1 Wednesday, 5 June 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
7 Yes, Ms. Edgerton, please continue.
8 WITNESS: MILE POPARIC [Resumed]
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask before we start
13 with the cross-examination for permission to address the Trial Chamber
14 briefly, if possible.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Yes, Mr. Poparic?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very briefly, I would like to raise
17 an issue related to the testimony yesterday that has to do with me
18 personally. And I'm not sure that the Defence is going to raise that
19 issue during the re-examination so I would like to raise it briefly now.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is what it's all about.
22 Yesterday, Ms. Edgerton, when speaking about incident F6 claimed that
23 I misstated something in my report, namely that Mrs. Sanija Dzevlan was
24 going to visit her mother. She quoted from the transcript. She quoted
25 her statement when she said that she was going to the hospital to get
1 medicine. I checked the transcript yesterday, and it is correct that in
2 one part of the transcript Ms. Sanija Dzevlan did say she was going to
3 get medicine. However, in another part of the transcript, she confirmed
4 to the Prosecutor, Mr. Mundis, that she was returning from the hospital
5 after having visited her mother. I quoted that in my report. As a
6 matter of fact, I did it so specifically that I even referred to the line
7 of the transcript where this is mentioned. I don't know why Ms. Edgerton
8 did not check that, and why she accused me of basically trying to deceive
9 someone, which had never been my intention. You see, in this report that
10 I quoted whatever I could quote. If I forgot something, that's a
11 different matter, but I never had any intention of deceiving anyone.
12 Thank you.
13 JUDGE KWON: No. But -- thank you, Mr. Poparic, but Ms. Edgerton
14 never accused of you trying to deceive somebody else. Please don't
15 misunderstand that.
16 Yes, Ms. Edgerton, please continue.
17 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
18 Cross-examination by Ms. Edgerton: [Continued]
19 Q. Good morning, Mr. Poparic.
20 A. Good morning.
21 Q. I'd like to go back to the sketch we left off looking at
22 yesterday. That's P2421, page 3, and we were discussing incident F11.
23 Because I want to give you just a little bit more of a chance to study
24 this sketch because I actually think we might have misunderstood one
25 another a little bit yesterday. Mr. Poparic, do you understand enough
1 English so that my colleague can just enlarge the sketch that's on the
2 screen in front of you? Or can you -- not -- the diagram isn't in
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I apologise. But do you understand the diagram? Would that help
6 you because I think maybe that might have been a result of -- might have
7 been part of our misunderstanding yesterday?
8 A. I understand.
9 Q. All right. So this diagram measures 1450 mils from the vertical
10 line. You can see that; right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And then yesterday, I told you that 1450 mils in a system of
13 6.000 was the same as an 87-degree angle of entry, but I realised only
14 later that this report, having been prepared by French UNPROFOR officers,
15 should have used the 6.400 mils system because the 6.000 system is the
16 Serbian mils system, isn't it?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And 1.450 mils converted into degrees using the 6400 mils system
19 is between 81 and 82 degrees, which is 9 degrees horizontal. Would you
20 agree with that?
21 A. I agree.
22 Q. Okay. So that represents a very small angle, doesn't it?
23 A. We cannot look at it that way, small angle or not. I'll show
24 you. We have the firing tables attached here for practically all the
25 projectiles that were used. Since these were bursts of gunfire let us
1 assume that this was an M84 machine-gun, and let us look at the angle of
2 descent. Just a moment, please.
3 Q. That doesn't really address my question but I think you want to
4 refer to the tables so --
5 A. Yes. Yes. Here is the table, page 193 in my version,
6 attachment 1. It says ballistic information for M84, 7.62 millimetres
7 machine-gun, and we have the angles of descent. You see, all the way up
8 to 700 metres, the angle is less than 1 degree. This angle that we see
9 here is the sum total of less than 1 per cent and another angle, which is
10 dictated by the position from which one fires and from the site point.
11 If VRS positions were at 450 metres, if they were 450 metres away, if we
12 look that the red building and then 30 to 40 metres, this particular
13 angle could not be more than 3 or 4 degrees. So had the fire come from
14 the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska, this angle would have to
15 be less than 4 or 5 degrees. I don't know exactly now. So two times
16 less than what had been established here. That is the only way which we
17 can look at it and assess it, not just say whether it's a big or a small
19 Q. Your indulgence for a moment. I just want to check something you
20 said yesterday. So your answer to me now, again, is based on an
22 A. Based on the assumption of a sight angle which is very objective,
23 perhaps I gave one that is even greater so it can only be less than what
24 I assumed. It's no problem to establish that accurately, if necessary.
25 Q. So whether or not - putting aside your response right now - this
1 low angle, whether it's 4 or whether it's 9 degrees, is completely
2 inconsistent with the shots having come from the Executive Council
3 building, isn't it, according to your own analysis?
4 A. No. I said yesterday that from the Executive Council building,
5 one could fire from the ground floor and from upstairs, so it could be a
6 2-degree angle or an 80-degree angle, I mean the angle of descent. It
7 depends on the height from which one fired because it's very close, this
8 Executive Council building, and because of the close proximity, the angle
9 is very big.
10 Q. But you didn't talk about a low-angle of descent from the
11 Executive Council building in your analysis in your report.
12 A. We did not have information about hits on the tram. Do you
13 understand that? We did not know what the nature was of the hits on the
14 first tram, 206, and the second one, 238, I think. We just had that
15 video clip where you can see the impact on the ground, and we estimated
16 the height on that basis. No one rules out the possibility that the tram
17 was hit from different places. Even from this report, I don't know
18 whether this is the first tram, 206, or the other one. On this other
19 tram, I saw actually this document in General Mladic's trial, that the
20 police on a technical sketch of the tram, they marked a lot of shots,
21 hits, we don't know anything about them, so we could not claim that it
22 was high up. As for the other tram, one could say, on the basis of the
23 wounds of the casualty that it was from a great height. We don't know
24 anything in this case, whether it's the first or second tram. But at any
25 rate, this angle does not correspond to the angle that a projectile fired
1 from the other bank of the Miljacka could have had.
2 Q. All right. Mr. Poparic, it seems like you're changing your
3 evidence to suit the point --
4 A. No.
5 Q. -- that you want to make.
6 A. I didn't change anything. That's not true. I said that
7 yesterday and I repeat it today.
8 Q. Now, this video from which you take two still images, and those
9 are image 96 at page 138 of your report -- actually, and you could look
10 at image 96 at page 138, it actually has a long discussion in French
11 involving General Rose, General Gobillard and FrenchBat soldiers at the
12 intersection of Djure Danicica Street. Do you understand French?
13 A. Well, I understand some French but in the film that I had,
14 I didn't have a sound-track so I had nothing to understand.
15 Q. So then, without a sound track, you would have heard no mention
16 of the Executive Council building in the film?
17 A. I didn't hear it, but I just saw it showing in the direction of
18 the Executive Council building. This officer is actually showing General
19 Rose, I mean he's pointing at the building. We can see this in the
20 picture. It may resemble an opening or something like that. Actually,
21 he was pointing in the direction of Grbavica or, rather, that red
22 building they mentioned was divided between the VRS and the BH Army.
23 Q. Mr. Poparic, so what you -- your conclusion is actually an
24 assumption based on what you saw, nothing more? That's what you've just
1 A. Yes. I cannot confirm at all what he said to him. I can just
2 say that he was pointing in that direction and I know that after that,
3 General Rose sent a letter of protest to both sides in relation to the
4 firing at the tram, nothing else. This is just an illustration of what
5 was happening in that area during the investigation or, rather, the --
6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the end of the
8 MS. EDGERTON:
9 Q. Can you just repeat the words you said after, "... during the
10 investigation...," if there indeed was anything?
11 A. This is just an illustration of what was happening in that area
12 during the investigation and after the investigation, nothing more than
14 Q. Right. Then talking about after the investigation, having
15 reviewed the materials related to this incident, you would have seen that
16 on October 10th, General Rose met with General Mladic in Jahorina and he
17 began the meeting by condemning the incident on the tramway that we have
18 been talking about, which caused one death and seven injuries.
19 Doesn't -- didn't seeing that kind of evidence cause you to rethink your
20 assumption which was based on dust clouds?
21 A. I don't know what kind of evidence you mean. If you mean this
22 film --
23 Q. Let me just show you.
24 MS. EDGERTON: Could we call up P867, please.
25 Q. And, Mr. Poparic, my time today is extremely limited, so please
1 accept that if you feel I may have interrupted you, I'm just trying to
2 keep focused. P867, there is a B/C/S translation, but this is an
3 UNPROFOR report on a meeting General Rose had with General Mladic on
4 10 October 1994. And if you go over to page 2 in English and page 3 in
5 B/C/S, paragraph 5, you see that, as I said, General Rose began his
6 remarks by condemning the sniping incident we've been discussing;
7 General Mladic denied that the Serbs were involved; he claimed that the
8 shooting had come from the Holiday Inn; and in the very last paragraph
9 you see an UNPROFOR technical expert was present -- pardon me, was -- an
10 UNPROFOR technical expert present was able to assure the party that the
11 shooting did not come from the Holiday Inn side, a map was provided.
12 Doesn't that cause you to rethink your assumption, Mr. Poparic?
13 A. No. I was not aware of this document but I see from here that
14 the only thing that was proven was that there was no firing from the
15 Holiday Inn which is correct, and that corresponds to our findings, but
16 there is no evidence that would indicate that it was certainly fired from
17 the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska.
18 Q. That's fine. We'll move on. I'd like to talk to you about
19 another incident. It's scheduled incident F1 which took place on
20 13 December 1992. It's the first incident you deal with in your report,
21 and it deals with the location of Baba Stijena. And as I understand the
22 thrust of your argument with respect to this incident is there was no
23 line of sight because it was either blocked from dense tree cover or a
24 terrain elevation; right?
25 A. The core of the matter is that the configuration of the terrain
1 is such that this house cannot be seen from Stijena Baba and that was
2 confirmed in three different ways.
3 Q. All right. Mr. Poparic, what I'd like to do is show you an
4 image, 65 ter number 25134. Now, Mr. Poparic, did you actually
5 personally visit the incident site in this case, the location at which
6 the girl was at the moment she was shot?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So having done that, you would have seen that --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- the house has been renovated since the time of the incidents
11 and it's no longer possible to stand or crouch at that specific location?
12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not understand the
14 MS. EDGERTON:
15 Q. Could you just repeat just the comment you made that spoke over
16 me just now? Just repeat what you said.
17 JUDGE KWON: Wait just a second. Please wait.
18 MS. EDGERTON: I'm sorry.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Poparic.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It is correct that the house
21 looks different now and that there was some renovation done.
22 MS. EDGERTON:
23 Q. Thank you. Mr. Poparic, here are three images, one on top of the
24 other, all showing a line of sight from the specific incident location,
25 with the exception of your photograph down below. Could you go back up
1 to the top one, please, to Baba Stijena. The first one which is
2 65 ter 10059 was used with the father, Ekrem Pita, during -- at the time
3 he gave a statement to the OTP, and Mr. Pita marked, as you can see,
4 Baba Stijena from his porch. The second one -- pardon me, and this first
5 photograph was taken in 2001, September 2001. The second one - if you
6 can go down, Madam Registrar [sic] - is the photograph taken in November
7 2006 by Mr. van der Weijden when he visited the scene, so both these
8 photographs were taken before the renovations to the territory. And that
9 comes from P1620, page 15. And if we could go down to the bottom of the
10 page, the last one is your photograph --
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. -- taken from page 57 of your report. Now, but for the fact that
13 the vegetation has grown over the intervening years between 2001 and
14 whenever you took this photograph, so I assume either 2010 or 2011, they
15 all show a line of sight to Baba Stijena. So your maps are completely
16 inconsistent with this photographic record, aren't they?
17 A. You have put quite a few questions, haven't you, so I have to
18 start from the beginning. The photograph marked by Ekrem Pita, first of
19 all, in that photograph, if you can show it up here, what we can see is
20 that Mr. Ekrem Pita marked a completely different direction for
21 Baba Stijena, somewhere up in the sky, you see? This house on the
22 left-hand side it is totally in this direction but he marked it in the
23 opposite direction. That shows that he did not know exactly where
24 Stijena Baba is because this Stijena Baba cannot actually be seen. What
25 Mr. Ekrem Pita marked is completely different from what I filmed and from
1 what Mr. Weijden filmed. The photographs that were taken by Mr. Weijden
2 and myself are completely identical. The only difference -- the basic
3 difference is that Mr. Weijden took this picture with a 6-times zoom and
4 I used a normal zoom. And that's the only difference that can be
5 observed as regards these two photographs. The photograph that was taken
6 with the zoom shows all these objects that are closer to each other and
7 you can see that, if you look at the two photographs. In my photograph
8 it can be seen behind -- actually what can be seen behind that is a small
9 clearing and then a forest, a small forest. There is another difference.
10 Mr. Weijden took the picture when there was no vegetation; whereas mine
11 is greener, there is some vegetation. However, in terms of position it's
12 one and the same thing. So Stijena Baba does not have a real clearing,
13 you can see that on the basis of some of the photographs here. What
14 Mr. Weijden showed as Stijena Baba is not Stijena Baba. In one
15 photograph --
16 Q. Sorry, you're repeating your report. Let's go back to these
17 photographs. Are you disagreeing with me that these photographs show the
18 same location?
19 A. The photographs are -- were taken from the same location but they
20 do not both show Stijena Baba. The one at the top is where Ekrem Pita
21 marked it somewhere to the right and high up and you can see where
22 Stijena Baba is as marked by Mr. van der Weijden. It is between the
23 buildings and on the photograph at the top we can only see the building
24 and nothing else, the house. So it is to the far right as compared to
25 what Mr. van der Weijden had taken. As for Mr. van der Weijden's
1 photograph, I agree that it is the direction of Stijena Baba, and
2 I photographed it as such.
3 Q. So your disagreement is on the basis of the marking that Mr. Pita
4 put on the photograph and nothing else?
5 A. And also because one can't see anything. If Mr. Pita had known
6 exactly where Stijena Baba was, he would not have made such a big
7 mistake. It's an enormous mistake, in terms of direction.
8 Q. Right. So your position is that these photographs don't show
9 Baba Stijena?
10 A. Absolutely.
11 Q. And your position is that a resident of the area mismarked
12 Baba Stijena?
13 A. Absolutely.
14 Q. Right.
15 MS. EDGERTON: We'll move on, but to be able to understand the
16 witness's evidence could this be a Prosecution exhibit, please, Your
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P6367, Your Honour.
20 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
21 Q. I'd now like to go on to incident F9 which is discussed in your
22 report at paragraphs 1236 -- pardon me, 126 to 133, and it relates to an
23 incident on 26 June 1994 where the origin of fire is alleged to have been
24 from the school for the blind in Nedzarici. And while you acknowledged
25 in your evidence and in your report that there is a line of sight from
1 the specific location of the incident to the school for the blind, that's
2 transcript page 38980, and that the distance is relatively short, which
3 you said on the same page. You also said it didn't seem logical to you
4 that there would have been a sniper position there and that you hadn't
5 seen any document, photograph or film that would indicate it was used as
6 such. And that's all on the same transcript page, 38980, also at
7 paragraph 131 of your report.
8 Now, I take it from this you don't exclude the possibility that
9 there was a sniper operating from that location; you've just never seen
10 the evidence?
11 A. I did not see the evidence and it does not strike me logical from
12 the point of view of tactical use. I cannot exclude the possibility of
13 course that someone did fire from there. No one could exclude that
14 without evidence.
15 Q. Fine. Could we have a look quickly at P1601? It's an UNMO HQ,
16 BH command daily sit-rep dated 13 July 1994, so two weeks after this
17 incident. At page 4 of this document in both languages, paragraph 24,
18 thank you, and in B/C/S it's at the very bottom of paragraph 24(b), you
19 see a report that the commander of the 1st battalion of the BSA,
20 Ilidza brigade admitted the sniping by the BSA. Could we go over to the
21 next page in B/C/S, please? From grid reference BP 859578, house for
22 blind people, he promised that there would be no more sniping from that
24 So it seems once again that your opinion is -- pardon me, is your
25 opinion now informed by the evidence you've seen as to whether there was
1 a sniper operating from that specific location?
2 MR. KARADZIC: May I ask for one clarification?
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am wondering if the Prosecution
5 made use of the possibility of having that brigade commander here to
6 check or double check whether it's true what he admitted to.
7 JUDGE KWON: No. This is not an appropriate intervention,
8 Mr. Karadzic.
9 Yes, Mr. Poparic, can you answer the question?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can. In the document, it seems
11 that he acknowledged they opened fire from the house for the blind.
12 However, it is not specified in what direction, because the building for
13 the blind offers a different view, which is more important for their
14 side. It is a forward post offering that kind of vantage point. It --
15 we did not have any specific direction provided or the time when there
16 was fire opened. Obviously according to the report, fire was opened but
17 we cannot say with any certainty that fire was opened on the
18 26th of June.
19 MS. EDGERTON:
20 Q. Well, just in regard to your comment about direction, I'd like to
21 show you something. It's 65 ter 25090. And I take it you base your
22 comment about direction -- we'll wait till the image comes up.
23 Mr. Poparic, this is a video taken from -- it's a still taken from a
24 video of the school for the blind taken just after the reintegration in
25 1996, and it's part of 65 ter 40599, and it's a -- it was a documentary
1 on students moving back into the school. Now, if we can enlarge, please,
2 the right-hand side of this image a little bit further and you would
3 agree with me, wouldn't you, Mr. Poparic, that that right-hand side of
4 the building where you see a wall as opposed to the windowed side, a
5 wall, that's the side most exposed to the incident site of F9; right?
6 A. This side is exposed. However, if you look at the window up at
7 the top on the left it was cleared away, confirming that something may
8 have been there.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please
10 repeat the rest of his answer? We did not catch it.
11 MS. EDGERTON:
12 Q. The interpreters have asked to you repeat the rest of your answer
13 because they didn't catch it, please.
14 A. The upper left-hand corner of the photograph, we see a destroyed
15 window which confirms my assumption that that position would not have
16 been a favourable one to mount a sniping position because it is easy to
17 destroy it.
18 Q. Now, you said in your answer to me a couple of minutes ago, that
19 the school for the blind offers a different view, and in regard to the
20 direction, I just want you to look at these holes in the side of the wall
21 most exposed to the incident site. You can see openings made by bricks
22 being knocked out. That's evidence of firing positions, isn't it?
23 A. If you have in mind this opening here, on the first window --
24 Q. No.
25 A. -- in the middle.
1 Q. Mr. Poparic, I'm asking you to look at the wall of the building
2 that's most exposed to the incident site?
3 A. The side one, on the side?
4 Q. Thank you.
5 A. On the side wall, there seem to be some openings, perhaps
6 something was knocked out, I really can't say. As for the bottom
7 openings, down, they were definitely not visible from the position where
8 it is claimed that the girls were at when fired at. Perhaps there was
9 another opening further up but I'm not sure whether the height allows a
10 view of the location where they were hit, and I don't know whether
11 something was knocked out or whether the hole was created by a
12 projectile. The photograph is very poor. This side faces another
13 direction, that is to say Alipasino Polje. If even if there openings on
14 that side, I don't see how someone could take up a position in order to
15 see the girls moving in another direction, because they were at an angle
16 of almost 90 degrees in relation to the building.
17 MS. EDGERTON: Could I just have a moment, Your Honours, because
18 my LiveNote has stopped. I was on my own LiveNote and I just need to
19 look at Mr. Reid's.
20 JUDGE KWON: Same with mine. We will restart it and let us see
21 whether it works.
22 Can we continue?
23 MS. EDGERTON: Absolutely. I just wanted to make sure that
24 everything was all right technically speaking on the Bench.
25 Q. So, Mr. Poparic, you actually didn't answer my question about
1 firing positions so maybe I can ask it a different way. These holes that
2 you see on the side of the building are consistent with evidence of
3 firing positions, aren't they?
4 A. I wouldn't agree --
5 Q. All right.
6 A. -- that it was possible. We can't see anything. Now that we are
7 discussing firing positions I can tell you that from the place where it
8 is claimed as the place where the girls were hit, we can only see the
9 upper part of the wall, up to the top of the window. Second of all, on
10 the window we see no protection, no sacks. I don't see how someone could
11 fire from there through an exposed window.
12 Q. Right. But Mr. Poparic, in paragraph 7 of your report, it's on
13 page 30 of the English but paragraph 7, you made exactly the same
14 argument I'm putting to you in respect of this image, and it's exactly
15 the same position you took with respect to the holes in the image --
16 pardon me, in the photo of the faculty building that's at image 67.
17 A. 67.
18 Q. Go over to -- if I could suggest, Mr. Poparic -- your report --
19 Mr. Poparic --
20 A. I see it.
21 Q. Mr. Poparic, could you go over to page 36 of your report in your
22 language, image 6. So I'll give you the references in your language as
23 opposed to the English ones.
24 A. Photograph number 6 and?
25 Q. All right. That's --
1 A. And 67?
2 Q. You made exactly the same argument with respect to firing
3 positions that I'm putting to you now.
4 A. It is correct, I do not deny that. I'm only saying that on the
5 photograph I can't see the openings; however, on the other one I can see
6 it. The first photograph is of poor quality so I can't make it out.
7 I can't say if it was created by a detonating projectile or whether the
8 bricks were knocked out. I really can't see it. That is the only
9 difference. I do not claim that the bricks could not have been knocked
10 out and now that we are discussing directions in principle, it was
11 possible and that's how things were done, but based on the photograph you
12 showed me I cannot state decisively that it was knocked out. There are
13 some traces there, some hits, but I really can't see whether the bricks
14 were knocked out or whether it's a different kind of damage. I can't
15 even see whether it's a through hole or if it's just surface damage.
16 Q. Well, you can't see whether it's a through hole on the image,
17 your image 6, either, Mr. Poparic. You're looking for the differences to
18 take a position that helps Dr. Karadzic, aren't you?
19 A. No. On photograph number 6, we can see that the hole is large
20 and with regular edges, which indicates that something was knocked out.
21 If you show us your photograph, you can see that we can barely see the
22 traces. That's the difference. So the issue on hand is the quality of
24 MS. EDGERTON: Can we go back to the photograph of the school
25 for the blind, please? 25090. Thank you. Could I have this marked as a
1 Prosecution exhibit, please, Your Honours?
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit --
4 MS. EDGERTON: Your Honours, I think I'll be ten more minutes.
5 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Could we have the exhibit number
7 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P6368, Your Honours.
8 MS. EDGERTON: With Your Honour's permission, I think I will take
9 ten more minutes to conclude, if that's all right.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please proceed.
11 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
12 Q. Now, I want to go on to scheduled incident F14. That's a tram
13 sniping incident on 23 November 1994. And you deal with it in your
14 report from paragraph 175. Now, the -- I just want to ask you about
15 Mrs. Karacic. One of your claims is that she - she is one of the two
16 women in the tram - was facing to the rear of the tram, so facing east,
17 and she was hit by a bullet that entered her right shoulder and exited
18 through her upper right arm, and you say that at paragraph 181 of your
19 report. Now, you never -- you've said that you never met any of the
20 survivors of these incidents, so obviously you've never seen the entry
21 and exit wounds of Mrs. Karacic; right?
22 A. That's right. I based it on the official report. It is not my
23 finding, it is the official finding.
24 Q. And there were no measurements in that report showing the
25 vertical distance that the bullet fragment travelled inside her arm, are
2 A. That is correct, as far as I know. I have no other information.
3 Q. So your conclusion that the vertical distance the bullet
4 travelled was more than 1.76 centimetres was based on her statement, and
5 you quoted it in your report. You said, as you say, the bullet entered
6 the upper part of her shoulder and exited from the lower part of her
7 upper arm. That's paragraph 182. So your conclusion about the distance
8 travelled is based on that; right?
9 A. It is based on that statement and on general knowledge of
10 anatomy. We know where the upper part of an arm is and what the distance
11 is. It is obvious.
12 Q. Okay. And so your -- additionally, your analysis also assumes
13 that her arm was in a straight vertical downwards position by her side
14 when the bullet fragment struck her; right? She wasn't holding on to any
15 part of the tram, she wasn't scratching her ear, she wasn't adjusting her
16 clothing, your assumption is that her arm was straight downwards by her
18 A. The assumption was that her arm was in a normal position. It is
19 not based only on her injury. There is the injury of another person
20 similar in nature, and it is more likely that they were in that position.
21 So she was not the only one with that kind of injury. The next person
22 had it too.
23 Q. Yes, but you don't know that she couldn't have been doing any one
24 of the things that I described, any number of things that people can do
25 all the time with their arms when they are riding on public transport;
2 A. Right. I think I explained that, that the bullet came from --
3 had the bullet come from the side where she said it had, it would not
4 have ended up in the upper arm. It would have ended up somewhere in the
5 body itself. Irrespective of what she was doing with the arm, had she
6 been hit in the shoulder, the bullet would have ended up inside the body,
7 because that was the angle of the tram as compared to the buildings
8 suspected as having been the source of fire.
9 Q. We'll move on to one final incident, that's sniping incident F15,
10 which is the next one chronologically speaking and the next one in your
11 report and it took place on 27 February 1995. And this is the incident
12 where in your testimony, it's a tram sniping incident, and in your
13 testimony you agreed that this was probably an automatic rifle or a
14 machine-gun that strafed the tram, and that's at transcript page 39000,
15 and that's also where you claimed at transcript page 38999 that one of
16 the traces that the police marked as an exit point was actually something
17 that was made with a felt-tip marker pen, and you also referred to that
18 in regard to image 108 of your report.
19 So --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Based on your evidence about the felt-tip marker pen, if you're
22 right, this must have been an intentional manipulation of the crime
24 A. I'd rather not go into that. I am only discussing what I can see
25 in the photograph. I see the number 3 and I see the comment in photo
1 documentation. It is stated that it was marked with a number 3,
2 indicating the place where the projectile went out at the same height as
3 the height on the outer side of the tram. That's what we find in the
5 Q. Well, you did get into it because you said -- because you
6 mentioned it. You said that the exit point is a dot that was marked with
7 a felt-tipped marker pen. So -- but there is no way that a professional
8 officer would accidentally make a mark on a wall and confuse it for a
9 real hole; right? So you're alleging an intentional manipulation of the
10 crime scene.
11 A. I don't know what he would have done and how he arrived at this.
12 It's a fact that this was marked with a marker and that the exit point is
13 down there where we see it and that they wrote that what had been marked
14 with a marker was the exit point, which it isn't. I don't know if it's a
15 mistake or something else. I don't want to go into that. But these are
16 the facts. There is a marking made with a marker, and the exit point is
17 lower down, and they marked the -- marked it with a number 3 - I mean the
18 marker trace - but the angle of descent was such that the bullet couldn't
19 have come from the white high-rise buildings. The exit point is lower
20 down and not what has been marked here, and that's a fact.
21 Q. Well, you keep saying these are facts but that's just your
22 evidence, isn't it?
23 A. There is other evidence too, and I said as much. In this case --
24 Q. [Microphone not activated]
25 A. No. We measured the -- both lines, how thick they are, and the
1 thickness -- their thickness matches. We stated that thickness and we
2 haven't made that up. It's all measured.
3 Q. So the effect -- assuming you're correct, the effect of that
4 marking would be to conceal the evidence that -- the evidence -- to
5 conceal the evidence with regard to the angle of descent and to conceal
6 the evidence that the shots came from a nearby Bosnian building. If
7 you're right, that's the effect of that marking?
8 A. I'm not saying that the intention was to conceal anything. I'm
9 saying that the point of entry and the point of exit are at approximately
10 the same height -- what has also been mentioned and the photo
11 documentation. And that position of these two points indicates that the
12 shot was fired from the white high-rise buildings at Grbavica. They
13 don't go into details. I don't know what their intention was. But to
14 me, this is evidence that fire was not opened from the white high-rise
16 Q. You said fire was opened from the Museum of Revolution or some
17 other building, and that's at paragraph 189 of your report.
18 A. [No interpretation]
19 Q. And in your testimony you added another possible building. You
20 said -- I just want to look at a picture of the Museum of Revolution, and
21 that appears as image 106 at page 155 of your report. Do you see it on
22 the screen in front of you? So your claim --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Your claim is that a Bosnian forces machine-gunner could sit on
25 top of that building and strafe a passing tram without being detected by
1 anyone on this main thoroughfare; right?
2 A. He could have been lying or been in a different position, not
3 necessarily sitting. And I mentioned that building as one of the
4 options. It's merely an assumption. And the opening of fire was very
5 short. He opens fire, immediately hides, and that's it.
6 Q. Just one more photograph and then we will be done. From P1738,
7 which is also one of the items you sourced in your -- one of the exhibits
8 you sourced in your report. The photo is on page 109 of P1738 that
9 I want to look at. And the English version of -- the English translation
10 of the text below the photo is at page 104. This, in one of the reports
11 you sourced, is an image from a sniper's nest on the 10th floor of the
12 building at Grbavica 8 where you see a view of a tram passing in front of
13 the Museum of Revolution. So if there had been a machine-gunner lying or
14 in a different position, not necessarily sitting on that building, the
15 Museum of Revolution, in full view of SRK forces, he wouldn't have been
16 there for very long, would he have?
17 A. Well, that's a hypothesis now. I never claimed that he must have
18 been right here. This photograph shows that he could have been here
19 because you see there is like a fence on the roof or, rather, a low wall.
20 He could have been there and fired a burst of fire.
21 Q. [Microphone not activated]
22 A. I'm about -- he could have been targeted from this
23 high-rise building but it's to be expected that he didn't stay there
24 long, if he was there in the first place.
25 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you, nothing further, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Edgerton, could you tell us the reference number
2 or the footnote number where Mr. Poparic referenced to this -- made
3 reference to this photo?
4 MS. EDGERTON: I can. It will take me a couple of minutes
5 because it's at a different part of his report, but I'll do that.
6 JUDGE KWON: Very well. I take it that you have re-examination,
7 Mr. Karadzic, for this witness. But before we hear your re-examination,
8 the Chamber is minded to take an early break, if it is -- if it poses
9 another problem.
10 We will take a break for half an hour and resume at 10.40.
11 --- Recess taken at 10.11 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 10.42 a.m.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Edgerton?
14 MS. EDGERTON: Just to answer your query from just before we
15 left, Your Honour, P1738 was sourced in footnotes 32 and 34 of the
17 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
18 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, good morning,
20 Excellencies. Good morning to everybody.
21 Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
22 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Poparic.
23 A. Good morning.
24 Q. Please pause a bit longer before answering.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please see image 108 from
1 this document? I would like to start with the most recent things to
2 continue with the other parts of the cross-examination. Image 108. The
3 page number is 157 in Serbian, and in English it's part of paragraph 188.
4 One is enough. And please enlarge it sufficiently.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Mr. Poparic, did you have satisfactory documentation from the
7 point of view of the nature of the injury or, to put it differently, do
8 we know exactly in which part of the body Rabija Ilalagic [phoen] was
10 A. Talking about this case, we didn't even have the photo
11 documentation. We only had black and white photos where nothing could be
12 seen. We got these photographs by mere chance with a witness who had
13 nothing to do with this case. We obtained these better quality
14 photographs by chance but what we had received originally was not usable
15 at all.
16 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us if we know the trajectory of the
17 projectile inside the tram?
18 A. No, not inside the tram, but what's important for this case, the
19 police stated that ten bullets were registered, of which seven hit the
20 panelling, two probably went through the glass. Of these eight, four
21 stayed in the panelling and the rest went through. The fact that four
22 bullets didn't go through the panelling shows that the angle of descent
23 was great, and that's why they stayed inside the panelling. If the
24 bullet had been fired from the white high-rise buildings, it would have
25 hit the tram at a very small angle of descent, and would have pierced the
1 panelling at almost the same height as the point of entry. This
2 photograph and the description in the official report shows that the
3 bullet was fired from a small distance and at a great angle of descent.
4 Q. What does mark 9 signify?
5 A. I'm not sure. Probably the bullet went through the opening of
6 the radiator, and judging by this photograph I would say that this is
7 where it ended up, but I don't exactly remember everything from the photo
8 documentation. It must be a trace of that bullet which fell on the
10 Q. Is there a deformity in front of mark 9?
11 A. I cannot tell. It's very dark.
12 Q. Can we please zoom in on the photograph? There must be a reason
13 for this number 9.
14 A. Yes. Well, maybe this is because of the stamp but probably it's
15 some trace of the bullet that went through the panelling. At any rate,
16 this isn't important for an assessment of where the bullet came from.
17 Q. But if it ended up here, then the first variant is even better
18 for the Defence?
19 A. Yes. The angle of descent would be even greater. But let's not
20 forget that the outer bullet-hole is somewhat higher than the inner one.
21 But the angle is great. If we compare the outer hole which is shown in
22 image 107 and the trace on the radiator then we can tell that the angle
23 was great.
24 Q. We can zoom out now and let me ask you if you can mark the
25 trajectory from the exit point in the radiator to the outer panelling and
1 on to this deformity in the seat support, with a dotted line. That is,
2 draw a full line inside the tram and a dotted line for the trajectory --
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. -- in the panelling.
5 A. Yes. We can suppose that this was the trajectory.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Edgerton?
7 MS. EDGERTON: I'm just looking in the transcript of a few
8 minutes ago to see where I asked a single question in cross-examination
9 for this incident and about the trajectory of the bullet, and the
10 cross-examination was only about the marking, Your Honour, the felt-tip
11 marker marking.
12 JUDGE KWON: But it boils down to the issue of trajectory at the
13 end of the day. But, yes, Mr. Robinson, could you help us?
14 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President, I was just thinking the same
15 thing. You can't limit re-examination that fine so that we can only
16 contest those things that she has pointed to if the answer is found in
17 another aspect of the same incident. So I think that you're correct that
18 issue of the trajectory was raised by the cross-examination.
19 JUDGE KWON: Would you like to add anything, Ms. Edgerton?
20 MS. EDGERTON: Not at this moment.
21 JUDGE KWON: We will allow the accused to continue. Yes, please
22 carry on.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me just explain. I also drew
24 this angle alpha. This is an approximate angle. If mark 9 or if
25 number 9 marks a projectile trace, then obviously the angle is greater.
1 That's why I drew it here and marked it alpha.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Please date and initial this document.
4 A. Today is the 6th or the 5th?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can this be admitted?
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3647, Your Honours.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we now get P6367?
9 Three photographs. P6367. Thank you.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Can you please take a look at all these three photographs, start
12 with your own, and continue with van der Weijden's and finish with
13 Pita's. Can you mark from what direction you think the bullet came and
14 from which direction it came according to Pita?
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat his answer.
16 MS. EDGERTON: The interpreters just asked for the witness to
17 repeat his answer.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just said to this lady that it
19 was all right. I marked a rock in my photograph. It is number 1. And
20 this rock can be also seen on Mr. van der Weijden's photograph. I can
21 mark it 2. And the third photograph, this rock cannot be seen. But
22 there is an arrow drawn by Mr. Pita indicating the direction in which the
23 Baba rock is. I marked it 3. The directions match in my photograph and
24 that of Mr. van der Weijden, whereas there is a significant difference in
25 Mr. Pita's photograph.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Please can you indicate the direction as marked by Pita in your
3 photograph and Mr. van der Weijden's?
4 A. The area that Pita marked cannot be seen here, but I will mark --
5 I will draw arrows that approximately match our direction. I'll mark
6 them with a number 4 and a number 5, respectively. Whereas what Mr. Pita
7 marked would roughly correspond to this. I mark these with the numbers 6
8 and 7 respectively. There is an error of about 20 to 30 degrees.
9 Q. Thank you. Please date and initial this.
10 A. [Marks]
11 JUDGE KWON: I'm not getting your --
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know if the portion outside
13 the white area will be recorded or saved.
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes, it will be saved.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Should I -- should I sign once
17 JUDGE KWON: No, it's okay. We will receive this.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D3648, Your Honours.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, 1D6926, please. Thank
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. This is a view of the Sarajevo valley from Grdonj. Could we
23 please zoom in on the left-most third? Can we scroll down a bit or maybe
24 we can do it like this. Can you see in this photograph of Trebevic from
25 Grdonj, can you see the Baba rock? Stijena Baba? Perhaps we can scroll
1 down on the photograph some more. No, I want to go further down.
2 Perhaps -- no, the other way around, I need the upper part. Some more,
3 some more. The other -- lower down. Can you recognise the
4 Lukavica-Pale road?
5 A. I'm afraid this is too high up. Perhaps here, Stijena Baba,
6 around here?
7 Q. You have to use the pen. We cannot see. We do not see what
8 you're doing.
9 A. I'm trying to tell what it is. It is very, very small.
10 Q. Could I kindly ask you to go from right to left?
11 A. I see that but I'm trying -- it's very hard for me to see. This
12 seems to be the plateau where that motel was. And then it would be here.
13 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the end of the
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe this is Stijena Baba but it
16 is barely visible. I'm afraid.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Do you know where this is, Zagrici?
19 A. Zagrici? Zagrici is down here, way down here, below this road,
20 that's where it should be.
21 JUDGE KWON: When it's barely visible, I'm wondering, whether
22 there is --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes.
24 JUDGE KWON: Whether there is a point to continue this exercise,
25 Mr. Karadzic.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, if there is no certainty
2 and visibility then I will give up, although it would be useful this
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I be of assistance? There was
5 a photograph that I took and that was displayed in the courtroom.
6 Unfortunately it's not here right now, and it was also taken from
7 Spicasta Stijena, Grdonj. Stijena Baba can be seen very nicely. At an
8 altitude of 50 to 100 metres there is a smaller Stijena or rock, probably
9 what Mr. Weijden and I took a picture of, I did not deal with that
10 because I had other things indicating that that's not Stijena Baba but
11 there is a similar Stijena rock in a similar direction and similar to
12 Stijena Baba and that's probably the one that we took a picture of.
13 There is a photograph, I don't know whether it can be used but it
14 certainly does exist.
15 Q. Thank you. In whose territory was this smaller rock?
16 A. In the territory of the BH Army because Stijena Baba was the
17 separation line.
18 Q. Thank you. Now, actually we are going to give up on this. This
19 can be removed. On page 87 of yesterday's transcript, part of a UN
20 report about the incident of the 18th of November, 1994, was read out to
21 you. Did you have any insight regarding the investigation material or,
22 actually, did the UN investigate the incident?
23 A. I don't know about that. I know that it was the Bosnian police
24 working on this, but they also did not have access to the site, on the
25 basis of the investigator who took part in the investigation.
1 Q. P004459, could we have a look at that, 00459. Prosecution
2 report. Let us not call up this UN document. Do you remember that it
3 was put to you that the French Battalion responded vis-a-vis the Serb
4 positions, they fired back?
5 A. Yes, yes. I said it was from a 14.5-millimetre machine-gun, and
6 I said then that bursts of gunfire could be heard in that film that was
7 shown. However, in the film, there is no gunfire coming from that
8 14.5-millimetre machine-gun and you cannot see that it was fired at that
9 moment because 14.5 millimetre -- it's actually mounted on an APC or a
10 tank and then it would have to be then and it's possible that they fired
11 after that gunfire that was heard in that film so we cannot link this
12 incident to that gunfire on the basis of what we have available.
13 Q. Can we look at page 4 now or actually the fifth page of this
14 report or, rather, this document? I'm going to read it out to you.
15 Could you please find that same page in English? It's probably the first
16 page. Underneath these names in line 10, it says:
17 "At the moment when they were crossing Franje Rackog Street or,
18 rather, when they stopped stepped on the sidewalk on the other side of
19 the street, a shot was -- a shot came from the direction of Grbavica."
20 Is this something that you saw?
21 A. Yes. I'm familiar with these findings but --
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Edgerton?
23 MS. EDGERTON: Just to avoid any misunderstanding on the part of
24 the witness, I think Dr. Karadzic should be clear that when they stepped
25 to the pavement on the other side of the street, on the side closer to
1 the earth museum, a shot was heard; because as Dr. Karadzic read it out
2 that indicates not necessarily the side of the street that the document
3 reports them as being on.
4 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
5 Yes, Mr. Karadzic?
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's a translation mistake. The
7 APC of the Ukrainian Battalion was near the museum and it changes the
8 entire meaning. The wounded were already on the other side of the
9 street, and that is how these translations, these mistranslations, change
10 the actual situation on the ground.
11 MS. EDGERTON: With respect, I don't think that's a
13 JUDGE KWON: I find it difficult to follow. If there is a -- if
14 you are saying that there is a mistranslation, why don't we ask the
15 witness to read out the sentence. The paragraph -- the relevant part.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Please, Mr. Poparic, could you find this part where it says, "At
18 the moment...," et cetera, and then read to these numbers, 225 or
19 whatever it was. So, "At the moment...," read it slowly so that the
20 interpreters can interpret it correctly.
21 JUDGE KWON: Let's find out whether we are on the correct page.
22 English page.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, towards the bottom of the page
24 and in Serbian it's the entire paragraph. It is the lower part of the
25 second paragraph. That was fine in English. Could you go back to the
1 first page in English that we had on the screen, the lower part in
2 English. [In English] "At the moment they were crossing ..."
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes, could you start reading, Mr. Poparic?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "At the moment when they were
5 crossing Franje Rackog Street, more precisely when they stepped on to the
6 pavement on the other side of the street, from the direction of Grbavica
7 or, rather, from the aggressor positions, a shot was heard. The mother
8 and the boy were hit by the same round, fell to the ground, and the two
9 men approached them to give them first aid. At the time the shot was
10 heard from Franje Rackog Street, on the side that is closer to the
11 national museum ..."
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In English can we have the next
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]
15 A. "... there was APC of the Ukrainian Battalion, registration
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Could you please go on to the end of this paragraph?
19 A. "Registration number UNPF 6495, while on the pavement of
20 Franje Rackog Street, there was not a single UNPROFOR vehicle. Soon
21 after the incident, two armoured personnel carriers of the UNPROFOR
22 French Battalion, licence plate numbers UNPF 15225 and UNPF 15841,
23 arrived on the screen and parked at Franje Rackog Street."
24 Q. Thank you.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we have page 1 in English
1 back on our screens now? Could we enlarge the lower part?
2 Your Excellencies, now I'm going to show you what was
3 interjected, what is not in the original:
4 [In English] "At the moment they were crossing Franje Rackog
5 Street, more precisely when they stepped on the pavement on the other
6 side of the street," and now we have implanted another that does not
7 exist in original, "on the side closer to the earthly museum."
8 [Interpretation] A completely invented sentence. If someone
9 finds it in the original, I will admit to all the sins of this world.
10 JUDGE KWON: I think when reading out it's connected to some
11 later part. I'm not sure how much it changes the meaning, but we will
12 take a look at this later on. Shall we continue?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may, this museum is mentioned,
14 but only in relation to the position of the APC of the
15 Ukrainian Battalion. However, this is just interjected. If you compare
16 it to what the witness read out and also demand from the service to tell
17 you what this is all about, and I wonder who did this and for what
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Poparic, do you remember that they said there that French
21 UNPROFOR was there and that they responded with fire towards the Serbs
22 and here this report says that they came after the incident?
23 A. Yes, that's right.
24 Q. Thank you. Now, could we please take a look at page 91? You
25 were told, it was suggested to you that the French put these small sticks
1 into bullet-holes to see what the direction was. Could we please have
2 that photograph now, with that dust?
3 A. It's photograph 95, isn't it?
4 Q. I believe so. What's the page?
5 A. 137 in our version.
6 Q. 137 in Serbian, and what's the paragraph?
7 A. The paragraph is 154.
8 Q. Could this please be zoomed in, I mean the photograph? And I'm
9 asking you kindly to activate the blue pen. Before that, a physics
10 question, Mr. Poparic. The angle of descent and the angle of ascent, is
11 there a correlation in terms of reflection?
12 A. Yes. There is an analogy not only as far as light is concerned
13 but also in such cases dust, and so on. For example, specifically, now
14 that we are discussing projectiles, ricochet is an example of that. It
15 behaves analogously to light, so the angle of descent of the projectile
16 when it ricochets, it is approximately equal to the angle of ricochet
17 except in some cases when it's an irregular impact, and so on.
18 Q. Thank you. Could we see this photograph enlarged over the entire
20 JUDGE KWON: Let's enlarge it.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 Q. Could you please activate the blue pen now and underneath this
23 oval shape, this ellipse, could you draw a horizontal line that would be
24 long enough from the green area to the other side of the tracks?
25 A. This would be it roughly. Should I mark it with a number 1?
1 Q. Yes. Thank you. Could you now draw a perpendicular line?
2 A. On the right side of the ellipse so that we do not disturb the
3 image in any way?
4 Q. Thank you.
5 A. Yes. It's a bit on the pavement, too, but never mind.
6 Q. Thank you. Number 3 now, towards the right, could you draw a
7 line that would be under a, say, 10-degree angle?
8 A. If fire came from the other side of the Miljacka River it could
9 not be more than a 5-degree angle. We saw according to the tables it's
10 less than 1 degree and then there is also the sight angle, so it should
11 be like this.
12 Q. Thank you. Number 3 then, could you place number 3 there and
13 could you also mark it as less than 10 degrees?
14 A. I'm going to put that it's approximately 5, that would be the
15 angle, and I can also put that it's less than 10.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 A. [Marks]
18 Q. Can you now determine this column, how close it is to 90 degrees?
19 A. Very close. If we compare it to this trajectory number 2, it's
20 almost parallel. However, number 3, how that would continue, had the
21 projectile arrived along 3, since it's a small angle, it would go through
22 the ground and practically it would ricochet this way. This would be
23 direction number 4.
24 Q. Thank you. Can you put your initials there and the date?
25 A. [Marks]
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
3 THE REGISTRAR: D3649, Your Honours.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Did have you an insight into different expert reports that were
7 produced by expert witnesses on the Prosecution side?
8 A. I did. Which ones do you have in mind?
9 Q. Thank you. Did any of them spend the war period in Sarajevo, any
10 of those experts?
11 A. I think only Berko Zecevic did, who resides in Sarajevo and he
12 spent the war there, as far as I know.
13 Q. Thank you. And the foreign expert witnesses did not spend the
14 war there, or do you have any information that they did spend the war
15 there or did they see -- that they saw anything?
16 A. I do not have that information, which does not exclude the
17 possibility that none of them were there at some point in time.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could Mr. Karadzic kindly
20 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, could you repeat your question?
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. I'll be happy to. You were asked by the Prosecution whether you
23 were there during the war. Can you tell us what the source of your
24 information was? What did you use?
25 A. The source of my information was the material offered in this
1 case, that is to say official reports, UNPROFOR reports, the transcript,
2 witness statements and testimony, photographs, footage, et cetera,
3 et cetera. Plus I visited the locations. So whatever I could get my
4 hands on is what I used in the analysis. There was quite a lot of
6 Q. Thank you. In which -- which of the incidents involved full
7 forensic documentation, and medical documentation, which could
8 undoubtedly determine the angle, trajectory and type of injury?
9 A. No. And that's what confused me the most. In the plethora of
10 material, I did not come across any forensic analysis. There were
11 numerous findings cited from those reports but I did not see a single
12 forensic medical report.
13 Q. Thank you. What is the range resulting in an acceptable
14 precision of an automatic rifle?
15 A. Well, depends which kind of automatic rifle. If we are talking
16 about an automatic rifle M70 which is 70.62 millimetres in calibre and
17 which was the most frequent weapon, it can be used to distances up to
18 800 metres. Objectively speaking, it can be used at distances up to
19 400 metres. That is its basic use. Next, we have weapons that are more
20 powerful than the automatic rifle and the machine-gun, which is M-84,
21 which can be used at ranges up to 1500 metres. But its useful range,
22 efficient range, is 1.000 metres. In the firing tables, for that type of
23 machine-gun, the possible dispersion is cited only up to the distance
24 I mentioned because if one goes further, at longer distances, dispersion
25 is greater and it is believed that it is not optimally used. It can be
1 used in some very specific situations but no great precision is expected
2 of that machine-gun at ranges over 1.000 metres.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 A. The firing tables are attached to the report.
5 Q. Thank you. I'm referring to the incident involving Ms. Dzevlan
6 next. In the arsenal of the VRS or the JNA, was there a sniper rifle
7 which could fire bursts of fire?
8 A. No. In principal there is no point for a sniper rifle to fire
9 bursts of fire because it decreases precision which is the basic purpose
10 of a sniping rifle. The JNA and VRS sniper rifle that we used the most
11 was M76, which is a semi-automatic rifle with ten rounds in its
12 cartridge, in its magazine. The fact that it is semi-automatic simply
13 decreases the amount of time spent between two rounds fired. So it
14 increases the possibility of firing the next round more quickly, after
15 having corrected the firing elements as needed.
16 Q. Thank you. In e-court can we have D670? Can you confirm -- I'll
17 read it out -- ah, yes we see it in English, too. Can you confirm that
18 it is stated here that Sanija was returning home at around 4.30 p.m. The
19 statement was provided, I think, in 19 --
20 A. The 30th of September, 1994. The first line.
21 Q. Yes, precisely. Is it stated here that first she heard
22 ricochetted bullets and then she was hit? I'll read it out.
23 A. Yes, you don't need to. It is correct. She was moving down
24 Nikolje Demonja Street when bullets started to fly, et cetera, et cetera.
25 Q. Thank you. She does not mention the church but she actually
1 believed it was fire from Dobrinja 4. Can you tell us how far it was
2 from that location?
3 A. Dobrinja 4 that she referred to was some 480 metres away. It is
4 a specific location because it is visible from Serb positions but only at
5 an angle of 6 degrees. If we take into account what was visible from the
6 incident location, it encompasses the angle of 6 degrees. What is
7 interesting there? Because the separation line was on the street itself,
8 on one side was the VRS, on the other the BiH army, as testified by
9 General Ismet Hadzic. In that kind of situation, I don't think anyone
10 opened fire. It would be unreasonable to open fire from either side at a
11 distance of ten metres. They probably talked to each other rather than
12 firing at each other. When it comes to this incident, we have no medical
13 documentation, which would give us any indication as to the nature of
14 wounds. If there was a trace on the left-hand side of the body, and if
15 it is higher up than the trace on the right-hand side of the body, then
16 the projectile came from this area. Even if we knew that, it would be
17 impossible to determine who fired the round because the position of both
18 sides was basically at the same place, ten metres apart. That's what
19 Ms. Edgerton asked me, whether it was important to use the GPS to
20 determine the position 2 metres this or that way. It is not. It only
21 changes the descent point by a few centimetres. If we had forensic
22 medical documentation then it would be possible to determine who fired
23 the burst, otherwise we can't. Obviously in this case we had a burst of
25 Q. Thank you.
1 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, where on this document does the lady
2 talk about the ricochetted bullet at all.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will read it out, "When bullets
4 started falling around me, that were fired from Dobrinja...," and in some
5 other statements she said that she he could hear "bullets bouncing off
6 the tarmac."
7 JUDGE KWON: It's on the other document?
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE KWON: Please be cautious not to be leading. Please
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we next have a page
12 from the Galic testimony - it is 92 ter in this case - page 3518 of the
13 transcript. Perhaps I can read it out for you. Answer to the question
14 as to when it happened:
15 [In English] "I think it was between 3.00 and 4.00 in the
17 MS. EDGERTON: That has an exhibit number in this case and I'm
18 just trying to find it. Perhaps Dr. Karadzic is able to do that and then
19 we could all see it.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have P2291? It is instead
21 of the statement. And then page 3518, please. So six pages up. Thank
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. You see the answer at the top of the first page. She said it was
25 between 3.00 and 4.00. Then look at line 19:
1 [In English] "You have testified that you had visited your mother
2 at the hospital and you were on your way back."
3 [Interpretation] So it is the Prosecutor's assertion that she had
4 already testified that she was visiting her mother and she confirmed.
5 Did you have this in mind when you entered it in your report?
6 A. Yes. This is what you can find in my report as I mentioned
7 earlier on this morning for the sake of the Chamber.
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes?
9 MS. EDGERTON: If I may, Your Honours, I don't know about this,
10 actually, because -- because on the page immediately prior to this, 3517,
11 is the witness's actual evidence about why she went to the hospital.
12 I just don't know if it's appropriate for --
13 JUDGE KWON: Why don't we leave it at that?
14 MS. EDGERTON: Yes.
15 JUDGE KWON: Let's continue.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at page 3519, the next
17 page. I'll read it out in English, from line 11:
18 [In English] "At the moment that I was shot, I didn't even know
19 that I was hit. I could just feel a blow, but I found out that I had
20 been hit after I saw the bullets that were ricochetting from the concrete
21 and I just continued to ride my bicycle and I managed to get home."
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Did the witness here mention the ricochet?
24 A. Yes, as regards the previous part of her testimony when she said
25 that bullets were falling around. A bullet fired from that distance
1 hitting the concrete will ricochet. It is the nature of the round.
2 There is always an angle. Irrespective of the fact whether she said so
3 or not, it was definitely a ricochet.
4 Q. Thank you. When talking about the church, can machine-guns have
6 A. Machine-guns do not have silencers. It is unnecessary, although
7 it could be manufactured. However, if you have in mind the document we
8 were shown, an anti-aircraft machine-gun was mentioned which is
9 12.7 millimetres in calibre, and the VRS did have it. You probably all
10 saw the machine-gun. I can't tell off the cuff how long the barrel is
11 but it's in total some 2 metres long and is carried by two people, and it
12 has handles on the sides. I can't see how it could have been fitted in
13 the church tower. The assumption is that there was the anti-aircraft
14 machine-gun but I don't know where it could have been placed in the
15 church tower because it's bigger than the size of the space in the tower
16 itself. There is also no logic to use an observation point to mount an
17 anti-aircraft machine-gun because the observation post is more important
18 than the machine-gun which can be placed in a different location.
19 Q. Thank you. Are there incidents or is there evidence that anybody
20 in Dobrinja came to harm from that anti-aircraft machine-gun on the
21 church tower?
22 A. I don't know of any.
23 Q. When there was discussion about the incident involving
24 Tarik Zunic, did Tarik -- or, rather, was Tarik Zunic there as instructed
25 by security when you visited the site?
1 A. No. We didn't have permission to go into houses or anything. In
2 connection with incident number 2 at Sedrenik, I failed to say yesterday
3 when Ms. Edgerton asked me if we were in that house, of course we were
4 not because the witness is protected and it didn't cross our minds to
5 disturb that person. We neither wanted to nor had permission to contact
7 Q. In the context of air-bombs and range error, can you tell us
8 about the Grad missile? Can you express its range in percentages?
9 What's the maximum range?
10 A. The maximum range is a little -- is just under 21 kilometres but
11 you can say 21 kilometres.
12 Q. Can we express that as 100 per cent?
13 A. Yes. The distance indicated by Mr. Gaynor was 6.000 metres which
14 is just above 30 per cent.
15 Q. Thank you. And what about a modified air-bomb? What's
16 100 per cent there?
17 A. Well, about 10 kilometres, and the 6 kilometres in that case are
18 about 60 per cent, maybe a bit over 60. It's closer to the maximum
19 range. And that's where Mr. Gaynor made a mistake in the comparison
20 because you must also take into consideration the relative relations
21 because a dispersion depends on the maximum range. Let me give you an
22 example. We have short range anti-tank missiles. Their range is 400
23 metres. If we were to apply the logic to compare it to the Grad missile
24 at 6 kilometres, the dispersion would be such that it would be completely
1 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down.
2 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Poparic, dealing with some technical issues, the
3 interpreters will find it very difficult to follow. Could you speak very
4 slowly? And could you repeat the last part, from Grad missiles.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I'll give you an
6 example for shorter range missiles. Anti-tank missiles, the range of
7 which is 400 metres, for example, are very precise at those distances.
8 If we were to apply the same logic in comparing them to the Grad
9 missiles, the result would be that they are very unprecise at these
10 ranges because the dispersion depends on the maximum range. So we must
11 consider the maximum range of any missiles and then we can compare the
12 dispersion in percentages at the maximum range. If a missile has a short
13 range, then the dispersion is small. I don't know if I was clear. The
14 mistake Mr. Gaynor made when comparing the Grad missile at a range of
15 6.000 metres with a modified air-bomb at the same range is -- or, rather,
16 consists in the following: He should have compared the Grad missile at
17 6.000 metres and the modified air-bomb at a range of about 2.000 metres,
18 thereabouts. These values could be compared then because 6.000 metres is
19 closer to the maximum range of a modified air-bomb than it is to the
20 maximum range of the Grad missile. We saw from the firing tables that as
21 the range rises, as the range increases, the range error probable
22 diminishes. That's also a characteristic of the modified air-bomb. They
23 are completely the same in these -- when it comes to the external
24 ballistics characteristics, the same laws can be applied to both.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Thank you. Can you express that in percentages of the range?
2 A. I tried absolute values. If we had a Grad missile --
3 Q. What is its error at 80 per cent of the maximum range and what's
4 the value for the modified air-bomb?
5 A. The value should be roughly the same. If you had taken air-bomb
6 at a range of about 2.000 metres, according to my rough calculation, the
7 error would be more or less the same as that of the Grad missile at
8 6.000 metres. In relative terms it's about the same, only the distances
9 are not the same, the absolute distances.
10 Q. Thank you. Let us take a look at the diagram on page 73 in
11 yesterday's testimony. It was not admitted, and I have a question
12 concerning that diagram. If you would bear with me. It has to do with
13 paragraph 164, between 134 and 146. Or maybe I can do that after the
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you please tell me when the
16 break is due?
17 JUDGE KWON: About ten past 12 or quarter past.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then I will make an effort to
19 finish by then.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. On page 6 of yesterday's transcript, a heavy shell was mentioned.
22 Can you tell me what kind of shell hit Markale? Was it two heavy shells
23 or two light shells, and how do they differ?
24 A. I think that was discussed on Friday. A heavy shell differs from
25 a light shell, M72, first of all in its shape, the stabilisers. Markale
1 was hit by a light shell, M62. I can tell by the stabilisers shown. Why
2 did we mention this shell? Because UNPROFOR based its analysis on -- of
3 the possibility of the radar being catching the shell on the M49 shell.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat his last
6 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Could you repeat your last sentence?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They used the firing tables for the
8 M49 shell, and that is why we also used the M49 shell in our report, and
9 we also gave a graphic firing tables for this shell, which show that the
10 parameters stated in their comprehensive report were taken from the M49
11 shell firing table and more specifically for the basic charge. And that
12 is a great mistake.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Could such a shell with the basic charge come from the Serbian
15 positions and avoid the radar beam?
16 A. No. The maximum range of that shell is 1524 metres, if
17 I remember correctly, and the separation line was about 2.000 metres away
18 from the incident site. Another 500 metres were needed for such an M49
19 shell to reach that target.
20 Q. Then the Serbian mortar must have been on the first line?
21 A. No. It must have been in the territory controlled by the
22 BH Army. But the stabiliser also shows that it wasn't that shell.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please see photograph 49
25 from Mr. Poparic's report?
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. You were asked about the centre of the radar beam. Please, can
3 you indicate another centre in this photograph taking into account the
4 lower limit of 548 metres. We must have a wider beam considering the
5 constant value of 548.
6 A. This is the wrong image.
7 JUDGE KWON: We are dealing with Subotic's report, co-authored by
8 this witness. What's the exhibit number?
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] P3540.
10 JUDGE KWON: It should be a D number.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] D3551, paragraph 109. Image 112.
12 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Can you tell us based on this diagram how UNPROFOR could have
14 made that mistake and then I would like to display the image with the
16 A. There are a number of curves here so maybe I should mark the
17 characteristic parts.
18 Q. Please use the pen and explain what you're marking.
19 A. UNPROFOR said in its report that after the analysis they
20 established that a shell fired from a distance of 950 metres would have
21 been caught by the radar beam. This roughly corresponds to this value.
22 This is line 1. This is the trajectory of a shell fired from a distance
23 of 950 metres. UNPROFOR says that it would certainly have been caught.
24 If you look at the apex of that line, you will see that at these
25 548 metres -- but it's at 548 metres. That means that all trajectories
1 above that would have been caught and any trajectory below that would not
2 have. And they give another example. They say that a shell fired from
3 900 metres, that is a distance that is a bit shorter, would certainly
4 have been caught by the radar beam. As you see, all trajectories with a
5 shorter range of 950 have a greater ordinate, and they enter the radar
6 beam. That is UNPROFOR's position.
7 What is their greatest mistake? They used the same diagram and
8 said if the ordinate is 548 here, but if we have a greater range and the
9 maximum range is about 1500, I'll mark it here, what -- that's the
10 trajectory of the shell with the maximum range. So if it's fired from a
11 1520 metres then it will go under the radar beam, which can be seen from
12 this diagram. And finally, their conclusion was that all shells fired at
13 a range from 1524 up to 3.000 metres would have gone under the radar
14 beam. That is their greatest mistake. Why? Because firstly the
15 trajectory I marked with the number 2, that is the trajectory at the
16 maximum range, has a much smaller descent angle than 67 degrees. Maximum
17 range trajectories have an initial angle of about 45 degrees - under
18 ideal conditions, that is - and the angle of descent is a bit greater.
19 So these trajectories must be ruled out.
20 Q. Why must it be ruled out?
21 A. Because it couldn't have hit that site. It would have had to
22 fall on the marketplace, if the angle is inferior to 67 degrees.
23 Q. Which building would it have hit?
24 A. It would have hit a building at the Markale Market. I'm talking
25 about the incident --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat his answer?
2 JUDGE KWON: Could you repeat your answer?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] How is it supposed to be
4 established whether the shell had passed underneath the radar beam when
5 this height was established up to which the radar beam came? For each
6 and every chart it was necessary to determine the distance from which the
7 shell had to be fired so that it would have a minimum angle of descent of
8 67 degrees, and then it should be checked whether at this point it goes
9 below or above the radar beam. We showed that for both shells, and in
10 neither case was it possible to -- for the shell to pass underneath the
11 radar beam.
12 Q. Thank you. Could you please initial this and put the date and
13 could we then have image 13?
14 A. [Marks]
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could this be admitted?
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D3650, Your Honours.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. 113, please, the next image. Mr. Gaynor asked you about the
20 centre of the beam. Now, once we get the image, put it wherever you
21 wish, upper or lower; however, observe the 548 metres and tell us what
22 that means. Image 113. Thank you. Could you please activate the pen
23 and then also draw this line at 548 and then?
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not hear the end of
25 Mr. Karadzic's question or the witness's answer.
1 JUDGE KWON: The interpreters were not able to hear both of your
2 remarks, last part of your question and the witness's answer.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. I'll deal with it slowly. Could you use this same dotted line to
5 show the centre of the beam that can be as high as you want, on the
6 condition that you abide by the 548.
7 A. We'll put the centre here, for instance. And then there would
8 only be a wider radar beam. So as this centre increases -- well,
9 actually because this lower line, that is UNPROFOR information on the
10 basis of their analysis that they gave to the technicians, they came to
11 the conclusions that the radar was at that level. So it's only the lower
12 line that matters to us. The centre of the radar is not of interest to
13 us. It is of interest to the radar operator, the technician, in order to
14 determine the angle of the radar and so on. For our analysis it is
15 totally irrelevant, the centre. It is only the lower line that matters;
16 that is to say, what goes below does not -- is not caught by the radar
17 and what goes above is caught by the radar. That's quite simple.
18 Q. Thank you. Could you initial this and could you put the date?
19 A. [Marks]
20 JUDGE KWON: Shall we -- are you tendering this?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Excellencies, sorry.
22 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Poparic, you will move the centre of the radar
23 to a higher position. Can you not move it to the left or right?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It can be moved both to the left
25 and right, but as I've already said the position is determined on the
1 basis of the UNPROFOR analysis. We didn't change anything. So for these
2 radar positions, UNPROFOR conducted an analysis and they came to the
3 conclusion that the radar could not catch this. This is UNPROFOR
4 information. We cannot change that. That's the way it is. This is what
5 was done by the technicians, the radio -- the radar operators. That's
6 the information they provided and we have no reason to doubt this
7 information. Of course, the radar could have been left or right,
8 et cetera.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Please in this image, this silhouette of the building of the
11 market, could you mark where the -- where a projectile would have gone at
12 an angle less than 67 degrees and if it would hit at a lower place?
13 A. Let us assume that the maximum would be 45 degrees. We were
14 going to mark it with --
15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not hear what letter and
16 the rest of the answer.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can it be admitted now?
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes. It is already admitted.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D3651, Your Honours.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation]
21 Q. The interpreters did not hear the rest of your answer, that it
22 would have to hit the building. Is that what you said?
23 A. Yes, when there is a smaller angle, smaller than 67 degrees, that
24 is the trajectory that hits the building, so the shell would have hit the
25 building in that case.
1 Q. Thank you. Speaking -- actually, answering questions that had to
2 do with the incident of Markale I, can you tell us - I'm afraid that you
3 were interrupted - how likely it is for the first shell to be successful,
4 to hit the area?
5 A. I cannot remember the distance. It's in the table. It's in the
6 report. I think it's 0.1 per cent, something like that.
7 Q. 009, right?
8 A. I don't know what the distance is. They are different. I think
9 he asked me about 5.000-something. It would be about 01. That is a very
10 high degree of improbability to have a first hit that would be
11 successful. That's it basically. Actually why did we calculate the
12 probability? Because there were assertions that it's no problem to hit
13 the area of the market with the first shot. This was checked many times
14 in mathematics, in theory, that it's not that likely, it is possible but
15 with a very low degree of probability, so that was the only point.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, I was told that Registry missed the
18 second part of the marking the witness made. Shall we show D3651 as it
19 is saved now? Would you like the witness to make further markings?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, please.
21 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Could you mark two or three lines to the building, say 65- and
23 45-degree angle of descent. That would be what?
24 A. Fifty, a bit more than 50.
25 Q. And what about, say, 45?
1 A. Well, like this. My previous drawing was better. Roughly like
3 Q. I don't know whether it's been recorded in the transcript, but
4 you said that this heavy shell from the end would --
5 A. A bit more than 45, say 50. From a maximum range it would hit
6 at, say, 50 degrees. Actually, you can look at the firing tables but
7 that would be it.
8 Q. From what distance would it have to be fired? What would be the
9 greatest distance?
10 A. It doesn't matter, it depends on the charge. Maximum range is
11 obtained at 45 degrees with any charge; however, there is resistance,
12 et cetera, so when they are fired from a maximum range, they have --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Again we did not hear the
14 end of the sentence. The witness needs to speak clearly and into the
15 microphone. Thank you.
16 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Poparic, could you speak more clearly and into
17 the microphone. Could you repeat your last sentence?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All trajectories fired from a
19 maximum range with any charge would have approximately an angle of
20 descent of 50 degrees. It may vary to a degree or two but that would be
21 it, approximately.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. And at which angle are they fired if counting on maximum range?
24 A. Very close to 45 degrees.
25 Q. Does that also go for the shell that fell on Markale I?
1 A. No. It had to have a higher elevation because its angle of
2 descent had to be -- oh, no, Markale I, no, sorry about that. The same
3 rules go for Markale I. And in view of that angle, that trace, it would
4 have to have 60, if what is claimed is correct, 62 degrees. So the angle
5 at which it was fired was a bit less than 60 degrees. And the angle of
6 descent was about 60 or more than that.
7 Q. And what would the distance be then? If the angle of firing and
8 the angle of descent were about 60 degrees, what would it be for a
10 A. Well, probably about 5 kilometres, something like that.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we admit it under the same
13 number? I have no --
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes, it will be saved.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no further questions. Thank
16 you, Mr. Poparic. Thank you very much for your efforts.
17 JUDGE KWON: Well, that concludes your evidence, Mr. Poparic.
18 Thank you for your giving evidence and you are free to go.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you too.
20 [The witness withdrew]
21 JUDGE KWON: We will rise all together. I think interpreters
22 need some longer break. We will have a break for an hour and resume at
23 quarter past 1.00.
24 --- Recess taken at 12.16 p.m.
25 [The witness entered court]
1 --- On resuming at 1.18 p.m.
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Edgerton?
3 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, Your Honour. One matter that we omitted to
4 deal with which should take just a few minutes before we broke was the
5 admission of the report of Mr. Poparic.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes. The issues you raised, Ms. Edgerton, in the
7 view of the Chamber are the ones that goes to the weight, so on that
8 ground we will admit the witness's expert report. Shall we assign the
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 1D7902 will be
11 Exhibit D3652.
12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
13 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you, Your Honour, I'll take my leave now.
14 MR. ROBINSON: Your Honour, if I could introduce our intern,
15 Igor Petrovic, from Georgetown Law School in the United States. He'll be
16 joining us this session.
17 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
18 Could the witness make the solemn declaration, please?
19 THE ACCUSED: Excuse me. May I ask what is the fate of second
20 report of Mr. Poparic about comparison of Higgs and others.
21 JUDGE KWON: I think we admitted it already.
22 Yes, please proceed.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
24 speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
25 WITNESS: KW317
1 [Witness answered through interpreter]
2 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, sir. Please be seated and make yourself
4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
5 JUDGE KWON: As regards the previous witness's expert report,
6 I emphasise again, I reiterate, that the images, figures, should be
7 inserted in English version as well. That should be done by the
8 Registry. I will check with the Registrar.
9 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Sir, before you commence your evidence,
11 I wanted to draw your attention to a couple of matters. First, you will
12 be referred to here as Witness number 317 or KW317. I take it you
13 understand that.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do.
15 JUDGE KWON: Whenever you find that your evidence will
16 identify -- will reveal your identity, please don't hesitate to go into
17 private session so that the discussion at the courtroom cannot be heard
18 outside at all.
19 Second matter is related to a certain Rule of Procedure and
20 Evidence that we have here at the Tribunal. That is Rule 90(E). Under
21 this rule you may object to answering any question from Mr. Karadzic, the
22 Prosecution or even from the Judges if you believe that your answer might
23 incriminate you. In this context, "incriminate" means saying something
24 that might amount to an admission of your guilt in a criminal offence or
25 saying something that might provide evidence that you might have
1 committed a criminal offence. However, should you think that an answer
2 might incriminate you and as a consequence you refuse to answer the
3 question, I must let you know that the Tribunal has the power to compel
4 you to answer the question, but in that situation, the Tribunal would
5 ensure that your testimony compelled in such circumstances would not be
6 used in any case that might be laid against you for any offence, save and
7 except the offence of giving false testimony.
8 Do you understand what I have just told you, sir?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do understand.
10 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
11 Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please proceed.
12 Examination by Mr. Karadzic:
13 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Witness.
14 A. Good afternoon, Mr. President.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I ask for 1D9106 in e-court,
16 and it should not be broadcast.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Witness, do you find your name on this sheet of paper just
19 underneath the number?
20 A. Yes, it does -- actually, I do.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this pseudonym
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we will receive it under seal.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D3653 under seal, Your Honours.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Witness, did you provide a statement to my Defence team?
3 A. I did.
4 Q. Thank you. And thank you for pausing, even without my caution.
5 Let us keep it that way, to speak slowly and pause so as not to
6 overburden the interpreters and damage the transcript. Also, can we have
7 in e-court 1D06027, without it being broadcast? Thank you. I believe
8 there is a translation too. Do you see your statement before you on the
10 A. I do.
11 Q. Thank you. Did you read the statement and sign it?
12 A. I did.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we go to the last page, please,
15 without broadcasting it, so that the witness may identify his signature?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is my signature.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Thank you. Did you initial every page?
19 A. I did.
20 Q. Thank you. Please tell me whether this statement faithfully
21 conveys what you told the Defence team.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. If I put the same questions today as they did to you then, would
24 your answers be basically the same?
25 A. Yes, they would.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I seek to tender this statement
3 under 92 ter.
4 JUDGE KWON: Any objections, Mr. Tieger?
5 MR. TIEGER: No, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE KWON: We will receive it under seal? Let me see. Do we
7 have a public redacted version as well?
8 MR. ROBINSON: No, Mr. President, I don't think it's feasible to
9 do that.
10 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Under seal.
11 THE REGISTRAR: D3654 under seal, Your Honours.
12 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, there are four associated exhibits
13 we are offering. All of them were on our 65 ter list.
14 JUDGE KWON: Any objections?
15 MR. TIEGER: No.
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we will admit them. Shall we give the numbers?
17 THE REGISTRAR: They will be admitted as Exhibits D3655 through
18 to Exhibit D3658 respectively.
19 JUDGE KWON: Please continue.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Before reading out a
21 brief summary of this witness's testimony in English, I wanted to ask you
22 whether he has his statement before him in his own language, and I wanted
23 to ask for the Chamber's permission to allow the witness to use it.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have the statement before me.
25 JUDGE KWON: Please continue.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I will read out the
2 summary in the English language.
3 [In English] Witness KW317 was an official of the
4 Serbian Municipality of Zvornik. On 6th of April, 1992, the war broke
5 out in Zvornik. He could hear the sound of mortars and tried to gather
6 information as to what was happening. The Serbian members of the Zvornik
7 police left Zvornik that day and arrived at the Alhos factory in Karakaj,
8 reporting that they had been disarmed. On 8th of April, 1992, some
9 Serbian leaders in Zvornik municipality went to Mali Zvornik to meet with
10 the representatives of the Muslims. Before they could commence a private
11 discussion about how to solve the problems, some armed people from
12 Arkan's group arrived and took them to the municipal Assembly building in
13 Mali Zvornik. Arkan called those Serb representatives traitors for
14 negotiating with the Muslims, and his deputy, Peja, slapped and kicked
15 some of them. Arkan then ordered that they be taken out of the building
16 and be given ride from Mali Zvornik to Zvornik, and were told that
17 politics was no longer for them.
18 Arkan and his men launched an attack to liberate Zvornik. No one
19 in the municipal government requested or authorised this attack. They
20 had no means of contact with Radovan Karadzic at this time -- at that
21 time, and the witness has no reason to believe that President Karadzic
22 had any advanced knowledge of Arkan's attack or that he approved it. In
23 Zvornik town, the witness observed that the only authority was the
24 paramilitaries and they were the only persons you could see on the
25 streets. The local authorities had no control over these paramilitaries.
1 The paramilitaries were arresting and assaulting people and even
2 established their own prisons. The lack of control by local -- the local
3 authorities and the actions of the paramilitaries created fear among the
4 citizens, mainly Muslims, but Serbs too. There were simply no officials
5 who could protect the Muslims. During the next few months, some Muslim
6 leaders from the village of Dulici, Kozluk and Sepak asked if the witness
7 could protect them from the paramilitaries. The Kozluk Muslims got
8 packed and ready to leave for Tuzla and witness wanted them to stay
9 because it was never his objective to expel Muslims from Zvornik. The
10 fights -- however, the fights intensified and got closer to Zvornik, and
11 at that first -- tried to leave they had been visited by some
12 representatives, Serb representatives, and their own objective was to
13 dissuade them to leave and to persuade them to stay at their own homes.
14 In this endeavour they had been helped by Serb bishop and two Muslim
15 muftis, and they succeeded. The Muslims unpacked and stayed in Kozluk.
16 Later on, because of those fights that got closer and closer to
17 Kozluk and Zvornik, they decided to leave because there was no
18 authorities who could guarantee them safety. The witness later informed
19 President Karadzic and Krajisnik about what he had heard about the fate
20 of the Muslims in Zvornik. President Karadzic was very disappointed and
21 in what happened in Zvornik and expressed his disapproval. He had issued
22 orders on several occasions that condemned any mistreatment or separation
23 of civilians on any basis.
24 It was never Republika Srpska or SDS party policy, either on a
25 national or -- level or municipality level in Zvornik to expel Muslims.
1 The civil war was the cause of the movement of the population.
2 Those from Kozluk fortunately survived and returned from abroad
3 to their own homes almost entirely.
4 As part of an effort to establish some control in Zvornik on
5 17th of June, 1992, a war commission was appointed for Zvornik by
6 President Radovan Karadzic in order to disband the interim government and
7 restore the municipality assembly.
8 On 13th of June, 1992, the witness attended a meeting at the
9 municipal building -- Assembly building in Zvornik where
10 President Karadzic and General Ratko Mladic also attended. During this
11 meeting which was very brief because Karadzic and Mladic were in a rush,
12 General Mladic expressed his strong disapproval of paramilitaries and
13 threatened to arrest anyone who did not place themselves under the
14 command of the army.
15 President Karadzic stated that one of the most pressing tasks was
16 to successfully establish civilian authorities reflecting the honesty and
17 democratic qualities that characterise the Serbian people. The witness
18 never understood President Karadzic to favour the expulsion of Muslims
19 from the Serb territory. He finds it impossible to believe that
20 President Karadzic would ever have favoured or condoned the execution of
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Witness, I have just one question for you. Please look at your
24 statement, paragraph 11. I will not mention the positions referenced
25 there, but please tell us whether you ever had a position within the
1 executive branch?
2 A. No, I did not.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no further questions at this
6 MR. TIEGER: I'm not sure what Mr. Karadzic's point was, but
7 I mean that's a little untethered from anything, especially given the
8 fact that a number of different positions are mentioned in the statement.
9 So I think it would be helpful if he identified the executive branch of
10 what; because as he knows during the course of this case we deal with
11 parties at republic level, municipal level, and regional level and so on.
12 If that's not helpful for him then I retract that but I think he had more
13 in mind.
14 JUDGE KWON: Shall we go into private session briefly?
15 [Private session]
19 [Open session]
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Tieger, I take it you can take up further
21 issues if necessary in your cross-examination.
22 MR. TIEGER: That's fine, Mr. President, thank you.
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Witness, as you have noted your
24 evidence-in-chief in this case has been admitted in its most part in
25 writing, that is through your statement. You will now be cross-examined
1 by the representative of the office of the Prosecutor.
2 Yes, Mr. Tieger.
3 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Tieger:
5 Q. Good afternoon, Witness.
6 A. Good afternoon.
7 Q. Witness, in -- in order to make our time as efficient as
8 possible, I'll try to take advantage of the fact that you have provided
9 information to the Tribunal not only in the form of this statement but on
10 previous occasions as well, and I'll try to use those as much as possible
11 to facilitate the process.
12 So in particular, let me quickly recount some of those instances
13 on which you provided information. In June of 2002, you gave a signed
14 36-page statement which you initialled on every page to the
15 Office of the Prosecutor; correct?
16 A. It is correct, I did.
17 Q. And then in April of 2003, you had an opportunity to review that
18 statement again and make any corrections that you might have, and you
19 basically affirmed the accuracy of the 2002 statement with some minor
20 exceptions; correct?
21 A. I did provide some objections, and, yes, it is correct.
22 Q. And those objections to a few of the items in the 2002 statement
23 were reflected during the course of a taped interview which took place on
24 that occasion and consisted of, as it turned out, some approximately 300
25 transcribed pages; correct?
1 A. I don't know how many pages there were, but --
2 Q. But you recall that it was taped and it was a fairly long
3 interview; right?
4 A. I do remember.
5 Q. Okay. And you also testified in another proceeding in 2010;
7 A. Right.
8 Q. Now, at paragraphs 9 and 10 of the statement you provided in this
9 case, and that you just had -- is currently in front of you, you briefly
10 described the establishment of the SDS and mentioned that it was not a
11 classic party. I'm not certain what is meant by a classic party. So
12 let's try to clarify a few basic things with some of the information that
13 you provided before. First, it's correct, isn't it, as you stated in
14 your 2002 interview, that very often the Main Board of the SDS would
15 inform municipal boards about new decisions and conclusions?
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. And if that involved confidential -- confidential material,
18 confidential material from the Main Board was usually either collected by
19 an official of the municipal board in Sarajevo or Pale or couriered in a
20 closed envelope; correct?
21 A. I must make a slight correction. We did send documents by mail
22 but we also carried them in person. If I was at Pale, for example, at
23 the session of an assembly, and had some materials, I would carry them.
24 If there was somebody else, then that other person would take it to the
25 municipal board, if there were any materials.
1 Q. Okay. And that was a reference to how confidential material or
2 decisions and conclusions from the Main Board generally were conveyed
3 down to the municipal level. On the other hand, going in the other
4 direction, Brano Grujic, who was the president of the SDS party in
5 Zvornik, would report the situation on the ground to the Main Board? And
6 that's also information you provided at pages 9 and 10 of your 2002
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. Okay. You also advised that the SDS was a big party and had its
10 own secretary who could be in daily communication with all of the people
11 in the field, and that's right too, isn't it?
12 A. It did have a secretary but he couldn't be there all the time,
13 but only when he was working, because otherwise one could understand it
14 to mean that the man would sit there day and night and just wait for
15 someone to contact him, and that's not possible.
16 Q. Okay. I don't think I understood and I don't think the Court
17 understood that you were trying to convey that the man was there 24 hours
18 a day every day of the year, but that basically he had the capacity to be
19 in daily communication with the field as needed?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And in Zvornik, too, there was a municipal secretary who
22 basically worked every day and was in contact with local boards on
23 essentially an everyday basis, and that's what you said in 2002; is that
25 A. Yes. It is correct.
1 Q. Now, we just discussed briefly and in general decisions and
2 conclusions transmitted to the municipal level from the top level of the
3 SDS. And let me focus for a moment on one example that was discussed
4 extensively in your previous interviews. It's correct, isn't it, that as
5 the likelihood that Bosnia would pursue and obtain independence became
6 greater in late 1991, that instructions known as commonly as Variant A
7 and B were issued, that is the instructions for the organisation and
8 activity of organs of Serbian people in emergency situation dated
9 19 December 1991?
10 A. I'm familiar with Variants A and B. I remember them. But I
11 don't know that those were instructions or orders to be implemented on
12 the ground. It was information, like any other information.
13 Q. Well, what I read to you was the title of the document. Let's
14 call up P00005. It should be on the screen in front of you. You should
15 see the first page. Okay. And as you explained in 2002, and affirmed
16 again in 2003, that was received by the municipality, the SDS municipal
17 board of Zvornik, and you saw a copy of it "probably within a few days of
18 it being issued." That's correct, isn't it?
19 A. Yes. I saw it.
20 Q. Okay. And you also stated in that interview in 2002 and
21 confirmed in 2003 that you were at a meeting of the Deputies Club where
22 Radovan Karadzic, in the presence of Mr. Krajisnik, Mrs. Plavsic and
23 Nikola Koljevic discussed instructions in this document, and that was at
24 page 11 of your 2002 statement; correct?
25 A. I cannot recall that now.
1 Q. Well, does this refresh your recollection? You also said that at
2 that meeting that was the first time you heard about Variant A and B?
3 A. No, I cannot confirm that is true.
4 Q. Do you want to see that statement or is my reciting it sufficient
5 to test whether or not you can remember it at this time, remember saying
6 those things to the OTP in 2002 and confirming it in 2003? So I can let
7 you see the physical document or I can simply quote what you said.
8 A. I cannot remember now what I said and how, but I remember that
9 I discussed that document. I remember that I discussed the document with
10 the OTP.
11 Q. Okay.
12 MR. TIEGER: Let's quickly call up, because we may have to refer
13 to 60 -- I guess we have to go into private session for this, to call up
14 65 ter 22549.
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes, shall we move into private session briefly?
16 [Private session]
11 Page 39331 redacted. Private session.
10 [Open session]
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we are now in open session.
12 MR. TIEGER:
13 Q. Sir, this will not be the first time that I confront you with
14 things you said in 2002 and 2003 that are not compatible with the
15 information you provided to this Chamber in that statement. You're
16 asserting that you were under pressure and you were encouraged to say
17 things that you didn't know were accurate. The 2003 interview in which
18 you confirmed what you said in 2002 is on tape. You're welcome to look
19 through that and find any reference to somebody telling you that you can
20 just say whatever you want rather than asking to you look at the 2002
21 statement and confirm whether it's accurate. I will be asking you about
22 that document. I will be pointing to assertions in the 2002 statement
23 and the 2003 interview that bear on the statement you provided this Court
24 today, and we'll march through it.
25 MR. TIEGER: And with that in mind, I want to tender this excerpt
1 that the witness saw in connection with the previous questions.
2 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President, I don't have any objection to
3 the excerpt, but I do have an objection to the speech that Mr. Tieger
4 just made which is as improper if not more as things he claimed that
5 Dr. Karadzic has done during his examination, and I trust that that won't
6 be repeated.
7 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Could you give the page numbers,
8 Mr. Tieger?
9 MR. TIEGER: Page 11 of both the English and B/C/S,
10 Mr. President.
11 And I think in the course of a cross-examination, when a witness
12 makes an assertion that representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor
13 encouraged him somehow or urged him to do something that is not reflected
14 in the documents and the taped interview, I'm entitled to challenge him
15 in that respect.
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes, you are, but Mr. Robinson referred to the
17 manner in which you should -- you do such challengings. Shall we receive
18 the cover page and page 11? Yes, shall we assign the number.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P6369 under seal, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
21 MR. TIEGER:
22 Q. Similarly, Witness, you explained in your 2002 interview, also at
23 page 11, that the document "was immediately acted upon" by the members of
24 the SDS municipal board; correct? That is the Variant A and B document.
25 A. At the outset I explained, we got that document and I saw it. We
1 considered it. But it was not an order the way you phrased it right at
2 the beginning or the way I understood you. It was not an order. It
3 wasn't something that had to be implemented. Nobody had to submit a
4 report about whether or not he implemented that or not.
5 Q. Witness, you stated in 2002, did you not, and you confirmed in
6 2003, that the Variant A and B document was "immediately acted upon" by
7 the members of the SDS municipal board, yes or no?
8 A. Acted upon in what sense?
9 Q. Well, for example, sir, this Court has received evidence --
10 that's P2590. Well, first of all the Variant A and B document calls for
11 the establishment of Crisis Staffs, as I know you're aware, and we have
12 received evidence, P2590, of the decision of the SDS Municipal Board to
13 establish Crisis Staff and 24-hour watch on 22 December 1991, just a few
14 days after this document. That's one. Similarly, P2591, another
15 document this Court has received, is a decision regarding the formation
16 of the Serbian Municipality of Zvornik on 27 December 1991 which
17 explicitly states that it's based on the Variant A and B document. So
18 those are two examples; right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, the Variant A and B document as we look through it and as I
21 believe you will recall refers to two different types of municipalities,
22 A and B, that is where Serbs are a majority and where Serbs are a
23 minority, and also two levels, the first and second level of activation;
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And with respect to the activation of the second level, you
2 previously confirmed that you were present at a meeting, an extended
3 session of the Deputies Club of the SDS on 14 February 1992 and, indeed,
4 had an opportunity to read excerpts from the transcript of that session;
5 right? And that's contained at page 72 of your 2003 interview.
6 A. I do not remember now what I said, but it's possible.
7 Q. Okay. Well, you were shown in particular -- well, first of all,
8 you recall the discussion I take it about the February 14th meeting and
9 confirming that you were present at that meeting; right?
10 A. I don't know which meeting you mean, the 14th of February, the
11 meeting of which body?
12 Q. Well, that's the meeting at which, as the transcript of that
13 meeting reveals, Dr. Karadzic made four separate references to the second
14 level or stage number 2 including ending a portion of his speech by
15 saying, That's why we called you here. Please, that is why we called you
16 today to intensify, to introduce the second level and to intensify the
17 functioning of the government at any cost and on every single millimetre
18 of our territory. That's the meeting. Okay. You recall that now?
19 A. I cannot recall, but if it was an assembly meeting -- I mean you
20 have to be more precise. Was it an assembly meeting or a Main Board
22 Q. An extended session of the Deputies Club which means it included
23 Main Board representatives and municipal representatives.
24 A. I do not remember the meeting itself, but we should take a look
25 at the dates. If we just look at things as you're suggesting, without a
1 context, it's very dangerous or risky to interpret them, and what event
2 is it about? If there was talk about the Cutileiro plan to resolve the
3 situation in Bosnia and it's taken out of context.
4 Q. I'm not taking anything out of context. I am focusing on what
5 you -- the information that that you previously provided back at a time
6 when these events as you indicated were much fresher in your memory. So
7 you were shown, and that's reflected at page 72 of your interview in
8 2003, the excerpts from that assembly after indicating that you were
9 present there and were asked if this is the second level of activation
10 that is -- that he's referring to, that is, is that the second level of
11 Variant A and B and you said, "I think that's precisely what he's
12 referring to." Similarly, sir, you explained that a, quote, directive
13 that is concerning the activation of the second level was received prior
14 to March 15, 1992 "I think it was a fax maybe a letter."
15 And that's reflected at page 79 of your 2003 interview. You also
16 explained at page 87 of that interview that with respect to that
17 directive, there weren't many, quote:
18 "There weren't many instructions. It was simply said in there
19 that the conditions in Bosnia-Herzegovina were such that we should begin
20 implementation of the second level of the second level from the
21 instructions to municipalities A and B."
22 And that's page 87 of your 2003 interview. And as I will tell
23 you in a minute you also referred to what the SDS authorities in Zvornik
24 did to implement that directive. That's all correct, isn't it, sir?
25 That's what you told the OTP in 2003 on tape?
1 A. That may be correct, but I've repeated several times my remark
2 about the context. I don't know what event was discussed at that
3 meeting, and that's why it's very difficult to comment.
4 Q. (redacted) Witness, I went through the fairly
5 painstakingly telling you about the February 14th meeting, the nature of
6 that meeting, reminding you that at that meeting Mr. Karadzic gave a
7 speech during which he made four separate references to level 2 or stage
8 number 2, that you confirmed in 2003 that that was a reference to the
9 second level of the Variant A and B document, that you then went on to
10 say there was a directive subsequently received but before March 15th,
11 that you explained what that said. It didn't provide many instructions,
12 it just said that we should begin implementation of the second level, and
13 then as I indicated you went on to indicate what Zvornik -- the Zvornik
14 SDS authorities did to implement it. That should be sufficient context,
15 sir, for you to understand the questions I'm asking you; correct?
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. Okay. And do you -- it's also correct, sir, that in 2003, you
18 had an opportunity to review a bundle of documents, they were called,
19 reflecting decisions made at the 15 March 1992 session of the
20 Serbian Municipal Assembly of Zvornik, and you confirmed at page 29,
21 part 2, of the 2003 interview, that these decisions were made in
22 accordance with the activation of the second level of the Variant A and B
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. Thank you. Now, you referred to the Cutileiro Plan a few moments
1 ago and you also referred to that in paragraph 31 of your statement.
2 I take it then that you will recall that on March 18, 1992, the same date
3 of the agreement in principle between the Cutileiro participants, that
4 there was an extensive discussion in the Bosnian Serb Assembly which
5 focused almost exclusively on the Cutileiro Plan during which a number of
6 people expressed concern about Muslim intentions or SDA intentions
7 regarding the plan, and suggested, that is even more people suggested,
8 that pragmatic steps on the ground in addition to the negotiations should
9 be taken. You remember that meeting, sir, and that discussion? This
10 Court has actually received evidence of -- of that meeting. They have
11 the transcript of that session of the assembly.
12 A. I remember.
13 Q. And do you further recall that as the imminence of the
14 independence of Bosnia became even more pronounced, that is as events
15 moved even closer to the beginning of April, there were further
16 discussions about what the Bosnian Serb authorities should do and when?
17 So, for example, at the 12th assembly session held on
18 March 24th, 1992, Dr. Karadzic stated, This will be very soon, we can
19 form whatever we want. And as an example he said:
20 "The Zvornik municipality takes control over everything that
21 constitutes the Serbian Municipality of Zvornik, then at a given moment
22 in the next three or four days there will be a single method used and you
23 will be able to apply it in the municipalities you represent including
24 both things that must be done as well as how to do them, how to separate
25 the police force, take the resources that belong to the Serbian people,
1 and take command."
2 That's P961, and he also spoke about the establishment of "actual
3 and sovereign authority" on the ground "as soon as possible." Stating,
4 I ask you now that following some instructions for National Defence
5 information systems, et cetera, that will be given here, the real and
6 sovereign authority of the Serbian Assembly and Serbian people be
7 established on the ground as soon as possible and he spoke about then
8 what happens as -- when we have our own separate MUP, and so on.
9 That's -- you said in 2003, when shown that excerpt "what is meant here
10 is to implement the instructions in item B." That's at page 95 through
11 96 of your 2003 interview; correct?
12 A. That's right, but you have not been making any comments
13 whatsoever in terms of what happened before these meetings. You are not
14 saying anything about what agreement was being sought on within Bosnia.
15 You are just saying what Karadzic says, what Krajisnik says. That's what
16 I discussed at the OTP, too, and that's what I object to. This is not
17 the consequence of the will of Karadzic or at the Main Board or people at
18 the SDS. These established bodies in the assembly, that was the result
19 of what the Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina wanted to do. Had you
20 investigated their side you would have found a multitude of documents
21 speaking about these same things too, but you did not.
22 Q. This is all -- this was all forced on you and Mr. Karadzic and
23 the SDS; right? That's your position?
24 A. It was forced.
25 Q. Just so you know, Witness, you're not the first witness to appear
1 here and the Court has received a great deal of information about what
2 was happening at that particular time, what happened in the months
3 previous, what happened in the period following, including but certainly
4 not limited to everyone of the Bosnian Serb Assembly sessions during
5 which this issue was described, and including the testimony of many
6 witnesses about the events that preceded and followed the outbreak of the
7 conflict. So that is -- I won't be seeking all that information from
8 you, and you had the opportunity to present much of it in your statement.
9 Now --
10 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have another thing.
12 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. The witness was able to answer your
13 previous question but in the future, could you break down into some
14 shorter questions so that we can follow better?
15 MR. ROBINSON: Also, Mr. President, this last comment is really
16 inappropriate, and Mr. Tieger shouldn't be expecting to get any
17 additional time if he's going to spend his time arguing with the witness
18 without asking any questions.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Let's get on with cross-examination. Let's
21 MR. TIEGER: All right, Mr. President, it's a very unfair
22 intervention when a witness wants to know what's essentially the context
23 of his testimony.
24 Q. Witness, at paragraphs 35 through 48 of your statement, you
25 discuss in -- okay, sir, you have your hand up in a manner that indicates
1 I think you want to ask a question. Normally witnesses don't ask
2 questions, but if it's something you need to add to what you said --
3 A. But I have to -- I feel the need to add something. In this
4 situation in which you're putting such questions, taken out of -- I mean,
5 to this day I claim that this is taken out of context. I cannot recall
6 all of those details, and I cannot interpret Karadzic's speeches to you.
7 You have to interpret them with him. But I don't see what preceded that
8 and what a particular meeting was devoted to. If you just say that we
9 met and to discuss Variants A and B, that's what it seems like, but no
10 way, you're not saying what preceded this, what happened before that.
11 Q. Thank you, Witness. Again, at paragraphs 35 through 48 of your
12 statement, you discuss events of 6 April through 9 April, during which
13 the Crisis Staff declared a state of war, Arkan's men, led by Peja
14 arrived, the meeting in Mali Zvornik took place, and you also refer to
15 Marko Pavlovic without -- for the first time without explaining who he
16 was and explain something about the arrival of Arkan. Now I want to ask
17 you some questions about both Pavlovic and Arkan.
18 First of all, as we just indicated, your statement notes that he
19 arrived at least on this occasion just as the conflict was beginning, in
20 that period of April. That's correct, isn't it?
21 A. Arkan?
22 Q. Pavlovic.
23 A. Oh, Pavlovic, yes.
24 Q. And shortly thereafter he became commander of the
25 Territorial Defence of the Serbian Municipality of Zvornik; right?
1 A. Right.
2 Q. Okay. Now, he had first been -- that is, Pavlovic had first been
3 introduced to SDS people in Zvornik by Dragan Spasojevic and introduced
4 as a businessman, and that happened in December of 1991, when the Serbian
5 municipality was formed; right?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. Okay. But it was "very clear" to you, even as early as
8 April 1992, when Pavlovic showed up again, that he was no businessman;
9 right? That he was there --
10 A. Well, that is basically correct.
11 Q. Now, this Trial Chamber has received evidence that Pavlovic was a
12 member of the Serbian State Security Service or DB, that can be found at
13 P2848. And, Witness, you also concluded that he was a member of a
14 security organ?
15 A. Not Serbia but the former state, the federal organs of the former
16 state of Yugoslavia. That's what I think to this day, that this was
17 related to the JNA and the federal organs, not Serbia.
18 Q. You understood him to be a security official and not -- that his
19 introduction as a businessman was a kind of cover for that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. All right. And although you believe that it was Mr. Spasojevic
22 who brought Pavlovic to Zvornik, you also noted that he was "on good
23 terms with Brano Grujic as well"; correct?
24 A. For the most part.
25 Q. Okay. Well, in any event, Pavlovic and Mr. Grujic co-operated
1 right away from the beginning?
2 A. They were together most of the time.
3 Q. Okay. And in fact, that's what you said in 2003 as well. They
4 worked together and you further advised that they were the two main or
5 most powerful figures in the municipality, as you said, it was Grujic and
6 Pavlovic who had "the main say" in the municipality. That's the
7 position --
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. Okay. All right. And in addition to his position as president
10 of the SDS, which you noted in paragraph 8 of your statement, and his
11 position as commander or president of the Crisis Staff, Mr. Grujic became
12 the head of the interim or provisional or temporary government; right?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Okay. Now, with respect to that temporary or provisional
15 government or war government, it was actually Pavlovic who suggested a
16 temporary war government, and he did so at a meeting on April 10th;
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Okay. And he explained that "based on our experience from
20 Western Slavonia" that was the best way to proceed, that in -- that what
21 had happened there is that all legally elected authorities and bodies
22 were frozen and annulled. It is much better to set up a provisional
23 wartime government, much more efficient; right?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Okay. And after Pavlovic explained that this is how it had been
1 done successfully before, that proposal was adopted; right?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Now, at paragraph 45 of your statement, you say that --
4 MR. TIEGER: One moment, Mr. President. Maybe we should go into
5 private session for this.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
7 [Private session]
11 Page 39345 redacted. Private session.
2 [Open session]
3 MR. TIEGER:
4 Q. And as long as you mention Mr. Radic, let me just note that his
5 job was to disburse or pay out funds due by the temporary government;
7 A. Well, I cannot say exactly now what his job was. I think he was
8 the secretary of that government, and perhaps finance went through him.
9 That's possible. That's possible that finance went through him.
10 Q. In any event, he was often seen with members of various
11 paramilitary groups "in very good spirits as you put it in 2003," and you
12 concluded that Radic had a special relationship with them [Realtime
13 transcript read in error "him"]; right?
14 A. Well, I cannot claim that he had a special relationship but that
15 he was seen with them. That's true. But a special relationship? I
16 don't think so. I mean, I don't have any proof of that.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript.
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Tieger said [In English] "Radic
20 had a special relationship with him." [Interpretation] And the
21 interpretation the witness received was "with them."
22 MR. TIEGER:
23 Q. I was intending to say with them. That's what the transcript
24 says. So -- and I'll quote it again. You were asked at page 234 whether
25 Radic had a special relationship with any of the paramilitary groups.
1 You explained what you heard him talking about, their treatment of him
2 and their greed:
3 "From which I concluded that he did have a special relationship
4 with them and he was often seen with those men and he seemed to be in
5 very good spirits."
6 A. Well, you see now you put it right. I said what I heard. I did
7 not claim that they had any special kind of relationship. I wasn't
8 saying that I concluded something. Well, you can conclude something on
9 the basis of something you heard, couldn't you? But I personally did see
10 them with him. But I cannot claim on the basis of that that he had a
11 special relationship with them because I don't know what kind of
12 relations he had with them.
13 Q. You also indicated that people like Mr. Grujic, Mr. Radic, were
14 less in favour of negotiations than you and more supportive of
15 establishing a situation where the Serbian municipality could assume
16 authority on the ground; correct? That's found at page 120 of the 2003
2 MR. TIEGER: Witness, I know it -- maybe we should -- please be
3 cautious, sir.
4 A. Me?
5 Q. All right. Let's just proceed. I was simply trying to contrast
6 what you stated earlier in 2003 about the views of people like Grujic and
7 Radic, who were not in favour of negotiations, but -- or at least less
8 supportive of negotiations and more supportive of establishing a
9 situation where Serbian municipality could assume authority on the
10 ground. That's a correct contrast between the two views, right, without
11 talking about the details of your personal involvement at this point?
12 A. But -- but I basically meant the Crisis Staff meeting when it was
13 decided to go to negotiate, at that moment.
14 Q. Well, let's be clear in the -- about one thing and that is about
15 the reality of dividing Zvornik. And you have previously stated, and
16 made very clear, that it was not possible to divide the municipality
17 because there were Muslim and Serb villages mixed throughout the
18 territory; right? You couldn't divide Zvornik "by the ethnic principle."
19 An ethnic map of Zvornik is "not possible to make." Those are all things
20 you said before and those are all accurate; right?
21 A. Yes, yes, but -- well, that is correct, but look, we have to get
22 this clear. It wasn't possible to make an ethnic division down a
23 straight line like this because this is a zig-zag line where it's not
24 possible exactly to draw this boundary everywhere. That's what was
1 MR. TIEGER: 65 ter 002420, please. It's 002420 -- I'm sorry, O,
2 not zero, that's the problem.
3 Q. That's a map depicting the ethnic distribution in Zvornik based
4 on the 1991 census. And, sir, that's really a reflection of the nature
5 of the Zvornik municipality. Even setting aside questions of
6 distribution of large companies like Glinica and Birac, that's a
7 reflection of the impossibility of dividing Zvornik in any kind of
8 meaningful way, isn't it?
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. TIEGER: Thank you. I tender that.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P6370, Your Honours.
13 MR. TIEGER:
14 Q. Now, Witness, at paragraphs 38 through 41 of your statement, you
15 indicate that Pavlovic and Arkan's men and Arkan came at basically the
16 same time, in that limited time at the beginning of April; correct?
17 A. No, no, no. They came -- Arkan came, I first saw him then when
18 that thing happened in Mali Zvornik, and there is no doubt about that,
19 that's exactly the way it was. As for Pavlovic, Pavlovic came before he
21 Q. So Pavlovic came a couple of times. First he came with
22 Spasojevic when the Serbian municipality was declared in
23 December of 1991, then he came back at the beginning of April, right,
24 shortly before this Mali Zvornik meeting?
25 A. Well, maybe at the very beginning, when we went to Alhos, that's
1 when he showed up. That's how I saw him.
2 Q. And by the way, at that Mali Zvornik meeting, you were able to
3 recognise Arkan from pictures you'd seen on television and in newspapers
4 because he was dressed in the same way. He had -- you had seen him
5 dressed in Croatia and also in Bijeljina; right? And you had stated that
6 in 2002?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, you were also able to conclude with respect to Pavlovic and
9 Arkan, based on your -- and Arkan's men, including Peja, based on your
10 observations of their interactions and what they said and how they worked
11 together, that they were part of the same team; right?
12 A. Well, it may be concluded that they were an interest group but
13 the same team? I cannot say. But the same interest group at the time,
14 that's for sure.
15 Q. Well, back in 2002, basically you stated that a number of times,
16 so in 2002, at page 20, you stated, "So my conclusion was that he was
17 part of the same team that Arkan belonged to." You also stated in 2003,
18 Marko Pavlovic came "in advance of paramilitary units and after him they
19 arrived in numbers, and his later role told me that he was on the same
20 team." And later in making another -- that's at page 162. And a later
21 in making another point, you stated that, "Since he worked on the same
22 team as Arkan," and then went on to make your point.
23 So in 2002 and 2003, you repeatedly stated that Pavlovic and
24 Arkan were on the same team; correct? At least those were your
25 conclusions based on what you saw?
1 A. Yes, I probably said that it was the same team but if you mean
2 that team is a sort of staff or a group that has an exactly set task,
3 perhaps it would be better to say the same interest group because I do
4 not have any proof that they were sitting in some staff and that he
5 were -- that they were appointed to be such and such and such a team.
6 I mean it would be illogical to assert anything like that because I don't
7 have that kind of proof, but that they were the same interest group, they
8 were. And that would be my conclusion.
9 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, sir. Good time to break, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes, that's it for today.
11 Mr. Witness, we will continue tomorrow morning at 9.00. I'd like
12 to advise you not to discuss with anybody else about your testimony.
13 The hearing is adjourned.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.46 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 6th day of June
16 2013, at 9.00 a.m.