1 Thursday, 10 January 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
9 This is the case IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Before we start with the next witness there are a few
12 preliminaries, both from the Chamber and, as I understand, also from the
14 First of all, I would like to raise the matter of sitting times
15 on Tuesday, the 15th of January. The Chamber has not received any
16 complaints from the parties about the suggested sitting times for next
17 Tuesday, and, as a result, the Chamber confirms that it will sit on this
18 day from 7.30 in the morning, until 11.55, with three 75-minute sessions,
19 and 20-minute breaks.
20 Then there's one remaining matter in relation to the upcoming
21 witness. The Chamber would like to give an oral decision.
22 The Chamber will deliver its decision on the addition of three
23 documents to the Prosecution's 65 ter list.
24 On the 10th of December, 2012, the Prosecution filed its fifth
25 motion to add exhibits to its 65 ter exhibit list. The Defence did not
1 file a response. The Prosecution contends that the three documents it
2 seems to have added to the 65 ter exhibit list are relevant and probative
3 to the incident detailed in Schedule F11 of the indictment. The
4 Prosecution seeks to amend its 65 ter exhibit list at this stage as it
5 only recently identified the documents after having questioned another
6 witness in the proceedings. The Chamber considers, as conceded by the
7 Prosecution, that this does not amount to a showing of good cause. The
8 Chamber considers, however, that the documents are, prima facie,
9 probative and relevant to the incident at Schedule F11 of the indictment.
10 The Chamber further notes that the Defence has not contested
11 their addition to the 65 ter exhibit list. The Chamber considers that
12 the Defence has had sufficient time to study the three documents, since
13 the Prosecution filed its motion on the 10th of December 2012 and further
14 notes that, according to the Prosecution, the documents were disclosed to
15 the Defence on the 16th of November of last year. The Chamber find s
16 that the accused will therefore not be unduly prejudiced by their
18 Moreover, the Defence will be able to further address any
19 prejudice it may have suffered from the late addition to the Rule 65 ter
20 list when the documents are used and tendered by the Prosecution.
21 Therefore, and despite the absence of good cause, the Chamber
22 finds it to be in the interests of justice to allow the addition of the
23 documents bearing provisional Rule 65 ter numbers 28603, 28604, and 28605
24 to the Prosecution's Rule 65 ter exhibit list.
25 And this concludes the Chamber's decision.
1 Having dealt with these matters, I also want to convey on behalf
2 of the Chamber the best wishes for 2013 for everyone in this courtroom,
3 how different the situations may be in which we find ourselves in.
4 Then the Prosecution had one matter to raise, Mr. Groome.
5 MR. GROOME: Good morning, Your Honour, and the Prosecution
6 appreciates the Chamber's well wishes.
7 Your Honour, we have a request with respect to the next witness,
8 Dr. Milan Mandilovic scheduled to commence his testimony tomorrow.
9 Your Honours, he is a surgeon who has worked at the Sarajevo state
10 hospital from May 1992 until the end of the war and currently still works
11 there. The Prosecution has given notice by e-mail that it intends to ask
12 the witness about a number of medical documents additional to the
13 documents already addressed in the witness's statement. The primary
14 evidential value of these documents is the information they provide on
15 their face about the medical condition pertaining to victims of scheduled
16 sniping and shelling incidents. Dr. Mandilovic is able to address the
17 issue of authenticity of these documents.
18 In order to deal with these documents in a more efficient way,
19 the Prosecution seeks to employ the mechanism of a chart in the same way
20 we have used this device in the past. As we have in the past, we would
21 not tender the chart or the underlying documents until the Defence has
22 had a full opportunity to examine the doctor. I have previously
23 undertaken to seek advanced approval from the Chamber prior to using this
24 mechanism and do so now, believing that it is an appropriate and
25 efficient way to proceed with respect to these particular documents. I
1 discussed the matter with Mr. Stojanovic prior to the commencement of
2 today's proceedings and he will not be objecting to the use of it as
4 So, Your Honour, I ask you to consider that. We have prepared
5 the chart, so if the Chamber at some point today could advise us whether
6 we would be able to use that with this witness, it would be appreciated.
7 Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, the Chamber will consider your request
9 and let you know today.
10 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Ms. Hochhauser has a brief matter she wants to inform the Chamber
12 of, but I believe it could be done while the witness is being brought in.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before I give her an opportunity to do so, the
15 Chamber, from the silence of Mr. Stojanovic, understood that Mr. Groome
16 has well reflected the position of the Defence on the matter of the use
17 of the chart.
18 Can the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
19 Ms. Hochhauser, meanwhile, you have an opportunity to address the
21 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Thank you, and good morning, Your Honours.
22 Your Honours, we will be offering ultimately tendering a public
23 redacted version of this expert report as well as a version under seal.
24 However, during the course of my examination, I will be calling up the
25 under seal version and will state explicitly when the pages are safe to
1 broadcast outside of the courtroom. I have informed Mr. Ivetic of the
2 reasons for this so that he is aware of them. As well, it's that -- in
3 the redacted version due to the way that has to be scanned to be
4 redacted, the pictures are degraded and so the quality of the picture in
5 the under seal version is the one that should be used where there's no
6 protected information on that sheet.
7 JUDGE ORIE: So we will look at the redacted version although you
8 will tender the unredacted version as -- in evidence, I take it.
9 MS. HOCHHAUSER: We'll be -- I'm sorry, I'll be tendering both a
10 redact -- sorry. Both an under seal version with redactions as well
11 as -- I'm sorry. An under seal version without the redactions which I
12 will be also showing during the course of the examination because the
13 pages that I'm showing do not have any protected information on them.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MS. HOCHHAUSER: And those pages can be broadcast to the public
16 so that they can also see the photos on those pictures.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Additionally, it's my intention - and I've
19 informed Mr. Ivetic of this well - to tender the report after the Chamber
20 has heard the entire examination of the witness if that -- if that is
21 acceptable to the Chamber so that we can put off any necessary
22 conversation until after the witness has gone.
23 JUDGE ORIE: That seems to be a very practical approach.
24 Mr. Ivetic, since you have not jumped up I take it that Ms. Hochhauser
25 has represented your views correctly.
1 MR. IVETIC: She has.
2 MS. HOCHHAUSER: And finally, Your Honours, as I'm sure you see
3 in front of you - and I apologise to the witness because he's here in the
4 room - I have handed out hard copies of the report and those are the --
5 that is the under -- the confidential version that would be under seal.
6 [The witness entered court]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 Good morning, witness.
9 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. van der Weijden, I take it. Before you give
11 evidence in this Court, the rules require that you make a solemn
12 declaration, the text of which is now handed out to you. May I invite
13 you to stand and to make that solemn declaration.
14 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
15 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. van der Weijden. Please be seated.
17 WITNESS: PATRICK VAN DER WEIJDEN
18 JUDGE ORIE: You will first be examined by Ms. Hochhauser.
19 Ms. Hochhauser is counsel for the Prosecution.
20 Ms. Hochhauser you may proceed.
21 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Thank you.
22 Examination by Ms. Hochhauser:
23 Q. Good morning.
24 A. Good morning.
25 Q. Can you please put your name on the record.
1 A. Yes. My name is Patrick van der Weijden.
2 Q. And, Mr. van der Weijden, how are you currently employed?
3 A. I'm currently employed by the Dutch Ministry of Defence.
4 Q. And in what capacity? What are your responsibilities in your
5 current position?
6 A. I'm an officer in the Dutch army special forces and in that
7 function I am a team leader of a special force unit.
8 Q. Okay. And what is your current rank?
9 A. My current rank is captain.
10 Q. Now if I could please see 65 ter 28556 on the monitor.
11 THE INTERPRETER: The speakers are kindly asked to slow down and
12 to pause between questions and answers for the sake of interpretation.
13 Thank you.
14 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
15 Q. And captain, we've been asked by the interpreters to slowdown and
16 pause between question and answer, so I will be making my best effort and
17 if you could do the same.
18 The document that is on the monitor now, 65 ter 28556, is that
19 your curriculum vitae?
20 A. Yes, it is.
21 Q. And does it accurately reflect your civilian and military
22 education as well as your postings and deployment?
23 A. Yes, it does. Although I have left out some military course that
24 I deemed irrelevant for this subject.
25 Q. Now, in -- in your current job function, are you -- you said you
1 were the team leader of a special forces unit. Does that also involve
2 the teaching and training of other members of the military and of snipers
3 in particular?
4 A. It might. Although my main function is team leader, but I can be
5 called upon to -- as a sniper instructor to instruct other snipers in
7 Q. And the role of sniper instructor, we see it on your CV under
8 selection of military courses that you received that certificate in 2004.
9 Is that something that you have continued to do since then, to instruct
10 and train other people in that skill?
11 A. Yes, I have.
12 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honours, I'm -- I'd like to tender please
13 28556 into evidence.
14 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28556 becomes Exhibit P669,
17 Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
19 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
20 Q. Captain, you have testified as an expert witness before this
21 Tribunal in the Prlic et al, Dragomir Milosevic, Perisic, and Karadzic
22 cases. Is that correct?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. And did you prepare expert reports for both the
25 Dragomir Milosevic and Karadzic cases?
1 A. Yes, I did.
2 Q. And was one of those expert reports also used in the Perisic
4 A. I believe it was, yes.
5 Q. Were you asked to prepare a report in this cases?
6 A. Yes, I was.
7 MS. HOCHHAUSER: If we could please place 65 ter 28541 on the
8 monitor and just show the first page although, as I said earlier, this
9 will be a document that I will ultimately ask be placed under seal. The
10 first page can be broadcast.
11 Q. Is this the report that you prepared for this case?
12 A. If this report is the same one as the one I've provided in a hard
13 copy, then it will be the same report.
14 Q. Do you have a hard copy of your report with you?
15 A. Yes, I have one here.
16 MS. HOCHHAUSER: And with the Chamber's permission, can the
17 witness maintain that copy during his testimony?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No problem. Please proceed.
19 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
20 Q. Now can you describe how the report that you prepared for this
21 case relates to the report that you prepared for -- for the earlier cases
22 that we discussed?
23 A. For the -- this report is a mix of some of the incidents of the
24 Milosevic case and the Karadzic case, and, in addition, some of the
25 incidents that were left out earlier have been put in this report as
1 well. So this report is more of an update on the -- both reports.
2 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Now, if we could turn, please, to the second
3 page in e-court in both the English and B/C/S versions. And in the hard
4 copy, that's the page marked 1 of 84, the page after the cover page.
5 Q. Now, what we see is an index of the sections contained in the
6 report, and I'm going to begin with asking you some questions about the
7 section that you have entitled at number 1, an introduction to sniping.
8 Now within that section you explain that there are different
9 definitions of the term "sniper" and "sniping" that are in use. And you
10 write on page 2 -- sorry. It would be two of the hard copy, page 3 in
11 e-court in both the English and B/C/S, that:
12 "'Sniper Alley' in Sarajevo is known to the whole world. Since
13 that conflict the word sniper is used to indicate a shooter who shoots at
14 whoever he gets in his sights men, women, children, combatant or
16 And I'd like to ask you in light of what you've written in this
17 section about the various definitions of "sniper" versus "sniper!" And
18 what I've just read out to you, if we can start out by defining the terms
19 that you are going to use in your testimony. So if you could please
20 explain to the Chamber what definition of the words "sniper" and
21 "sniping" you are using when you use those words?
22 A. If I'm using the word "sniper" I refer to the -- to the military
23 sniper that I'm familiar with --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could I -- if you look at your screen, you
25 will see that there's another request to slow down.
1 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Yes, and I apologise.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you, please, you started your answer,
3 that you were using the word sniper referring to the military sniper that
4 you're familiar with. Could you continue from there.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
6 The military sniper is an expert marksman that has been trained
7 tactically as well and should be able alone or in a team to approach his
8 targets, to observe his targets, and to eliminate his targets, and then
9 get away unseen from the target area. That's my definition of the
10 military sniper.
11 And the sniper that -- the sniping incidents in general that what
12 most people refer to as a sniping, is, in my view, or are in my view the
13 incidents where people are fired upon by an unseen shooter regardless of
14 what kind of weapon has been used or level of training that the shooter
15 has received. So I don't -- the military sniper might be the sniping of
16 the sniper that people refer to, but not necessarily so.
17 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
18 Q. And when you say regardless of the weapon that is used, are you
19 referring to small arms as well as larger calibre arms or can you clarify
20 that, expand on that?
21 A. Yes, I will. Small arms would be all handguns up to rifles and
22 machine-guns up to the calibre of 12.7 millimetre, so all the weapons
23 that -- that are have that calibre or below are considered small arms and
24 would be the weapons that I would -- would refer to.
25 Q. Can you please explain to us the difference between a
1 sharpshooter and a sniper.
2 A. The sharpshooter and a sniper both receive their technical
3 training as for shooting. That training would be the -- more or less the
4 same. The sniper only has advanced training in field tactics so that
5 would enable him to approach target unseen. The sharpshooter receives
6 the same technical training on shooting and is usually -- usually
7 operates within a team and doesn't go out with a small team or by
9 Q. For the incidents that you examined, the individual -- excuse me,
10 the individual incidents that you examined in your report. Did you
11 examine whether they would require in your opinion the specialised skill
12 and training of a sharpshooter or a sniper?
13 A. Well, some would require a -- at least a shooting background. So
14 a sharpshooter or a sniper might be the one who have -- who would have
15 shot. But -- and a hunter would have an extensive background or some
16 people with a sporting shooting background would also be able to fire
17 some of the shots.
18 Q. And can you tell us when you -- when you -- excuse me. Can you
19 tell us what factors you would consider in taking into -- into account
20 the best -- excuse me.
21 Can you tell us what factors you would consider in assessing the
22 necessary skill level for a particular shooting?
23 A. They would be the distance, as -- as the main factor, but also
24 the time that the -- that the target would have been visible. But mostly
25 it's distance, wind conditions, and everything that comes with those.
1 Q. And are there certain distances and certain conditions in which,
2 in your opinion, the use of specialised equipment would also be
4 A. Yes, there are. I believe that above 300 metres then you would
5 already need a very experienced shooter with a standard rifle to be able
6 to fire those shots. So I believe that above 300 metres you would need
7 specialised equipment. The only exception is if machine-guns have been
8 used -- well, machine-guns are sort of standard equipment, so you
9 wouldn't need an accurised [sic] weapon for those.
10 Q. And can you explain, please, how setting up -- setting up in and
11 continuing to operate from a known location would affect the necessary
12 skill required for the shooter in a particular instance?
13 A. Well, I think the longer the shooter is able to stay in a certain
14 position and can operate from that position he will gather more data on
15 the shooting conditions for that location, which would enable him to,
16 over time, make more accurate shots. The downside for the shooter would
17 be that -- that position would be compromised and that would be a bigger
18 threat for him to say in that position.
19 Q. And can you tell us what measures one could take in order to
20 improve the accuracy of a weapon at longer ranges?
21 A. First of all, would be the -- the position that he would be in.
22 So if he is in a supported position, he can improve his position by
23 putting his weapon in a supported position, so not free offhand shooting
24 but perhaps put his rifle or whatever -- whatever weapon he is using on
25 sandbags. Shooting from a prone position would be more accurate, but if
1 in time it shows that it's very difficult to get better results, you
2 would need optics or a better weapon.
3 Q. And to -- to define optics?
4 A. Optics would be an optical sight with at least three to four
5 times magnification which enables the shooter to -- to spot targets,
6 identify targets, and to engage targets.
7 Q. Now moving to section 2 of the report which you title "Incident
8 Files," can you briefly explain to the Chamber your methodology in
9 examining each of these incidents?
10 A. Yes. I was asked by the OTP. I was given a list of incidents
11 with the general area GPS co-ordinates, a date, and a brief description
12 of the incident. I then asked the -- I asked if I was able to visit the
13 location to get a better feel of the incident, and when I visited the
14 location I worked on -- on the location itself. I would get to the level
15 at which the -- according to the witness statements or the evidence that
16 the bullets had hit the victim, so if it -- the bullet would be at knee
17 height, I would kneel down at knee height and see where the bullet might
18 have come from. And then limits -- eliminate positions that would be
19 tactically unwise or technically [realtime error read in transcript
20 "tactically"] impossible.
21 Q. And can you tell us specifically what it was you were seeking to
22 determine for -- or seeking to reach an opinion on for each incident?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could I before we continue, the transcript reads now
24 "eliminate positions that would be tactically unwise or tactically
25 impossible," but I think you -- I heard you say "technically."
1 THE WITNESS: Technically, that's correct, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Both or -- "technically unwise," I don't know what
3 that means.
4 You would say that it would for "technical" reasons unwise to use
5 such a position and not "tactically," because "tactically unwise" seems
6 to be an option as well.
7 THE WITNESS: That is correct, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: So --
9 THE WITNESS: The -- tactically unwise would be if somebody would
10 be out in the open shooting from that position which would completely
11 compromise his own safety, so that would be tactically unwise and it
12 should be technically impossible.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 THE WITNESS: So if there would be a building in the way, that
15 would be technically impossible.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So your testimony is now it would be
17 tactically unwise or technically impossible.
18 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
20 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Thank you.
21 THE WITNESS: Referring back to the question I was asked by
22 the --
23 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
24 Q. Yes. The question was what was it that you were seeking to reach
25 an opinion about for each incident.
1 A. I was trying to establish where the shooter must have been firing
2 from to be able to -- in the -- in the incident. What kind of weapon he
3 would -- would have used, what distance he would have been at. And if he
4 would be able to identify the target as combatant or non-combatant.
5 Q. And you referenced witness statements as -- did you accept as
6 fact in witness statements the witnesses' perception of the origin of
8 A. Not necessarily so because I believe that for people who haven't
9 been under fire it would be very difficult, especially in urban
10 environment where sound bounces off walls and down streets, to establish
11 the exact shooting positions.
12 Q. So you made an independent determination?
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 Q. And how were you able to determine the ammunition and weapons
15 type when no ammunition was found? Can you give the Chamber an example?
16 A. The factors that I used are the distance. I believe that over
17 300 metres, the standard ammunition that was used in the conflict which
18 is the 7.62 times 39, which is the round that is used in the AK-47 series
19 of rifles, is inaccurate for ranges over 300 metres. So that would be --
20 I could -- it's the same if -- I would eliminate ammunition that I
21 thought was very unlikely to have been used. It also depends on the kind
22 of wounds that were sustained. If you would have 12.7 millimetres or a
23 large calibre bullet that would hit a child, the child would have
24 sustained far bigger wounds than some of the cases.
25 Q. I'd like to -- well, just referencing your last -- the last part
1 of your answer. Can you, for example, comment in regards to incident F1,
2 the shooting of Anisa Pita, and I'm just referring to the last part of
3 your answer where you said if you would have a 12.7 millimetre or larger
4 calibre bullet that would hit a child, the child would have sustained far
5 bigger wounds.
6 A. Yes. The distance that I think the shooter has fired from in
7 case F1, it's over 900 metres, so that would eliminate small
8 calibre of -- short range ammunition like the AK-47 ammunition. If the
9 child would have been hit, she was three years at the -- at that time,
10 then her leg wouldn't have been bigger than my wrist, and she was wounded
11 in her right leg by a 12.7 millimetre bullet, she probably wouldn't have
12 her leg anymore. So that's -- it's almost impossible then for her leg to
13 have been like this. Is she still -- she's still alive. Her leg is
14 still on, so I believe that the 12.7 millimetre bullet wouldn't -- wasn't
15 used in this instance.
16 Q. I would like to turn now to the -- to Incident F11, which is the
17 8 October 1994 injuring of passengers on a tram.
18 MS. HOCHHAUSER: For Your Honours' and counsel's information,
19 examination of this incident begins in the hard copy on the page marked
20 39 of 84 and continues onto page 49. In e-court it begins on page 40 of
21 the English and page 49 of the B/C/S, although I'm not asking that it be
22 shown on the monitor at this time.
23 Q. Now, did you receive, captain, conflicting information about the
24 location of the tram in that F11 incident when it was fired upon?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay.
2 MS. HOCHHAUSER: And can I please have on the monitor 65 ter
3 10047. And this is the translation of a French language report of the
4 investigation into the 8 October 1994 incident, F11. And if we could
5 turn, please, to page 6 in the English, which is page 5 in the B/C/S.
6 Q. Can you explain, captain, generally the conflicting information
7 about the location of the tram that you received?
8 A. Yes, I can. The victim mentions an S-curve in the tracks of the
9 tram. That S-curves -- S-curve is right in front of the Holiday Inn
10 hotel. But if I look at the map that the UNPROFOR report has attached,
11 that position is S2 while in the UNPROFOR report they mention spot number
12 2 which is one intersection to the east.
13 So they mention in the report an incident that took place in
14 front of the Holiday Inn hotel, but then later on they refer to S1 which
15 is an intersection east of that location.
16 Q. So let me refer back to the document that's -- that's on the
17 screen, 65 ter 10047. This is a report by a French -- by members of the
18 French Battalion who were on the scene at F11 and contains their
19 conclusions about the incident and location and origin of fire; is that
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. And page -- pages 5 through 7 of this report in the English and
23 B/C/S gives a chronology of events. And on the page that we were looking
24 at, which was page 6 in the English and page 5 of the B/C/S, there
25 appears to be a key to the map identifying certain spots; is that right?
1 A. That is correct.
2 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Now, if we could please bring up on the monitor
3 the French version of the document which is uploaded as the original in
4 e-court and turn to pages -- we can start with page 4.
5 Sorry, we can start -- if we can just move to page 4, please.
6 Q. And, sir, I'll continue as it comes up. It's just come up. But
7 in the original French version of the document at pages 4, 5, and 6,
8 there is a map. Is that the map to which the -- the key that we referred
9 to in the other versions pertains?
10 A. Yes, it is.
11 Q. And did you use this map and the conclusions in this report in
12 your analysis of F11?
13 A. I -- I used this map and I took into account the conclusions in
14 this report.
15 Q. Okay. And so would -- does this -- does this map assist in
16 understanding the analysis of F11 in your report and the diagrams that
17 you've drawn in your report?
18 A. I believe it does.
19 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honours, I would tender this document, 65
20 ter 10047 at this point.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
22 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Document 10047 becomes Exhibit P670,
25 Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: P670 is admitted into evidence.
2 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Thank you.
3 Now, if we could again please see 65 ter 28541 on the monitor,
4 which is the report, and turn to page 49 in e-court. Again, this can be
5 broadcast. It's page 61 in the B/C/S in e-court, and it is page 48 of 84
6 in the hard copy.
7 Q. Now, captain, can you please explain using this -- the diagram in
8 your report the conclusions you drew regarding the origin of fire for
9 each location that you -- each location of the incident occurrence that
10 you examined and - sorry - and explain this diagram to the Chamber.
11 A. The diagram is a cutout of some satellite imaginary, which -- on
12 which I have imposed the markings of the map that we were just shown.
13 The S0 to S3 are the spots mentioned in the French report and in black
14 above the vehicles that were -- the UNPROFOR vehicles that were present
15 at that location. Then the Metalka is -- the name Metalka is a name
16 given to an angled building south of -- in -- in the same line as the
17 Holiday Inn hotel in the S-curve, and the yellow area shows the -- the
18 firing zone that would be able -- that would have been if the shooter
19 would have been in the Metalka building.
20 The Jewish cemetery with houses 9 to 14, those are the houses
21 mentioned in the French report, and the yellow area would be the firing
22 zone from that area to spot 1. I believe that S spot 2 is the location
23 where the tram was hit initially, but I also believe that -- since
24 there's also a video footage of shooting at spot 1 that spot 1 was also
25 under fire. So I believe that the differences in my findings and the
1 UNPROFOR findings come from the fact that there was a prolonged incidents
2 and that shooting took place from both locations, so the Metalka as well
3 as the Jewish cemetery.
4 Q. And so the -- just to follow up on that, the FrenchBat conclusion
5 was that the shooting was from the Jewish cemetery. Is that what this
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. And that -- that the origin of fire was from Metalka. Is that
9 your conclusion?
10 A. The conclusion where the tram was hit, that is my conclusion.
11 From the Metalka building.
12 Q. And do those two -- those two different conclusions, do those
13 reflect two different beliefs about where the location of the tram was,
14 either at spot 1 or spot 2?
15 A. The exact location of the tram is not the same in -- in most of
16 the reports. However, the witness who was in the tram and the victims,
17 they described the location at the S-curve, as well as the -- the initial
18 lines -- the first lines of the UN report, and I do believe that the tram
19 was at that location when it was hit.
20 Q. And --
21 A. But since the tram was moving it would also automatically move
22 aware from that spot towards spot 1.
23 Q. And that location that you've just described is reflected by S2;
24 is that correct? The location by the Holiday Inn.
25 A. That is correct.
1 Q. Now, did you, despite your conclusion that -- that the tram was
2 likely located closer to S2, did you analyse the origin of fire if the
3 spot -- if the tram was located at S1 where the FrenchBat report has it
5 A. Well, if the tram had been located at S1, then the FrenchBat
6 report would be accurate in identifying houses 9 to 14 as the origin of
8 Q. So if -- if it was at S1, you would agree with their conclusion,
9 but you find your analysis leads you to the opinion that it was located
10 at S2 with an origin of fire at the Metalka building.
11 A. Yes, that's true.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I, at this point in time, put an additional
13 question for my better understanding.
14 You mentioned the possibility that the tram was moving while it
15 was shot at. Was it moving from S1 to S2 or the other way around in your
17 THE WITNESS: The tram line, the tracks that the tram was on,
18 those are the -- it's a track that is going from west to east, so towards
19 the city centre. That's also the direction that is described in the
20 witness reports and the UN report, so the tram was moving from west to
21 east and that would be from S2 to S1.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
23 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I would like to turn now, please, to incident --
24 the incident labelled F12 which is the 18 November 1994 shooting of
25 Mrs. Sokolovic and the killing of her son, Nermin. For everyone's
1 information, in the hard copy of the report the analysis begins at page
2 50. In e-court it begins on page 51 in the English and page 63 in the
4 Q. Now, did you receive information -- I'm sorry. Did you receive
5 differing information for the exact location of these victims when they
6 were shot?
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 MS. HOCHHAUSER: And I -- I'll ask Ms. Stewart to please play
9 65 ter 22452J, which is a segment of a video of investigator Barry Hogan
10 with Ms. Sokolovic, and I'll ask if you could play it, please, from 40
11 seconds, to one minute and two seconds.
12 And, Your Honours, with this witness I'm not going to rely on the
13 audio and so it does not need to be played twice.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll not listen, but, rather, look.
15 [Video-clip played]
16 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Sorry, it actually occurs to me that we could --
17 we don't have to play the entire segment. I just said we can stop it
18 right there, since we're just looking at it. And I've just stopped it at
20 Q. Captain, does the location we see in the video that has just been
21 played correspond with the GPS co-ordinates that you list in your report
22 with regard to this F12 incident?
23 A. Yes, it does.
24 Q. Okay. And did you consider that location on the street as a
25 possible location of the -- of the shooting, where it occurred?
1 A. Did location -- this location would be a possibility.
2 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Now, I'll ask Your Honours that -- that 22452J
3 be marked for identification. The Prosecution will seek to tender it at
4 a later time through another witness when the audio portions will also be
6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar informs me that she hasn't received
8 any video.
9 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Sorry, I apologise. That we do have --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could the usher assist --
11 MS. HOCHHAUSER: We do have it here.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could the usher assist in...
13 Madam Registrar, the number to be assigned to a video of which we
14 only saw a still at 48.5 seconds would receive number ...
15 THE REGISTRAR: Video 22452J receives number P671, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And is marked for identification.
17 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Now, I will also -- I'll now ask Ms. Stewart to
18 play the first 13 seconds of what is already in evidence as P136, and I
19 would just note that on -- this is a duplicate of what's listed on the
20 exhibit list for this witness as 65 ter 22352.
21 JUDGE ORIE: But there's no need to uses the duplicate. We
22 just show the --
23 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Yes. Just P136.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let's look at the portion played.
25 [Video-clip played]
1 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Yes. Okay. Yes. And that video was just
2 stopped at 20.9 seconds.
3 Q. The location in which we saw the -- the boy on the ground in the
4 zebra crossing in that video, did you also consider that as a possible
5 location of where the actual incident occurred in F11 when assessing the
6 origin of fire?
7 A. Yes, I did. I believe that this location on the zebra crossing
8 is the exact location where that boy was shot.
9 Q. Now, if we, again, could look at 65 ter 28541, which is the
10 report on the monitor, in e-court at page 52 of the English and 64 of the
11 B/C/S, and this can be broadcast outside of the courtroom. And it's on
12 page 51 of the hard copy.
13 Now, is the range of distance between -- between and including
14 the two different locations we have just seen in these two videos
15 reflected in your analysis and diagrams on page 51?
16 A. I haven't listed the location that is visible in the video of
17 the -- of the witness interview, so the location of the victim is
18 the -- is -- the only one that I have used in this diagram is the one
19 that was visible from the video footage of the boy on the zebra crossing.
20 Q. And when you say this diagram, can you tell us -- there are two
21 on the page. Can you just tell us which you're referring to? Or both.
22 A. It would be the close-up of the incident site that's -- on the
23 layout of the incident site. There it's slightly more to the west.
24 Q. So the layout -- the -- the first diagram, titled "Layout of the
25 Incident Site," is the blue circle marking the location of the victim is
1 slightly more toward where the GPS co-ordinates that you considered based
2 on the mother's interview with Barry Hogan; is that right? Does that
3 accurately state that?
4 A. The GPS co-ordinates were given to me by the OTP and are the same
5 as the location where the investigator had the interview. So that
6 would -- that is correct. And that circle is more that position.
7 Q. Now, can you tell us, did you analyse the entire range from where
8 the interview took place to where we see the boy laying in the street for
9 the origin of fire and direction of fire?
10 A. Yes, I did. I believe that on either one of -- either of the
11 locations the boy would have been visible from someone in the Metalka
12 building, and the more he would move -- walk towards the road, so towards
13 the east, the more he would be visible.
14 Q. So is -- are -- do the differing locations change your opinion in
15 this incident?
16 A. No, they do not.
17 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honours, it's been pointed out to me that
18 this might be time to break.
19 JUDGE ORIE: It is the appropriate time to have a break.
20 Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom first.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break, and we resume at 10 minutes to
24 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Lukic, the Chamber was
2 informed that Mr. Mladic doesn't feel well and that he would prefer to
3 return to the UNDU and lie down; but also that he wants to waive his
4 right to be present at trial.
5 Could we seek confirmation from Mr. Mladic. Mr. Mladic, is that
6 your position at this moment, that you would prefer to return to the UNDU
7 and that you waive your right to be present in court at this moment?
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Sir, I feel very poorly in terms of
9 my health. I need hospital treatment. I have grown weaker and weaker in
10 the last 10 to 15 days. I have lost my appetite. I should go to
11 hospital as soon as possible and receive treatment. This is unbearable
12 for me. I'd sooner go there and be bedridden and die there than stay
13 here listening to foolishness, to NATO propaganda.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I didn't invite you to comment on the testimony of
15 the witness.
16 Have you reported your not being well to the medical service of
17 the United Nations Detention Unit over the last ten days? Mr. Mladic,
18 did you report it over the last ten days?
19 Mr. Lukic, do you have any information about it being reported?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yesterday I was in touch with
21 Dr. Falke and with the lady doctor, the English woman, who asks for me to
22 sign statements about how I feel. I told them that I urgently needed to
23 go to hospital to undergo a thorough check, a medical check. I have lost
24 my appetite, and in the last ten days I spent most of my time in bed.
25 And if this isn't enough...
1 JUDGE ORIE: Well whether that is not enough or not, we would
2 wait for any medical report which we did not receive.
3 Now my next question is you had said you prefer to go back to the
4 UNDU, and as I understand now, you would urge the doctors to send you to
6 The next question is when you leave this courtroom, do you want
7 us to -- do you waive your right to be present so that we can continue,
8 or would you say, No, I insist on being present during the remainder of
9 the testimony of this witness, to start with?
10 What is your position? If you want to consult with counsel, you
11 have an opportunity to do so.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic --
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Orie, rather than talk
15 extensively about it, I will try and remain seated here in this chair
16 even if I should die here. Your procedure here will not help me. I will
17 not waive my right to defend myself until the very last moment to defend
18 myself from NATO lies and this so-called court of yours. You are no
19 court of law.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You are a corrupt group --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, Mr. Mladic should further remain silent.
23 I do understand from his last answer that he would prefer to stay in this
24 courtroom. We'll then proceed.
25 MR. LUKIC: Can you give me one more minute, please.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 [Defence counsel confer]
3 MR. LUKIC: We'll continue with Mr. Mladic in the courtroom for
4 now, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.
6 Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
7 Meanwhile, Ms. Hochhauser, revisiting the matter of the
8 confidential exhibits and the redacted public version, the public version
9 should be filed, not be tendered. That is the practice in this Chamber.
10 [Prosecution counsel confer]
11 MS. HOCHHAUSER: As we're waiting for the witness to be brought
12 in, can we -- can I ask for to 28609 to be placed on the monitor. That
13 will be the next exhibit that we start with. Thank you.
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 MS. HOCHHAUSER: May I?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may proceed, Ms. Hochhauser.
17 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Thank you. I'd like to turn now briefly to the
18 scheduled -- the scheduled occurrence F3, which is the 11 July 1993
19 shooting of Munira Zametica on the banks of the Dobrinja river.
20 Q. And in front of you on the monitor should be -- is -- is, 65 ter
21 28609. And this is an information report from Sadija Sahinovic, dated
22 14 September 2001. And I draw your attention to where it states that:
23 "On the day that Zametica was killed, the water level was lower than
24 today. It was so low that Munira had to be further out toward the middle
25 than it is possible to mark on the bank today."
1 Does the analysis of F3 in your report, which for everybody's
2 information begins at page 17 in the hard copy of the report, does your
3 analysis as contained in the report account for this information; and, if
4 so, how does it affect your opinion?
5 A. It does affect the report. The lower the water level, the more
6 you are in a kind of a tunnel formed by the banks of the canal and the
7 more precise the direction is where the shooter must have been, and so I
8 took into account the water level and I lowered myself down to the water
9 level, which was also low at the time that I visited that location. It
10 was approximately knee level, the water of -- the depth of the water, and
11 checked from there from the banks at eye height that -- to see if -- to
12 try to determine the point of origin.
13 Q. And does the difference in the water level as described here
14 change your conclusion as to the point of origin?
15 A. No, it doesn't.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could I put an additional question. What we see now
17 on the screen is on the day that Zametica was killed, the water level was
18 lower than today.
19 Now do you have any idea about how much lower it was?
20 THE WITNESS: Well, the water level --
21 JUDGE ORIE: I mean, 1 centimetre, 10 centimetres?
22 THE WITNESS: I have no idea, Your Honour, how low the level
23 would have been. But if you had to walk out to it, almost to the middle
24 of the canal -- the canal is not that wide, it's only a few metres wide
25 from bank -- from top of the bank to the other bank, and --
1 JUDGE ORIE: You say if.
2 THE WITNESS: If, yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you have got no idea about the quantity
4 of --
5 THE WITNESS: No, I don't know exactly what the depth at the time
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Not at the time of the --
8 THE WITNESS: Incident.
9 JUDGE ORIE: -- incident. Not at the time of this report which
10 we see on the screen where it says the water level was lower than today.
11 How much lower, you have no idea?
12 THE WITNESS: Though -- I know it was lower because when I
13 visited the water level was about knee depth and with the markings on the
14 side of the water you can see the algae, you can see that the markings on
15 the side of the canal, what the water levels are like, and there were --
16 was a lot of markings above the water level that -- when I visited it.
17 So it can't have been much lower because it was already below knee depth
18 when I visited.
19 JUDGE ORIE: But that is on an assumption --
20 THE WITNESS: That is correct, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- that these higher levels would have been reached
22 at any time at all, which is just an assumption.
23 THE WITNESS: That is correct, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I've seen on a lot of these scales untouched levels
25 for very long time. So you don't have any knowledge about the level at
1 the time. You don't have any knowledge about the difference of level on
2 the day this report was made on the 8th of October, 2001. Neither do you
3 have any specific knowledge about the water level when you visited the
4 place, apart from that in your guess, estimate, it was relatively low.
5 THE WITNESS: That is correct, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which -- would you agree with me that this
7 makes it very difficult to make any accurate calculations which whether
8 or not and to what extent it would have affected your findings.
9 THE WITNESS: I wouldn't agree, Your Honour, because the -- it's
10 not a natural canal. It's man-made, it's concrete banks, and the banks
11 themselves, even if they are at the top of the concrete, it's already --
12 there's an earth bank all the way to the top, and even if you're already
13 at the level of the concrete bank, then that is already forms a --
14 already forms a natural tunnel in -- no. Let's see. What was it? In
15 general east or west direction. So, yes, there is -- it's difficult to
16 exactly determine how deep the water was at the time, but the banks
17 themselves, they still form a natural tunnel which would -- it only makes
18 it more accurate to know what the -- what the level was exactly at the
20 JUDGE ORIE: Because that would be -- would determine most likely
21 the position of the victim.
22 THE WITNESS: Yes. That's correct.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Who approached the water to take water out of the
25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
2 Please proceed, Ms. Hochhauser.
3 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Perhaps if we look at Exhibit P3, which is the
4 Sarajevo map book. That's page 9 in the hard copy. I'm just, sorry,
5 looking for the e-court page.
6 Sorry. As I'm looking for the e-court page, I'll just continue
7 to ask a question.
8 Q. Which is: Captain, your assessment of the line of sight for that
9 F3 incident from the building that you determined as the origin of fire,
10 how does it -- how does the line of sight change depending on how far you
11 are up the bank?
12 A. It doesn't change. It doesn't matter how far you were up or down
13 the bank, you would still be visible, in clear view of that building.
14 Q. Thank you. And it's on page 13 in e-court, is the map I was
15 looking for.
16 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Thank you, Janet.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one additional question in this respect.
18 Couldn't you climb up the bank that much that you'd be covered by
19 the bridge?
20 THE WITNESS: Only if you would be -- if only you would be able
21 to get the bridge between you and the -- and the building. But if you
22 would be under the bridge, you would still be silhouetted in the shadows.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which means that your previous answer that it
24 doesn't matter is incorrect. If you climb high enough to be behind the
25 bridge on the bank, although that most likely could not be the water
1 level, because the level of the water would then be higher than the
2 bridge allows it to be. But the higher you climb, the more there is a
3 chance that you will be covered by the bridge, that the line of sight
4 would be interrupted by the bridge itself.
5 THE WITNESS: You would have to climb really high because it's
6 only a very small bridge which doesn't have any reinforcements on either
7 side. It's just a -- well, like a big slab of concrete. But if there
8 were -- there were people hiding under the bridge, so she might -- if she
9 would be high enough, the shooter would have to shoot through other
10 people to -- to hit the target.
11 JUDGE ORIE: But I have not -- I don't know whether that's
12 material which was given to you. But people said, Don't go that down
13 because you might be hit by a sniper, whereas if you stayed a bit higher
14 up the bank that people felt safe and not being sniped at.
15 THE WITNESS: Well, the only explanation that I -- I might have
16 is that at that time I can't imagine that people were cutting the grass
17 on the banks of the river a lot because it was in a -- it was in a
18 dangerous area, so the grass might have been higher for people to hide
19 in. They would still be vulnerable to fire -- to shooting but less
21 JUDGE ORIE: Through the grass.
22 THE WITNESS: Through the grass, yeah.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Any information about the -- I mean, if grass, in my
24 experience, is usually up to, well, anything between 5 and 25
25 centimetres, whereas persons sitting in the grass usually are at least
1 half a metre if not more up. So I'm slightly surprised by your
3 THE WITNESS: Well, I don't mean grass exactly but just -- trying
4 to find the English word for it. Just undergrowth in general,
5 neglected -- just wild flowers.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Whatever kind of bush --
7 THE WITNESS: Nettles, they grow a lot higher than regular grass.
8 So -- if the -- but it's again an "if." If the banks weren't cared for
9 for a longer time, then you might have vegetation that would reach up to
10 a metre, approximately [Overlapping speakers] --
11 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
12 THE WITNESS: -- at the most. It's a guess.
13 JUDGE ORIE: It's speculation.
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Hochhauser.
16 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Okay. Thank you. I had put the -- the
17 photograph on the monitor from the map book at page 13.
18 Q. I don't want to belabour the point, but if that assists at all
19 in -- in pointing out on the -- on that image where it was approximately
20 that you were standing when you went and where it was that the GPS
21 co-ordinates that were given to you indicated in terms of height up on
22 the bank?
23 A. The photo itself, it helps. The GPS co-ordinates, it's always --
24 there's always an inaccuracy, that's why the combination of the GPS
25 location and the location that was pointed out by the investigator and
1 therefore the witnesses, so the victims, the water level was lower when I
2 visited because here it's -- it's pretty high. But it's -- that's the
3 same building that I determined to be the point of origin. Although
4 according to the witness statements, the building wasn't finished at that
5 time. It was more only the structure itself.
6 Q. And is it -- can you give us a description on this image that
7 we're looking at of where you would have been standing in reliance on the
8 GPS co-ordinates that were given to you by the investigator?
9 A. If I would be down at the -- describe the location that I took
10 the photograph from, it would be up to ankle level in the water. So it
11 would be on the -- if I look at this photo, at the left side of the
12 water, and then with my feet in the water.
13 Q. Okay. Captain, in you're Appendix A to the report, you list
14 weapons and ammunition used by the VRS along with their effective ranges,
15 and if we could put, please, 65 ter 28500 on the monitor. And that is
16 the 1st Sarajevo Mechanised Brigade, document number 3-1335/2,
17 information on sniper rifles, silencers, passive and infrared equipment,
18 dated 29 October 1993.
19 MS. HOCHHAUSER: And for everybody's information, Appendix A
20 begins at 86 in e-court and is the first page is directly following --
21 unnumbered, directly following page 84 in the hard copy.
22 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, we would object to the use of this
23 document in so far as the same was not identified in the expert report
24 prepared by this witness and was not discussed in any detail in the
25 findings of the expert report, so we believe that this is a direct
1 violation of Rule 94 bis, and a very serious one at that.
2 We have brought this objection to the attention of Your Honours
3 in our response to the Rule 94 bis submission of the Prosecution, and
4 this is one of the 31 documents that were disclosed to us recently which
5 are of the nature that they were not identified in the expert report nor
6 was the subject matter of the same discussed in the expert report, and we
7 believe for an expert witness that all findings, all conclusions are
8 supposed to be in the expert report if Rule 94 bis is to have any
9 significance or meaning.
10 Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hochhauser.
12 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honours, the witness was asked to -- asked
13 for his comment on this document during a subsequent proofing and those
14 comments were disclosed to the Defence, an initial comment on the
15 proofing note of 27/28 November 2012. It can be found in point 7K, and,
16 again, a comment in -- on 7 January 2013 of just one sentence at point 4.
17 The -- I would just add to that, while the document is not one
18 that the witness relied on in coming to his conclusion, I think that the
19 comments that were provided show that it substantiates and supports his
20 conclusions and provides illustrative information to the Chamber.
21 JUDGE ORIE: In what way does it support the conclusions and -- I
22 mean, if the witness doesn't use it in support of his conclusions.
23 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Well, Judge, there is an appendix in his report
24 that lists weapons and calibre typings along with their maximum effective
25 range. In fact, I think that inclusion of some of this information was a
1 point raised by the Defence in their objection, that he doesn't have the
2 expertise to talk about this, and this report, just for an example, lists
3 weapons that -- it's -- it's an SRK document that would support what is
4 written in his report about what weaponry was available to the SRK at
5 that time and his -- his -- what he says about their maximum effective
6 ranges and abilities, and I think that is material information that this
7 witness is qualified to comment on. His comment has been provided to the
8 Defence, and I think it would -- it is information that could assist the
9 Chamber in its analysis.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, if I understand the Prosecution well,
11 they say, well, to the extent, and perhaps they would expect that you
12 would challenge the information provided in appendix A, that this
13 document could be relevant to assess the merits of such a challenge.
14 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honours, the challenge was to the source
15 of the witness's findings and conclusions. I want to know what he looked
16 at to make these conclusions. They cannot use a document he has not
17 looked at to say this is where he got the information from, so it's
18 actually going at the issue from the wrong side, from the back end
19 instead of the front end.
20 The comments of the witness as to this document from 7 January,
21 2013, are merely that the M48 7.9 rifle, listed at number 1, is the most
22 accurate long-distance rifle. There is no additional information as to
23 how this relates to the findings in his -- in his appendix and his
24 conclusion; and, again, the objection was where did this information come
25 from so as to see whether his methodology was an appropriate one for an
1 expert witness. And I think that saying, Well, look, we now have a
2 document that he didn't look at does not address that objection, which
3 was the thrust of our objection.
4 MS. HOCHHAUSER: If I just might, because I gave an example of
5 what the witness could comment on this from this document, but I would
6 also say that there is an additional comment from the -- on that document
7 in the November proofing note, which -- in which the witness stated that
8 it demonstrates that the listed sniper rifles, scopes, and silencers were
9 issued to sharpshooters and shooters without specialised training, again
10 something that is directly related to topics in his report.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me ...
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hochhauser, we should clearly distinguish
14 between the sources used by the witness when preparing and drafting his
15 report and any other evidentiary material which the witness may have seen
16 at a later stage and may be able to comment on.
17 So Mr. Ivetic's objections are dealt with in the following way.
18 We should clearly find out what is the source of what the witnesses
19 wrote. For example, in Appendix A about these -- the availability of
20 this weaponry for the VRS at the time, and then once we've done that, we
21 may revisit the use of the document you asked to be brought to the
22 attention the witness. But that's the proper order of dealing with the
24 And then, Mr. Ivetic, once we have followed this procedure we
25 will, at that point in time, then further discuss the appropriateness of
1 using the document.
2 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Captain, turning to Appendix A, can you tell us, please, what the
4 source of that information is?
5 A. The source of the information in Appendix A is most of all the
6 Jane's Infantry Weapons which is the --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Van der Weijden, again I have to intervene.
8 There are distinct issues there. I think that perhaps not the most
9 important one is what is the calibre rate of fire, et cetera, which is
10 all technical stuff. The first and most important question is: What is
11 the source of knowledge of this witness that these weapons were used by
12 the VRS. That's the first question.
13 Could you please answer that question.
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. The Jane's Infantry Weapons 2000/2001,
15 it lists the weapons produced in countries and its use by the main
16 armies, so it specifies that the -- that these weapons were used in
17 Yugoslavia during that time. It doesn't describe -- it doesn't mention
18 by which units they were used. I have been in Yugoslavia during UNPROFOR
19 times myself and I have driven through several VRS check-points and I
20 have witnessed those weapons in the hands of combatants by myself.
21 JUDGE ORIE: All of them.
22 THE WITNESS: All of them.
23 JUDGE ORIE: All of them. So you say it is not specified as to
24 be used by the VRS in your written sources but by personal observation
25 you saw all of these weapons in the hands of VRS soldiers during your
1 tenure in Sarajevo.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, because that's -- that's why I limited it
3 to those weapons while there are other possibilities.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That is an answer to the -- yes,
5 Judge Fluegge may have one more question.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just in relation to the record, can you please
7 repeat the title of this document you mentioned in page 38, line 21.
8 It's not recorded properly.
9 THE WITNESS: It's "Jane's Infantry Weapons, 2000/2001."
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 Mr. Ivetic, would you also need further sources of information
13 about the calibre maximal effective range or? I mean, that seems to be
14 very technical, if -- would you insist Ms. Hochhauser to first explore
16 MR. IVETIC: She can do her direct the way she wants,
17 Your Honours. I might raise some matters in cross. It's a matter for
18 Your Honours to consider the totality of the evidence and to determine
19 the -- whether the reports meets the specifications to be an expert
20 report and what weight to be given to it itself.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then we should ask the witness what is the source of
22 the column dealing with the calibre and the maximum effective range.
23 THE WITNESS: The calibre and the rate of fire described in the
24 same source, so in Jane's Infantry Weapons, as well as the maximum
25 effective range. The text that I've added is my own experience. I fired
1 most of the -- of these weapons myself, and I've -- in a version or
2 other, but I've fired most of those calibres. So it's from personal
3 experience that I added some of the text.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers. One second, please.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, your objection against the use of the
7 document still stands or ...
8 MR. IVETIC: I guess it will now depend on what questions are
9 asked from the document.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Let's then first hear the questions.
11 Ms. Hochhauser, please proceed.
12 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
13 Q. Captain, if I could just ask one follow-up about the source that
14 you cited, Jane's Infantry Weapons. Is that -- is that a document that's
15 commonly used or source that's commonly used in your field of small
17 A. The Jane's Infantry Weapons is a renowned source for information
18 in this field.
19 Q. And do you keep up on advancements in the field of infantry
20 weapons and specifically small arms?
21 A. Yes. Constantly.
22 Q. And is this a -- was this -- sorry, back in the time of the
23 conflict and continued to be a source that is used commonly in the
24 field -- in your field and relied upon?
25 A. Yes, it is.
1 Q. So turning to the document that is on the screen, 28500, I'd like
2 to draw your attention to the list of weapons there at 1 through 9 and
3 ask you whether there are weapons that appear on that list with a range
4 of 800 metres -- well, withdrawn. I'll actually rephrase the question.
5 Are those weapons listed at 1 through 9 consistent with what we
6 see listed in your report at Appendix A?
7 A. The -- there would be -- the only deviation would the M48 because
8 the M48 is not listed on the first page. It's only listed on the fourth
9 page of the appendix because at the time of the conflict the M48 was
10 already out of the regular inventory. So it was -- they were in older
11 stocks but available.
12 Q. Okay. And the M48 -- sorry. Excuse me, I'll begin the question
14 Again, drawing your attention to that list, are there weapons on
15 that list with a range of 800 metres or greater?
16 A. Yes, there are. I do see a mistake. It's not in the translation
17 because the original also states -- for number 3 it mentions the M48,
18 7.62 machine-gun, but that most likely would be the M84, 7.62 machine-gun
19 because there was no M48 machine-gun in that conflict.
20 Q. And are you referring to the English translation on the document
21 at point 3?
22 A. Both. Because I see in the original document that number 3 also
23 states M48.
24 Q. Now -- I'm sorry, did someone -- I'm sorry.
25 A. I tried to -- sorry. For number 2 and number 6, I would not be
1 able to determine what kind of rifles they were. If they were of the
2 calibre 7.62 times 39, then they would be inadequate for ranges over 300
4 Q. And the ones that are listed as sniper rifles are those
5 specialised equipment?
6 A. Sniper rifles per definition is specialised equipment.
7 Q. Now I'd like to also draw your attention --
8 MS. HOCHHAUSER: And Your Honours, I would move on still within
9 this document to a different topic within it.
10 Q. So I'd like to draw your attention to the sentences below that
11 list which begins:
12 "As we don't have a special sniper unit, we have issued the
13 sniper rifles" --
14 JUDGE ORIE: One second. To draw our attention to certain
15 matters is argument rather than eliciting testimony. If the document is
16 in evidence --
17 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Oh, I'm sorry, Judge. I was going to call the
18 witness's attention to it and ask him for comment, but I was drawing the
19 Chamber's attention to the fact that I was moving off of the -- the
20 Appendix A-related information.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If the witness can tell us anything about what
22 remains, then please -- you have drawn his attention to the two lines
23 following the list of weaponry, yes.
24 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Correct. So --
25 JUDGE ORIE: If the witness has read that, you may ask questions
1 about it.
2 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
3 Q. Beginning with "As we don't have a special sniper unit" and
4 ending with "in the subordinated units," if you could look at that.
5 A. I have read it.
6 Q. And I would like to ask for your comment on that portion of the
7 document given your -- what your report addresses about the equipment and
8 training for snipers.
9 A. Well, here they state they don't have a special sniper unit.
10 That would indicate they don't have people within the unit that have
11 sniper training and that they have issued those weapons to combatants in
12 the subordinated units. That's probably -- they probably issued the
13 rifles to the most experienced riflemen for them to use it.
14 Q. And, Your Honours, at this time I would tender that document
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before doing so could I ask a few questions, a
17 more thorough analysis of these two lines.
18 As we don't have a special sniper unit, it seems that you
19 conclude from that, that in other units, perhaps not special sniper
20 units, there were no trained snipers.
21 THE WITNESS: I think I conclude that in this unit they didn't
22 have snipers because usually it's an assumption, of course, snipers are
23 combined into a -- into teams, so that's why I concluded that they issued
24 the sniper rifles to the most experienced marksmen instead of snipers.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But the most experienced marksmen could have
1 had specific sniper training.
2 THE WITNESS: He could have. He could also be an experienced
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we just don't know.
5 You tendered the document.
6 Mr. Ivetic.
7 MR. IVETIC: No objection based on the discussions that the
8 witness has had with the document.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28500 becomes Exhibit P672,
11 Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: P672 is admitted into evidence.
13 You may proceed, Ms. Hochhauser.
14 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
15 Q. Now, I would like to turn to document 1550 on the monitor.
16 And, again, this is a document that was commented on in -- in --
17 in proofings, and the witness provides comment on but was not relied upon
18 by the witness.
19 MR. IVETIC: It is on their list, Your Honours, as one of the 31
20 documents that was the subject of our objection in the response to the
21 94 bis submission of the Prosecution and would be for the same reason
22 that, again, this is -- does not appear to be a document that has been
23 utilised by this witness in the preparation of his report, and I will
24 leave any further objections based upon questions that are raised, if, in
25 fact, they are ones that are not within the report.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll first listen to the questions.
2 MS. HOCHHAUSER: And that is number 15550. Sorry, if I miss -- I
3 left out of a 5, I believe. And as that's going up on the monitor, it's
4 the VRS Main Staff situation report, dated 5 November 1995.
5 I'm not sure if anybody else is seeing the document. I'm not.
6 Ah --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I had already on my second screen but now we
8 have it.
9 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
10 Q. And, captain, are you seeing this document in front of you?
11 A. I'm seeing it, yes.
12 Q. And if we could -- if you could just take a look at the whole
13 document and I'll also specifically draw your attention to
14 paragraph on -- if we could turn to page 2.
15 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I'm sorry, it's page 2 in the English but
16 remains page 1 in the B/C/S. Titled: "Combat Readiness Situation."
17 And in your report, you discuss how snipers are generally
18 organised and deployed from your knowledge and experience. And in light
19 of that experience, can you give us your comment on that paragraph that
20 I've drawn your attention to in 65 ter 15550?
21 A. Yes, I can. On section B combat readiness situation, the last
22 lines it is mentioned that Igman Infantry Brigade carried out sniper
23 rifle shooting with 28 soldiers. After the practice in the sniper
24 brigade, the shooting was assessed as good.
25 Q. I'm going to ask you to just slow down.
1 A. Sorry. Those lines do indicate that there's organised sniper
2 training as -- as is common practice for snipers.
3 Q. Okay. And does it indicate anything to you about the -- the
4 organisational form in which they are working?
5 A. Could you --
6 Q. Yeah, I'm sorry. Whether -- are they -- how they're being
7 deployed, whether they're working in a unit or some other function?
8 A. Well, I would say that they are working in a unit because they
9 are -- the training has been done by their -- at brigade level. So
10 that's -- that's not something in -- individual.
11 Q. And drawing your attention to the paragraph -- to page -- sorry.
12 Page 2 of that document. If we could turn to: "The Situation in The
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's on the screen in both languages.
15 MS. HOCHHAUSER: It's on the screen -- I'm sorry. So it's
16 actually paragraph 1. The first paragraph appearing on that page.
17 THE WITNESS: It's at the top of the page?
18 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Yes. If we could actually flip back to the page
19 before in the English.
20 THE WITNESS: Are you --
21 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
22 Q. Yes, I'm sorry, if you can take a look at the text under (a)
23 where it says: "Enemy:", the text going onto the second page. If you
24 can just review that. So those two paragraphs and then the beginning of
25 the next page.
1 A. Could I see the next page.
2 Well, the only thing I would say that from this report -- from
3 this report, it would seem that the -- the position of the report is
4 quite accurate with details of -- I don't know if it's accurate but
5 there's a lot of details in the report.
6 Q. And what is that -- what does that tell you in your experience
7 about the -- about the control over the sniper units?
8 MR. IVETIC: Objection, Your Honour. It calls for speculation
9 and there is no foundational bases for any such knowledge of the command
10 and control of snipers in this armed formation by this witness from this
12 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Perhaps I can rephrase the question, Judge.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
14 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Yeah.
15 Q. Captain, are you familiar with how -- with how sniper and sniper
16 units operate on -- in -- on confrontation lines?
17 A. More or less over my own experience, yes.
18 Q. And is there -- can you -- are you --
19 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Actually, Your Honours, I'll withdraw the
20 question. I'm just going to tender this exhibit based on this -- 65 ter
21 number based on the prior answers. One -- I'm tendering 65 ter number
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
24 MR. IVETIC: [Microphone not activated] No objection.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Document 15550 becomes Exhibit P673,
2 Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: P673 is admitted into evidence.
4 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I -- I do see that it's time for the break, and
5 if Your Honours would allow me the indulgence I have maybe perhaps four
6 or five more minutes after the break.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then I suggest that we take these four or five
8 minutes now and then take the break. You have until five minutes to
10 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
11 Q. Can we turn to a moment back to a particular incident, which is
12 incident scheduled F16, and that's the shooting of 14 year old
13 Tarik Zunic, wounded on 6 March of 1995.
14 And if we could have, please, 65 ter number 11213 on the monitor,
15 and that is a UNMO daily sitrep for March 1995.
16 And at page 3 of the document in both of the English and B/C/S,
17 we see under point 8 subparagraph (a)3, it says:
18 "Civilian male, aged 14 years, injured by," and there it says "SA
19 RD in the left forearm at 061350 A," March 1995, "MAR 1995." And it
20 gives a grid reference.
21 And it says in the document there that the origin of fire was
22 assessed at Sharpstone. And I'd like to go back to page 1 if we can for
23 a moment and draw your attention to paragraph 3(b) which begins with:
24 "During the activity in the area of Sharpstone," and goes on to
25 say that "the Vogosca team received a telephone call from the CD R Radava
1 BN," continues on that: "If the Egypt APC and his target practice area
2 (Sedrenik) is not removed within 30 minutes it will be fired upon."
3 Can you tell us, captain, what is -- what are the usual
4 requirements for a chosen target practice area?
5 A. If I had to work in a target practice area I would -- for small
6 arms, I would use an area where I could visit the target I was shooting
7 at, preferably a paper target to accurately know of -- write down my
8 results and to be able to correct my sights.
9 Q. And can you give us your comment based on your -- well, in your
10 experience, have you -- do you choose target practice areas and actually
11 practice your skills?
12 A. Yes, we do.
13 Q. And given that, can you comment on that -- the -- on the portions
14 of the paragraph -- the portions of the document that I've drawn your
15 attention to?
16 A. Well, I don't know the -- the exact situation at the time, but I
17 do believe that there's -- the target practice area where the shooting
18 of -- the bullets ended up. It was separated from the origin of fire, so
19 there was no way to check your results. So, for me, that would be an
20 inaccurate target practice area.
21 Q. And would a target -- would a usual target practice area be a
22 civilian area, an area where civilians were living?
23 A. For me, that would be not possible.
24 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honours I would like to tender, please,
25 this document, 65 ter 11213.
1 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Document 11213 becomes Exhibit P674,
4 Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
6 Ms. Hochhauser.
7 MS. HOCHHAUSER: And my final question is --
8 Q. In your report you discuss the training for target -- for -- at
9 target identification, the training and the norms of target
10 identification, and in your training and experience: If a sniper or a
11 sharpshooter is not certain whether a target is a combatant or a
12 non-combatant, what do -- what do the rules of engagement tell them to
14 A. Usually the rules of engagement would tell the shooter not to
15 engage, but he could go higher up the chain of command to ask for
17 Q. Okay.
18 MS. HOCHHAUSER: That concludes my examination.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Hochhauser.
20 Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break, and we'll resume at 20 minutes
23 past 12.00.
24 --- Recess taken at 11.57 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 12.21 p.m.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hochhauser, or -- the Chamber has considered the
4 use of the chart. There's no problem with that, Mr. Groome.
5 Did I understand well that it was mainly for authentication of
6 the documents?
7 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Because the Chamber would like to avoid that charts
9 are used to circumvent our guidance in terms of associated exhibits. But
10 if it's about authentication, then there's no problem. But the Chamber
11 will, if at any later stage other charts are used, always clearly keep in
12 mind its own guidance on number of associated exhibits and the importance
13 of associated exhibits, but that apparently plays no role here.
14 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour. These are purely medical records
15 with respect to victims of some of the shelling and sniping victims
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And mainly that they are authentic.
18 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then leave is granted.
20 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. van der Weijden, you'll now be cross-examined by
23 Mr. Ivetic. Mr. Ivetic is a member of the Defence team of Mr. Mladic.
24 Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.
25 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
2 Q. Good day, sir.
3 A. Good day.
4 Q. I will have some questions today for you to try and clarify
5 portions of your testimony and better understand your opinions and the
6 bases for the same. First of all, I do want to stress and remind you
7 that since we both are speaking the English language, it is critical that
8 we observe a pause between question and answer to permit the court
9 reporter and translators to do their jobs. Is that understood, sir?
10 A. Yes, it is.
11 Q. And, likewise, I would ask to have you try and pay close
12 attention to exactly what my questions are to try and ensure that the
13 answers you provide are the most complete and most accurate answers
14 possible to that question. Is that understood?
15 A. That is understood.
16 Q. Thank you, sir. Then I would like to first spend some time going
17 over your background.
18 Could you tell the Court on how many other occasions have you
19 testified as an expert in other legal proceedings, specifically on the
20 topic of ballistics or forensic ballistics?
21 A. They have all been for the ICTY. The first one has been in 2004,
22 and it was -- some incidents concerning Mostar and the rest of the cases
23 of the -- the testimonies have been related to Sarajevo, and I believe
24 that they were on Mr. Dragomir Milosevic, Mr. Karadzic, and -- I'm not
25 that good with the names, and on one other occasion.
1 Q. With respect to those incidents apart from Mostar, would those be
2 essentially most of the same incidents that are the subject matter of the
3 report in this case?
4 A. Most of them, yes.
5 Q. Can you tell us how many times you have testified as an expert
6 witness in legal proceedings on the topic of weapons and ammunition used
7 either by the JNA, by the VRS, or the Army of BiH?
8 A. They would be the same as the ones listed above.
9 Q. Can you tell me how many prior times you have testified as an
10 expert on the topic of forensic criminology or crime-scene investigation
11 in other legal proceedings?
12 A. I have not.
13 Q. And can you tell me apart from this report that you authored for
14 the Prosecution in these proceedings, how many prior times have you
15 testified in legal proceedings as an expert witness on the topic of
16 performing analysis of probable locations of shooters based upon
17 descriptions of incidents?
18 A. No prior times.
19 Q. I'd like to now take a look at your education and training. If
20 we can first call up Exhibit P669. And that will be, I hope, your
21 curriculum vitae, that you just looked at in direct. Thank you.
22 And if we can first focus on the civilian education aspect. You
23 list two institutions which you attended. And for the second one you
24 identify that you graduated. Does that mean that you did not complete
25 your studies and graduate from the TU Delft, because I do not see a
1 similar notation for that institution?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. And could you confirm for us, sir, the Dr. Mollercollege in
4 Waalwijk, is that a university or a secondary school?
5 A. It is a secondary school.
6 Q. Can you please tell us, sir, with regards to these two
7 educational institutions, did you have any course work or obtain any
8 degrees or certificats relating to the topic of mechanical engineering or
9 any other type engineering?
10 A. I did not get any documents concerning those.
11 Q. With relation to these two educational institutions, can you tell
12 us if you completed any course work or obtained any degrees or
13 certificates relating to the topics of ballistics or forensic ballistic
15 A. As for forensic ballistic analysis, I did not get any, but for
16 ballistics that is included in the sniper course and the fire-arms
17 instructor course that did at the police academy.
18 Q. With regard to the topic of ballistics or -- of ballistics,
19 including but not limited to forensic ballistic analysis, did you offer
20 any theses or papers on these fields?
21 A. No, I did not.
22 Q. With respect now to these two civilian institutions, did you ever
23 have any course work or obtain any degrees or certificates from either in
24 any scientific field which you believe assists you in the performance of
25 the work you did in analysing the sniping incidents in the current case?
1 A. Both degrees -- the secondary school that I visited -- that I
2 attained, physics was in my exams, so physics does help with my analysis.
3 Q. Thank you, sir. Now if we can focus for a moment on the listing
4 of the military courses that you have in the middle of the page of your
5 CV, and if you could first clarify for us if any of the course work or
6 studies that resulted in these diplomas and certificates involved a
7 course of study in the engineering field or ballistics including but not
8 limited to forensic ballistic analysis?
9 A. Several. The -- starting from the bottom up, because it's in
10 chronological order, is [indiscernible] Sharpshooter course involves
11 ballistics, the KCT sniper course involves ballistics, the KCT
12 counter-terrorism course involves ballistics, the KCT fire-arms
13 instructor as well as the sniper instructor course all involve ballistics
14 and the teaching of it.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you again to slow down.
16 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
17 MR. IVETIC:
18 Q. And I apologise, I'm waiting for the transcript to catch up with
19 us. With respect to these courses that you have now identified for us,
20 could you tell me what type of instructors there were? Were these fellow
21 soldiers, were they professors, were they officers, et cetera?
22 A. It would be a mix of those. So there would be fellow members of
23 the military, one professor, and some officers.
24 Q. With respect to specifically these courses that you have now
25 highlighted for us on these topics, how long did those courses last? Was
1 it a matter of days, a matter of weeks?
2 A. Starting again from the bottom up: The sharpshooter course lasts
3 for three weeks at that time; the sniper course at that time lasted four
4 weeks; the KCT counterterrorism course, it lasts ten weeks; the firearms
5 instructor course lasted four weeks; and the sniper instructor course
6 lasted ten weeks.
7 Q. Did any of the course work or training that you underwent in th
8 military to obtain these identified degrees and certificates involve
9 training in forensic criminal investigation or crime scene analysis of
10 shooting incidents; that is to say, the activities that would normally be
11 undertaken by police or military police organs?
12 A. No, it did not.
13 Q. In the course of either your military career or your civilian
14 career, did you have occasion to participate in or assist professionals
15 in forensic criminal investigation of crime scenes where a shooting was
16 involved, and, if so, in what capacity?
17 A. No, I have not.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, if you would slow down, equally that
19 would be appreciated.
20 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours. I apologise. I will
21 endeavour to do so.
22 Q. And just so that we can be clear, am I correct that you have
23 never had any type of medical training or education in the fields of
24 forensic pathology or anthropology?
25 A. That is correct.
1 Q. With regard to that study and training which you have had,
2 particularly in the realm of sniper, sharpshooter, and fire-arms
3 diplomas, would you agree that that was based upon the Dutch military
4 protocols and standards and those of the NATO forces?
5 A. They would be based upon but not -- but also include foreign
7 Q. And when we're talking about these diplomas or certificates, they
8 are all issued by Dutch military institutions; am I correct?
9 A. Excluding the fire-arms instructor because that was issued by the
10 Dutch police academy.
11 Q. Did any of your military training or course work, including that
12 for which you obtained these diplomas and certificates, involve
13 instruction about or study of the armed forces of Yugoslavia, the
14 Yugoslav People's Army either in terms of their structure and
15 organisation or their military doctrine?
16 A. Not in those courses. It did include -- it was -- there was some
17 study involved for the deployments during UNPROFOR and IFOR in the
19 Q. Let's talk about the deployment with UNPROFOR. You say there was
20 some study involved. Could you elaborate for us how extensive was that
21 study in terms of, I guess, the time taken?
22 A. The study was limited to the Bosnia country -- country handbook
23 that I was provided at the time.
24 Q. And what kind of topics were included in the Bosnia country
25 handbook that was provided to you at that time?
1 A. I do not recall all the topics but -- as it was quite a long time
2 ago, but I do remember that there was a list of weaponry used in the
3 conflict by all sides listed in the -- in the book.
4 Q. Did you utilise that book in framing your opinions in drafting
5 this report, in particular as to the armaments and ammunitions that would
6 have been available to the parties?
7 A. No, I haven't listed it, so I didn't use it.
8 Q. What about now before your deployment as part of IFOR. Was there
9 any additional instruction or training that you underwent at that time in
10 relation to the specific circumstances of the Yugoslav People's Army, the
11 Army of the Republika Srpska, or the armija of BiH?
12 A. There was some additional instruction but that would be mostly
13 limited to intelligence updates.
14 Q. Am I correct, sir, that you are neither relying upon the
15 instruction you received prior to your deployment as part of UNPROFOR,
16 nor the instruction you received prior to your deployment as part of IFOR
17 for purposes of the report that you generated for this proceeding?
18 A. That is correct. I do rely on the experience that I had during
19 those times.
20 Q. Did any of your military training or course work deal with the
21 topic of the JNA tactics or training or deployment of snipers?
22 A. No, they -- not specifically.
23 Q. I see that some of the diplomas and certificates are dated after
24 the wars for succession in the former Yugoslavia. Did any of those
25 courses touch upon the -- either the rules of engagement or target
1 acquisition protocols utilised by the Army of the Republika Srpska or the
2 Army of BiH?
3 A. No, they did not.
4 Q. Okay. If we can focus for a moment on the Royal Military Academy
5 and the Royal Military School that you have listed here on your CV as
6 part of these diplomas or certificates, could you please confirm for me,
7 sir, that you did not, in fact, complete the full course at these
8 institutions that be would given for professional contract soldiers but,
9 rather, you completed an abbreviated course?
10 A. That is not correct. I did complete the whole course that was
11 necessary at the time. For the military school at that time for my field
12 it was five months, and for -- and as a professional, to become a
13 professional officer, the Military Academy had six months. But it's
14 still for the -- as a professional soldier, only the difference in course
15 between long-term or short-term courses is more towards the -- the
16 future. So I did complete them.
17 Q. Okay. When you say that the only difference is between long-term
18 and short-term courses is towards the future, could you please explain
19 that? What precisely is the difference between the full course that they
20 have for contract soldiers and the shorter-term course which you
22 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please slow down for the sake
23 of interpreters, thank you.
24 THE WITNESS: There is no difference between the course for
25 contract soldiers and the short-term courses. All courses are now for
1 professional soldiers. The difference is that if you do the full course
2 at the military academy, you're more likely to end up at the
3 General Staff level and for the -- for the military who do the short
4 course, they will not get to the General Staff. Only after additional
6 MR. IVETIC:
7 Q. I would like to now examine your professional background and
8 experience. Looking again at the CV, first of all, a general question:
9 Did you have an occasion to perform services for or at the behest of any
10 intelligence or counter-intelligence organ of either the Dutch military
11 or some other NATO military or civilian body, especially when deployed in
12 the former Yugoslavia?
13 A. No, I did not.
14 Q. In the course of the various deployments with the Dutch military
15 that you have listed, did you have occasion to experience or eye-witness
16 live combat situations?
17 A. Yes, I have.
18 Q. Before getting into specifics from your report and the prior
19 testimony as to combat situations, in regards to those combat situations
20 that you experienced or eye-witnessed personally, were you engaged at any
21 time in the role of a sniper or anti-sniper capacity?
22 A. I was -- my function at the -- those days during UNPROFOR was as
23 a sharpshooter. I did not -- I was not involved in the combat
24 operations -- situations as sharpshooter. And for the IFOR deployment, I
25 was a sniper but I was not the -- I was not functioning as a sniper in
1 a -- the combat situation.
2 Q. Would you agree with me that during combat situations snipers or
3 sniper teams often a faced with less than ideal circumstances and, thus,
4 are required to operate outside of textbook experiences without the
5 benefit of all the best equipment and best supplies that would be
6 foreseen and taught in training for the performance of their duties?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, that's five questions in one, isn't it?
8 MR. IVETIC: I guess it is, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And apart from that is not very specific.
10 MR. IVETIC: Would -- perhaps I'd rephrase it.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And not very clear either. Less than ideal
12 circumstances. I lived 90 per cent of my life in less than ideal
13 circumstances. So if that is your criteria, could you please be concrete
14 and ...
15 MR. IVETIC:
16 Q. Let's -- let's limit it, sir, to combat situations.
17 Would you agree with me that in combat situations there are
18 occasions where personnel have to operate without all of the best
19 equipment or best supplies that had been foreseen as part of their
21 A. I think that would be an accurate description of most of the
22 combat situations.
23 Q. And, now, if I can tie that to part of your report.
24 MR. IVETIC: If we can turn to 65 ter number 28451 and page 5 of
25 the English in e-court, and page 8 in B/C/S, and these pages can be
1 broadcast as they do not have any of the redacted information.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Excuse me, Mr. Ivetic. Is it 28451 or 28541?
3 MR. IVETIC: I apologise. Maybe it's 28541.
4 THE REGISTRAR: 28451 is P316, Your Honours. Document 28451 is
5 P316, already admitted in October 2012.
6 MR. IVETIC: It's 28541 that we need. I apologise. And again,
7 it will be page 5 of the English; page 8 of the B/C/S.
8 Q. And, sir, if you have the hard copy in front you it's obviously
9 page 4 of 84 in the hard copy.
10 And here you talk about the equipment of a sniper team. And now
11 tying this together with the question that I just asked you and you just
12 answered, have you experienced or have you heard of others in your field
13 having experienced combat situations where they were forced to operate as
14 a sniper without benefit of all the full inventory of equipment and/or
15 personnel that you have listed here?
16 A. Yes -- yes, I have.
17 Q. Would you therefore permit the possibility that either Army of
18 Republika Srpska or Armija BiH snipers operating in Sarajevo during 1992
19 to 1995 may have experienced circumstances where they, too, did not have
20 access to a full inventory of equipment, such as a spotting scope,
21 binoculars, or even did not have a spotter?
22 A. Yes, I would permit that possibility.
23 Q. And, for the record, this part of your report is limited to your
24 knowledge of NATO armies and you are not suggesting any expertise on your
25 part as to how a sniper in either the Armija of BiH or Army of
1 Republika Srpska would be equipped as a matter of standard issue. Am I
3 A. That is correct.
4 Q. If we can clear up one more item from this section of your
5 report. At page 4 in the English, and page 6 of the B/C/S, you outline
6 tasks and deployment of the sniper and training of a sniper. And among
7 these items, you include several times the necessity of a sniper team to
8 consist of two persons. So, again, I want to make sure that this is in
9 relation to your experience and knowledge as to NATO armies and that you
10 are not suggesting any expertise or knowledge of such factors in relation
11 to the Army of Republika Srpska or the Armija of BiH. Is that accurate?
12 A. Not completely. The knowledge is not limited to NATO armies. It
13 does not include, as you say, the Army of Republika Srpska or the Army of
14 BiH, but it does include other armies outside of NATO.
15 Q. Would you expect, sir, that such things would be regulated by
16 other armies including by the Army of Republika Srpska or the Armija of
17 BiH by manuals and regulations that would be promulgated and published?
18 A. I would believe so.
19 Q. Have you yourself studied or reviewed any manuals or regulations
20 that were promulgated by either the Army of Republika Srpska of the Army
21 of BiH as to the standard-issue equipment or standard structure of sniper
23 A. No, I have not.
24 Q. Do you feel, therefore, that would you have to defer to other
25 professionals in your field for these precise factors who have had access
1 to or did study those publications, regulations and/or manuals?
2 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I would --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Hochhauser.
4 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I was just going to object to the formulation of
5 that question, but I interrupted Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: The question is unclear to the extent it is not
7 obvious. If you haven't done something yourself, you should ask someone
8 else who has done it, but that doesn't need -- unless you wanted to focus
9 on which you have to defer as a duty. That is a different question. So
10 the question is both unclear and -- but if you would rephrase it,
11 Mr. Ivetic, so that we understand what you actually are asking, please do
13 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
14 Q. For purposes of acting as a -- in an expert capacity providing
15 testimony here today, sir, do you feel that would you have a duty to
16 defer on questions of the issuance of equipment and the composition of
17 sniper teams to other persons who have actually reviewed those
18 publications, manuals, and/or regulations?
19 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honour, I maintain an objection to this
20 question. The witness has been asked about what his -- what his
21 knowledge is. I don't think it's for him to be asked whether he would
22 defer to another expert in the area.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, all depends on how much you would need
24 that information for the expertise you're providing, it seems. So if you
25 would be more precise and a bit more concrete, then we could proceed.
1 But please move on.
2 MR. IVETIC: Let's try and be more precise.
3 Q. If you look at page 6 in the English and page 9 in the B/C/S of
4 your report, sir, you have at the top -- near the middle of the page in
5 the English, a section entitled: "Rules of Engagement." And here you
6 refer to Appendix B of your report as well. Have you had occasion to
7 become familiar with and are you holding yourself out as an expert on the
8 rules of engagement that were effective and in existence in either the
9 Army of Republika Srpska or the Armija BiH from 1992 to 1995?
10 A. I'm not claiming to be an expert on those rules of engagement.
11 Q. Okay.
12 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I'm sorry to interrupt the flow, but I saw the
13 witness was struggling with the page numbers, so I would just like to
14 note that the page numbers in the hard copy are behind by one for the
15 e-court number in -- when -- when counsel cites the English e-court
16 number, it's always one page behind in the hard copy.
17 MR. IVETIC: I apologise. I should have made that clear as I did
19 Q. If we can now turn to Appendix B of your report which in the
20 e-court version should be page 93 of the English and page 135 of the
21 B/C/S. In the hard copy, is the ERN 06699993, which is labelled as page
22 1 of 3.
23 Now, sir, this appendix, if you have located it, is three pages
24 long, and I have been unable to locate a single reference or citation to
25 any authorities upon which you rely for the information that you have
1 contained herein. With respect specifically to this appendix and these
2 three pages of your report, can you identify for us any and all source
3 materials and/or references which you either consulted when drafting this
4 appendix or relied upon in reaching the conclusions contained therein?
5 A. I admit a lot of it is based on experience, but on the matter of
6 camouflage and observation, that would be out of any handbook for
7 sniping. Or camouflage in general.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic [sic], just for the record, the page
9 refreshes you gave for the B/C/S should be 119 instead of 135. If I ...
10 MR. IVETIC: I apologise.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Because it's only a 122-page document in e-court in
12 B/C/S. And the part of the identification of targets starts at page 119
13 and continues 120 and 121.
14 MR. IVETIC: I apologise for the confusion. These long reports
15 always seem to have issues with that.
16 JUDGE ORIE: There's no issue with the report.
17 MR. IVETIC: With me counting the pages is the issue, Your
18 Honours. I apologise.
19 Q. With respect to this appendix on target identification, in
20 particular, the section where you talk about the keeping of log-books,
21 the taught techniques of identification, would I be correct in stating
22 that this, too, is based on your knowledge and experience of NATO forces
23 and is not meant by you to be held out as an expertise relating to these
24 same topics within the doctrine of the Army of Republika Srpska or the
25 Army of BiH?
1 A. It is based on my knowledge and experience of long-range shooting
2 in general, not only NATO forces.
3 Q. Okay. Could you answer the second part of that question whether
4 it is intended to be held out as an expertise relating to those same
5 topics, i.e., the keeping of log-books and taught techniques of
6 identification as it pertains to the Army of Republika Srpska and the
7 Armija BiH?
8 A. I would split that question in two. The keeping of log-books
9 would very much surprise me if it wasn't used, since for long-range
10 shooting, without the keeping of log-books, you'd be a very poor shooter.
11 The taught techniques of identification is not something that is
12 regularly in a course. Everything is based on camouflage and on
13 observation and it is not -- the identification is not something that is
14 taught. It is something that is -- comes out of experience.
15 Q. Thank you, sir. If we can now return to Exhibit P669. And while
16 we wait for that, sir, I'll again be asking you about your experiences in
17 the former Yugoslavia. If I read your CV correctly, you have listed a
18 deployment to Bosnia under the auspices of the IFOR from August to
19 December of 1996 on the first page of your CV. And then, on page 2, you
20 also have a deployment to Bosnia under the auspices of UNPROFOR from
21 January 1995 to June 1995.
22 Could you tell me if either of these deployments included any
23 significant time in Sarajevo?
24 A. There was no significant time other than passing through Sarajevo
25 in the first deployment. The second deployment I didn't visit Sarajevo
1 at all.
2 Q. Am I correct, sir, that the bulk of your deployment in Bosnia as
3 parts of UNPROFOR was as part of the DutchBat in the Srebrenica enclave?
4 A. That is incorrect. My company was based in Simin Han, east of
6 Q. I apologise. I misread the question. You only passed through
7 the enclave of Srebrenica and spent two days there; is that accurate?
8 A. That is correct. On a convoy escort.
9 Q. As for the actual factual situation in Sarajevo from 1992 to
10 1995, that is the time-period of your report, do you feel that you would
11 have to defer as to -- to someone who was actually on the ground in
12 Sarajevo as to the position of forces, the position of the confrontation
13 line, and the combat and sniper activity ongoing at the time?
14 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Again, I object to -- to these -- the
15 formulation of all this as a deference to somebody else. I think counsel
16 can just ask whether he has knowledge of those particular subject
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, that would bring us quicker to useful
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
22 Q. Sir, do you, in fact, have knowledge as to the position of forces
23 and the position of the confrontation line in Sarajevo from the
24 time-period of 1992 to 1995?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. What is that knowledge based upon?
2 A. The knowledge is based upon my visit to Sarajevo where I passed
3 through several check-points, and it's based on remnants of the war still
4 visible in Sarajevo during the visits that I did.
5 Q. Do you feel that passing through several check-points gave you a
6 full picture of the position of forces or just with respect to those
8 A. That would be just around those check-points.
9 Q. And -- well, again, I would ask you: Do you think that you would
10 have to defer to persons who were on the ground as to the position of
11 forces and the type of combat activity that was ongoing at the time?
12 A. I have deferred to persons for the situation as for witness
13 statements and other information, maps.
14 Q. I'd like to ask you, have you ever -- strike that. I've already
15 asked that.
16 If we can turn back to your report. So that's number 28541. And
17 hopefully my pages are right. I'm looking for page 84 of the same in
18 English, which should be page 83 in the hard copy, and it should be page
19 106 of the B/C/S.
20 Here, sir, we have a selection from your report entitled
21 "Ballistics and Shooting," and this is approximately a page and a half in
22 length in the English.
23 With respect specifically to this portion of the report, did you
24 have this part of your report peer reviewed by any colleagues in the
25 field of your expertise?
1 A. No, I have not.
2 Q. Did you have occasion to consult with anyone trained
3 professionally in the field of ballistics or forensic ballistics analysis
4 to assist you in preparing this part of the report?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, why always remain on the abstract level?
6 If there's anything wrong with this part, attack it directly because it's
7 wrong with or without peer review. If there's anything. Because
8 otherwise we spend ages on theoretical matters rather than on whether
9 this is reliable information for the Chamber. Again, peer review is not
10 a guarantee. If there's anything wrong, point at it. I mean, if the
11 gravity is not existing in your view, let's attack the gravity part or
12 wind drift or is it the details that for this bullet it would be
13 different. Then by attacking that, we'll know what the quality of his
14 expertise is rather than to know whether it was ever peer reviewed, yes
15 or no.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour. But we also have to again
18 address whether the methodology applied this person with regard to this
19 report is appropriate for the standards in the industry, Your Honours,
20 and that -- you left that decision open and deferred for it in the
21 decision on the 92 bis submissions, so I have to go through it.
22 JUDGE ORIE: That is best done by pointing at where things are
23 wrong in the report as a result of wrong methodology.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. IVETIC:
1 Q. In relation to this part of the report, can you please identify
2 for us the source materials and/or references upon which you rely or
3 which you consulted in drafting this section of the report.
4 A. The source materials would be the -- the several manuals that we
5 have for sniping or for fire-arms instruction and just general knowledge
6 on shooting in -- that's available to the general public.
7 Q. Could we first address the several manuals that we have for
8 sniping and for fire-arms instruction. Which manuals in particular are
9 you talking about?
10 A. The base of my knowledge would be, of course, the Dutch army
11 sniper manual. I do have to mention that most of the -- that about 50
12 per cent of knowledge is transferred verbally during courses, that not
13 everything is written down in manuals. So a lot of it, a lot of
14 information that I have gathered for the report is done by studying more
15 sources or through the Internet.
16 Q. With respect first to this Dutch army sniper manual, could you
17 tell us its publication date and if a copy was provided to the
19 A. It was not. There is no Dutch army sniper manual since it's
20 Dutch army by itself does not have any snipers. It is within our special
21 forces unit there is a sniper manual.
22 Q. Could you please provide us with a publication date for that
23 manual so that we may do our diligence to review that?
24 A. I could not. I couldn't.
25 Q. Could you tell us where that manual could be obtained?
1 A. That would have to go to through the Dutch Ministry of Defence.
2 Q. In so as far as you stated that you relied upon it, do you have a
3 copy of the same?
4 A. I have a copy at my work.
5 Q. Do you have a problem locating and providing those to the
7 A. I think so. I would have to go through my superiors and ask
9 Q. Okay. Are there any other manuals -- I may have cut you off.
10 Any other manuals or publications that you rely upon as source materials
11 or references for the material that you have set forth in this selection
12 relating to ballistics and shooting?
13 A. The publications are widely available on the Internet, so I would
14 have to go on the Internet to get a list of all the sources. For
15 manuals, the other source material that I have used - because most of it,
16 the information is inside my head instead of straight out of a book - is
17 in course material for the fire-arms instructor, the ballistics part.
18 Q. Is that course material different from the -- from the manual
19 that we discussed from the Dutch special forces?
20 A. The material is different, since it's -- it's not a course for
21 snipers, it's a course for fire-arms instructors and it includes general
22 ballistics, and it's taught by the police academy.
23 Q. Would that be a manual that you have in your possession that you
24 would be able to give to the Defence?
25 A. Again, I would have to get a request to the police academy, if
1 they have objections to -- to hand it over.
2 Q. Okay. You start off this section of your report with the
3 assertion that there are really no such thing as stray bullets. With
4 respect to this specific assertion, is it something which other textbooks
5 or reference books that you are aware of have stated or supported?
6 A. Would you allow me to explain myself for the sentence?
7 A lot of the report is based -- I could go in very specific
8 details about technical stuff on the subject matter, but I thought it
9 would be -- would it be wiser to -- to try to explain the subject matter
10 to people with less experience in that field. And stray bullets, like
11 the word "sniper," are things that are known to a lot of people but
12 everybody has a different feel for it. So that's why I included the line
13 "there are no stray bullets" because a bullet doesn't travel on its own
14 or just -- a bullet follows a path.
15 Q. Okay.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Did you mean to say that bullets are always subject
17 to the laws of physics?
18 THE WITNESS: They certainly are.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
20 MR. IVETIC:
21 Q. In the middle of page 83 of 84 in the hard copy, which is page 84
22 in e-court, and it should be the page -- in B/C/S that is on the screen.
23 You say:
24 "The above is just to show that for a long-range shot a shooter
25 must either be well trained or very experienced to make first-round
2 Would you agree with me that shorter-range shots are much easier
3 to accomplish first-round hits with?
4 A. Yes, I would agree.
5 Q. If you can follow my hypothetical now, if you have a situation
6 where there are two or more potential sources or possible sources for
7 fire that has resulted in damage or injury, would you agree that
8 statically the more probable source of fire, if a single-shot scenario,
9 would be the location nearer to the victim or target rather than the
10 longer-range shot?
11 A. I don't believe that could be put in a statistic because it
12 depends on the person behind the weapon and the weapon and ammunition
13 combined. If I would put the same person with the same weapon, the same
14 ammunition, at several ranges and have him fire from there, then a
15 shorter range would provide better results.
16 Q. Let's approach it this way, sir, theoretically speaking.
17 Where you have multiple potential locations of a shooter when you
18 are investigating an incident, or analysing an incident, I should say,
19 and you have one that is a long-range target, a long-range shot, and one
20 that is a shorter range shot, do you believe that it would be prudent and
21 within the expected expertise of your field to ignore the shorter range
22 shot and to focus only on the longer range shot as the potential source
23 of the incoming fire?
24 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I'm going to object to that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I could answer that question. It's
1 always not wise to ignore possibilities when you investigate something.
2 That's a general answer to this. And I think the witness could not give
3 any other answer. But what you want to say is: Wouldn't it be wise to
4 focus first on the short range, isn't it? That's what you are seeking to
5 establish, that that would be the best way to?
6 MR. IVETIC: I think both should be reviewed.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's what I -- we agree on that at least. I
8 don't know about my colleagues, but we agree that it's best to explore
9 all possibilities and certainly not to ignore the short range. Please
11 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
12 Q. If we can turn to the next page of your report in the English, it
13 is also on the next page in the B/C/S, I believe, you give us here an
14 example of moving targets and the speed of the 7.62 mm by 51 mm NATO
15 bullet. Am I correct that you do not have sufficient knowledge and
16 experience to quote with us with certainty as an expert the speed of all
17 standard non-NATO munitions that would have potentially been in use in
18 the former Yugoslavia?
19 A. I don't think you are correct. I have the sufficient knowledge.
20 And given a few minutes, I would find on the Internet, because there are
21 excellent tables and calculations for all ammunitions, barrel length and
23 Q. Can you then perhaps identify for me what manuals or references
24 have you had at your disposal or reviewed to determine or verify the
25 speeds of various types of ordnance, whether NATO or other?
1 A. Some of it is general knowledge in -- in my experience, but
2 otherwise I would have to go to the Internet and get some of the web
3 sites that I might use.
4 Q. Could you tell us what some of the web sites are? Are we talking
5 about Wikipedia, are we talking about Google? I mean, are we talking
6 about specific specialised web sites or the general Internet, sir?
7 A. It's a -- for specific web sites. But, again, I could not give
8 you the web sites now. I would have to go on the Internet and locate
10 Q. Let's return to the long-range shot again, the type that you
11 discussed on the prior page.
12 Would you agree with me that, due to all the factors that you
13 list on this prior page --
14 MR. IVETIC: Sorry, page 84 in e-court on the English, page 100
15 and -- well, the prior page in the B/C/S as well.
16 Q. With respect to all the factors that you list, is it more likely
17 for a long-range shot to miss its intended target on a first round?
18 A. Compared to a short range shot?
19 Q. Correct.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And practically speaking, such missed shots would still hit up --
22 hitting something or someone; isn't that right?
23 A. If that -- that something or someone would be in the vicinity,
24 then that might happen, that's correct.
25 Q. And if they miss and continue on a trajectory affected by these
1 ballistics elements you have listed, they could potentially hit
2 unintended targets, including, civilians; is that right?
3 A. That -- that is possible, yes.
4 Q. And would you agree with me that you cannot exclude with a
5 reasonable degree of certainty the possibility of a long-range shot
6 missing its intended target and ricochetting off a hard object and taking
7 a new trajectory, can you?
8 A. I would like to say that ricochetting is not something that would
9 alter the path of the bullet. At a 90 degree angle, it would be just
10 slight deviation of the path, but it would be a new trajectory since the
11 speed will have slowed down and the bullet would have given -- taken a
12 new shape, so there would be a new trajectory, yes.
13 Q. And for the report the ricochet effect would apply to both
14 shorter range and longer range shots; is that correct?
15 A. The ricochet effect is, of course, affected by the type of
16 material that is hit, the speed of the bullet, the weight of the bullet,
17 and a lot of other factors. But it's possible. It's applicable to any
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I'm looking at the clock. We are about
20 to have a break. Most of the last questions I would say are all common
21 sense, isn't it? If a bullet doesn't hit its target, hits something
22 else, which it inevitably will do - I've never seen a bullet flying
23 around for the next century - then of course that changes the path and
24 the energy and -- I mean, do we really need this to be further explored?
25 It should --
1 MR. IVETIC: In light of this report I think we do because this
2 report acts as if there's only one possible explanation for all this
3 and since --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then go to the findings of the report and
5 challenge those on the basis. Ask for F1 or F10 or whatever, is there a
6 possibility that it was a ricochet, and then, of course, we'll all
7 understand what that means. That it's a bullet fired somewhere else,
8 hitting not its target, or hitting its target and continuing its
9 trajectory in a different way with different energy.
10 Therefore, focus on the concrete matters rather than on the
11 theoretical side of it, and refer to the three to the extent it becomes
12 apparent that it has affected the findings.
13 We take a break, and we resume at a quarter to 2.00.
14 Witness first to be escorted out of the courtroom.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 --- Recess taken at 1.25 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 1.47 p.m.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.
21 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
22 Q. Sir, could you explain for us so we understand your use of the
23 term, what range of distance between target and shooter would you
24 understand and consider to be a "long-range shot" as you've used in your
1 A. Long-range, in my opinion, would be over 600 metres.
2 Q. Now I'd like to turn to another portion of your report dealing
3 with the Unscheduled Incidents. It starts at page 69 in e-court which
4 would be page 68 of the hard copy, with the text actually beginning on
5 page 69 of the hard copy, and page 88 and onwards in the B/C/S.
6 And, first of all, before we get to the specifics of these
7 incidents, we have been provided a supplemental information sheet from
8 your proofing session with the Prosecution wherein at number 11 it
10 "The witness states that, to the best of his recollection, he was
11 only provided the incident description, not the underlying written
12 documents for the Unscheduled Incidents which he first evaluated in the
13 Dragomir Milosevic case."
14 First of all, sir, can you confirm whether, in fact, this
15 representation by the Prosecution is accurate and truthful?
16 A. It is accurate but not complete. I was not provided more than
17 the incident description for writing this report. However, for the
18 previous report in which the incidents also were mentioned, there I did
19 have another of the -- extra documents, only I've handed them back to the
20 OTP at that time, and I haven't been able to find them -- to locate them
22 Q. Just so that we are clear, we are right now talking about the
23 Unscheduled Incidents, the three incidents that are on the screen on your
24 report. Is that -- is your answer also relating to those three
1 A. Yes, exactly, for the Unscheduled Incidents.
2 Q. Fair enough. And now the findings that you have for these
3 Unscheduled Incidents that are contained in this report for this trial,
4 are you now telling me that that is based on something more than just the
5 incident descriptions, that is to say that you had other material when
6 drafting this?
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. And that other material is the material that you cannot find.
9 Can you at least identify for us what that material would be?
10 A. I do refer in the first one for Nedzarici in the additional
11 information, there I do recall that there was a witness statement by the
12 two friends of the victim. But for -- since the initial document was
13 written in 2009 -- no, 2006, the end of 2006, I -- I wouldn't -- I
14 couldn't exactly state which documents I -- I had at my disposal at the
16 Q. Do you know if the Prosecution kept any list of documents that it
17 provided for you or which you stated that you relied upon for purposes of
18 these three incidents, these three Unscheduled Incidents?
19 A. I would not know that.
20 Q. Okay. With respect to the written descriptions or summaries that
21 are mentioned, did you ever ask the Prosecution what the sources were for
22 this information that was contained in these summaries or descriptions?
23 A. Since I don't remember exactly what the documents were, I could
24 not -- I could not form a question [sic]. I do remember that when
25 visiting the locations, I was provided with information by the
1 investigator with -- and the information that he had was from witness
2 statements and other documents.
3 So I did have the information from the investigator, but as for
4 the documents, I don't know where that information came from.
5 Q. Let me see if I can understand you correctly.
6 First of all, when you went out into the field to examine these
7 locations, am I correct that the investigator from the Office of the
8 Prosecutor is the one that told you where the purported shooter came
9 from, where -- the direction from which the shots came from?
10 A. Well, he was amongst one of the sources that -- that told me
11 of -- that gave information about the direction of the -- of the
12 location of the shooter, but in the -- in the -- I think it is list of --
13 the indictment list with -- which states -- or the initial list that I
14 got was an incident number, a date, a brief description, in most of the
15 cases also mentioned the point of origin for the shooter, and a GPS
16 co-ordinate. So it was not something that I had heard for the first time
17 but it was something that was, again, pointed out to me by the
19 Q. This brief description which had a point of origin for the
20 shooter and also had a GPS co-ordinate, is that -- is that the
21 documentation that you no longer have, or is that something that you do
22 still have access to?
23 A. I -- I still -- I also don't have that documentation.
24 Q. And, to be clear, when you say that documentation had the point
25 of origin for the shooter and the GPS co-ordinates, are those point of
1 origins -- point of origin and GPS co-ordinates that you determined or
2 that were given to you by the Office of the Prosecutor?
3 A. Well, this was -- the point of origin in the documentation, it
4 had the point of origin according to witnesses, from witness statements
5 and the GPS co-ordinates as given, they came from the same source, so
6 from the -- the investigator. And if the point of origin would coincide
7 with my findings, then I would use the same co-ordinates and that point
8 of origin.
9 Q. Okay. And were there instances where the co-ordinates that were
10 given to you by the OTP Prosecutor -- investigators did not correlate
11 with that which you have found? I mean, how do we know that? Where is
12 that reflected in your report?
13 A. I would refer to case F12, which is the incident that was
14 discussed earlier this -- this morning.
15 Q. Again, we're focussing now on the Unscheduled Incidents.
16 A. Oh, the unscheduled.
17 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ...
18 A. Just a moment.
19 No, for the Unscheduled Incidents, I didn't change the GPS
21 Q. Okay.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, did you verify them?
23 THE WITNESS: I verified them. Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
25 MR. IVETIC:
1 Q. For the first of these Unscheduled Incidents - that would be at
2 page 73 in the English in e-court, page 72 in the hard copy before us -
3 you talk about the witness having civilian clothing.
4 For the second incident - unscheduled, at page 78 in e-court,
5 page 77 in the hard copy - you also focus on the victim wearing civilian
6 clothing. And, lastly, at page 83 in e-court, 82 in the hard copy, of
7 the English, for the third incident, and the position -- the third
8 incident, you mention that the victim was not wearing a uniform?
9 The question I want to ask you is as follows: Did this
10 information -- did the information that the Office of the Prosecutor gave
11 to you, which I understand that you no longer have and can no longer
12 identify for us, did it include any information or descriptions from
13 other witnesses as to the extent that combatants in Sarajevo during the
14 relevant time-period were dressed in civilian or military clothing? The
15 extent to which combatants would have been dressed in civilian clothing.
16 A. No. It was solely the information for the -- for the victims
18 Q. Did you have any independent information or undertake any
19 independent investigation to determine the prevalence of combatants
20 wearing civilian clothing in Sarajevo during this time-period?
21 A. Well, I clearly remember from items on the -- on the daily news
22 at that time that there was a mix, at least, of military and civilian
23 clothing. On both sides.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, please assist me. This -- does this
25 witness give any specific opinion about the status of the victim? Or
1 does he just say civilian clothing, therefore, you could think of that
2 person to be a civilian.
3 Does he make any determination on the basis of his expertise?
4 Because, otherwise, it's -- it's useless to ask him about this. He
5 receives information which comes from third sources that people were
6 wearing civilian clothes. Whether it is complete or not, the witness
7 couldn't tell us. He doesn't draw any conclusions apart from that, in
8 general terms, clothing may be an element in identifying a victim, as a
9 child, as a woman, as -- even perhaps as a civilian. But are there any
10 conclusions on that?
11 MR. IVETIC: Well, I'm confused, Your Honour. On page -- I'm at
12 page 77 of the hard copy right now, and I believe it has a very specific
13 conclusion that says, This would have enabled the shooter to identify her
14 as a civilian.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, would enable. Of course, not she was a
16 civilian, is it?
17 MR. IVETIC: Right.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So as he has explained in other parts of the
19 report, clothing may assist. And "would have enabled," is, of course, is
20 a very soft language, isn't it?
21 MR. IVETIC: Well, if it's in an expert report that's being
22 presented for criminal liability, I don't think anything is very soft,
23 Your Honour, to be honest with you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then, perhaps there's a difference of
25 interpretation of what the report says here, that it was an element which
1 would lead rather in the direction of the person being a civilian than a
2 military person. That seems to be the issue.
3 The point you wanted to make seems to be clear to me. Please
4 move on.
5 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
6 Q. Would you agree with me that for all three of these
7 Unscheduled Incidents that we have in this section of your report the
8 source of fire given to you by the Prosecution was exclusively VRS
9 positions, Army of Republika Srpska positions?
10 A. I wouldn't agree. I was given the location only, so I know that
11 the Sharpstone was the point of origin. At that time of the report, I
12 wasn't provided with a map that showed the positions, so I only point
13 where the -- where I think the shooter must have been, and if that
14 coincides with VRS positions, then he might have been VRS. I don't
15 anywhere indicate that the shooter was VRS.
16 Q. Well, let me see if I can understand your methodology.
17 You obtained from the Prosecution's investigator a set of
18 coordinates for a probable sniper location, or shooter location; let's
19 keep it simple. You go into the field, you do your analysis, and you
20 either verify that that position is possible, or you exclude that
21 position as being a possibility.
22 In the event that you verify a possibility for that location to
23 be the source of fire, do you stop looking for other potential sources of
24 fire that could also be potentially possible sources for the fire. That
25 is, also have an equal line of sight to the target, that also are within
1 ranges that weapons and ammunition could reach?
2 That's what I'm asking, sir.
3 A. I take into account all possibilities and then eliminate them on
4 technical possibility, and after technical, I will go to tactical
6 Q. And when you say you eliminate -- that you take into account all
7 possibilities and then eliminate them, how could you take into account
8 the BiH positions and either eliminate them or verify them, if you were
9 not given those positions by the Office of the Prosecutor?
10 A. Well, the reports -- I visited the village of Sedrenik and
11 Sharpstone twice. The first time I wasn't able to visit Sharpstone
12 itself, since it was -- there was still mine clearing going on at the
13 location, and there was a heavy fog. I did see trenches at the -- around
14 Sharpstone, so that it's a indication there were at least positions from
15 either party.
16 And for the BiH positions, I was given a general line where
17 the -- of where the BiH positions had been which was at the -- at the
18 base of Sharpstone, and unless the BiH positions would have been in
19 houses immediately bordering on the square where the incident took place,
20 then it could have been from those positions.
21 But from what I understood, the information provided to me, was
22 that the -- that the BiH didn't have any positions on that -- on that
23 intersection where the incident took place.
24 Q. Would you agree with me that for each of these
25 Unscheduled Incidents, your conclusions presuppose that the victims were
1 the intended targets of the shooter?
2 A. Yes, I would.
3 Q. Would you further agree with me that for each of those three
4 Unscheduled Incidents, your conclusions presuppose that the shooter was a
5 trained sniper, rather than a marksman or ordinary soldier?
6 A. No, I don't agree.
7 Q. Would you further agree with me that for each of these three
8 Unscheduled Incidents, your exclusions presuppose that the shooter used a
9 weapon equipped with an optical sight capable of magnification of at
10 least four times?
11 A. Presuppose, I don't know if that's the correct word for it. I do
12 believe that if the shooter wouldn't have a optical sight, he would have
13 great difficulty in even spotting the target.
14 Q. If we can turn to the second of the Unscheduled Incidents.
15 Page 73 in the hard copy, page 74 of the e-court in English, and I have
16 page 94 in B/C/S, if that is accurate.
17 And, for this incident, we see here that you have listed the
18 alleged shooting position being 850 to 950 metres away from the target?
19 Based upon our earlier discussion, would you agree that this would be
20 what you had termed a very difficult long shot -- long-range shot?
21 A. It's a difficult long-range shot, I agree.
22 Q. Would you agree with me that you cannot know if there are any
23 other targets in the area on that day that may have been the intended
24 target which resulted in a missed shot that could have struck this victim
25 in the manner we discussed before?
1 A. No, I don't agree.
2 Q. Okay. If we can turn to page 78 in the hard copy, 79 in the
3 English in e-court, page 100 in the B/C/S in e-court, we should be
4 looking at the third Unscheduled Incident.
5 And I'd like to ask you with respect to that incident -- I guess
6 it's actually page -- yeah. 79 in e-court, 78 in hard copy. The alleged
7 shooting position was 950 to 1.050 metres from the victim. Would this
8 also qualify as a long-range shot scenario?
9 A. Yes, it would.
10 Q. And, in this case, would you agree with me that you cannot know
11 if there were any other targets in the area on the day of the incident
12 that may have been the intended target which resulted in a missed shot
13 that could have struck this victim in the manner we discussed before?
14 A. No, I wouldn't agree.
15 Q. Here, on this page, it is recorded that the victim heard 20 or
16 more shots.
17 Now, you attribute this to being a machine-gun that was firing at
18 her. I put it to you, sir, that you have missed a very plausible and
19 common-sense explanation that there was an exchange of gun-fire between
20 combatant forces and that the 20 shots didn't have to come from the same
21 weapon. Would you agree with me that you cannot exclude to a degree of
22 scientific certainty that this, in fact, was the case?
23 A. Could you rephrase that question, please.
24 Q. Sure. Would you agree with me that another plausible possibility
25 for this woman hearing 20 shots is that there was an active exchange of
1 gun-fire between combatant forces and that the 20 shots did not come from
2 the same weapon?
3 A. I agree that if someone hears 20 shots there is a possibility.
4 However, with the positions on top of Sharpstone and positions on the
5 lower slopes of Sharpstone, the difference in sound would have been a lot
6 different -- would have been very different than if she -- if the victim
7 would have positions very close by. I don't believe that as in the other
8 incidents that it's a possibility that there was a missed shell because
9 of the geographical situation on the ground.
10 Q. I'm asking you a different question, sir. You have gone on
11 record in your report basing the fact that the weapon that must have been
12 used in this incident was a machine-gun, and you based that on the fact
13 that the victim states hearing 20 or more shots just after she was hit.
14 My question for you, sir, is how did you exclude the possibility
15 that the 20 or more shots she heard was return fire or some other type of
16 fire as opposed to being from the same weapon? What scientific method
17 did you use to exclude that possibility?
18 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I would, Your Honour, just object to the form of
19 the question that he has gone on record as saying that it must be this.
20 Because that is not exactly what he says in his report. Where it says
21 "it indicates."
22 JUDGE ORIE: We are talking about Unscheduled 2?
23 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour. Page 78 in the hard copy. And it
24 says --
25 JUDGE ORIE: One of the two machine-guns left is the weapon that
1 must have been used in this incident.
2 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
3 Ms. Hochhauser, seems to be rather strong conclusion. Nothing
4 but one of the two machine-guns.
5 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I apologise, Your Honour. I missed that
6 sentence. I was looking at the first sentence of that paragraph.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. IVETIC:
10 Q. Sir, I would ask you to please answer my question.
11 As an expert trained in your field, what scientific method did
12 you utilise to exclude the possibility that the 20 or more shots she
13 heard were from other weapons.
14 A. What scientific method is something that I would not really call
15 it, but it's -- it's based on the sound and distance, so the time -- the
16 time-lapse between them is she heard 20 or more shots. If there were
17 weapons that had been fired at the same time at other targets in her
18 area, she would experience those 20 shots possibly from more weapons.
19 That's a -- that's true. But if there had been an exchange of fire at
20 that distance because the -- the fighting line was -- the front line was
21 approximately 750 metres away from her position, she would hardly be able
22 to hear shooting that was going on at short range with other calibre
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I'm looking at the clock. We have to
25 conclude for the day.
1 MR. IVETIC: Yes, we do. Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could you give us an estimate as to how much time
3 you would still need tomorrow?
4 MR. IVETIC: I believe I'll still on track to finish within the,
5 I believe, three and a half hours that we had anticipated for this
6 witness. I believe we have used up an hour and a half today, so that
7 would mean two hours tomorrow.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Two hours -- two sessions tomorrow.
9 Mr. Van der Weijden, I would like to instruct you that you should
10 not speak or communicate in any other way, with whomever, about your
11 testimony, and we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.30 in this
12 same courtroom, I.
13 You may follow the usher.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day, and we resume tomorrow,
16 Friday, the 11th of January, at 9.30 in this same courtroom, I.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.16 p.m.,
18 to be reconvened on Friday, the 11th day of
19 January, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.