Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 39259

 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

Page 39260

 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

Page 39261

 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

 3     English.

 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

Page 39262

 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

18     angle.

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

21     assumption?

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

Page 39263

 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

Page 39264

 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

25     said.

Page 39265

 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

 7     sentence.

 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

13     that.

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

Page 39266

 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

Page 39267

 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

13     witness.

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

Page 39268

 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

Page 39269

 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

Page 39270

 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

17     Honours?

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

Page 39271

 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

23     place.

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

Page 39272

 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

Page 39273

 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.

Page 39274

 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

Page 39275

 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 --

Page 39276

 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

23     photograph.

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

Page 39277

 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

 6     again?

 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

Page 39278

 1     there?

 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

17     side?

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;

Page 39279

 1     right?

 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

23     scene?

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

Page 39280

 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

 4     documents.

 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

Page 39281

 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

15     buildings.

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

Page 39282

 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.

Page 39283

 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

16     report.

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

Page 39284

 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

 9     wounded?

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

Page 39285

 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

 9     ground.

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

Page 39286

 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.

Page 39287

 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.

Page 39288

 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

16     more?

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

20     you.

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

Page 39289

 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

14     sentence.

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.

Page 39290

 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

 3     photograph.

 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.

Page 39291

 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

Page 39292

 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

12     mistranslation.

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

Page 39293

 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

13     page?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]

15        A.   "... there was APC of the Ukrainian Battalion, registration

16     number..."

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

Page 39294

 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

18     purpose.

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

Page 39295

 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

19     screen?

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?

Page 39296

 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]

Page 39297

 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

19     repeat.

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

Page 39298

 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

 5     material.

 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

Page 39299

 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

Page 39300

 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

24     fire.

25        Q.   Thank you.

Page 39301

 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

10     continue.

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

16     afternoon."

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

22     you.

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:

Page 39302

 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

Page 39303

 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

 5     silencers?

 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?

Page 39304

 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

 6     her.

 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

25     unusable.

Page 39305

 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]

Page 39306

 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

14     break.

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

Page 39307

 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

 5     sentence.

 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?

Page 39308

 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

15     beam.

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

Page 39309

 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 --

Page 39310

 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.

Page 39311

 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

Page 39312

 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.

Page 39313

 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?

Page 39314

 1        A.   Well, like this.  My previous drawing was better.  Roughly like

 2     this.

 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?

Page 39315

 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

 9     120-shell?

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]

Page 39316

 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

 9     number?

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

Page 39317

 1                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, sir.  Please be seated and make yourself

 3     comfortable.

 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

Page 39318

 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

22     sheet.

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.

Page 39319

 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

 9     screen?

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.

Page 39320

 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.

Page 39321

 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.

Page 39322

 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.

Page 39323

 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

21     prisoners.

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

Page 39324

 1     executive branch?

 2        A.   No, I did not.

 3        Q.   Thank you.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no further questions at this

 5     moment.

 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]

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 39325

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

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

Page 39326

 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?

Page 39327

 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;

 6     right?

 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.

Page 39328

 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

 7     interview.

 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

24     correct?

25        A.   Yes.  It is correct.

Page 39329

 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.

Page 39330

 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]

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 39331











11  Page 39331 redacted.  Private session.















Page 39332

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

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

Page 39333

 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

Page 39334

 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;

24     right?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 39335

 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

21     meeting?

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

Page 39336

 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?

Page 39337

 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

23     instructions?

24        A.   That is correct.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Now, you referred to the Cutileiro Plan a few moments

Page 39338

 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,

Page 39339

 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

Page 39340

 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

20     continue.

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

Page 39341

 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?

Page 39342

 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

Page 39343

 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;

17     right?

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

Page 39344

 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]

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 39345











11  Page 39345 redacted.  Private session.















Page 39346

 1   (redacted)

 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;

 6     right?

 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.

Page 39347

 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

17     interview.

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 39348

 1   (redacted)

 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

25     meant.

Page 39349

 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

20     did.

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

Page 39350

 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?

Page 39351

 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.