1 Monday, 4 November 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
9 This is the case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 There seem to be no preliminaries, which means that we go into
13 closed session to hear the remainder of the testimony of the present
15 [Closed session]
11 Pages 18705-18748 redacted. Closed session.
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours. Thank
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
15 May I take it, Mr. Groome, that the Prosecution is ready to call
16 Mr. Higgs after the break?
17 MR. GROOME: That's correct, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then we take a break, and we resume at 20 minutes
19 past 12.00.
20 --- Recess taken at 11.59 a.m.
21 --- On resuming at 12.22 p.m.
22 JUDGE ORIE: The witness may be escorted into the courtroom.
23 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, if I can deal briefly with a residual
24 matter from the last witness.
25 We have uploaded a corrected version of the document. It can be
1 found in 65 ter 13858A, so at this time we would move that into evidence.
2 The Chamber's already assigned the number, P2603.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 Mr. Registrar, 65 ter 13858A is admitted into evidence, and
5 appears under the number P2603 already reserved for that purpose.
6 [The witness entered court]
7 JUDGE ORIE: No need to have it under seal, Mr. Groome, I take
9 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Higgs.
11 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Higgs, before you give evidence, the Rules
13 require that you make a solemn declaration. The text is now handed out
14 to you. May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.
15 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
16 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
17 WITNESS: RICHARD HIGGS
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated, Mr. Higgs.
19 Mr. Higgs, you'll first be examined by Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber is
20 counsel for the Prosecution and you'll find him to your right.
21 Mr. Weber, you may proceed.
22 MR. WEBER: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Thank you.
23 Examination by Mr. Weber:
24 Q. Mr. Higgs, could you please introduce yourself to the
25 Trial Chamber?
1 A. Good morning. My name is Mr. Richard Higgs.
2 Q. Is it correct that you served in the British Army for 22 years
3 from 1980 to the year 2002?
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. Could you please give the Trial Chamber a general overview of
6 your duties between 1987 and 2002.
7 A. During that time I worked for a specialist branch within the army
8 called the Small Arms School Corps, which specialises in technical
9 weaponry and the training of those weapons. I started, first of all,
10 using and training small arms weaponry, but then transferred across to
11 dedicated mortar training, and then finished my time with the army as the
12 senior technical expert for the British Army on mortars.
13 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 30280 for
14 the witness.
15 Q. Mr. Higgs, is this the report that you completed for the Mladic
16 case on the 8th of October, 2012.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. On this first page of the report, you indicate that in the course
19 of your duties you supervised the firing of over 14.000 rounds a year and
20 conducting the firing of as many as 4.000 rounds in one day.
21 Could you please explain to us the purpose of these firing
23 A. These exercises spanned from small training exercises with
24 individual mortar platoons in some cases, right up to a battalion, corps,
25 and divisional level exercises in many countries around the world.
1 Q. Throughout the remainder of this report, do you provide analysis
2 concerning the general functioning of mortars in five particular shelling
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. Did you personally visit the five locations discussed in your
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Have you testified before this Tribunal as an expert witness on
9 three previous occasions in the Galic, Dragomir Milosevic, and Karadzic
11 A. Yes, I have.
12 Q. Did you have the opportunity to review portions of your previous
13 testimony from the Milosevic and Karadzic cases before today?
14 A. Yes, I have.
15 Q. In the Milosevic case, did you provide additional testimony
16 concerning your experience with mortar investigations?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 30277,
19 page 5, for the witness.
20 Q. Mr. Higgs, this is a transcript from your previous testimony in
21 the Milosevic case. Directing your attention to line 14, do you have any
22 corrections or clarification to your answer that begins, "When they can
23 obtain ..."
24 A. Yes, I think that's possibly due to translation, what that should
25 say is "when they cannot obtain a direct line of sight."
1 Q. Are there any other corrections or clarifications to your
2 previous testimony that you would like to make in either the Milosevic or
3 Karadzic cases?
4 A. No.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, is there any reason why you use a not
6 official, not corrected version of the transcript, rather than an
7 official one?
8 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I can check into that. But ... if I
9 could just have one moment.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 [Prosecution counsel confer]
12 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I'd be happy to look into it and I will
13 get back to you as soon as I possibly can.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. WEBER:
17 Q. If you were asked the same questions that you were asked during
18 these previous testimonies, would you provide the same answers, in
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution would
22 tender five items. The Prosecution requests admission of the curriculum
23 vitae for the witness under 65 ter 11036; the report of the witness under
24 65 ter 30280; portions of the previous testimony of the witness from the
25 Milosevic case under 65 ter 30277; and the Karadzic case under
1 65 ter 30278; lastly, the Prosecution tenders one not admitted associated
2 exhibit form the Karadzic case. It is an UNMO sitrep from 30 August 1995
3 after the Markale II incident under 65 ter 11190.
4 And, Your Honour, in light of your inquiry, if the Milosevic
5 testimony could remain marked for identification I'll check the official
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, let's take them one by one CV to start
9 MR. LUKIC: No objections.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Report.
11 MR. LUKIC: We object to those three report and to excerpts from
12 the transcript in the line with our motion from 98th [sic] of
13 August 2013.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then the last one was the 11190.
15 MR. LUKIC: No objections.
16 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.
17 Mr. Registrar, we'll take them one. 11036, CV of the witness.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Shall be assigned Exhibit P2604. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
20 The next three will be marked for identification, both because a
21 decision will be taken only after the end of the examination of the
22 witness, but, also, as far as the Milosevic transcript is concerned
23 because there is a -- in view of the version that has been used until now
24 for which we will further -- we'll receive further information.
25 30280, the report will receive, Mr. --
1 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P2605, MFI. Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: P2605 is marked for identification.
3 30277, Milosevic excerpt of Milosevic transcript.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Shall be P2606. Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: P2606 is marked for identification.
6 Excerpts from the Karadzic testimony, 30278.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Shall be assigned P2607. Thank you.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Marked for identification.
9 Finally, 65 ter 11190.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Shall be assigned Exhibit P2608. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: P2608 is admitted into evidence.
12 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution requests
13 leave to present a public summary of witness's evidence.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please read it for the public.
15 MR. WEBER: Mr. Richard Higgs provides expert evidence regarding
16 the overall capabilities, operation and effects of mortars as well as the
17 methods of determining the source and direction of mortar fire. The
18 witness provides opinion, observations, and assessments of scheduled
19 shelling incidents in Sarajevo, including the 1 June 1993 shelling of a
20 football match in Dobrinja, G4; the 22 January 1994 shelling in the area
21 of Alipasino Polje, G6; the 4 February 1994 shelling of a humanitarian
22 distribution location in Dobrinja, G7; and both Markale I and Markale II.
23 This concludes the summary of the witness.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Weber. Could I ask clarification for
25 something I really did not understand until now already.
1 Mr. Higgs you said that your supervised the firing of over 14.000
2 rounds in a year, and you conducted the firing of as many as 4.000 rounds
3 in one day.
4 It came to my mind that after three and a half days you're done.
5 Is that -- how could I -- how should I your testimony in this respect?
6 THE WITNESS: The two figures are not directly related in -- in
7 the same year, Your Honour. It was just making the point that in some of
8 the exercise I was supervising we were firing in excess of 4.000 rounds a
9 day. And over a period of a year, in most years, in excess of 14.000
10 round. Some years would be more than that and some years would be less.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So when you said and conducting the fire of as
12 many as 4.000 rounds you were still talking about supervising them and
13 that you had very busy days, but easy days as well.
14 THE WITNESS: Exactly, Your Honour. So I was responsible for all
15 the firing that was taking place. That is not me personally firing a
16 single mortar firing 4.000 rounds. That's me possibly supervising one or
17 two or three battalions firing many mortars on the same day.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
19 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Today, I like to beginning by discussing with you the purpose of
22 On page 5.000 of your previous testimony in the Milosevic case,
23 you state:
24 "A mortar round is designed primarily to kill personnel. They
25 are not destruct weapons, i.e., for blowing up large targets, buildings,
1 and so on."
2 In this respect, could you explain how mortars are designed to
3 kill personnel.
4 A. The general design of a mortar round is one where the body of the
5 round is manufactured in a way where it is maximised to fragment into
6 small pieces, and therefore cause the maximum damage possible to
7 personnel, infantry in the open. Mortar rounds break up into the smaller
8 pieces; whereas your larger artillery rounds predominantly break up into
9 large pieces of shrapnel. So that is the main difference between them.
10 Q. You indicate that they are not destruct weapons. From a military
11 perspective, would firing one or two mortars be an effective means of
12 targeting buildings in urban areas where civilians are present?
13 A. No, this wouldn't, for the reason I have already mentioned. Even
14 with the larger mortars, i.e., the 120-millimetres, if you are trying to
15 destruct a building then you would need to fire far more than just one or
16 two rounds. It would require many, many, more rounds to get them the
17 destruct capability that you're trying to achieve.
18 Q. On page --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, you were mixing up two things in your
20 question, I think. You asked whether mortars be an effective means of
21 targeting buildings in urban areas and then you added where civilians are
23 Would it make any difference in the destructive power whether
24 civilians are present or not? I mean, I did understand that it is a
25 feature of the weapon which makes it unfit to destroy buildings so
1 irrespective or whether there are -- who is around.
2 MR. WEBER: I was going ask another question.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
4 MR. WEBER:
5 Q. It one would fire one to two rounds in an urban area where
6 civilians were present, do you have any views of the intended purpose of
7 such firings?
8 A. When firing mortar ammunition because you want to have the
9 maximum effect when the round lands, if we were trying to neutralise a
10 target, for instance, a larger military target, then we would fire far
11 more than one or two rounds. We would normally concentrate our fire. So
12 higher numbers, so then get maximum effect on the ground. The only time
13 we fire small numbers of rounds is when we are trying to harass the
14 target. So by firing small numbers into an area then prevents movement
15 of people in that area. So firing small numbers rounds is more of a
16 harassing-type mission than a killing or a destruction-type mission.
17 Q. Thank you. On page 3 of your report, you list the general type
18 of available fuses. You indicate that air-burst fuses are for personnel
19 in the open or for trenches without overhead cover. Could you please
20 briefly explain to us how these fuses operate and what is their purpose.
21 A. There are different types of air-burst fuses which can either
22 work on a mechanical time-type fuse or on an electronic-type proximity
23 fuse. And these are set then to detonate the round above ground level.
24 So they'll detonate in the air above the troops, so that then the
25 shrapnel from those rounds would then go downwards into the ground
1 causing the maximum casualties possible.
2 Q. Do air-burst fuses leave any type of crater?
3 A. No, these fuses will not leave a crater as they don't hit the
4 ground. They will leave shrapnel marks on the ground, from where the
5 shrapnel lands, but there will be no crater.
6 Q. Were air-burst fuses used in any of the incidents you reviewed
7 for this case?
8 A. Not on the cases I reviewed.
9 Q. Another type of fuse you describe is a direct action fuse. Could
10 you please explain how this type of fuse operates.
11 A. This type of fuse detonates when it hits a surface, hence the
12 word direct action. And the fuse on striking the ground will then
13 detonate and some of these fuses also have the compatibility to be set on
14 what is called a delay setting, which will cause the fuse to have a small
15 delay before the round then detonates.
16 Q. Were direct action fuses used in any of the incidents you
17 reviewed in this case and, if so, were you able to determine whether
18 these fuses were set for an instantaneous or a delayed explosion?
19 A. It appears from the investigations that I carried out that on the
20 cases that direct action fuses were used, and they were set on to their
21 Super Quick function.
22 Q. When you say "Super Quick" function what does that mean?
23 A. Not delay.
24 Q. What is the primary effect that is achieved by using such a fuse?
25 A. The primary effect is that this round will burst at ground level
1 on contact with a surface, and due to the way the round is constructed,
2 then, of course, the blast will go out sideways giving maximum effect of
3 a single round. If it was set on delay, then the rounds would dig into
4 the ground and therefore have less of -- the shrapnel would have less
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one question.
7 You said this round will burst at ground level if the ground is
8 the first obstacle it finds on its way. Would it be above ground level
9 if it hits a building or ...
10 THE WITNESS: Correct, Your Honour. So it will detonate when it
11 hits its first obstacle in its flight path, whether that be a roof of a
12 building or the ground.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
14 MR. WEBER:
15 Q. If a direct action fuse is set for delayed explosion, would the
16 crater pattern be different?
17 A. Yes, they would.
18 Q. How so?
19 A. Because the ground -- the mortar round is now digging into the
20 ground, the crater or the burst pattern is completely different because
21 the round now is not above the ground level when it is detonating. It is
22 now dug into the ground, so you get more of a deep crater as opposed
23 to -- which you may see in some of your pictures like a flash where it
24 has gone off at ground level. So you would expect to see a deeper hole
25 in the ground if it has been set on to delay.
1 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have P644, page 9 of the
2 English original and page 8 of the B/C/S translation.
3 Q. Mr. Higgs, while this next exhibit is coming up, I just want to
4 let you know for the remainder of today I'm going to focus on some
5 particular aspects of the individual shellings. I will start with the
6 football match in Dobrinja on 1 June 1993, incident G4.
7 The UNPROFOR crater analysis for this incident is now before you.
8 Did you review this report by Captain Houdet as part of your analysis?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In the analysis for crater 1 and crater 2, the report indicates
11 that the splinter patterns show that there is a minimum calibre of
12 81 millimetres. Do you agree with these conclusions?
13 A. Yes, from when I visited the site and seeing the craters that
14 were there, they resembled what I would call a medium mortar, i.e., one
15 of 81- or 82-millimetre calibre.
16 Q. Directing your attention to conclusion number 1, which states:
17 "The distance between crater 1 and the roof of the buildings
18 indicates a minimum angle of descent of 40.5 degrees."
19 Is this consistent with your own personal observations of the
20 minimum angle of descent between these craters and the buildings to the
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. In your report on this incident, you can conclude that:
24 "The mortar rounds must have been fired from the Serb side of the
25 confrontation lines."
1 Could you please explain what you base this conclusion upon.
2 A. Looking at the pattern of the -- the craters in the ground,
3 indicated an approximate angle that the mortar rounds would have struck
4 the target, as they gave an indication that the mortar rounds did not
5 arrive at an extremely low angle of descent and they did not arrive in an
6 extremely high angle of descent. So they arrived in, what I would call,
7 a common angle of descent, somewhere between the two extremities. Using
8 this and then looking at range tables, either ranges, the mortars could
9 achieve this sort of pattern, gives you ranges of 300 metres plus because
10 a mortar could achieve that sort of angle with any of the charges
11 available to it but with a minimum range of 300 metres. And in this
12 case, the confrontation lines being so close, I think the estimation was
13 only 200 to 250 metres away, would mean that to get that pattern on the
14 ground the mortar would have to have fired from somewhere -- where the
15 other side of the confrontation line.
16 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution now please have P865, page 21
17 of the B/C/S version only.
18 Q. Mr. Higgs, while this is being called up, I'm going to move on
19 and discuss with you briefly the shelling on 22 January 1994 in the area
20 of Alipasino Polje - this is incident G6 - where the children were
22 THE REGISTRAR: This is a confidential document, thank you.
23 MR. WEBER: Thank you.
24 Q. Do you recognise this photograph from the BiH MUP investigation
25 of this incident?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Based on this photograph, can you determine what calibre of
3 mortar caused this crater?
4 A. From the -- the picture we have, the crater seems to be very
5 small, with minimal damage to the top of the surface, which would
6 indicate it's more possible or likely to have been a medium mortar, i.e.,
7 around 82-millimetre calibre, rather than the 120-millimetre.
8 Q. Would the pattern of this crater have been different if it was
9 caused by a 120-millimetre round?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, has that question not been answered by
11 the answer of the previous question?
12 MR. WEBER: It has, but if the witness -- I'm just asking in case
13 the witness has an opinion as to some different characteristics that
14 would not have been present.
15 JUDGE ORIE: If it would not have been different, of course, he
16 could not have said that the pattern is most likely of a medium mortar, I
17 mean, otherwise he would have said, I can't see the difference.
18 MR. WEBER: Your Honour --
19 JUDGE ORIE: If the witness wants to add anything to his previous
20 answer, he can do so.
21 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. On page 9 of your report you state that the two 82-millimetre
23 rounds "fell exactly as the mortar crew would have intended and will have
24 caused maximum casualties among those trying to take cover."
25 Could you please explain to us how you reached this conclusion.
1 A. The two mortar rounds in this case here were fired in the -- the
2 open -- the street in front of buildings with one round landing short
3 time before the second and again with a dispersion -- a -- a distance
4 apart. So to cause maximum casualties one way of doing this would be to
5 fire one round, first of all, then knowing that people will move around
6 in that area on finding out what is going on or running for cover and
7 then fire the second round, of course, to make maximum use of that
8 particular case. So that's how you would, in this case here, if that was
9 the plan, by firing these two rounds at slightly distance apart with a
10 shall time gap between them as well.
11 Q. I'd like to move on and discuss with you the shelling of the
12 humanitarian distribution line on 4 February 1994, incident G7.
13 You make the observation on page 9 of your report that:
14 "When I visited the scene, you become aware that the distances
15 between these rounds falling is actually not very far. In all, a
16 distance of approximately 40 metres radius from the first to the last
18 What does the distance between these impacts indicate to you?
19 A. Because these rounds are reasonably close together, it could
20 indicate that it could have all been fired from a single mortar because
21 the distances then between the rounds could quite easily be within the
22 acceptable accuracy of a single mortar barrel firing all three rounds.
23 Q. You indicate in the report that these rounds were fired
24 deliberately. This is a comment that you repeat also in other parts of
25 your report.
1 Could you please just generally explain to us what you mean by
2 the term "deliberate"?
3 A. In firing of mortars, the word deliberate means that on firing a
4 mortar that a charge has been selected, a bearing has then been placed
5 onto the sight, then to allow the fire, of course, then to impact the
6 ground where he intended to be. So that is what we call a deliberate
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, could I ask --
9 I take it that you always have to select the bearing. You can't
10 fire a mortar without selecting a bearing.
11 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour, that is not true. You can fire
12 mortars in different ways. You can fire a mortar by direct fire, first
13 of all, if you happen to have a mortar that can see the target from
14 the -- the mortar position. They can actually use their sight to engage
15 directly and so they won't have to use an observer. So that is one
17 The second method using an observer is where you have correct
18 charges, bearings and elevations that you have set on the sight from
19 information given to you from an observer. And in some cases it could be
20 possible to fire a mortar just into an area where you are not putting any
21 particular bearings onto the sight but to -- but just by pointing into an
22 area and selecting a charge so that you would know that a round is going
23 to land in just in a -- a large area but a known area, so you really can
24 fire the mortar in three ways, so direct fire by using correct charge
25 bearing and elevations or by just pointing into a general direction if
1 that is the wishes of the persons who is firing it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I must have misunderstood you. Because
3 even if you do it by direct fire, then you're still determining a bearing
4 where it should go, et cetera, but you do it in a different way.
5 THE WITNESS: Yeah, you do it in a different way --
6 JUDGE ORIE: That's the reason why I asked you this. Because is
7 there any firing of a mortar which is not deliberate? That means you
8 want to hit a target or an area or whatever, that's all always
9 deliberate, opposite to firing at random or just not knowing what you're
11 THE WITNESS: Well, if you wasn't targeting a specific area, if
12 for some reason you just wanted to fire a round into a general area for
13 harassment or something like that, then you actually wouldn't have to put
14 on precise bearings onto the mortar because purely from that work you
15 could just point in the general direction, you know how far it is going
16 to go per charge, and you could, if you wanted to, just fire a round into
17 a general area. This, however, for reasons we've already mentioned would
18 not be a very accurate way of firing the weapons system.
19 JUDGE ORIE: No. But it still would be deliberately doing
21 THE WITNESS: You would still - yes - be deliberately doing
23 JUDGE ORIE: That is not to clearly select an area but just to
24 take a wide area or an approximate area which is still a decision-making
25 process as well.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, correct.
2 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, I'm a bit puzzled by deliberate and
3 non-deliberate firing, but I know do understand, more or less, what you
4 meant by that.
5 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
7 MR. WEBER:
8 Q. I just have a few more incidents to discuss with you. Have you
9 previously reviewed materials and analysed the shelling that occurred on
10 18 June 1995 at a water distribution point in the Simon Bulevar school
11 located in Dobrinja?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have P997, page 8 of the
14 English original. Your Honours, the B/C/S translation of this, I see, is
15 incomplete and I will be working of the English translation.
16 JUDGE ORIE: If there's any portion you would like to use, then
17 you should briefly read it so that it will be translated for the accused.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. WEBER: [Overlapping speakers] ... thank you.
20 Q. Mr. Higgs, this is the UNMO daily sitrep dated 19 June 1995, a
21 day after the shelling of the Simon Bulevar school. Directing your
22 attention to the 7th entry from the top the one that states:
23 "1146B," then in the next column, "OP-4," then, "one explosion or
24 XPL," then the word, "unknown," then going across it states, "Dobrinja
25 with a grid reference." And then in the column to the far right, it
1 says, "fired BSA."
2 Does the time of this entry correspond to when the shelling of
3 the water collection point at the Simon Bulevar school occurred?
4 A. Yes, it does.
5 Q. With respect to the six-digit grid reference which for the record
6 states B, as in boy, P865564 under the word Dobrinja, does this grid
7 reference correspond to the approximate location where the shell impacted
8 upon a wall of the school?
9 A. Yes, it does.
10 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please move forward to page 12
11 of the English version of this exhibit.
12 Q. Mr. Higgs, I had be drawing your attention to the section that
14 "UNMO team SW-2 carried out investigation of 120-millimetre mor,
15 origin approx 320 MAG. Difficult to confirm, fragments removed by local
16 CIVPOL, and impact was on concrete wall 4 had M above ground level. The
17 impact site was a water collection point. UNMOs were allowed to Kosovo
18 hospital and the morgue where they could confirm 7 Civ killed."
19 Do these findings of the UNMO investigation team with respect to
20 that 320 MAG correspond to the findings of the BiH MUP related to this
22 A. Yes, they do.
23 Q. Before asking you a few specific questions about Markale I on
24 5 February 1994, could you please explain to us the kinetic forces that
25 are created when a mortar impacts upon a surface and explodes, both in
1 terms of the shell which you've generally already explained and the
3 A. When a round is striking the ground, it is obviously through the
4 air at a specific velocity, and the velocity for this impact on the
5 ground will depend upon the charge that it's been fired at. So the
6 higher the charge, the faster the velocity, so the faster the round will
7 impact the ground.
8 When the round hits the ground and explodes, the force then will
9 drive the -- the fuse part of the round into the ground which sometimes
10 gives what is known as a fuse furrow or a hole in the ground where the
11 fuse impacts itself into the ground. The round explodes, forcing the
12 shrapnel out to the side because the rounds are designed for most of the
13 blast to go sideways to cause the maximum casualties. And the tail-fin,
14 of course, at the rear of the round is also travelling forward at the
15 same speed as the round. So this has the same velocity as it's
16 travelling forward as the round exploded, and so, therefore, again, at
17 the higher velocities because it is moving forward with a higher kinetic
18 energy which is why, as I explain in my earlier reports, is one of the
19 reasons we tend to see tail-fins in some of the craters as opposed to not
20 being in others because of the kinetic forces as round explodes and the
21 velocity of the ground.
22 Q. With respect -- with respect to Markale I, do you have any views
23 on the distance to which the mortar came from based on the depth of the
24 stabiliser that was embedded into the ground?
25 A. In Markale I, the tail-fins were embedded deeply into the ground,
1 which would tend to indicate that that particular round was fired on a
2 higher charge rather than being fired on a low charge.
3 Q. And when you say higher charge, what do you mean with respect to
4 this incident?
5 A. With respect to this incident and the type of ground, i.e., being
6 a hard surface, the higher charges would be charges 5 and charge 6.
7 Q. I'd like to finish today with discussing briefly with you your
8 evidence about Markale II. And, actually, since most of it is a part of
9 your previous testimony, I'm going to show you just one exhibit.
10 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have P2055 for the
12 Q. Mr. Higgs, did you review the still images and the video from
13 which they come prior to today?
14 A. Yes, I have.
15 Q. Based on these images, do they appear to show the same stabiliser
16 or a different stabiliser?
17 A. From these two pictures, the damage caused to the tail-fins and
18 the body of the tail-fin, they appear to be the same stabiliser.
19 Q. Are there any particular portions that are notable to you or
20 particular observations that you have that correspond between those two
22 A. There is the -- the flattened nature of the tail-fins which
23 appears in both. There is a polished upper surface to one of the
24 tail-fins which you can see on both, and also to the bottom right-hand
25 side corner of the main stem, you can see damage to the bottom right-hand
1 corner which again appears on both.
2 MR. WEBER: I have no further questions for the witness.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Weber.
4 Mr. Lukic, is it you or is it Mr. Ivetic who will cross-examine
5 the witness.
6 MR. LUKIC: I will cross-examine the witness, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: You're pretty far away from the witness, and I have
8 difficulties -- you are hidden more or less behind a pillar.
9 MR. LUKIC: I will move forward, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You know this Chamber always wants everyone to
11 move forward. If you would not mind that -- to move to a place where our
12 communication is more direct.
13 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I would, Your Honour. I don't mind.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Higgs, bear with us for a moment, so that
15 Mr. Lukic is in full view.
16 Mr. Higgs, you'll be cross-examined by Mr. Lukic. Mr. Lukic is
17 counsel for Mr. Mladic.
18 Mr. Ivetic, I think Mr. Mladic is seeking to consult with you.
19 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I have one proposal. If we can make
20 earlier break, since Mr. Mladic should leave the courtroom and he would
21 waive his right to be present today and tomorrow.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If that is -- I'm looking at Mr. Mladic.
23 Mr. Mladic, counsel tells us you would waive your right to attend
24 the proceedings from after the break we are about to take up till and
25 including tomorrow. Could you -- I take it that counsel has expressed
1 your views on the matter?
2 In that case, we would take an early break, and we would start
3 cross-examination after the break.
4 I see you're nodding yes in respect of everything I said the last
5 minute. Yes.
6 Then, Mr. Lukic -- could the witness first be escorted out of the
8 [The witness stands down]
9 JUDGE ORIE: We'll then take the break, and we resume at
10 25 minutes to 2.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 1.14 p.m.
12 [The accused not present]
13 --- On resuming at 1.37 p.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: While we are waiting for the witness to be escorted
15 in the courtroom, I'd like to inform the parties that, to the extent
16 we'll need to sit in the first weeks of December, that we'll not sit on
17 Wednesdays; so, therefore, the 4th of December, and the 11th of December,
18 we would not sit. We do not know yet whether we use those days around
19 these dates, but already to inform you that -- about this.
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 JUDGE ORIE: I put on the record that Mr. Mladic is not present
22 in court. Before the break, he explicitly waived his right to attend the
24 Mr. Lukic, if you are ready.
25 MR. LUKIC: I am, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Higgs, you'll now be cross-examined by
2 Mr. Lukic. Mr. Lukic is counsel for Mr. Mladic.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:
6 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Higgs.
7 A. Good afternoon.
8 Q. I will continue in B/C/S. I think you don't mind. I go swiftly
9 in that way.
10 [Interpretation] In your report, P2605, you say that:
11 "It must be emphasised that I have been using evidence provided
12 only by third parties and that I arrived at my conclusions based on the
13 photographs of incidents and my experience with mortar incidents."
14 Now, I'm going to start with Markale II of 28th August 1995,
15 marked in the indictment as G18.
16 In the report, you say that:
17 "Based on the evidence presented to me, there is no reason for me
18 not to trust the reports compiled by other organisations. They concluded
19 that the bearing of the round made -- and the crater made by the round is
20 170 degrees."
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we briefly have 65 ter 10221.
22 Q. This is your report, as you can see, dated 3rd August, 2006. We
23 need page 9 in B/C/S and page 10 in English. Under sub-item E, second
24 paragraph you say:
25 "I looked at all of these reports and by using data supplied,
1 pictures of the scene and maps of the area, I was able to confirm the
2 correct trajectory by using these methods."
3 Do you stand by this?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
5 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, before we get too confused of a record,
6 I would just note that the same sentence appears in -- on page 13 of the
7 witness's current report in this case, which is P2605.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: With one exception. Not in the report, we can
9 read bearings instead of tragedy.
10 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Lukic, to the extent possible, please
12 include the report which was prepared for this case.
13 MR. LUKIC: We will discuss both reports, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
16 Q. [Interpretation] So, do you stand by this?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Thank you. Does this mean that you have decided the bearing, the
19 angle of ascent, the angle of descent, the trajectory, and the flight
20 time of the projectile?
21 A. There was nothing in the report to my recollection regarding the
22 flight time.
23 Q. As for the other elements, is it correct that you have defined
25 A. Yes. In my report, I looked at the evidence regarding the
1 direction and the angle of descent.
2 Q. Thank you. Let us now briefly take a look at 65 ter 10233.
3 This is a sketch indicating how the Sarajevo police determined
4 the minimum angle of descent. You had an opportunity to review this
5 document, didn't you?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Did you check whether this angle of descent was correctly defined
8 by them?
9 A. Yes. I had a look at this, the measurements taken, and agreed
10 with their calculations.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
12 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, again, so we don't have too confused a
13 record, this document is contained in Exhibit P00498.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, it's part of an exhibit.
15 MR. LUKIC: It's a large document, so ...
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. LUKIC: Can -- can we have the page in that document so it's
18 clear for the record, please, if you can.
19 MR. WEBER: I'd be happy to provide it. I'm just looking it up.
20 JUDGE ORIE: We'll hear in a minute.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Would you agree that if the angle of descent is less than
23 67 degrees, that shell would have hit a building or the building on the
25 A. Yes, that would be correct. It would have hit somewhere on that
2 Q. Thank you. And now let's briefly look at the direction from
3 which the shell came or, rather, let's look at the way to establish the
4 bearing of the pavement.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Therefore, I would like to go back to
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
8 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, before moving on to the next document,
9 for the record, what was on our screens is P498, page 24 in the B/C/S and
10 page 22 in the original -- or in the English translation.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. And now could the Court
13 produce the sit-report from the 26th of August -- or, rather, the
14 3rd of August, 2006, and let's look at page 12 in the English version.
15 Q. Is it true that you determined the direction by looking at the
16 photo of the place of impact and the pattern on the asphalt, and, thus,
17 you determined an approximate direction of the flight based on the way or
18 the shape of the curb?
19 A. Using the information, I was trying to determine which direction
20 the crater was facing, so I used the -- the picture and the line of the
21 curb and the edge of the buildings to see if the crater was facing
22 towards the buildings or, for instance, facing down the road so I could
23 then try and ascertain which direction is -- was more likely.
24 Q. Look at the figure "185 deg." What does that represent? It is
25 degrees, I suppose.
1 A. That angle just represents the right angle to the curb, the
2 right-angle direction.
3 Q. We have received a somewhat odd interpretation. Is this the
4 right angle, the normal angle of 90 degrees, with respect to the curb?
5 We did not understand you in the interpretation, sir.
6 A. Yes. 90 degrees to the curb, yes.
7 Q. The direction of the line, which is marked as 175 degrees, this
8 is what you based on the pattern of the fragments on the asphalt, and
9 that represents the direction from which the shell had come; right?
10 A. Yes. I was looking at the general pattern of the crater and
11 seeing in which kind of general direction it lines up.
12 Q. In that case, when you drew a line which is normal with respect
13 to the curb, the 176, you looked whether the angle was to the left or to
14 the right, with respect to that line; is that correct?
15 A. Yes, I took the line -- a general line which in this case the 275
16 is just a fixed point. It is not an accurate representation of the road.
17 It's a fixed point that I then used as a reference point, as what I was
18 trying to show in this diagram was the disparity between two reports,
19 where we had a direction of 170 degrees and a direction of 220 and 240
20 degrees being suggested. So by using, then, this fixed line, I could
21 then see which direction the mortar crater is facing which, in this case
22 here, it is facing towards the building. Because if the crater had been
23 fired from a direction more towards 220 or 240, then you'd expect to see
24 the direction or the position of the crater facing more to the right down
25 the road.
1 Q. Did you use the same methodology in this case?
2 A. In this case -- I'm sorry, could you just explain the question?
4 Q. What we are looking at is a photo from the Karadzic case, i.e.,
5 the report that you prepared for that case.
6 Now have you been commissioned to do a report for the --
7 General Mladic case. Did you used the same methodology. This was my
9 A. Yes. In my report, I made the point that the bearing of 275
10 degrees here is not a representative bearing of exactly where the road
11 faces. It was a fixed point that I could more accurately draw on a map
12 at the time just to give me a rough direction to find out whether this
13 crater was facing towards 170 or nearer to 220/240.
14 Due to the fact that the -- the Karadzic case that did cause a
15 little bit of confusion how I had done this, I, therefore, changed it for
16 this particular case here to try and estimate the actual direction that
17 the road faces along, and those bearings are in my up-to-date report.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Higgs, I still have some difficulties in
19 understanding what you meant exactly by: I took a fixed point. I mean,
20 a line is not a point and it's apparently what you wanted with the
21 275 degrees. What you wanted to do is the -- establish the direction of
22 the curb stones.
23 THE WITNESS: Yeah. On the maps that I had at the time, and with
24 the direction of the road, a little bit further on down the road here, we
25 have a nice, really straight line which I could see on the map to give me
1 a really clear direction, which was the 275, which I used in the Karadzic
2 case, which is about -- I think it's is about 10 degree different from
3 the true road. But it was close enough to -- for be able to just give an
4 impression of, is this crater facing toward the building, or is it
5 actually facing down the road, to find out whether it's nearer 170, or is
6 it facing towards 220/240. So that's why I took that particular bearing
7 at that time.
8 But as you said, in the Karadzic case, it caused a little bit of
9 confusion, so I then went back to the report and to a more accurate
10 reading of this particular road and this particular point, that is the
11 direction that is in my up-to-date report. I think I -- I haven't got
12 the report in front of me, but I believe it is nearer -- 265 degrees is
13 the true direction of the curb, as close as I could make it with the maps
14 I have.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just assume that it is 265, although it says
16 260 in the present report --
17 THE WITNESS: Okay.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Which means that the difference is 15 degrees.
19 THE WITNESS: Mm-hm.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Now, with what seems to me to be the same line going
21 through the heart of the crater which, in your previous report as we see
22 it on our screens now, was 175 degrees, and now you say crater direction
23 close to 170 degrees; whereas, if the curb stones move for 15 degree, I
24 would expect the crater direction, which is just a calculation, to be --
25 to move 15 degrees as well and not just 5.
1 THE WITNESS: The calculation of the direction of the -- the
2 mortar crater here, I am just obviously basing that on this picture and,
3 of course, the findings of the examination team on the day, when they
4 came up with that direction of being approximately 170. I have not used
5 the angle of the curb or any mathematical calculation to then take one
6 from the other. So I'm just using this picture just to represent that
7 the crater is facing more towards an angle of 170 than it is to a
8 direction of 220/240. I am not using this picture to accurately plot the
9 exact direction of the crater because I don't have enough information to
10 do that.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Based on this photo, you estimated that the line that goes to the
15 crater as -- slightly inclines to the left so the trajectory had to have
16 been 170 degree, i.e., 10 degrees to the left; is that correct?
17 A. I don't really understand the question. Could you just start
18 again, please.
19 Q. Based on this photo, you estimated that the angle of the
20 trajectory leans 10 degrees to the left, i.e., that it is 175 rather than
21 185, and 185 would have been a 90-degree angle with respect to the curb;
23 A. In this case, yes.
24 Q. So we can therefore conclude that with respect to the curb, based
25 on your findings, the projectile did not arrive at an angle of 90 degrees
1 but, rather, at an angle of 100 degrees; right?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
3 MR. WEBER: Objection. I don't think that's accurately stating
4 the witness's evidence. If I could have a point where he might have
5 referred that.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could you please explain how -- in the
7 new picture, I see the direction of the curb to be 260 degrees. The
8 crater direction close to 170 degrees, surprisingly, because I would
9 expect even less, which makes a difference of 90 degrees rather than 100.
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as we can see, the angle
11 of the curb is marked here as 275 degrees. When you deduct 90 degrees
12 from that, you arrive at 185 degrees. Using the same analogy, in order
13 to arrive at an angle of decent of 175 degrees, you have to subtract
14 175 degrees from 275 degrees.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try to follow you.
16 You start with the Karadzic drawing. 275 degrees --
17 MR. LUKIC: Yes, we see it on the right-hand side on this -- on
18 this picture. 275 degrees.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. LUKIC: That's the line of the curb.
21 JUDGE ORIE: That's the line of the curb. And the line of the
22 origin of fire is estimated, or, at least, is written down as
23 175 degrees.
24 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Which makes a difference of --
1 MR. LUKIC: One hundred.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Of 100, yes.
3 Now you want to compare that with what exactly?
4 MR. LUKIC: Now we have to come to the -- this -- the position of
5 this curb, whether it's correctly --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I now see your point. It's exactly the same
7 point as you had pointed at before, that the -- if you change the angle
8 slightly, then you would expect something different.
9 MR. LUKIC: Yeah. Only we'll show it in more details, if you
10 allow us.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I would have similar concerns about the
12 220 degrees, as a matter of fact, but I have not raised that yet. I
13 leave it to you.
14 MR. LUKIC: Mm-hm.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. [Interpretation] When you testified in the Radovan Karadzic case,
18 it was established that you had erroneously calculated the bearing of the
19 curb and that's why in your report dated 8 October 2011, you made a
20 correction of that mistake; right?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
22 MR. WEBER: Objection to the form of the question. He can ask
23 that in a much more straightforward --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I think the question is clear.
25 Objection denied. What you intended to say, Mr. Lukic, is that
1 the correct -- he now used the correct calculation.
2 MR. LUKIC: He is trying to correct it.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. He calculated it now according to his new
4 views on the matter.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Mr. Higgs, do you accept that you made a mistake in the Karadzic
9 A. No, I did not make a mistake. I was just using a different point
10 of reference because I was not trying to directly ascertain the direction
11 this crater was facing. I was just trying to work out whether or not it
12 was nearer the 170, as put forward in one case, or nearer to 220/240, as
13 put forward in another argument. So -- and from the picture, you can see
14 that the crater is lined up facing the building and not pointing down the
15 road. So this is not an accurate mathematical calculation on my behalf,
16 just a guide to see which of the two reports I was faced with is actually
17 the crater faces nearer towards.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the Chamber would have to read the other
19 report to see whether it was inaccurate because the drawing suggests
20 otherwise, but without having read the report, we're unable to make any
21 further conclusion, unless you take us through this alter report,
22 Mr. Lukic.
23 MR. LUKIC: I will, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
1 Q. [Interpretation] I have to tell you the position of our Defence,
2 Mr. Higgs, and we will take it from there.
3 It is our position that you intentionally calculated the --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the -- Mr. Lukic please slow down. It is
5 impossible to interpret.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, Mr. Lukic --
7 MR. LUKIC: It's the position of our Defence.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I wanted to convey to you the message of the
9 interpreters --
10 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
11 JUDGE ORIE: --- that if you would not slow down --
12 MR. LUKIC: The message wouldn't be translated.
13 JUDGE ORIE: That no message would come ever to our ears.
14 MR. LUKIC: I will repeat. Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
16 MR. LUKIC: I wasn't aware that I was reading too fast.
17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Higgs, the position of our Defence is this:
18 You intentionally miscalculated the bearing of the curb in order to
19 arrive at an angle of 175 degrees because this is the bearing on which
20 the Prosecutor located several positions from which the shell could have
21 allegedly been fired. And now we are going to show you yet another
22 excerpt from a map which you omitted from your report, although you did
23 use it in your report that you drafted for the Radovan Karadzic case.
24 We would like to call up 65 ter 100221. We are interested in the
25 English page 13.
1 Is this the map based on which you worked out the position of the
3 A. This is the one.
4 Q. [In English] Okay.
5 [Interpretation] On the left-hand side, we can see the angle of
6 275 degrees. And in order to increase the visibility we have enlarged
7 one part so you will see that written within the map.
8 Now I'm going to show you 1D1379.
9 We can see the curb here and its position near the
10 Markale market. You will see it marked as "Markale market." And we can
11 see the direction of 275 degrees. This was plotted from your map, this
12 line was plotted from your map onto this map.
13 Is it true that in your first report, you used this map and this
14 direction to establish the line of the curb in front of the Markale
15 market and you arrived at a degree of 275 -- at an angle of 275 degrees?
16 A. Yes, for the reasons I've already mentioned.
17 Q. You said that you changed that because it confused some people.
18 People were not confused. You made a mistake; right?
19 A. No. I used the straighter line of road as it is further along to
20 give me a line to work from, because I was only trying, as I said before,
21 to work out or to disprove one bearing or the other whether it would be
22 170 or the angle of 220/240. Actually, by me using line 275 actually
23 instead of helping or me trying to mislead, in some respects, it helps
24 the Defence's case rather than the Prosecution's because now I have
25 changed it to 265 --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Higgs, Mr. Higgs, you don't have to explain
2 whether it was favourable for the Defence or the Prosecution. First of
3 all, we expected an expert --
4 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- to be accurate and not -- perhaps through
6 mistakes, favour one of the two parties.
7 Therefore, you would agree that if you plot on a photograph a
8 direction in which a street runs, and if there's a considerable
9 difference between the actual direction and the direction plotted, that
10 that is a mistake.
11 THE WITNESS: Probably a mistake in -- in interpretation but I
12 was clear what I was trying to achieve.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Higgs. Mr. Higgs, if I see a line plotted on a
14 picture, which says whatever number, I expect that to be the real
15 direction in which that street runs.
16 THE WITNESS: Mm-hm.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Any other explanation needs more than what you are
18 telling us. Because your purpose of what you are doing in itself does
19 not allow for inaccuracy.
20 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 Q. We checked or, rather, experts in the field checked the mistakes
23 that you made on this occasion. And we measured the bearing of the --
24 city market on Google Earth, and the mistake was as much as 20 degrees.
25 Do you now see as well that the error was 20 degrees?
1 A. The difference is approximately 15 degrees on my calculations.
2 Q. And let's quickly look --
3 MR. LUKIC: That's the end of our day. We will show more on this
4 issue probably tomorrow.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You may do that tomorrow.
6 But, Mr. Higgs, one final question. It's not only a matter of
7 calculation. You calculate the difference between the two indicated on
8 your maps, whether it's 275 or whether it's 260. How did you measure the
10 THE WITNESS: The 260, I then using this map here, to the best of
11 my ability --
12 JUDGE ORIE: You did it on the basis of this map?
13 THE WITNESS: On this map, to the best of my ability, yeah.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And do you think that a cut-out of - how much is
15 it? - just a couple of metres of 10, 15 metres would necessarily always
16 be the same as what you find on a map with a totally different scale?
17 Wouldn't you think that what you -- what we really need is to be with a
18 compass at that specific point where the two bicycles are and measure it
19 from there?
20 THE WITNESS: That would be the ideal way. Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: No, because you said that you had visited the
23 THE WITNESS: Mm-hm.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Did not do the measurements --
25 THE WITNESS: Not at that time. No.
1 JUDGE ORIE: No -- not any later?
2 THE WITNESS: No.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll adjourn for the day, Mr. Higgs. But
4 before doing so, I'd like to instruct you that you should not speak,
5 communicate in whatever way, with whomever about your testimony, whether
6 that is testimony you've given today, or whether that's testimony still
7 to be given in the days -- in the coming days.
8 You may follow the usher, and we'd like to see you back tomorrow
9 morning at 9.30.
10 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 JUDGE ORIE: We'll adjourn for the day. We'll resume tomorrow,
13 Tuesday, the 5th of November, at 9.30 in the morning, in this came
14 courtroom, III.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.17 p.m.,
16 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 5th day of
17 November, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.