25 are suggesting -- we need footnote 211 in the English, please.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I ask whether this diagram had
2 been tendered? If it could be admitted, then I would like to tender it.
3 MR. GAYNOR: We've no objection to the admission of those pages
4 which had been redacted from the inconsistencies report. It appears that
5 the parties, I believe, have no objection to the admission of those
7 JUDGE KWON: At least to understand what the -- part of the
8 witness's evidence.
9 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE KWON: Five pages or those two pages?
11 MR. GAYNOR: I have no objection to the admission of the five.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll receive it.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6348, Your Honours.
15 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you very much.
16 Q. Now, in that footnote you say:
17 "In the video material the French sapper measuring the azimuth is
18 heard saying 2.100 mils."
19 We're now going to play that video, which is P1450, from 5
20 minutes and 40 seconds to 5 minutes and 50 seconds, and we'll just listen
21 to what the French sapper is actually saying.
22 [Video-clip played]
23 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you.
24 Q. Now, subject to any correction by the interpretation booths, I
25 believe that we have just heard the soldier say in French "2.800 mils."
1 MR. GAYNOR: Perhaps, Judge Lattanzi, if she wishes, can correct
2 me on that.
3 JUDGE KWON: She confirms.
4 MR. GAYNOR: Thank you.
5 Q. Now, Mr. Witness, do you accept that you were mistaken when you
6 said that the French sapper said 2.100 mils?
7 A. Correct. Absolutely correct. I can explain the nature of this
8 error. I see now that it's an error. I hadn't seen it before that. The
9 first time when we listened to this text, in the French language they
10 speak very fast and I asked other people who know French -- everybody
11 heard "2.100," and that's when I wrote that down but we weren't sure of
12 that. And then when a witness was here it was played twice back to check
13 that and it was 2.800. I accept that it is 2.800 and that is an
14 accidental error that remained from the previous time. We didn't manage
15 to correct it. So 2.800, that would be, well, a bit less than 160
16 degrees, I believe.
17 Q. In the French report, which is P2114, they have put down 2.850
18 mils at several locations.
19 MR. GAYNOR: And I believe we can break here for today,
20 Mr. President.
21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. We'll hear another witness's evidence
23 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. We've asked to interrupt the
24 testimony of this witness for Mr. Kecmanovic who has to leave. So if we
25 could start him at 9.00 and then resume with his witness as soon as his
1 testimony is concluded.
2 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Tieger.
3 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Mr. President --
4 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
5 MR. TIEGER: Oh, I'm sorry.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Tieger.
7 MR. TIEGER: Thank you.
8 I've had lengthy discussions with Mr. Robinson on this, many of
9 which were triggered by the length of time taken by Mr. Karadzic in
10 contrast to the earlier estimates. The problem is that Mr. Gaynor is
11 required to leave tomorrow. We need him to finish the cross-examination.
12 My concern is that based on the accused's use of time in the
13 past, if we commence with Mr. Kecmanovic's evidence tomorrow, the accused
14 is undisciplined enough, as he's indicated, to exhaust the full day in
15 either direct or re-direct examination and Mr. Gaynor will not have an
16 opportunity to complete the cross. I think it's a far safer course to
17 allow him to complete. I don't know how much time he has, but it's in
18 the area of one hour, and that will still leave us more than adequate
19 time, given the estimates, which at this time will have to be roughly
20 complied with to fulfil both objectives and allow the proceeding to
21 conclude in an appropriate fashion.
22 JUDGE KWON: How much time was allotted for the cross-examination
23 of Mr. Kecmanovic?
24 MR. TIEGER: Two hours, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE KWON: And I take it that your case is -- Mr. Gaynor is not
1 needed during the re-examination of Mr. Poparic?
2 MR. TIEGER: No. This is one of the reasons I had lengthy
3 discussions with Mr. Robinson. We did not want to find ourselves in this
4 position. This is yet another compromise and accommodation by the
5 Prosecution, contrary to our intentions, our hopes, and our best efforts,
6 all of which resulted from lavish uses of time contrary to previous
7 estimates by the accused.
8 So we are in that position and we -- you know, we don't like to
9 find ourselves in a position where Mr. Gaynor isn't available for the
10 entirety of the examination for obvious reasons. But that was a
11 compromise we were willing to make with considerable discomfort. But we
12 certainly aren't willing to go any farther than that. We need to have
13 Mr. Gaynor complete the cross-examination.
14 JUDGE KWON: I don't see much difficulty with what Mr. Tieger
15 suggests now.
16 Mr. Robinson.
17 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, I think Mr. Gaynor can be trusted to keep to
18 the estimate probably better than Dr. Karadzic. So if we can count on
19 there being only one hour of cross-examination, then I think we can all
20 be accommodated by that. So we can go ahead and conclude the
21 cross-examination at 9.00, and then we'll have Mr. Kecmanovic immediately
23 MR. GAYNOR: Yes, that's very well. By 9.00 you probably mean
24 10.00, I think. Yes, that concludes my part of the cross-examination.
25 Ms. Edgerton will have separate cross-examination on the sniping
1 report but this --
2 JUDGE KWON: After Kecmanovic's evidence?
3 MR. GAYNOR: Yes. Thank you.
4 JUDGE KWON: Thank you for your co-operation.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just --
6 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I don't want to feel as if
8 I'm being done a favour. How is -- how am I being satisfied if it's
9 Mr. Gaynor who's supposed to leave?
10 MR. TIEGER: The fact of the matter is scheduling is up to the
11 Defence. Those schedules are based on their own estimates. We've
12 adhered to our own estimates. If Mr. Kecmanovic is in a position that
13 creates a problem for Defence scheduling, it's entirely the product of
14 Mr. Karadzic's use of time.
15 JUDGE KWON: The hearing is adjourned.
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.50 p.m.,
17 to be reconvened on Friday, the 31st day of
18 May, 2013, at 9.00 a.m.