1 Friday, 27 September 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone. Madam Registrar, would
6 you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
8 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 The Chamber was informed that both parties would like to raise a
11 preliminary matter. Mr. Lukic, you go first.
12 MR. LUKIC: Me first? Thank you, good morning, Your Honours. My
13 intention is actually to help everybody to fill in the next week's time
14 since we are missing one witness, so I was thinking of asking
15 Your Honours to allow me 50 per cent increase in my time estimate with
16 this witness, and I announced it to the Prosecution. I didn't see that
17 they have any objections.
18 JUDGE ORIE: That's confirmed by nodding.
19 We'll consider it.
20 MR. LUKIC: One hour and 45 minutes is 50 per cent of 3 and a
21 half hours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: We will consider it.
23 Ms. Hochhauser?
24 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I just briefly wanted to put two procedural
25 things on the record but it can be done as the witness is brought in.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be brought in and meanwhile we
2 will listen to you.
3 MS. HOCHHAUSER: First, I wanted to inform the Chamber that the
4 B/C/S version of the supplemental information report from P01904 has now
5 been uploaded into e-court under that evidence number.
6 That was the one that was missing the B/C/S translation of the
7 last page.
8 Additionally I was informed, and it seems upon review of the
9 record, that yesterday at 65 ter 09945, which was repeated a number of
10 times in relation to this -- the 360-degree photos that went in, there
11 are times when the record records it as 00945. So I wanted to just
12 clarify that the 65 ter number and it was repeated again and again with
13 often a letter from the alphabet after it is actually 09945.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Looking at my notes, I may have made that
15 mistake several times.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 WITNESS: BARRY HOGAN (Resumed)
18 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Hogan.
19 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by
21 the solemn declaration you have given at the beginning of your testimony.
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And Ms. Hochhauser will now continue her
25 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Examination by Ms. Hochhauser: [Continued]
2 Q. Good morning, Mr. Hogan.
3 A. Good morning.
4 Q. I'd like to turn please to Scheduled Incident F12 which is the
5 18 November 1994 shooting death of Nermin Divovic and his mother
6 Mrs. Sokolovic.
7 MS. HOCHHAUSER: And if we could play please the first few second
8 the of P671 MFI, it's a video that's already obviously been MFI'd.
9 [Video-clip played]
10 MS. HOCHHAUSER: We can stop it.
11 Q. Sir, the portion of this video was played in court with another
12 witness. Do you recognise this P671 MFI?
13 A. Yes, I recognise this.
14 Q. And we heard you say there, well actually can you just tell us
15 what it is?
16 A. This is the filming of the incident with the victim witness,
17 Mrs. Sokolovic and myself that was filmed in June 2006.
18 Q. And that was under the same circumstances as you've described to
19 us for all of these videos; is that right?
20 A. Yes, that's correct.
21 Q. Okay. And we heard you say specifically 15 June of 2006 was
22 when -- was when this film was made although the incident occurred
23 November; is that right?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Okay.
1 MS. HOCHHAUSER: At this point, Your Honours, I would tender P671
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hochhauser, could you refresh my recollection as
4 to why it was MFI'd at the time? Was it that you wanted to introduce it
5 later through another witness?
6 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Yes, Your Honour, it was used with expert
7 Patrick van der Weijden who didn't have the personal knowledge to
8 introduce it.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I see that there are no objections.
10 Madam Registrar? The number is there already therefore P671 is now
11 admitted into evidence.
12 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
13 Q. Now, can you tell us, having stood in that location and also --
14 sorry withdrawn. Have you ever been in the Metalka building or up
15 towards the Metalka building?
16 A. Yes, I have been inside and in front of it, yes.
17 Q. And is that the alleged origin of fire for this incident?
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 Q. Okay. Now, can you tell us is there a clear line -- is there a
20 clear line of sight between the Metalka building and the location on this
21 street where we can see you standing with Mrs. Sokolovic?
22 A. Yes, there is, especially when the leaves are off the trees.
23 Q. And can you tell us --
24 MS. HOCHHAUSER: If we could turn for a moment to Exhibit P3,
25 e-court page 25, and if anybody has the hard copy it's page 21.
1 Q. Now, if we can start with looking at the picture -- sorry -- on
2 the left of the screen, can you tell us the intersection that we see
3 there, is that the same intersection that's -- that we see in the -- in
4 the video that's now in evidence as P671?
5 A. Yes, it is.
6 Q. And the zebra crossing that's visible, the white striped lines,
7 that are visible at that intersection, can you tell us, having stood
8 there, if you've stood there, can you tell us about the line of sight
9 from the Metalka building to that zebra crossing?
10 A. The line of sight is unobstructed. It's clear.
11 Q. And can you just for clarity tell us -- describe to us where on
12 this photo the Metalka building is?
13 A. On the -- if you go straight -- this -- this photo is taken from
14 the north looking south, so if you proceed straight south along the road
15 which leads -- almost bisects the photograph, the Metalka building is the
16 red and white brick building at the end of that street just across the
17 river. So the Metalka building would be mid-point of the photograph at
18 the top.
19 Q. Okay. Can you tell us looking at the photograph on the right
20 just to give us the vantage point explain to us there what we are looking
22 A. The photograph on the right was taken from the south looking
23 north, the Metalka building is in the bottom left corner, immediately
24 beside the river, and the same street leads directly north to the
25 Holiday Inn which is the yellow and brown building mid-point to
1 horizontally towards the top of the photograph.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I am a bit confused about where you said the red and
3 white building. You said if you proceed straight along the road, which
4 leads almost -- and bisects the Metalka building, is that --
5 THE WITNESS: I was a little unclear, Your Honour. If I could
6 try to explain again. The Metalka building is at the top of the
7 photograph. It's halfway across horizontally. It's red brick with white
8 almost stripes running down it, and it's a bit of a curved building. The
9 street -- I'm sorry, the street that contains the zebra crossing leads
10 directly in that -- sorry, in that direction but it stops at the river,
11 just before the Metalka building.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just see -- I see three large buildings, all
13 three slightly bent, and it's the one, if I understand you well, bending
14 towards us on the left photograph?
15 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And at the other photograph, it is the building, if
17 you draw a line from a more or less reddish building which I could
18 imagine is the Holiday Inn, and then just straight down?
19 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Actually.
22 Q. For clarity of the record that we just made, could you with the
23 assistance of the Court Usher just circle the Metalka building in both
24 pictures and draw with a line the line of the -- draw with a line, the
25 line of the street that you're saying has the clear line of sight to
1 where Mrs. Sokolovic is standing with you in that video?
2 A. Certainly.
3 JUDGE ORIE: What confused us is that the -- it's difficult to
4 see that it's red or white. It looks more whitish than anything else.
5 It's clear now. I take it that you want to tender this marked
6 double photograph.
7 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Yes, please.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Document as marked by the witness receives number
10 P2401, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: P2401 is admitted into evidence.
12 MS. HOCHHAUSER: If we can turn to F13 which is the 23 November
13 shooting of a tram with passengers, and I'm going to ask Ms. Stewart
14 please to show us what is now P2396 which is the 360-degree photo for
15 this incident.
16 Q. Now, actually, right there, can you tell us what we see on the
17 screen now? We see tram tracks and then a zebra crossing, can you tell
18 us what we are looking at?
19 A. Yes. That is the same location that we just looked at, the same
20 street that we just looked at in the two photographs. The zebra crossing
21 is the zebra crossing that we were speaking about in the previous
22 incident, and proceeding straight up the street to the left on the
23 left-hand side of the photograph, is a direct line to the Metalka
25 MS. HOCHHAUSER: And if we could go to the right, please, and see
1 this video?
2 Q. I see we are just passing that yellow building is the
3 Holiday Inn?
4 A. That's the Holiday Inn, yes.
5 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I'm going to ask Ms. Stewart to stop just a
6 little bit further, sorry, if we can go a little further. Yes, right
7 here. Thank you.
8 Q. Can you tell us, Mr. Hogan, we see sort of a curve in the tram
9 tracks there, sometimes called an S-curve. And can you tell us whether
10 the location of that curve has moved at all from the time of the
11 confrontation period to the time of these photographs?
12 A. No. That -- the S-curve has always been there since the outbreak
13 of the war, even before.
14 Q. Is that true of both of them? We see there is an island and the
15 track curves on both sides of that island. Is that true for both sides?
16 A. Yes.
17 MS. HOCHHAUSER: If we could please see associated exhibit --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could we finish the 360-degrees?
19 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Of course, sorry.
20 [Video-clip played]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could we now perhaps stop here because that's where
22 we started. Where now is the Metalka building?
23 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, the Metalka building is directly
24 ahead. I think if you zoom in you'll be able to see part of the building
25 through the leaves of the trees.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now it becomes more visible. At the end of the
2 street, we see just a little piece of a whitish building just above where
3 we see the cars, is that ...
4 THE WITNESS: That's exactly right, Your Honour, that is the
5 Metalka building.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
7 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I'd like to turn, please, to incident F16, which
8 is the 6 March 1995 wounding of Tarik Zunic as he walked home from
9 school. Could we please see the associated exhibit with the reserved
10 number P2387, which was 65 ter 23187, on the screen.
11 Q. Mr. Hogan, this is a photograph that you marked in the Karadzic
12 case and it's in the prior testimony, to indicate Sharpstone. Can you
13 tell us where this photo was taken from?
14 A. This photo was taken from the spot the witness indicated he had
15 been standing when he was shot.
16 Q. And is it the red -- the red circle that's marked indicates the
17 location of Sharpstone?
18 A. That's correct. You can see the rocks and the trees on the ridge
19 within that red circle.
20 Q. And that's the --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask, has the distance been measured between
22 sharp rock and this position?
23 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, it has been measured by the sniping
24 expert but I cannot recall what those figures are at this point.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
1 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Now, turning to page 29 in e-court of again
2 Exhibit P3, and it's page 25 in the hard copy.
3 Q. There is a caption on the bottom of this page that reads, "View
4 from Spicasta Stijena, Sharpstone." Can you comment on the accuracy of
5 that caption? Do you know what we are looking at?
6 A. I see it in e-court, and I recognise this view from Sharpstone,
7 looking towards the south-east.
8 Q. And are you able to see on this photograph where Tarik Zunic was
9 walking when shot?
10 A. I believe -- yes, I can see the location.
11 Q. Are you able to mark it?
12 A. Yes, I am.
13 Q. Please do that.
14 A. [Marks]
15 Q. And you've just marked with a circle around a house. Is that
17 A. That's correct. He was standing in front of that house on the
18 street, where -- when he indicated the spot where he had been wounded,
19 and from that location, in front of that house, is where we did that
20 filming and took that photograph.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MS. HOCHHAUSER: If I could tender this exhibit, please.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar?
24 THE REGISTRAR: Page 29 on document P3 as marked by the witness
25 receives number P2402, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we remove the picture, could the witness
3 please indicate Sharpstone on that picture, if it is visible at all?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, the Sharpstone is actually from
5 where the picture was taken, so the camera is on Sharpstone looking at
6 the location where the young boy was shot.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
8 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I think also to illustrate Your Honour's
9 question though if we could turn to the next page in this exhibit of P3,
10 which is page 30. Sorry, page 30 in e-court, page 26 if you have the
11 hard copy in front of you.
12 Q. There is also a caption on the bottom of this page, and there are
13 several locations marked in this photograph. Can you take us through it
14 please and comment on the accuracy of these markings?
15 A. Yes. This is the reverse angle viewed from the south looking
16 north. In the mid -- middle of the photograph towards the top
17 vertically, the location marked Spicasta Stijena is the B/C/S words for
18 Sharpstone and that is the location from where the photograph was taken
19 in the previous exhibit. To the left or to the west of Sharpstone is a
20 hill with a communications tower -- or two communications towers on it.
21 It's called Grdonj. That's as you can see a bare feature. And F16 with
22 an arrow is pointing to the location where the sniping incident occurred.
23 Q. And would the location from which this picture was taken point --
24 taken from, this vantage point, would that be from Mount Trebevic?
25 A. I don't believe so. I think this might have been taken from a
1 helicopter in June of 2006 by my colleague. He was taking a number of
2 aerial photographs during that mission.
3 Q. Would the helicopter have been in the area of Mount Trebevic?
4 A. No. It would have been over Sedrenik. Trebevic would have been
5 directly south of the helicopter. So the helicopter would have been
6 probably mid-point between Trebevic and Sharpstone.
7 Q. I'm sorry, can you explain to us -- the caption on the bottom
8 says view to Sedrenik, Grdonj, and Spicasta Stijena from Mount Trebevic.
9 Is that an accurate or inaccurate and if it's not accurate can you please
10 tell us how because I'm slightly confused by your prior answer.
11 A. It -- you can see this view from Trebevic but you would need very
12 good binoculars or telescope to get this kind of detail. Trebevic is a
13 little bit too far away to be this -- have this close-up view.
14 Q. And when it says "View to Sedrenik," and I'm sorry for my
15 pronunciation, can you tell us where that is in the photograph?
16 A. I'm sorry, I missed that.
17 Q. Does that appear in the photograph, view to S-e-d-r-e-n-i-k?
18 A. Oh, I'm sorry, Sedrenik.
19 Q. Sedrenik.
20 A. Yes, Sedrenik is the settlement area here with the houses of
22 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Can we please have 65 ter 19710 on the monitor,
23 which is a collection of BiH reports relating to site visits at various
24 locations in Sarajevo.
25 Q. Now, have you had the opportunity to look through -- gesundheit,
1 have you had the opportunity to look through the collection of reports
3 A. Yes, I have.
4 Q. And see, for example, on the first page of this report, it says
5 "regarding the on-site investigation carried out at number
6 6A, Grabovica Street, 13th floor of the skyscraper apartment number 51."
7 Do each of the reports name a different location -- name a different
9 A. Yes, they do.
10 Q. All right. And are you familiar with the locations named in this
12 A. In this document, yes.
13 Q. And can you tell us in -- in looking at these documents, are they
14 reports about snipers' nests, about the finding of snipers' nests?
15 A. Yes, they are.
16 Q. Now, are you aware of on-site investigations conducted by the BiH
17 into sniping locations as described in 19710?
18 A. Yes, I am.
19 Q. Were you asked to assist in putting together a map indicating on
20 that map the locations named in this series of reports as snipers' nests?
21 A. Yes.
22 MS. HOCHHAUSER: If we could for a moment see 65 ter 30307 on the
23 screen, please, this is a document that was e-mailed, Your Honours, to
24 the Chamber, I believe, or referenced in the e-mail to the Chamber and to
25 the Defence. It was created last week, disclosed on the day that it was
1 created and we sought to add it to the 65 ter list.
2 Q. And can you tell us what it is, please, that we are looking at?
3 A. This is a street map of a portion of Sarajevo with red boxes or
4 rectangles enclosing the buildings which correspond to the street
5 addresses that are mentioned in those documents that we just had a look
6 at, the investigation documents.
7 Q. And does this map accurately reflect those locations along with
8 the specific apartment numbers of where 1970 -- 19710 records snipers'
9 nests being found?
10 A. Yes, they do.
11 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I would tender at this time 65 ter 30307 and
13 MR. LUKIC: We would object, at least for now, and after our
14 cross-examination, we have to put some more questions on these documents,
15 what is involvement of this witness in creation of these documents. So,
16 what's his knowledge about the documents.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: There are two issues. The first is to have it added
19 to the 65 ter list, I take it. Any objections to that? Perhaps already
20 for you to know, Mr. Lukic, that we will grant your request to have it
21 MFI'd first and only to decide on admission once you have cross-examined
22 the witness.
23 MR. LUKIC: We do not object to add that document to the 65 ter
25 JUDGE ORIE: Leave is granted to add 65 ter 30307 and -- no, let
1 me -- yes, and 19710, the last -- the first one was already on the 65 ter
2 list and the --
3 MS. HOCHHAUSER: 19710 was already on the 65 ter list.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so there is no need, and 30307 leave is granted
5 to add it to the 65 ter list and we will decide on admission and MFI it
6 for the moment.
7 Ms. Hochhauser, we need a number for both isn't it, yes,
8 Madam Registrar?
9 THE REGISTRAR: Document 19710 receives number P2403 and document
10 30307 receives number P2404, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Both marked for identification. Please proceed.
12 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I'd like to turn back to P3, Exhibit P3, and if
13 we could have page 39 in e-court, please, which is page 34 in the hard
15 Q. Now, first, can you describe, please, for us, if you're familiar
16 with the slope of the road from the area marked for the G13 shelling
17 incident to the RTV building; in other words, can you describe it in
18 words and if you know the approximate difference in elevation, can you
19 tell us that?
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Hochhauser, shouldn't the witness at least
21 tell us what at first we are looking at?
22 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I apologise, Your Honour.
23 Q. Can you tell us what we are looking at, please?
24 A. Yes, this is a view of a part of Sarajevo, the large concrete
25 building at the top of the photograph, with the satellite dishes on top
1 and in front is the Sarajevo Television building. The main road, the
2 large road running across the photograph directly in front of the
3 television building is Zmaja od Bosne, the main road of Sarajevo where
4 the tram tracks run down. The built-up area with the apartment building
5 on the left and centre of the photograph is Alipasino Polje, and this
6 view is from the south looking north, from a -- from an aerial view, from
7 a helicopter.
8 Q. And in terms of the various elevations, south going north, so
9 from the bottom of the photograph to the top of the photograph, can you
10 describe in terms of elevation, this area?
11 A. The elevation falls from the location of the camera towards the
12 television building. In other words, these red -- these single family
13 houses in the foreground, with the red roofs, are higher in elevation
14 than the buildings in the top of the photograph. The building circled
15 and marked G13 is, in my estimation, approximately 30 to 35 metres higher
16 in elevation than the street, the main street, in front of the television
18 Q. And --
19 JUDGE ORIE: And are we looking from south to north here?
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
22 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
23 Q. Have you measured, using a scaled map, to judge the distance from
24 th area of G13 where the alleged -- excuse me, where the incident G13 was
25 pointed out to you to have occurred, to the RTV building?
1 A. Yes, I have, and the distance that I measured was approximately
2 650 to 700 metres. It was a -- I couldn't get more precise than that.
3 It was a rough scale.
4 MS. HOCHHAUSER: If we could go backwards in this exhibit,
5 please, to page 34 of P3, this aerial map book.
6 Q. And sir, just to alert you to what I'm going to do now, I'm going
7 to take you through a number of the pages in this book related to
8 shelling incidents and just ask you about the photographs. So we are
9 looking at page 34 of P3. Can you please orient the Chamber to what it
10 is we are looking at and comment on the caption?
11 A. Yes. This is the site of the -- what's known as the soccer game
12 shelling in June of 1993. There were two shells that landed that day.
13 The camera is situated on the spot where the witness indicated the first
14 shell had landed. In the first photograph is a memorial to the victims
15 and that's actually the same location where one of the goal nets had been
16 located during the soccer game. And then the next two photographs pan
17 towards the north-west direction.
18 Q. And I think you told us before that with these 360-degree images
19 where in the shelling incidents where there were multiple impacts you
20 chose the one that was -- you were guided to by the witness or victim; is
21 that right?
22 A. That's correct. We actually did 360-degree photographs from both
23 shelling locations -- shelling impact locations that the witness
24 indicated to us. But this one obviously is the first shell. These
1 MS; HOCHHAUSER: Turn to the next page of the -- of P3, please,
2 which is page 35 in e-court.
3 Q. And this bears the marking of G7, 4 February 1994 charged
4 incident. Can you again, please, orient us on this photograph and tell
5 us whether the places as they are marked, so the markings on the
6 photograph, are accurate?
7 A. Yes. They are accurate. This is an aerial photograph, again
8 from a helicopter, taken by my colleague. The view is over Dobrinja and
9 we are looking to the south-west -- no, I'm sorry, it's directly south.
10 And the -- there were three shells that landed on that date and they're
11 all-- the impact points are all within that yellow circle that we see
12 marked G7.
13 MS. HOCHHAUSER: If we could turn please to page --
14 JUDGE ORIE: We are looking south here? I see, at the back,
15 I see the airport with a --
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
18 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
19 Q. There are --
20 MS. HOCHHAUSER: If we turn to page 37 for a moment in e-court,
22 Q. We can see here the locations marked for G15, G6 and G13 which
23 you told us earlier in your testimony yesterday are accurate based on
24 your -- based on the measure -- based on the locations pointed out to you
25 and the GPS recordings that you took.
1 I dealt already with G13, sort of out of order so I'm going to
2 take you now to the next page which is page 38 and ask you to comment on
3 this page, which is relevant to the G6 charged incident. And that,
4 sorry, is the 22, 1994, three mortar shells.
5 A. Yes, this is the -- these are images from the 360-degree
6 photograph that were taken from one of the shell impact locations. And I
7 believe the photograph on the bottom, the larger photograph, was taken
8 from the second impact site. The first three, along the top, were from
9 the first impact site, which correspond to the marking G6 on e-court page
10 37. And the larger photograph, on the bottom, corresponds to the second
11 impact site, which is at the south end of that building marked G6.
12 MS. HOCHHAUSER: If we could turn, please, to page 40 of the map
13 book in e-court which is page 35 in the hard copy.
14 Q. And again same question. I'll just ask you to orient us to this
15 photograph, please.
16 A. Yes. This is a view, an aerial view, of Alipasino Polje, and
17 taken from a helicopter, looking to the north-west. And the large -- the
18 busy road that we see bisecting the photograph from the top left to the
19 bottom right is the same road that ran past the TV building in one of the
20 previous photos that we looked at, and this location is approximately
21 five to -- 500 to 800 metres further west from -- from that TV building
22 site. The red circle that we see marked G15 is the location where a
23 modified air-bomb landed and exploded on the -- actually on the footpath
24 just behind the bushes that we see divided by the red circle.
25 MS. HOCHHAUSER: And finally, if we can see, please -- finally
1 for the map book, if we can see, please, in succession pages 42 and 43 in
2 e-court which are pages 37 and 38 in the hard copy, and again I'll just
3 ask you whether the captions on that page are accurately marked to the
4 best of your -- the markings on the page are accurately marked to the
5 best of your knowledge.
6 A. The markings I see are G18, Markale 2 and G8 Markale 1 and arrows
7 pointing to correspondent -- corresponding locations and in my opinion,
8 those are properly marked.
9 Q. Now, I'd like to turn to a different topic. In your prior
10 testimony, which is now in evidence as P2379, you discuss beginning at
11 e-court page 20, an assignment that you received with respect to a video
12 by Colonel Demurenko and it's a video which has also been referenced at
13 this trial by the Defence, for example at transcript page 7563.
14 MS. HOCHHAUSER: If we could have associated exhibit, which is
15 now -- now has the MFI number, I believe, P2380 on the monitor, please.
16 Q. And can you please explain this graphic in terms of the
17 photograph that you took in your assignment as to how would one use this
18 graphic in looking at those photographs on their own, for example, once
19 it's in evidence?
20 A. The photograph is a view, an aerial satellite view, of a portion
21 of the city of Sarajevo and the area to the south. The two white lines
22 meet at the top at the Markale 2 market, Markale 2 incident site, which
23 is the closed market. The line on the left runs at 176 degrees from that
24 market and the line on the right runs at 170 degrees from the market.
25 You'll see on the left line, the 176 degree mark -- line, various
1 distances indicated by white arrows, white arrow heads, and there you'll
2 also see in black printing, WP, and then a number, WP 1, WP 2, WP 3, up
3 to WP 10. The WP stands for way-point, which is what a GPS unit gives as
4 a term for a marked location. So when I attended various locations
5 marked by WP, and saved that location into the GPS unit for a reading,
6 I marked it as a way-point, WP, the first 1, WP, the 10th one, and
7 I should add that this area to the south of the city is Mount Trebevic.
8 The mountain rises further to the south. This is from the south looking
9 north. But from the area of the city, where the lines meet, up until the
10 bottom of the photograph, the land is continually rising.
11 Q. And why was it that the angles 170 and 176, that those degrees
12 were chosen?
13 A. In the video that Colonel Demurenko produced and had broadcast in
14 I believe it was at the end of August or early September 1995, speaking
15 about the Markale 2 shelling incident, he demonstrated a line of
16 176 degrees. He drew a chart and he indicated various distances along
17 that line of 176 degrees. The purpose of that demonstration on his video
18 was that, as he explained, having referred to a mortar firing table for a
19 120-millimetre mortar, he worked out the only possible six distances from
20 which a mortar could have been fired to impact the Markale 2 shelling
21 site. He then explained on the video that he attended the three sites
22 which were located on the VRS side of the confrontation line and then he
23 further explained on the video that, having examined those three sites
24 within a ten-metre radius, he determined that those -- the ground was not
25 suitable for supporting a mortar and that he saw no signs of a mortar
1 having been fired from those locations.
2 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Okay. With the Chamber's permission, what I'd
3 like to do is to provide investigator Hogan this exhibit that we now see
4 on the screen along with the index, that is the first page of MFI P2382,
5 which is the index for the photographs so that he can use them for
6 reference as he takes us through the photographs.
7 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed as suggested.
8 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Thank you. And if we could see P2382, please,
9 on the screen now.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask the witness, apparently he has looked at
11 the video of Mr. Demurenko. When he had chosen on the table the firing
12 positions, had he calculated the difference in elevation between where
13 the shell landed and where these firing positions were, if you remember?
14 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, on his video, he did not mention those
15 calculations. On his video, he showed the UNPROFOR reports and the local
16 police reports of the on-site investigation which determined the angle of
17 impact of the mortar shell on the pavement and the angle of approach of
18 the mortar shell from the south to the Markale market site. But I saw no
19 indication of difference in heights in calculating the distances to the
20 possible mortar launch sites.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
22 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Now, is this the first page of the exhibit?
23 Excuse me one second.
24 [Prosecution counsel confer]
25 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Okay. I'm afraid there is actually an index,
1 that goes -- should be the first page of this exhibit, which we haven't
2 uploaded and which investigator Hogan now has. I would ask permission to
3 go through the photographs and then upload the index.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If we need them while listening to the
5 testimony, then it could be put on the ELMO but temporarily awaiting the
7 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
8 Q. And just to describe, does the -- does the index contain ERN
9 numbers related to each photograph and the location or way-point from
10 which you took that series of photographs?
11 A. Yes. With the exception of the first seven or eight photographs
12 which I had just taken from a high point on the mountain because it was
13 not within the range of the various -- the 176 or 170 degrees. The first
14 ones I just took for orientation of all parties of where this mountain
15 was located.
16 Q. And I believe you took over 100 -- over a hundred photographs but
17 we've selected a small selection of those to tender now. Can you please,
18 as we go -- can you please take us through them and explain what we are
19 looking at, orient the Chamber to the small selection of photographs we
20 have taken and tell us your observations in relation to your assigned
21 task related to Colonel Demurenko's video for each photograph, your
23 A. Yes. This first photograph was taken from the upper slopes, not
24 -- approximately three-quarters of the way to the top of Mount Trebevic
25 and it's a view looking north towards the eastern part of the city. You
1 can actually see the view from here of Sharpstone, Grdonj and Sedrenik
2 which we had been discussing earlier today. The part of the city to the
3 left of the photograph is the beginning of Bascarsija, the old part of
4 the city.
5 Q. And is this one of the photographs that's listed from a
6 particular way-point or is it one of the ones that you described earlier
7 to us was taken for -- to orient ourselves?
8 A. Yes, this is one of the ones that were taken from the upper
9 slopes just to orient ourselves where this -- the mountain was located in
10 relation to the city.
11 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honours, it's just been pointed out to me
12 that it may be time for a break. I realise I've gone over my estimation
13 I would ask for permission after the break to just continue through this
14 last exhibit.
15 JUDGE ORIE: This would be the last one?
16 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And it would take how much time?
18 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I think we have approximately seven or eight
19 photographs to go through.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I'm looking at the Defence, whether they would
21 prefer to have the whole of the examination-in-chief concluded before the
22 break in seven, eight minutes? Would that --
23 MR. LUKIC: Whatever Your Honour rules.
24 JUDGE ORIE: If it doesn't make any difference to you I would say
25 let's take the break now.
1 Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.
2 [The witness stands down]
3 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break and we resume at 10 minutes to
5 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
6 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
8 Meanwhile, I use the opportunity to decide on admission of P2380
9 up to and including P2388. These are exhibits related to Mr. Hogan's
10 testimony. The Registry has filed an internal memorandum wherein the
11 provisionally assigned exhibit numbers are linked to the 65 ter numbers,
12 and P2380 up to and including P2388 are admitted into evidence.
13 [The witness entered court]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hochhauser please proceed for the last seven
16 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. Mr. Hogan I'm just going to ask you as we go through -- as you
18 take us through these photos if you can reference on the record the
19 ERN number that appears on the top of each photograph since I think that
20 the e-court page pagination will be different once we get the index
21 properly uploaded and if you can continue taking us through to orient us
22 where we are, tell us the way-point if there is one from which the
23 photograph was taken and your observation regarding the given assignment.
24 A. Certainly. The -- the first photo that we are looking at now has
25 ERN 06197138 and, as I say, that's looking north from about
1 three-quarters of the way up Mount Trebevic, and in the middle of the
2 photograph we can see the area of Sedrenik, Sharpstone and Grdonj.
3 Q. I'll ask you to -- if you don't mind and if it's all right you
4 can just indicate when you're ready for the next photograph and we can
5 move on. So I think you're ready for the next one?
6 A. Any time. And this photograph is ERN 06197139. Again, that's
7 from the upper slopes, about three-quarters of the way up Mount Trebevic
8 looking a little bit northwest, and you can see a large part of the city,
9 including the -- on the big stadium, the Kosevo hospital, the Lion
10 Cemetery, and a large part of the central city and we are ready for the
12 And this is ERN 06197140. Again, from one of the -- from the
13 upper slope of Mount Trebevic, looking a little bit further west from the
14 previous photograph, and we can see mount Hum, or Hum hill, the area of
15 Pofalici, Velesici and the extreme right, just below that large cemetery,
16 is the area of Ciglana. And we are ready for the next one.
17 This is ERN 06197148. This photograph was taken from
18 way-point 2, marked on the map at -- sorry, marked on the satellite image
19 at distance 3.600 metres from Markale market. And this is a farm stead
20 at this location. The camera is facing south, so the city is behind the
21 view and the viewer is looking south in this photograph.
22 Q. Okay. And your observation about suitability for firing from
23 this type of location?
24 A. In my opinion, this is a perfect location to site a mortar. It's
25 flat, it's stable.
1 Q. Next photograph.
2 A. This is photograph 06197154. This is another photograph taken
3 from way-point 2, and this is actually looking back towards the city and
4 you can see in the middle of the photograph a white jeep-type vehicle.
5 That was my vehicle that I arrived in, and I had taken the previous
6 photograph from directly in front of that vehicle. So this is a reverse
7 angle, and again, you can see prime ground for locating any kind of a
8 weapon systems in this flat, stable meadow.
9 And the next photograph.
10 This is photograph 06197155, and this, again, from way-point 2,
11 this photograph was taken by me from the location just in front of my
12 white vehicle, and this is the view to the east. This ridge is part of
13 Mount Trebevic and the ground rises higher to the right and straight
14 ahead, but the additional slopes of the hill, of the mountain, are hidden
15 behind this initial ridge. And again we can see flat, stable meadow and
16 even on the other side of this little shed, there are locations where a
17 weapon system could very easily be located.
18 And the next photo.
19 This is photo 06197160. This photograph was taken from
20 way-point 3, and on the satellite image that is located 3.400 metres from
21 Markale. The view is looking south and we can see the red roof of the
22 farmstead from the previous set of photos in the middle distance, centre
23 of the photograph. Again, a meadow, hayfield, in my opinion it's
24 suitable for siting a weapon system in this location.
25 And the next photo.
1 Photograph ERN 06197162. Again, from way-point 3. This
2 photograph was taken looking north -- yes, north-east towards the
3 tree-line, and, again, I believe this land is suitable for siting a
4 weapon system.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I can imagine that you describe areas as
6 flat or stable, et cetera, but whether it's suitable for a weapon system
7 requires some kind of expert knowledge. What you need exactly. And I do
8 not think, unless a basis is laid for that, that the witness can give
9 such an opinion. Again, unless there is a basis laid for that. Where
10 it's flat you can you can tell us. Whether it's a meadow, you can tell
11 us as well, that's common knowledge but suitable for weapon systems is a
12 different matter.
13 Ms. Hochhauser, if you want the Chamber to consider that and to
14 rely on that, then you should lay a basis for it.
15 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
16 Q. Well, investigator Hogan, in the video that was the -- was the
17 reason -- the video by Colonel Demurenko that was the reason that you
18 went out on this task, was there a reason that he said that these places
19 were unsuitable?
20 A. Yes. I recall him saying on the video that he had seen that the
21 locations he went to were steep and rocky.
22 JUDGE ORIE: So what you are saying, you didn't see anything
23 steep or rocky there.
24 THE WITNESS: Not in these locations, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.
1 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
2 Q. Okay. Continue. If we can -- I don't know if we are at the end
3 of the photographs.
4 A. I'm not sure. If we can see the next one. This is 06197163.
5 This, again, was taken from way-point 3 and this is actually a close-up
6 of the tree-line that we had just seen in the previous photograph just
7 showing the close-up of that area. And we are finished with this one.
8 This is 06197173. This photograph was taken from way-point 5,
9 marked on the satellite image, a little bit to the east of the 170 degree
10 mark at approximately 2.750 metres from Markale Market. This photograph
11 was taken by me because it is at an intersection of a number of small
12 roads that lead off into the forest. It appeared wide, stable and
13 sheltered area. And it was within a 5-degree margin of error of the
14 170 degree mark, which was the actual determination of the angle at which
15 the -- during the UNPROFOR report -- investigation, they determined that
16 170 degree was the actual angle of attack, approach of the mortar shell
17 which impacted at Markale, plus or minus 5 degrees, of course. And as
18 you see, it's flat, appears stable and certainly provides shelter.
19 Q. The next photo, unless we are at the end.
20 A. This is 06197174. Again, from way-point 3 -- I'm sorry, 7174.
21 This is from way-point 5 again. From that same intersection. And this
22 is the view looking -- this is the view looking back west towards the
23 direction of the city.
24 Q. And finally, if we can bring up the next one, which is 7178.
25 A. 06197178 is once again way-point 5, and it is one of the
1 photographs that I took in a circle at that the location, the previous
2 ones that we had just seen, and this is looking towards the south. So
3 the slopes of Trebevic would rise behind these trees and this is the edge
4 of the clearing.
5 Q. Okay.
6 JUDGE ORIE: You're looking away from the city here?
7 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honour, in this photograph
9 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honours, that concludes my examination.
10 Thank you for your patience. Thank you, Mr. Hogan.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Before we continue, one question, I have
12 not seen on any of these photographs a direct line of sight from any of
13 those positions down to the city itself. Is that --
14 THE WITNESS: From the photographs that we -- the locations that
15 we have shown here, no, there was no direct line of sight to the city,
16 Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Then, Mr. Lukic, before we -- I give you
18 an opportunity to start your cross-examination, I have one question.
19 Yesterday, the Prosecution has made a few requests and we have not asked
20 for your position on those. You remember it was to reconsider the --
21 well, what the Chamber announced as it being inclined not to admit
22 part 1. Is there anything you'd like? You have not raised any matter
23 yesterday. Was it your intention to do so or would you say, well, that's
24 the request, let the Chamber decide as they deem fit?
25 MR. LUKIC: I'm more concentrated on Mr. Hogan right now.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see that. At the same time it's an urgent
2 matter and that's the reason I'm raising it now.
3 MR. LUKIC: Can we answer on Monday?
4 JUDGE ORIE: No, not at all. We want --
5 MR. LUKIC: Then after the break let me consult with my
6 colleagues. It's regarding those 900 associated exhibits --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. LUKIC: -- With one of the experts.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we gave a statement about that and the
10 Prosecution asked us to reconsider it.
11 MR. LUKIC: Then after the break.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. After the break is okay.
13 MR LUKIC: Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Because the Chamber wants to give guidance to the
15 Prosecution, if possible, today. We hear from you after the break.
16 Apologies, Mr. Hogan, to leave you in the midst of other matters.
17 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic. And you had -- by the way you had a
18 request to take more time for cross-examination. The Chamber has
19 considered that request. We'll first see how the cross-examination will
20 be conducted. So therefore, you'll receive further reports from the
21 Chamber later today.
22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honours, and I just want to emphasise
23 that the Prosecution used double time from the time they estimated when
24 we did our first estimation.
25 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has noted that as well. We'll see how
1 cross-examination develops and especially whether you will stay within
2 the limits of what this witness can tell us or whether you would go
3 beyond that. Please proceed.
4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:
6 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Hogan.
7 A. Good morning.
8 Q. We have seen from your statements that you were a member of the
9 RCMP in Canada.
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 Q. Can you tell us what was your official position in RCMP?
12 A. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is a federal police force but
13 it also is contracted out to eight of the ten provinces and all the
14 northern territories, to do the everyday policing. Members are moved and
15 transferred from spot to spot and duty to duty throughout their service,
16 to give what the management wants to call a well-rounded career, so I in
17 my police service, did everything from organised crime, drug
18 investigations, criminal intelligence, to highway patrol, to
19 municipal policing, to northern reserve policing. It was a well-rounded
21 Q. Could we agree that you never did any forensic, on-site
23 A. I did many on-site investigations and I worked with the -- what
24 we called them ident persons, to preserve and obtain physical evidence,
25 but I was not qualified for dusting for fingerprints or that sort of
1 forensic investigation. I'm sorry, but could I have a little bit more
2 volume on --
3 JUDGE ORIE: The usher will assist you.
4 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
5 MR. LUKIC:
6 Q. [Interpretation] Also, you did not testify before the Court while
7 you were working for the RCMP in anything related to reconstruction of
9 A. I'm not sure what you mean by reconstruction of crimes, because
10 with every trial and testimony given in any trial, the crime has to be
11 reconstructed for the Court. So I'm not sure exactly what you're getting
13 Q. While you were working for the RCMP, you never testified before
14 the Court on topics related to forensic evidence found on the crime
15 scene, the way it was found, how it was kept?
16 A. Yes. I -- I routinely collected the evidence, preserved the
17 evidence, the physical evidence, and submitted that evidence to the
18 crime lab, but any tests that were conducted on that physical evidence
19 were -- I could not testify on the results of those tests unless they
20 were in a certificate form. Usually the scientists or the ident member
21 would explain the process of testing, physical testing or chemical
22 testing of that evidence. But I collected it, preserved it and submitted
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could I -- the question was whether you ever
25 testified before a court. Did you ever testify about what you said were
1 your tasks, that is to collect it, preserve it and submit it?
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, I did.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Is it correct, then, that your work was not independent, that you
6 had to work in cooperation with a forensic laboratory or a forensic
8 A. Yes, that's correct.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the word "independent" has a lot of
10 meanings. If it means that for the final research you are dependent on
11 others that's one, but independent could also mean not being influenced
12 by undue influences. Your answer was about the technical dependence or
13 that you felt that were you nevertheless dependent on instructions given
14 when you, for example, would testify in court?
15 THE WITNESS: To clarify on His Honour's comments, in our
16 police force, the attending officer is in charge of that investigation.
17 When I attended the scene, I took charge of that investigation. An when
18 the -- if an ident member came out to obtain fingerprints or photographs,
19 I was still in charge. Of course, he was the expert in obtaining
20 fingerprints but I was the one that was directing what areas I wanted
21 tested. As far as testifying in court, of course, the -- there was no
22 direction from the crime lab or the ident member or anybody else.
23 I testified as the -- as the full truth.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Thank you. I did not intend to say that you received
1 instructions before testifying. I meant precisely what you just said.
2 But let's move on. Did you consult a book or a manual for conducting
3 your analysis about sniper locations in this case?
4 A. I don't believe so. A book or a manual? I don't recall
5 consulting a book or a manual.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please be more precise on where the
7 witness makes analysis of a sniper location and what kind of an analysis,
8 Mr. Lukic?
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Today, the Prosecution offered an exhibit, we opposed that, I
11 cannot find it right now, we said that first it had to be marked for
12 identification --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, if you're referring to the plotting on
14 the map, the witness has produced, then that's exactly the reason why
15 I asked what do you mean by an analysis of a sniper location, because
16 I did understand from that document that the only thing the witness did
17 is to look at the report, what location was described therein, and then
18 to plot that on a map and not to analyse in any way a sniper position.
19 That's the reason why I asked it. It's simply plotting on a map.
20 MR. LUKIC: But we challenge the value of that document, of
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay, but don't ask this witness about that,
23 because the only thing the witness did is to transplant what he found in
24 the document, right or wrong, and then to put it on the map. So don't
25 ask this witness about whether these reports were right or wrong unless
1 you find anything in his statement expressing anything of that. What
2 I understood was just plotting on a map, which is not the same as an
3 analysis of a sniper position. And I don't think the witness expressed
4 himself on that.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Q. Now I'd like to ask you whether you could tell us whether you
8 consulted some specially trained persons for examining various crime
9 scenes, what you did in Sarajevo for the purposes of this trial, for this
11 A. The -- Mr. van der Weijden and before him a British officer named
12 Mr. Hinchcliffe, were sniping experts who we consulted for the various
13 Sarajevo trials because they had obvious expertise in the capabilities of
14 firearms and the selection of firing points. So -- but they -- I did not
15 consult them per se because my task with them was just to show them the
16 various locations and they testified independently of any other influence
17 that I had or input I had.
18 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honour, I think I would also just ask for a
19 clarification of what Mr. Lukic means when he says examining various
20 crime scenes, what he means by "examination."
21 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand from the answer of the witness that
22 the witness said his task was then just to show the various locations and
23 I take it that these locations you found them on the basis of what
24 witnesses told you or what you found in those reports when you plotted it
25 on a map and then took the persons to that place. Is that --
1 THE WITNESS: That is correct, Your Honour. But the witness had
2 shown us the exact location prior to me showing the sniping experts. So
3 the witness took us to, as we saw in the videos and the 360-degree
4 panoramas, the witness or victim took me to the location, and then in
5 subsequent missions I took the sniping expert back to that location.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Did you ever do military service in the army of any country?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Did you have an opportunity of being trained by military
11 professionals in relation to mortar activity?
12 A. I had no formal training in mortar activity, no.
13 Q. When you say that you had no formal training, did you ever attend
14 the firing of a mortar and if so, how many times and at which locations?
15 A. I did, at -- the Dutch military was kind enough to give a
16 demonstration for not only myself but a great many other Tribunal
17 personnel. We went to their firing range in the north of Holland, maybe
18 12 years ago, I believe, and they fired artillery and they fired mortars,
19 but that was, like, one morning.
20 Q. How many firings took place, and do you know which calibre of
21 weapon was used?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I intervene again. Often I say time
23 granted for cross-examination we will closely monitor how
24 cross-examination developed. Today I said something different. I said
25 we'll see how cross-examination develops and especially whether you will
1 stay within the limits of what this witness can tell us or whether you'd
2 go beyond that. I expressed those words because the Chamber had some
3 concern that you would go far beyond what the witness claims he can tell
4 us, and it's now for the fourth time that I get the feeling that you go
5 there. Would you please keep that in mind?
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. We heard the
7 witness testify today about how convenient locations were for mortars,
8 and --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I stopped him there. You noticed that.
10 MR. LUKIC: I just said that.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And I said the witness could tell us whether it was
12 a flat place, whether it was a meadow or not, but whether it's suitable
13 for that, foundation would need to have been laid for that.
14 Ms. Hochhauser then responded by asking one simple question, whether
15 someone else said it's rocky, no, it's not rocky, it's a flat meadow. We
16 leave it at that. I think I clearly indicated that also the Prosecution
17 has to stay within the limits of what this witness can testify about. So
18 therefore, don't use as an example the one and only where I immediately
19 stopped the witness. Please proceed.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 Q. Later, I will have to go back to individual incidents that you've
22 testified about, but now I'd like to ask you something about the search
23 for documents of the Army of Republika Srpska. You testified about that
24 earlier on as well.
25 Do you know how many requests you wrote altogether for receiving
1 documentation of the Army of Republika Srpska, primarily the
2 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?
3 A. There must have been five or six over the years, I believe,
4 formal, written requests.
5 Q. Am I right if I say that the replies from the authorities of
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina, Republika Srpska and Serbia, were as follows: The
7 archives are not accessible?
8 A. Yeah, basically, yes, yes.
9 Q. In 2006, all of a sudden, you received a message to the effect
10 that archives were accessible and after that, you did get access to
11 documents and you were told that these documents were collections of
12 documents of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, of the Main Staff, as well as
13 many other documents from other corps like the Drina Corps, the
14 Herzegovina Corps; is that correct?
15 A. Yes, that's correct.
16 Q. These archives were in the basement of the Kozara barracks in
17 Banja Luka when you arrived; right?
18 A. Yes, that's correct.
19 Q. Were you also told that as part of the reforms in BH, in 2004,
20 all military institutions were told that their documents should be sent
21 to Banja Luka and that is how these documents reached the basement that
22 you visited in 2006?
23 A. I think it was the VRS documents that were to be sent to
24 Banja Luka and the ABiH documents were to be sent to Sarajevo, but
25 otherwise, your assertion is correct, yes.
1 Q. Thank you for this clarification. According to information
2 received, the documentation of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps arrived there
3 from a facility at Sokolac where it was allegedly found at the end of
4 November or beginning of December 1994; is that correct?
5 A. It was from Sokolac but I -- I'm not a hundred per cent sure
6 whether it was at November/December 1994 but it was in that time period,
8 Q. Did you try to search these locations or facilities at Sokolac
9 from where these archives had allegedly been transported so that you
10 could see for yourself where they had been kept until then?
11 A. [Microphone not activated]
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the witness, please.
13 MR. LUKIC: Microphone. You have to turn on your microphone.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently the -- yes, please proceed.
15 THE WITNESS: I have not -- I did not try to search that location
16 after the archives were made available but I did try to search that
17 location while we were still looking for the archives in the autumn of
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. The information that this documentation came from Sokolac, do you
21 doubt that? Do you think it is incorrect?
22 A. No. I have no reason to doubt that information.
23 Q. And do you know what happened to the documents of the Main Staff,
24 whether these documents came from the same location, Sokolac, like the
25 documents of the SRK, the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?
1 A. The archivist might have told me, but I cannot recall at this
2 moment, I'm sorry.
3 Q. Very well. Thank you. Now, let us go back to how you searched
4 this documentation that you were given access to in Banja Luka. You took
5 an 11-member team there to Banja Luka in June and July 2006, an OTP team;
6 is that correct?
7 A. Yes, that's correct.
8 Q. Did you have trained lawyers from the OTP on your team as well?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did any of the people you took along speak B/C/S fluently?
11 A. Yes. We had, I think, four or five language assistants and one
12 of the attorneys from the OTP was fluent in B/C/S.
13 Q. Do you speak or understand B/C/S?
14 A. No, I don't.
15 Q. As for processing these documents at the Kozara barracks in
16 Banja Luka, am I right if I say that you and your team looked at the
17 originals on the spot and then you chose the ones that you would scan and
18 select and that you did all of that there and then?
19 A. You are correct, yes.
20 Q. The archive of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps that you looked at
21 contained tens of thousands of documents, and your team selected about
22 3 and a half thousand; is that right?
23 A. Yes, that's right.
24 Q. Let me ask you something now about the archives of the
25 Main Staff. Were there tens of thousands of these documents there as
1 well, also accessible or available at that location?
2 A. Yes, there were.
3 Q. Can you tell us how many documents from the archive of the
4 Main Staff were chosen or selected for scanning by your team?
5 A. I don't recall. I think it was in the neighbourhood of 2.000
6 documents, but I'd have to consult the spreadsheet to get an accurate
8 Q. Do you agree with me that in relation to the quantity of
9 documents that you and your team selected, as compared to the entirety of
10 the documents involved, of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, that is, do you
11 agree that you selected five to 10 per cent of the overall number of
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, it's obvious. 2.000 out of
14 tens of thousands clearly is somewhere in that region. I mean, why ask
15 this question? Doesn't assist in any way. It's a very small percentage.
16 That's clear. I think the witness more or less testified to that when he
17 said tens of thousands and most likely some 2.000 selected.
18 MR. LUKIC: But tens of thousands can be 2, 3, 4, 10.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, minimal percentage, very small percentage,
20 whether it's 2, 3, 4, 5, doesn't change that in any way. Please provide
21 -- please ask questions where the answers assist the Chamber. Please
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Hogan, would you agree with me that this selection of
25 material was carried out according to a criterion that was primarily
1 geared towards finding documents that you believed were of an accusatory
2 nature, that is to say that would prove the guilt of the accused before
3 this Tribunal?
4 A. No. We were equally diligent in looking for exculpatory
5 material, and we specifically flagged and scanned any exculpatory
6 material that we found.
7 Q. [Microphone not activated]
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Microphone please, Mr. Lukic.
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
11 Could we now take a look at 1D1291 in e-court, please?
12 Q. Mr. Hogan, that is your testimony in the Karadzic case.
13 MR. LUKIC: We are going to need page 5 in e-court, and it should
14 correspond to transcript page 11195.
15 Q. From line 1, I'm going to quote. This is where the question
17 [In English] "And what criteria did you and others on the mission
18 employ to decide what to copy and what not to copy?
19 A. We were looking for, obviously, inculpatory documents because
20 the purpose of the SRK research was to support the case against
21 Dragomir Milosevic."
22 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please continue the quote, Mr. Lukic?
23 MR. LUKIC: My next question is dealing with the next part but I
24 can continue.
25 JUDGE ORIE: It doesn't make really sense to split them up. Put
1 your questions together in one and continue your quote. I will read.
2 "We were also looking for exculpatory documents, which, for disclosure to
3 the Defence team in this and other cases, and we were trying to get a
4 comprehensive picture of the daily combat reports so we copied as many of
5 those as we could locate."
6 Please put your questions to the witness.
7 MR. LUKIC: I did, and my question was, page 41, line 17.
8 Q. Mr. Hogan, would you agree with me that this selection of
9 material was carried out according to a criterion that was primarily
10 geared towards finding documents that you believed were of an accuse
11 nature; that is to say that would prove the guilt of the accused before
12 this Tribunal? So the question was primarily.
13 JUDGE ORIE: It's a play of words, Mr. Lukic. Please proceed.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: The question was answered.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Hogan, was your primary task to find inculpatory documents?
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Question asked and answered, Mr. Lukic.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Next question, please.
19 MR. LUKIC: I cannot see where it was answered unless it's from
20 what I read.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Next question, please, Mr. Lukic. I'm not going to
22 even further discuss the matter. The Prosecution, including its
23 investigators, have an obligation to disclose any exculpatory documents
24 they finds and if you ask me, Mr. Lukic, whether the primary purpose of
25 an investigator is only to -- or to primarily focus on exculpatory
1 documents, of course it's not. Of course, you work within the.
2 MR. LUKIC: Why does it bother you if I want to establish it?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic I'm not in a debate. I'm telling you
4 something. An investigator working for the Prosecution has a task to
5 find all relevant documents related to the charges brought against or
6 potential charges in the future. He, therefore, certainly will provide
7 his employer with any inculpatory material and simultaneously he has an
8 obligation to select any exculpatory documents which he finds so as to be
9 disclosed to the Defence. The selection on what is and what is not
10 relevant is a different matter. If there is any problem with that, but
11 that's not about inculpatory or exculpatory. That can be dealt with
12 apart and the Defence has all possibilities to challenge that primarily
13 by saying that the selection is inadequate and does not deal with
14 relevant materials and there are remedies for that, if needed, and the
15 Chamber will always assist the Defence in finding those remedies and
16 completing the body of evidence with such materials the Defence considers
17 to be relevant. Please proceed.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, just to indicate, the answer to your
19 question is at page 41, lines 22 to 24.
20 MR. LUKIC: This is answer to exculpatory, and I was asking for
21 inculpatory all the time. But I'll move on.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, if you say -- if you're equally diligent
23 for exculpatory documents, that means equally diligent in view of what is
24 inculpatory material so therefore the question has been answered there.
25 We are not here in a debating club. Would you please put your next
1 question to the witness.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 Q. Now I'm going to go back to your dealing with sniping incidents
4 and shelling incidents. Do you agree that the key point in your work was
5 actually the contribution of witnesses or victims, that is to say to
6 locate what happened where?
7 A. I would agree that witnesses and victims are an extremely key
8 point in the prosecution of any case, and I think it was a very important
9 part of my role to locate them and to obtain statements which were to be
10 supportive of their testimony. But there were many more tasks that
11 I undertook which could also be classified as key points. To say that
12 there was one key point, I just can't agree with that.
13 Q. Very well. Thank you. Could you tell us, then, what the key
14 point of your work was, in relation to sniping incidents and shelling
16 A. I don't -- I can't say that there was one key point. There were
17 -- there was so much that contribute to an overall presentation of a case
18 in court, gathering the evidence, locating the relevant investigation
19 reports that were conducted by the local police at the time, or by
20 UNPROFOR at the time, attending scenes, mapping. Basically gathering all
21 the evidence that is presented in court. It's all key.
22 Q. Thank you. So we see what you told us now, what your other
23 duties were, and I'm going to ask you something in relation to that. Did
24 you check the information that you received from witnesses through
25 official documentation of the police or UNPROFOR in relation to these
2 A. Yes. We had access to the reports before we had access to the
3 witnesses. It's my -- even though I wasn't involved in the selection of
4 the various incidents when the indictment was first formulated, it's my
5 understanding that a selection of the incidents was based on the
6 documents from the local police and from the UNPROFOR, and then the
7 witnesses were approached. So in that manner, yes, the information from
8 the witnesses and the information from the reports were cross-checked and
9 verified with one another.
10 Q. You say -- you say information was cross-checked. Did you
11 cross-check information from police documents, from UNPROFOR documents,
12 against the statements of witnesses who described when and where
13 something happened?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. All right. When you viewed a video about a certain incident in
16 the Karadzic case, you noticed that the witness made a mistake and that
17 it was not fair to ask that witness to identify the location. Do you
18 remember that?
19 A. Yes, I do. I believe that was a shelling incident.
20 Q. Would you agree with me that witnesses, especially victims of
21 trauma, may misremember facts related to the incident and misrepresent
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, whatever the witness says, the answer to
24 the question for the Chamber is, yes, witnesses, victims of trauma, may
25 misremember, just as everyone in life may misremember things from the
1 past. It's a useless question. Let's get focused to what the evidence
2 is. If there is any specific issue about a lack of recollection, let's
3 go to that. Let's look at it. Let's take it seriously. But this kind
4 of vague general questions within the general area of knowledge of
5 everyone in this world do not assist the Chamber. But let's perhaps
6 first take a break.
7 Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.
8 [The witness stands down]
9 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break and we resume at ten minutes past
11 --- Recess taken at 11.53 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 12.13 p.m.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue with the cross-examination,
14 Mr. Lukic, could you give an answer to the question I put to the Defence
15 before the break about the Prosecution's requests of yesterday?
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I believe I can, Your Honour. Our
17 position is that the Prosecution had one year from February 2012 to
18 February 2013, to arrange the expertise in question, and we received the
19 expert report only in February 2013, and since that time we have been
20 objecting. As far as the Defence is concerned, we have done nothing to
21 be in the situation in which we are now where something needs to be
22 rushed and urgently solved. We started objecting from February, from the
23 moment you received the expert report.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Now, there was a request for 65 ter meeting. Any
25 special position on that matter?
1 MR. LUKIC: We are always open for any kind of meetings only I
2 cannot do that today, but somebody else maybe from the team can be there.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber will consider your position and
4 we'll see whether we can give a decision on the requests today. If not,
5 it will be on Monday, but we will try to do our best to give it today due
6 to the urgency of the matter.
7 MR. LUKIC: Sorry, while thinking -- [Interpretation] While you
8 are thinking about how to arrange the meeting, my colleague, Mr. Ivetic,
9 just told me we are supposed to file eight submissions today. So this
10 afternoon is really impossible for the Defence, as far as the meeting is
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that additional submission. So you'd
13 say on from 5.00, 4.00, then, after the filing is complete? No, no, I'm
14 just kidding, Mr. Lukic. Apologies for that.
15 Mr. Groome.
16 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, could I also just ask the Chamber to
17 refresh its memory to a discussion or something the Chamber said on the
18 22nd of August 2013 with respect to the length of the report, at T 15560
19 to -61. It was that statement made by the Chamber that led the
20 Prosecution, perhaps incorrectly, but to believe that the issue had been
21 resolved, and I can read it to the Chamber if that assists now. So
22 Mr. Ivetic said:
23 "If we could have one further clarification, Your Honours," and
24 this is all relates to the Theunens report, "the 15th of February 2013,
25 the Chamber indicated that 180 pages of the Theunens report needed to be
1 revisited, whether they are necessary. Do we have a ruling, then, of the
2 Chamber, are those included or excluded in the report so as to know what
3 to respond to?"
4 Judge Orie:
5 "I do understand that the Prosecution takes the view that they
6 are necessary.
7 Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber said:
9 Judge Orie:
10 "And therefore still part of is, that how I have to --"
11 Mr. Weber:
13 Judge Orie:
14 "Mr. Ivetic."
15 Mr. Ivetic:
16 "Thank you, Your Honour."
17 Judge Orie -- so then you -- Judge Orie gives the new filing
19 So the Prosecution understood that the issue had been resolved --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it is --
21 MR. GROOME: -- perhaps incorrectly now that the Chamber has made
22 its decision.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I didn't intend at that moment to say that the 180
24 pages were accepted, and I don't think I said that, as a matter of fact.
25 I just tried to fully understand the position of the Prosecution, whether
1 the Prosecution thought that the 180 pages were necessary, and I don't
2 think I expressed anything as far as the position of the Chamber is
4 MR. GROOME: I accept that now, Your Honour. It's just the
5 juxtaposition of Mr. Ivetic asking whether we had a ruling and then the
6 Chamber made that statement. Again, I accept that perhaps that's
7 misunderstood but --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. GROOME: -- so that the Chamber understands our surprise that
10 the Chamber's decision was -- I thought that it had been resolved.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I understand why you thought that. At the same
12 time, I think certainly I have not been explicit in saying the Chamber
13 accepts this or this is -- we'll also consider that and we'll see whether
14 we can come to a conclusion later today or not. As soon as we have
15 reached any conclusion, then we will immediately inform the parties about
16 it. Then could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
17 Meanwhile, one of the -- I think it was yesterday that we had an
18 issue with adding a page to a document which was already, I would say,
19 locked by the -- locked by the registrar. Let me just find my notes on
20 the matter.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE ORIE: I'll find them in a minute.
23 Mr. Lukic, you may proceed with your cross-examination.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 Q. Mr. Hogan, just one question: Am I supposed to understand your
1 testimony today as saying that you used police and UNPROFOR files and
2 cross checked them with witness statements at the moment when the
3 witnesses were pointing the locations of the incidents to you?
4 A. No. This -- when I was referring to cross checking, that was in
5 preparation of the whole case. When we did the filming and the 360
6 panoramas, we did not rehearse the witnesses or victims at all. They
7 were not permitted to review their statements, they were not permitted to
8 look at the photographs or look at police reports, they came into it and
9 just told us as the best of -- and showed us, rather, the best of their
10 recollection at that moment.
11 Q. Earlier today on page 46, and this confused me, line 5, I'll read
12 out what I asked you and what you answered.
13 [In English] "Q. You say, you say information was cross checked.
14 Did you cross check information from police documents, from UNPROFOR
15 documents, against the statements of witnesses who described when and
16 where something happened?
17 A. Yes."
18 A. Yes, but you must realise that when we did this filming and the
19 360, it was not the first time I had ever met these witnesses. I had met
20 these witnesses many times before. I had taken statements from these
21 witnesses before we did the filming.
22 Q. [Interpretation] Just tell us, in conclusion, when you filmed, is
23 the only source what the witnesses showed you or you compared it with
24 what they had said earlier at the moment when you are filming? Did you
25 check what they said earlier to you, to the police, to the UNPROFOR?
1 A. I was aware of what they had said earlier but I did not -- I did
2 not correct the witnesses when we were filming. That was not the purpose
3 of the filming. If they made mistakes, so be it. Their filming was to
4 assist the parties during the witness's testimony in court, and their
5 testimony could be tested by cross-examination in the various trials. So
6 if they showed me a location that was where we filmed it. If they showed
7 me a way that they were standing, that was how we filmed it. If they
8 showed me a direction from which a shot came, that was how we filmed it.
9 I did not correct them and I did not confront them at the time.
10 Q. Thank you. These GPS readings that you also recorded and
11 testified to, would it be correct to say that these readings were made on
12 the basis of where the victims were standing or where the witness said
13 the victim was standing, not on the basis of official documents?
14 A. Yes. Where the victims or the witnesses indicated that they had
15 been standing or positioned at the time. That's correct.
16 Q. You used the Garmin E Track GPS device. Is it correct that you
17 are not in a position to give us the technical specification and the
18 margin of error of this device?
19 A. There were two margins of error. First of all, the technical
20 specifications, no, I'm afraid not. The margin of error -- there are two
21 margins of error. One is -- at that time was inherently built into a GPS
22 unit. Nowadays, of course, GPS units are much more sophisticated and
23 accurate within metres. Examples are the instruments that are within
24 vehicles to give you direction through streets of towns. The second
25 margin of error is based on the number of satellites that are accessed by
1 the instrument in order to obtain a reading. The minimum number is three
2 satellites to give a triangulation of your location or height. The more
3 satellites you can access, the more accurate the reading is. And with
4 three satellites, I think the margin of error was, like, 35 metres or
5 something like that.
6 Q. Just one more technical matter. You will know this. For the
7 purpose of gathering GPS information, did you use the geographic --
8 universal geographic coordinate system or the transversal coordinate
9 system or some other system?
10 A. When I was filming with the witnesses, I had the GPS unit set on
11 -- to display degrees, minutes and seconds. It can be switched by
12 pressing a few buttons into displaying the coordinates in UTM, universal
13 transversal mercator, or by switching another setting to decimal degrees.
14 So when I first recorded it, I saved them in degrees, minutes, seconds.
15 However, when I returned from that mission to The Hague and consulted my
16 colleagues in the mapping unit to start plotting those locations, turned
17 out that his software was suitable to accept degrees, decimals. So I
18 don't recall if we had to access another computer programme to switch
19 them or if I had -- still had the GPS unit and I could just change the
20 settings to get the decimal degrees. One way or the other, though, we
21 converted them into decimal degrees.
22 Q. Is it also the case that these readings generated by the GPS
23 device, you did not try to compare them with the existing UNPROFOR maps
24 that were available for any of the incidents in question?
25 A. No. I don't think I compared them with an UNPROFOR map. The
1 purpose of these GPS readings was just to put the dots on the map for the
2 benefit of the parties during the trial so that they could orient
3 themselves within the city. And obviously, the dots themselves probably
4 measure by a hundred metres or 150 metres in diameter. So the GPS
5 readings are simply to put those dots there, to orient the parties. They
6 are not to make a comparison with UNPROFOR maps and try to clarify any
7 previous investigations.
8 Q. All right. Thank you. I had some other questions related to
9 that, but you have just obviated the need for them because they all go
10 below 100, 150 metres.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the GPS is not the main guiding thing.
12 It is, as I do understand you well, it is an instrument that can assist
13 for further action to be taken. What we have, of course, as the primary
14 source of what happened, is the videos. And where the witness said they
15 stood. Therefore, that's at least how the Chamber understands the GPS
16 readings in the context of the investigation.
17 THE WITNESS: That's absolutely correct, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, please proceed.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Then I will not ask my
20 additional questions.
21 Q. Did you maybe pay attention to the number of satellites from
22 which you were receiving signals, because of this margin of error?
23 A. I would have seen it on the screen of the unit, but I did not
24 make a note of it, I didn't record it anywhere.
25 Q. So these measurements were not meant to replace the witness
1 statements; correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. If somebody said during cross-examination here something
4 different to these measurements, we should accept that testimony rather
5 than the measurement made by you and your team?
6 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I object to that question. It's broad and
7 unclear, if somebody -- if there was something said during
8 cross-examination that he wants to put to this witness that's one thing
9 but as a general statement I just don't think that's a fair question to
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whether we should accept the testimony rather
12 than the measurement, that's of course for the Chamber to decide. We
13 have to balance all the evidence and make our findings, and what then is
14 to rely upon is for the Chamber to decide, not for a witness to testify
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, Your Honours, if
17 I may say this. The purpose of this question was that most of these
18 witnesses did not come to testify, so we wanted to see what about their
19 statements, what to do with these measurements that are related to the
20 statements of witnesses who have not testified. Of course, it's up to
21 you to decide. I just wanted to explain my question.
22 JUDGE ORIE: If there is any inconsistency between testimony or
23 statements, or -- and the GPS readings, take us to them and we'll have a
24 look at it. That's the most important thing.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 Q. Now I should like to ask you something about the features located
2 close to the measurement sites. While taking measurements, did you make
3 note and did you pay attention to the features and installations that
4 existed during the war and that belonged to the
5 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Would you agree with me, as you said speaking to the witnesses
8 and taking these measurements, that victims and witnesses are, in fact,
9 not in a position to establish from which location a bullet or a shell
10 arrived from injuring people? So not the direction but the location.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hochhauser?
12 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I object to that question.
13 JUDGE ORIE: On the basis of?
14 MS. HOCHHAUSER: On the basis, again, that he's asking this
15 witness to supplant what the Chamber's evaluation is, it's up to the
16 Chamber to decide whether a witness was able to appropriately identify
17 where a shot came from. Based on all of the evidence in front of it.
18 It's not for this witness to say.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, of course, first and foremost, we should look
20 at whether this witness drew any conclusions on the basis of any such an
21 observation by a witness. Did you ever rely on a witness telling you
22 what the source of fire, I'm not asking about the direction but the
23 source of fire was, during an interview?
24 THE WITNESS: No. I did not, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, if there are any further questions in
1 this context, please put them to the witness.
2 MR. LUKIC: That's it, Your Honour, that's what I wanted. Thank
3 you. If I may consult with my colleague for a second, please.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
5 [Defence counsel confer]
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Among the incidents you investigated, did you investigate a
8 shelling that happened on the 28th of May, 1992, from Sirokaca, G1?
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Near Sirokaca, G1.
10 THE WITNESS: I may have taken some statements regarding
11 28th of May, 1992, but I don't recall actually doing a physical
12 investigation of any shelling sites.
13 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I'm sorry to interject but just to be clear G1
14 refers to a mass bombardment of the entire city, so if there is a
15 specific impact that counsel is asking about I'm requesting that he be a
16 little more specific.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
18 MR. LUKIC: Yes, we do have a concrete incident but I don't know,
19 I'm just a bit confused with the answer that the gentleman did not took
20 part in any investigation of a bombing incidents, [Overlapping speakers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: That's not -- he was talking about physical
23 investigation. That is not the same as an investigation.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Then I will ask this.
25 Q. Do you recall talking to Fadila Tarcin regarding this incident?
1 She testified to the incident referred to here as G1.
2 A. The name is familiar but I don't recall if I took -- I did an
3 interview with her or my colleague did an interview with her, but it's
4 very, very possible that I interviewed her and took a statement in
5 regards to this.
6 Q. Since Mrs. Tarcin, on the transcript page 3447 to 3448,
7 testifying before this Trial Chamber, confirmed that the damage to the
8 neighbour's house from the shell that injured her was facing the city of
9 Sarajevo; that is to say, the territory controlled by the BH Army. Do
10 you recall that?
11 A. I -- I'm not familiar with the testimony of Mrs. Tarcin.
12 I didn't read any transcripts, I'm sorry.
13 Q. I only asked if you knew. If you don't, it's all right.
14 I will now ask you something about this investigation carried out
15 by Colonel Demurenko, and we will refer specifically to way-points. Can
16 you tell us what exactly was the task entrusted to you regarding
17 Colonel Demurenko's video? What task was given to you by the
18 Office of the Prosecutor?
19 A. The original idea was to go to the locations which he had
20 identified in his video and to obtain photographs of those locations, to
21 see whether, indeed, they were physically unsuitable for mortar
22 locations, mortar sites. Now, obviously I only went to two spots on
23 that -- that he had indicated, at the 3.400 metre mark and the 3.600
24 metre mark, because the other locations within the VRS lines at 2.000
25 metres and 2.700 metres, were in places which did not have a hard surface
1 road leading to them. And when I arrived in Sarajevo before proceeding
2 to Mount Trebevic, I consulted the mine action centre to see what the
3 risk of mines and unexploded ordnance would be in that area and there had
4 been a great deal of clearance in the area, immediately around those two
5 spots, but they could not guarantee that they had recovered every piece
6 of unexploded ordnance. Therefore, I didn't deem it safe for myself and
7 my interpreter to go to those last two locations at 2.000 metres and
8 2.700 metres.
9 Q. Is it the case that before you set out, you asked the mapping
10 unit of the OTP to draw for you a map of the location that
11 Colonel Demurenko identified?
12 A. Yes. And that's the exhibit that was referred to earlier, the
13 satellite photo.
14 Q. We have seen lines drawn, and on those lines is it the case that
15 you did not tour the territory that was controlled during the war by the
16 BH Army, only the territory controlled by the VRS, by the
17 Army of Republika Srpska?
18 A. On this particular mission, I did not go to each location on the
19 ABiH side simply because Colonel Demurenko did not do so. I have been to
20 those locations during the course of my other duties in Sarajevo, but not
21 for this particular exercise.
22 Q. When you visited these locations, were you alone or did you take
23 with you somebody who had military training such as an artillery or a
24 mortar officer?
25 A. No.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just for my clarification, is it no, I was not
2 alone, no, I did not go with somebody with knowledge?
3 THE WITNESS: Sorry for not being clear, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: The question is compound, it's not your problem.
5 It's the question.
6 THE WITNESS: I was -- I was with a language assistant, with no
7 other persons, so -- had no military training or artillery or mortar
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Now I'm going to read something out from the Karadzic transcript
11 of your testimony.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpreted] 1D1291. Could we please have that in
13 e-court now? I think that in this way we are going to cut things
14 shorter. We should have transcript page 111226 from the Karadzic
16 Q. I'm going to read lines 11 through 25.
17 [In English] I quote. Answer -- and it's your answer, sir.
18 I quote:
19 "During his testimony, the Defence case for Dragomir Milosevic,
20 Colonel Demurenko produced a -- or showed a video and testified that the
21 investigation conducted by both UNPROFOR and the local Bosnian
22 investigators revealed the angle at which the 120-millimetre mortar
23 impacted the street in front of the market building, and the direction of
24 fire of that mortar. Using a mortar table for an M52 mortar,
25 Colonel Demurenko, in the video and in his testimony, worked out the six
1 possible points at which that mortar would have been fired. He
2 testified, and he stated on the -- in the video that he physically
3 attended, along with VRS soldiers, the three possible sites on the VRS
4 side of the confrontation lines and viewed the ground within a ten metre
5 radius of those sites and found no signs of a mortar having been fired.
6 Therefore, he said that if it did not come from those three particular
7 sites within ten metre radius, it could not have originated from the
8 VRS side."
9 [Interpretation] Sir, does this excerpt from the transcript
10 precisely record your response with regard to this subject?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. The answer is truthful and today you would give the same answer
13 to that question; is that right?
14 A. It was truthful, but I believe I left out the part from his video
15 where he said that the ground was rocky and steep and unsuitable to put
16 on -- a mortar in. In his testimony I think he said he had seen no signs
17 of a mortar having been fired. In the video he said that it was rocky
18 and steep.
19 Q. So, was it your understanding that Colonel Demurenko had just
20 found that there were no traces of mortar activity, or did his
21 examinations of the possible firing points include other checks, in terms
22 of ruling those places out as locations from which shells were fired that
23 hit Markale?
24 A. I don't know what you mean by "include other checks." I'm not
25 sure what that is.
1 Q. Well, for instance, did he say where the mortar would have to be
2 positioned, from the wall, from the forest? Would you remember that?
3 Actually we are going to take a look at a video now and I'm going to ask
4 my colleague, Mr. Ivetic, to play 1D607 for us, from 7 minutes 38 seconds
5 to 9 minutes 49 seconds.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, Mr. Lukic, may I add to your quote
7 the question that was asked, whether the witness could briefly describe
8 the view or theory as he understood it. Now, I do understand that this
9 witness has not specifically formed an opinion about the value of that,
10 but he just checked whether, at the places indicated, whether he found
11 rocky situation and that he now tells us that he found meadows or flat
12 places or solid places, and whenever he started telling us whether these
13 are suitable locations for mortar fire, I stopped the witness because
14 there is no foundation for that. Let's keep this in mind if you put your
15 questions -- your following questions to the witness after we have viewed
16 the video. Please proceed.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we play the video
19 [Video-clip played]
20 JUDGE ORIE: I have no sound at this moment.
21 [Video-clip played]
22 [Poor sound quality]
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. The sound quality was a bit poor, but I imagine that you listened
25 to this a countless number of times in order to go on this mission in the
1 first place so I assume that you do know what it is that
2 Colonel Demurenko is talking about.
3 A. Yes, obviously I haven't memorised it but I do -- have listened
4 to it before, yes.
5 Q. We see that Colonel Demurenko is mentioning some photographs.
6 Did you ever have an opportunity of seeing the photographs mentioned by
7 Colonel Demurenko and did you compare them to the locations that you
8 visited in order to establish whether these were the same locations?
9 A. Yes. I did see the photographs and some of them are just in the
10 middle of trees. There is one photograph of a meadow. However, it's not
11 the same meadow that I visited.
12 Q. In this part of the video, it seems that the Colonel is
13 indicating that the terrain and the forest are on the Serb side, which
14 also makes it inconvenient for firing mortar shells. Do you know how far
15 away a mortar has to be from a forest or from a tree? Did you bear that
16 in mind when you examined certain locations?
17 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I'm going to be that question, Judge. I think
18 the -- Mr. Lukic already asked in the beginning about this witness's
19 experience with artillery and mortars, and in light of the Court's
20 guidance about what areas he's able to testify about, I object to that
22 JUDGE ORIE: This witness has no drawn any conclusions as to --
23 as to whether mortars could be fired from those locations. Apart from
24 that, Mr. Lukic, it's relatively easy. If you have the angle and if you
25 know approximately how large the trees are, it's not that difficult to --
1 even for lay persons, but this witness came as a witness of fact, but
2 looking at the photographs of the meadows, and if a mortar is fired at
3 40 or 50 or 60 degrees, I even could give a fairly clear estimate on the
4 basis of those photographs whether they would pass the trees "yes" or
5 "no," but of course, I will not do that. I would seek evidence to rely
6 upon for that and those trees in the pictures would be part of that
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 Q. Did you carry out any examinations in terms of vegetation or the
11 terrain that you visited in order to establish whether there had been any
12 changes that had taken place either in a natural way or in an artificial
13 way, in order to affect the terrain or vegetation in the area?
14 A. No, I didn't.
15 Q. Could you now explain to us how you saw yourself at that moment?
16 I think that the answer is going to be negative, but I have to ask you
17 this: Did you consider yourself at any point in time, when you were
18 given this mission, to investigate Colonel Demurenko's findings, did you
19 understand your mission to be that of an expert who was supposed to be
20 refute Colonel Demurenko's findings?
21 A. No, not an expert. Just an investigator to verify his findings.
22 And obviously did not verify his findings.
23 Q. Now I would just like to ask you briefly, you mentioned
24 Mr. van der Weijden today as well so I would like us to take a look at an
25 incident from his report. It is a document under seal. P1130. It is a
1 document that is also associated with your testimony. First of all,
2 I would like to ask you whether you participated in Mr. van der widen's
3 work on this report?
4 A. No, I did not participate in his report. The -- I was limited to
5 taking him to the various locations in Sarajevo. The way he wrote his
6 report was his own input.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 13 of this report and
8 further on in English, and page 16 and further on in B/C/S. It is
9 incident F1. If we look at the third paragraph on page 13 in e-court, in
11 Q. Mr. van der Weijden identifies Baba Stijena, Spicasta Stijena,
12 920 metres away from the location where the incident took place to the
13 alleged location where the shooter was. Was that also your finding on
14 the basis of GPS measurements?
15 JUDGE ORIE: The first question should be whether the witness
16 made any finding in this respect.
17 MR. LUKIC: Yes, sir. I'm sorry.
18 THE WITNESS: You're asking me about the distance, the
19 920 metres?
20 MR. LUKIC:
21 Q. Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: But the first question was whether you made any
23 findings as was part of the question.
24 THE WITNESS: I recall taking GPS readings from the location
25 where the victim was, but I don't recall taking a GPS reading from the --
1 from the Baba Stijena. So I may have done so. I just don't recall.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, Mr. Lukic, you are making Baba Stijena
3 and Spicasta Stijena the same. As far as I remember these are totally
4 different locations.
5 MR. LUKIC: My mistake, it's Baba Stijena.
6 JUDGE ORIE: It's Baba Stijena, yes. Now did you make any
7 finding between where the witness was and where you photographed and a
8 location called Baba Stijena? Did you measure the distance between the
10 THE WITNESS: I may have, Your Honour. I just don't recall. But
11 in regards to that distance, I was standing beside Mr. van der Weijden
12 when he used a laser range finder so I would -- no matter what -- I would
13 not dispute his distance.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say you witnessed that he apparently was
15 busy measuring a distance.
16 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. I'll go back to Baba Stijena. We will discuss that. But now
20 I would like us to move on to your testimony with regard to
21 Mr. Demurenko. Let's go back to that.
22 Although I did ask you why you went only to Serb territory, did
23 you know that it was stated in the UNPROFOR report that it's possible
24 that the projectile was fired from a distance between 1.500 to 3.500
1 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I'm just going to ask during these technical
2 kinds of questions that we be directed to the UNPROFOR report in
3 question, by 65 ter or exhibit number.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you're invited to give the source for
5 what you asked the witness, whether he has any knowledge about. But if
6 he doesn't know it, then you don't even have to look.
7 MR. LUKIC: Yes, that's exactly.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. LUKIC: But I can show P797.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's first see whether the witness can -- we
11 can look at it closer if the witness says that he is aware of that.
12 Did you know that UNPROFOR would have stated that the -- that
13 it's possible that the projectile was fired from a distance between 1500
14 and 3.500 metres?
15 THE WITNESS: It's -- I don't recall that in the UNPROFOR report.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Lukic, we don't have to further pursue
17 this matter but, of course, the issue is whether it's possible, yes, of
18 course, then the next question is is that the only possibility or are
19 there more possibilities? That's -- we would have to look at that
20 document but the witness can't tell us anything about it. Please
22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 Q. Again, this is a technical question. I have an entire series of
24 questions, but you can tell us if you cannot answer. Do you know what
25 the longest distance is from which a 120-millimetre shell could have been
1 fired from and for it to be able to fall in front of the market?
2 A. The only information I have in that regard is what
3 Colonel Demurenko demonstrated on the video. According to his
4 calculations the farthest distance was 3.600 metres. I don't know the
5 actual technical capabilities of a 120-millimetre mortar.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let's try to keep matters short. If you don't know,
7 then -- Mr. Lukic, next question.
8 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I will leave this area.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Is it correct that you investigated the area
10 that is delineated by an azimuth of 160 and 170 degrees?
11 A. No.
12 Q. What was it that you investigated, which range, then?
13 A. I concentrated on 176 degrees. There is also a line drawn on the
14 satellite image of 170 degrees. And I stopped at other way-points but
15 they were not within the 170 or 176 degrees.
16 Q. Very well. Can we now take a look at this document? Just a
17 moment, please. Let me find the number.
18 P380. P2380, I'm sorry.
19 Mr. Hogan, we see here some points that were marked WP. However,
20 these are letters. Are you able to mark the points that these letters
21 refer to? Because I did not manage to see that in this photograph. Can
22 you mark the points for us now, the ones that you visited?
23 A. Yes, actually, there is a small black crescent beside each WP
24 number. I realise it's difficult to see on the e-court, but the
25 mid-point of that crescent is the point. That's the point. I can mark
1 them if you wish.
2 Q. [In English] Oh, I can see now?
3 JUDGE ORIE: We can see them all, it's the crescents being part
4 of a circle and the centre of that circle would be -- is that how we have
5 to understand it or is it the centre of linking the two extremities of
6 the -- what we find there, the crescent.
7 THE WITNESS: It's on the arc of the partial circle. So the
8 centre of that arc.
9 JUDGE ORIE: The centre of the arc.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we zoom in on the lower part of the picture
12 then we can see it more clearly. Thank you.
13 MR. LUKIC: I think I'm past the time.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you're looking at the clock. You're not the
15 only one. We will take a break.
16 Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.
17 [The witness stands down]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could you give us an indication as to how
19 much more time you would need? We gained the impression that you had to
20 skip under the guidance of the Chamber quite a few matters.
21 MR. LUKIC: Maybe after the break, I can give you a better
22 estimation but I will go through incidents, and it's really focused on
23 what this gentleman did.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, on what he did. Not on the incident itself,
25 which he did not investigate. Let's try to keep that very clear on our
2 We might need a bit of time, dependent on what happens during the
3 break, to deal with some of the other procedural matters as well. We
4 take a break and we will resume at 25 minutes to 2.00.
5 --- Recess taken at 1.13 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 1.37 p.m.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to briefly deal with a few procedural
8 matters. I think it was yesterday that we had an issue with adding a
9 page to a document which was already in the hands of the Registry, was
10 already MFI'd or admitted into evidence. It's only the Registry who can
11 make changes to e-court in relation to such documents and such documents
12 will not be unlocked by the Registry for the parties to execute any
13 changes and to the extent there may have been any misunderstanding.
14 That's the system. And the parties are invited if anything has to be
15 added, either to provide the addition, which would then be attached to
16 the document in e-court or to upload the then-complete version which may
17 then replace the original one. If there is any problem there, don't
18 hesitate to ask Madam Registrar about it.
19 Then I would also deal with the matter we earlier discussed this
20 morning and which was raised by the Defence yesterday. The Chamber
21 has -- the Prosecution has made yesterday a number of requests in
22 relation to the upcoming testimony of expert witness Theunens and the
23 Chamber now delivers its decision on these requests. The Chamber has
24 considered the submissions of the parties in this request. The Chamber
25 has also reviewed the relevant transcript pages and finds that both in
1 view of the stage of the proceedings at that moment in relation to
2 this -- to the expert report and on the basis of the wording found in
3 those transcripts, that the Chamber did not express itself in any way on
4 finally accepting or not accepting the position of the Prosecution.
5 Now, as for the request for the Chamber to reconsider its
6 decision concerning part 1 of the Theunens report, the Chamber reminds
7 the Prosecution that no decision on admission has been taken and the
8 Prosecution's request is therefore moot because there is no decision
9 which is there to be reconsidered.
10 The Chamber has only announced that it is inclined to deny the
11 admission of part 1 of the report and it is asking the Prosecution to
12 adjust the examination of Theunens accordingly and has done that a couple
13 of days in advance of the start of his testimony.
14 The Chamber considered that making this announcement prior to the
15 testimony was a transparent and correct way to proceed.
16 The Chamber is ready to listen to any proposal the Prosecution
17 has on how to best elicit the most relevant information dealt with in
18 part 1, short of having the whole part admitted into evidence. For
19 example, the Prosecution could consider tendering a drastically reduced
20 selection of part 1, perhaps in the area of 10 or 15 per cent of it,
21 which, together with the focused examination of Theunens, could provide
22 the Chamber with the information needed. In this respect, the
23 Prosecution should also take into account what is already in evidence
24 concerning the material covered by part 1 so as to avoid repetitious
1 With regard to the request to hold a 65 ter meeting, the Chamber
2 strongly urges the parties to meet to discuss where the area of dispute
3 are in order to achieve a focused examination of the witness. The
4 Chamber is, however, not inclined to hold a 65 ter meeting for that
6 Finally, the Prosecution requests an opportunity, after the
7 completion of the testimony of Theunens, to assess which of his
8 conclusions have been challenged during cross-examination and which
9 documents therefore need to be tendered. The Chamber would like this
10 assessment to be done while the witness is testifying. The Chamber would
11 be ready to grant a reasonable amount of time between cross-examination
12 and re-examination during which the Prosecution could consider which
13 documents it needs to tender in light of the cross-examination. The
14 tendering of these documents should then be done during the
15 re-examination of Theunens.
16 And this concludes the Chamber's decision on the matter.
17 Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
18 I see Mr. Groome, you are still reading from the transcript.
19 MR. GROOME: I'm still trying to absorb everything that the
20 Chamber has said. If the Prosecution were to proceed with Mr. Theunens
21 in the way suggested here by the Chamber, then when the Chamber finally
22 entered its decision about how much of part 1 would be introduced, would
23 the Prosecution have an opportunity to recall him for -- to deal with the
24 parts of the report that the Chamber declined to admit provided the
25 Prosecution was able to persuade the Chamber that they were relevant?
1 JUDGE ORIE: We would seriously consider that, upon an
2 application made. I don't give any guarantees in advance, as you'll
3 understand. I see the problem for the Prosecution, what you leave out,
4 and is finally lost is perhaps you consider that to be a risk. We will
5 seriously consider any such thing upon an application.
6 MR. GROOME: Thank you.
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, are you ready to continue your
10 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, and you asked about my estimate.
11 I went through the questions and they are more focused actually on the
12 real work of Mr. Hogan so -- but I'll still need at least three hours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: We will consider in view of what you have done and
14 what you are now about to do, whether the Chamber will grant so much
16 MR. LUKIC: And another submission should probably be made, be
17 done by the Prosecution. They want to have their next protected witness
18 on Monday first.
19 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Yes, as you can see Mr. Groome just stepped out
20 but that was the information that I had from him that if we can continue
21 with that witness on Monday and interrupt Mr. Hogan's testimony for that
22 purpose, because I think that witness is scheduled.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hogan, before the Chamber also starts deciding
24 on how you would use your time on the suggestions of the parties, would
25 you be available a little bit more next week if we would not continue on
2 THE WITNESS: Certainly, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's appreciated. Mr. Lukic, then we'll
4 again listen to you carefully. There were some problems in relation to
5 staying within the limits of what the witness could tell us. We'll see
6 how it develops, your cross-examination develops, over the next half an
7 hour. Please proceed.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 Q. Mr. Hogan, on this photograph before us --
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] If we could zoom in on the last
11 two-thirds of the picture, the bottom two-thirds, this is approximately
12 what we saw when Judge Fluegge asked for this view.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could I first ask one very factual question? The
14 distances measured on this projection are those distances which include
15 the difference in altitude or are they just the projection on a map of
16 the distances? You understand the difference between the two?
17 THE WITNESS: I do, Your Honour, and the answer is that it's the
18 distance projected on the map, does not take into account the difference
19 in altitude.
20 JUDGE ORIE: So what we say 2.000 metres could be, if measured
21 with your, what is it your laser machine, could be quite different.
22 THE WITNESS: Um --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Because laser machine, as I understand, gives a --
24 measures directly from the point where the machine is used in a direct
25 line to the position where the object is to which you measure the
2 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honour, and that's what this
3 is meant to depict.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 THE WITNESS: So if there was a line of sight between each
6 location and the market, that would be that distance, and the line of
7 sight does not take into account walking distance up and down.
8 JUDGE ORIE: No. I'm talking about something different.
9 THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry.
10 JUDGE ORIE: If you take triangle, if you have a point which is
11 at the basis of the triangle and if at the top of the triangle there is
12 the other point you want to measure the distance to, that is, I think
13 it's called the hypotenuse but I'm not quite sure whether I remember well
14 from secondary school.
15 THE WITNESS: Hypotenuse.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, that's -- we learned it in Greek or in Latin,
17 then you have the direct distance between one point and the other.
18 Another way is to project it as you see it on a map, which does not take
19 into consideration any difference in altitude, and then you would just
20 measure the basis of the triangle to the point where -- the point you
21 want to measure projects under an angle of 90 degrees to the basis of
22 that triangle. Am I clear enough?
23 THE WITNESS: You are clear.
24 JUDGE ORIE: That is what I was referring to and not to any up
25 and down walking the distance.
1 THE WITNESS: I understand, Your Honour. And the answer is that
2 I don't know.
3 JUDGE ORIE: You don't know. And do you know, having looked at
4 what Mr. Demurenko presented, what he used for distances?
5 THE WITNESS: No, I don't.
6 JUDGE ORIE: That does not make the matter any less complex than
7 it was already. Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
9 [No interpretation]
10 JUDGE ORIE: I do not receive English.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Courtesy of the officers of the Tribunal we received now a zoomed
13 in view of the last bottom two-thirds, is it all right now?
14 On this photograph, now that you have explained what these
15 crescents mean, we see which points you had in mind when you were doing
16 this verification. My earlier question was: Is it the case that you
17 checked between angles 160 and 176 and you said no, I checked between 180
18 and 176. On this photograph, we see that the crescents --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could we check that on the transcript, whether
20 that's what the witness said?
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: 170 and 176.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I don't remember 180 to be --
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, it's 170.
24 MR. LUKIC: I did mention 80.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could we find in the transcript where the
1 witness said that? Let me be --
2 MR. LUKIC: Sorry --
3 JUDGE ORIE: 180 only appears in relation to the number of pages
4 of the Theunens report, on the transcript.
5 MR. LUKIC: Maybe I should start my question from the beginning.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please and give a detailed reference to the
7 transcript, please.
8 MR. LUKIC: Yes, at the page 67, line 5, my question was:
9 "Is it correct that you investigated the area that is delineated
10 by the azimuth of 160 and 170 degrees?
11 "A. No."
12 "What was it that you investigated, which range, then?
13 "I concentrated on 176 degrees. There is also a line drawn on
14 the satellite image of 170 degrees and I stopped at other way-points but
15 they were not within the 170 or 176 degrees."
16 Q. [Interpretation] So my question is: These way-points, WP 5, 10
17 and 6, are, in fact, outside the range between 170 and 176, and they lean
18 towards 160?
19 JUDGE ORIE: The answer is yes to this question, Mr. Lukic.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Why did you investigate the area outside the range between 170
23 and 176 degrees?
24 A. My task was initially, or my purpose initially, was to go to the
25 four way-points along the 176 degree mark, to test the veracity of
1 Colonel Demurenko's assertions that he had made on the video. Since
2 I could only get to the two, I was not able to get to the two way-points
3 that were closest to the city, I had extra time and when I had passed the
4 location that's marked as way-point 5, to get to the way-point 2 and 3,
5 it struck me as being quite an attractive spot for any -- in any case, it
6 was flat, it was level, it was -- had tracks leading off in different
7 directions. And when I was at way-point 2, I looked up on the ridge and
8 there appeared to be, towards the east, there appeared to be a road up
9 there somewhere, so I determined to myself to try to find that and that
10 led me to way-point 10 and way-point 6 where I also took some photographs
11 because they were nice and flat and firm ground.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hogan, you earlier explained to us that you were
13 equally focused on all relevant information, whether inculpatory or
14 exculpatory. Have you also photographed all those places which you
15 considered not to be flat, to be rocky, et cetera, so as to give a
16 balanced impression of the whole of the area?
17 THE WITNESS: There is certainly some of that visible in many of
18 the photographs, Your Honour, that I took, over a hundred photographs.
19 Steep slopes in the distance, heavily wooded areas, rocky ground, but
20 I did not stop at each and every location and take photographs,
22 JUDGE ORIE: I'm asking you this because beyond what your primary
23 task was, you selected places from where you thought it might be suitable
24 places for firing, and you did not focus on places which you thought not
25 useful places for firing. Would you agree with that?
1 THE WITNESS: That's accurate, yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 Q. On this map, we see WP 6. Why did you measure this way-point,
5 which is obviously four kilometres away? Why did you photograph and note
6 a point which is almost four kilometres away from the point of impact?
7 A. I think it was just because I had reached the end of that road
8 and I made -- had to turn around and go back the way I came and I think
9 I just took a way-point measurement and took some photographs from that
10 location. I don't recall any other specific purpose.
11 Q. How familiar are you with the findings and conclusions of either
12 the Bosnian police or UNPROFOR as to the type of charges that could have
13 been used for the shell that exploded at Markale market? And do you know
14 which charge should have been used, must have been used, from
15 way-points 10, 6 and 2?
16 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I object to this question.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If the witness has any knowledge about it, but
18 from what we heard until now, and where he has said he has no expert
19 knowledge of mortars, then I would be surprised if he would be able to
20 tell us. But if you, for any reason, can tell us, please do so.
21 THE WITNESS: No, I'm afraid I can't, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. The reason for my question was to find out on what this
25 investigation concentrated, as far as the evidence of Mr. Demurenko is
1 concerned. If that is your answer, I'll accept it.
2 We have measured this point, WP 6, and we found that it is
3 exactly 3.933 metres away from the point of impact and the azimuth is
4 166.4. Is that what you recorded as WP 6?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, how did you measure your 3.933 metres?
6 There are two systems, as I indicated before.
7 MR. LUKIC: I think the same way Mr. Hogan measured, with the
9 JUDGE ORIE: With a laser. I would be surprised that with the
10 mountains in between you could a use a laser for that. Apart from that,
11 I learned from Mr. Hogan that this measurement was measured on the basis
12 of a projection in a flat area. So I --
13 MR. LUKIC: I might be wrong, I might be wrong because here I
14 have both versions noted.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Two questions if you're wrong. Are you wrong in
16 what Mr. Hogan told us how he measured or are you wrong in the way you
17 say you measured it?
18 MR. LUKIC: In the way I said we measured it.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You measured it also on the projection on a
21 MR. LUKIC: It's most probably, yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. It adds to the complexity.
23 MR. LUKIC: It's not my intention. I'm sorry. But can I ask
24 Mr. Hogan still if he can confirm that is -- that it actually
25 corroborates his findings, is it approximate or exact?
1 THE WITNESS: The degrees and the -- I have never measured it
2 myself but I do not dispute your measurements.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 Q. Would you agree that the altitude of this point is 1.198 metres?
5 It's in your table, in fact.
6 A. Yes, I agree with that.
7 Q. On this map the way we zoomed in now, or perhaps it's better to
8 see the entire photograph, which is now on the screen, can you say for
9 the purposes of this case, as you did in the Karadzic case, can you mark
10 the separation line between the two warring parties?
11 A. If we could zoom in on the central part of the image, it would be
12 helpful. Thank you. The separation line ran along -- or the -- the
13 forward front lines of the VRS ran along the Pale road at this location.
14 So they would have run like that.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. LUKIC: May I tender this as a Defence Exhibit?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Document as marked by the witness receives number
19 D374, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: D374 is admitted into evidence.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I, at this point, put one question to the
22 witness. How did you select these way-points as depicted here in this
24 THE WITNESS: Do you mean from 2 till 10, Your Honour?
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, all of them.
1 THE WITNESS: The way-point 2 and 3 were selected on the basis of
2 Colonel Demurenko's video, so my whole purpose was to go to there, to
3 those two points, plus the 2700 metre point and the 2.000 metre point
4 along the azimuth of 176 degrees. While I was in the area on Trebevic
5 because so many of the trial team had not been up there in the past,
6 I also stopped at these other places at random, at wide spaces on the
7 road, flat spaces on the road, and just took a measurement and
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we now call up in
12 e-court 65 ter 19792, Prosecution number. We need page 48 in e-court.
13 Q. This is a photograph that you took; right?
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 Q. In the background we see Mount Igman and Mount Bjelasnica;
17 A. I'm not certain. It could be, but I can't orient myself as to
18 the direction I'm facing in this photograph.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we, alongside this photograph,
20 that is to say on a split screen, display 1D1296, also a photograph?
21 Q. This is a photo taken by the Defence team, and we believe we did
22 so from the same place where you took yours. We only turned the lens
23 more towards the city. Do you know that OP 4, the observation post 4 of
24 the UNPROFOR, would certainly have registered firing from this location?
25 Do you know where OP 4 was?
1 A. OP 4? No, I'm not -- I can't remember where OP 4. OP 1, but I'm
2 not sure exactly where OP 4 was.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, if I look at these photographs,
4 I have great difficulties in accepting that it was taken from the same
5 place because on the left photograph taken by the Defence I see a lot of
6 what appear to be high-rise buildings, whereas on the right photograph,
7 I don't see any of that. On the right photograph, I see a totally
8 different structure of mountainous area at the back, which seems not to
9 appear on the left-hand area. It may be taken from the same point but
10 then certainly in a different direction, and I do not know what
11 direction. Therefore, to start hearing evidence on the basis of this, we
12 would need to know more.
13 Mr. Lukic, is there any way where the photographs, for example,
15 MR. LUKIC: I think that I mentioned that the lens of the camera
16 was moved to another direction from the same spot.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Then of course what you usually would
18 expect is that you take at least a part of the photograph where there is
19 some overlap so that we can follow exactly how it develops.
20 MR. LUKIC: We will do that -- I don't have it with me now, Your
21 Honour, but probably will have to do this exercise again. What we wanted
22 to show is that OP 4 is exactly below this point.
23 JUDGE ORIE: OP 4 is below any point which is higher up, I can
24 tell you.
25 MR. LUKIC: But in the direction, in between Markale 2, Markale 2
1 incident and this spot.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Do we know exactly from where this photograph was
3 taken, the photograph taken by Mr. Hogan? We know exactly where it was
4 taken. If we know where OP 4 is then we don't need this trees and,
5 et cetera, in order to find out where it is in relation to the other
6 thing. That's -- it's --
7 MR. LUKIC: Mr. Hogan said that he does not know where OP 4 is so
8 I have to leave this area of my questions.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. LUKIC: I think that I was allowed to check it with
11 Mr. Hogan. Now I know that he does not know but I didn't know that
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you could have asked him do you know where OP 4
14 is without any photographs. He would have said no and we would have
15 moved on. Let's proceed.
16 MR. LUKIC: But I had to connect it with photographs. Okay.
17 Anyways, thank you.
18 Can we see 65 ter 19792, please? And I need -- we can have it
19 only that on the screen. We need page 52.
20 Q. [Interpretation] The place that you marked as WP 6 is next to a
21 narrow road covered with rocks and rather steep. This photograph shows a
22 part of this area; right?
23 A. Yes, that's correct.
24 MR. LUKIC: So since the Prosecution didn't offer this page into
25 evidence, we would kindly ask to have this page as next Defence exhibit.
1 Or the whole exhibit would be offered. I don't know.
2 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I was actually going to suggest at this point
3 based on the number of questions from everybody, I think that the whole
4 exhibit, not just the selection that the Prosecution had tendered, be
5 offered. We had tried to select a small amount but I think at this
6 point --
7 JUDGE ORIE: All hundred?
8 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest that the parties sit together and agree on
10 what they consider to be relevant before we start looking at a hundred
11 photographs instead of 10 or 12.
12 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Okay.
13 JUDGE ORIE: The parties are invited to do so.
14 MS. HOCHHAUSER: In any case I don't have an objection to this
16 MR. LUKIC: Can we then ...
17 JUDGE ORIE: We are not in a hurry with that so -- I know that
18 you have some deadlines, Mr. Lukic.
19 MR. LUKIC: Okay, yeah. So it's -- I think the end of our
20 working day.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Not of the working day, but at least of the --
22 today's court hearing.
23 MR. LUKIC: The trial day.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 Mr. Hogan, I again would like to instruct you not to speak with
1 anyone about your testimony or to communicate in any other way about your
2 testimony with -- irrespective whom. We would like to see you back but
3 not on Monday morning. If you would be kind enough to follow the
4 guidance that you will receive through the victims and witness section
5 and then be with us again once we can continue your cross-examination.
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then you may follow the usher.
8 [The witness stands down]
9 MS. HOCHHAUSER: As the witness is leaving the courtroom can
10 I just quickly take this opportunity say that the revised version of
11 P2382 is -- has been uploaded as instructed under document
12 ID 0619-7138-1.
13 JUDGE ORIE: When it comes to numbers, I do not know exactly what
14 they stand for very often. This is in the series of the -- of the
15 material provided --
16 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honour, yeah, I apologise. It was if you
17 recall I had failed have the index uploaded and now this is the corrected
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And it has been -- yes, Madam Registrar,
20 therefore can either attach -- have you uploaded only that one page or
21 have you --
22 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I believe the entire -- we have re-uploaded the
23 entire exhibit as instructed.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, leave is granted to replace the existing
25 version of P2382 by the newly uploaded ID as appears in the transcript.
1 Are there any other matters? Mr. Groome?
2 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I discussed what the Chamber said
3 earlier about Mr. Theunens with the team. The Prosecution would be
4 prepared to go forward with his evidence next week. It would of course
5 take additional time, the Chamber didn't rule on the application for
6 additional time in excess of the 200 hours. Once I had the Registry
7 reports this week I will see what available time we have left and we will
8 be expanding that examination. By the looks of things now, it seems that
9 he would not be testifying until Wednesday morning. That's what my
10 calculation of the projection of the schedule. But the Prosecution would
11 be prepared to proceed and would comply with the Chamber's instructions
12 given earlier today.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. We'll hear from you about an application
14 for extra time. Then if there is nothing else at this moment, we will
15 adjourn for the day and will resume Monday the 30th of September, at 9.30
16 in the morning, in Courtroom III.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.17 p.m.,
18 to be reconvened on Monday, the 30th day of
19 September, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.