1 Wednesday, 30 September 2015
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Mr. Lukic, the Chamber was informed that you wanted to deal with
12 a few matters, I think, remaining from yesterday.
13 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
15 MR. LUKIC: First of all, we spoke with Mr. Weber in regard of
16 D1261 MFI; and as I understood him, the Prosecution does not have
18 MR. WEBER: The Defence is correct, the Prosecution reviewed the
19 whole video which is a total time of 6 minutes, 57 seconds, and we do not
20 object to the admission of that whole video into evidence.
21 JUDGE ORIE: D1261 is admitted into evidence.
22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
23 The next topic is figures 70 and 71 from the report on Markale,
24 which is 1D05496. You inquired about the source. Figure 75 was exhibit
25 in Slobodan Milosevic trial, P636.1, and it was the third picture in that
1 exhibit and it was found on the site of this Tribunal. Our experts found
2 that on the site of the Tribunal. And...
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you repeat the number.
4 MR. LUKIC: Yes, it's P636.1.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
6 MR. LUKIC: And it was introduced through the witness
7 Berko Zecevic.
8 Figure 70 was the second picture in the same document, and 75 we
9 also saw in the video, 1D05916.
10 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I'm not clear on the reference because I
11 think there was two figures referred to but ...
12 MR. LUKIC: First I addressed figure 75. Now I'm addressing
13 figure 70.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you started by staying the next topic is
15 figures 70 and 71.
16 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
17 JUDGE ORIE: That's how it is on the record. Did you intend to
18 say that your next topic was figures 70 and 75, and that you have dealt
19 with 75 until now --
20 MR. LUKIC: Yes --
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- and that you'll now deal with number 70?
22 MR. LUKIC: 70, yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.
24 MR. LUKIC: And it's -- so the second picture in the same P636
25 from Milosevic trial, and we uploaded it under our number as 1D05574.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And then I take it, Mr. Weber, that you'll check --
2 because there was a difference in quality. I think had you a better
3 quality. How it is possible that the better-quality version is found on
4 the Internet --
5 MR. LUKIC: No, no, Your Honour. No. Video was brought by the
7 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, the video was brought by the witness.
8 MR. LUKIC: Yes, and it was given to Prosecution, and the
9 Prosecution gave it to the Defence.
10 MR. WEBER: I will, of course, check what the ERNs are associated
11 to these exhibits and, if necessary, further inform the Chamber once we
12 find out. The images that were tendered as part of this or videos --
13 well, I can check that.
14 JUDGE ORIE: If you would check that. Mr. Lukic has given you
15 the clues to where it came from.
16 MR. LUKIC: We are tendering images and also yesterday, since
17 there was discussion in regard 1D05916, we tendered it but it was not
18 admitted. So I would use the opportunity to tender this video, 1D05916.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and --
20 MR. WEBER: We have no objection to it. As far as we're
21 concerned, it would be just -- it depicts what's already in evidence
22 so --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. LUKIC: But better quality.
25 MR. WEBER: I -- I think the Chamber is able to assess the visual
1 quality of the videos.
2 MR. LUKIC: On the Prosecution version, it's almost not possible
3 to see those stones that were supporting the tail-fin -- it was very
4 [overlapping speakers] --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- the quality was different apparently -- I
6 mean, the quality was not exactly the same as what we saw before. The
7 Prosecution, if there's any concerns about differences between the two,
8 we'll hear from them.
9 Mr. Weber, you'll verify that, and you have no objections against
10 1D05916 to be admitted?
11 MR. WEBER: It still would be appreciated if counsel could give
12 us the ERN associated to that, just so we know what the --
13 MR. LUKIC: We do not have ERN and we cannot give ERN. It's the
14 Prosecution job, so we cannot give them ERN.
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, the concern is that -- I mean, to track
16 it back to the source material and whether anything that happened to the
17 video after that point in time, I need to know what the source material
18 is and what that ERN is.
19 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, I have answer to that. That video was brought
20 to this Tribunal and given to the Prosecution by their witness Sead Besic
21 during Karadzic trial, so it's easy to track.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If that --
23 MR. WEBER: And checking our records, that's the video we've
24 tendered into evidence.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Which was P864.
2 JUDGE ORIE: But apparently you say, Mr. Lukic, it's different
3 quality so something must have happened with that original material,
4 either the Prosecution -- I don't know what has happened, but if the
5 quality is different then something has happened with it. And what
6 Mr. Weber would like to check whether what happened with the video, to
7 know what was the original, so that can you see weather there was any
8 manipulation or whatever by whomever; and for that purpose, Mr. Weber
9 wants to know what is the source material. And you've now told him that
10 the video that was given by Mr. Besic to the Prosecution, that it's that
11 video -- but that's apparently the bad quality, so what then explains
12 where the better quality comes from? And that's the issue.
13 MR. LUKIC: The better quality comes from the witness Sead Besic,
14 who brought it here in December 2012.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And the Prosecution tells us that that what is was
16 tendered --
17 MR. LUKIC: No, it's not.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's -- I say that's what the Prosecution
19 tells us.
20 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Now then, of course, the question arises: You
22 apparently have a copy of better quality --
23 MR. LUKIC: They have it too.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well --
25 MR. WEBER: And, Your Honour, we may -- and if that's the case,
1 all I'll need to know is just what the ERN is and I'll -- I would be --
2 before -- I'm happy to do whatever efforts are needed to resolve the
4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I would -- we are not going to spend time at
5 this moment any further, but this little puzzle should be resolved before
6 we finally decide on admission of the other version with the stones
7 better visible.
8 Any other matter?
9 MR. WEBER: If we could just take a care of couple other
10 housekeeping matters. Going back to the Livanjska Street incident and
11 discussion from Monday. This is the matter that relates to the 8th of
12 November, 1994. The parties indicated that we would discuss the
13 materials related to this event and their admission. I did have the
14 opportunity to discusses with it with Mr. Lukic. There are three
15 outstanding 65 ter numbers that have not yet been admitted related to
16 these shellings. For the first shelling at 1525 hours under 65 ter
17 33104, which is the BiH MUP investigative file; and 65 ter 33235, which
18 is the photo file. Those two items have not been admitted. And with
19 respect to the second shelling at 1725 hours, 65 ter 18645 has not been
20 admitted, which is the photo file.
21 I believe it was the understanding that these would be acceptable
22 to be admitted into evidence.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
24 MR. LUKIC: Mr. Weber and I have to sit anyways and to discuss
25 the exhibits that would come through this --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. On my list is now 65 ter 33104 to be
2 discussed; 33235, photo file; and for the later shelling another photo
3 file, 18645, and we'd like to hear from the parties whether that is what
4 the parties are seeking to have admitted into evidence.
5 We then leave it to that for the time being.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 MR. LUKIC: And, Your Honour, I'm sorry for interrupting you. I
8 see that are you discussing.
9 JUDGE ORIE: No, but it's finished, yes.
10 MR. LUKIC: I'm afraid -- I don't like to have this video we
11 received from the Prosecution in a limbo and to be on the mercy of the
12 Prosecution to provide an ERN number.
13 JUDGE ORIE: We didn't say that. I think we -- what we said is
14 the puzzle has to be resolved.
15 MR. LUKIC: But we cannot resolve it, so we are in the hands of
16 the Prosecution. We cannot allow them to --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we -- Mr. Weber will certainly sit together
18 with you and then you -- you say you have that video and you have an
19 explanation as to why you claim they have that video. Mr. Weber will
20 carefully listen to that. Mr. Weber will check his sources, and then you
21 agree or you do not agree. If you agree, there seems to be no major
22 problem; if you do not agree, then you come back to the Chamber. You're
23 not at the mercy of the Prosecution. You never have been and this
24 Chamber will avoid that you ever will be.
25 Mr. Weber.
1 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I just want it on the record that we've
2 disclosed everything with ERN numbers.
3 MR. LUKIC: Not this one.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, then -- okay, then fine. Then we have a
5 puzzle that we should --
6 MR. LUKIC: Why would I hide ERN number --
7 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. -- Mr. --
8 MR. LUKIC: -- I don't understand the Prosecution objection,
9 Your Honour. Why would I hide it? I'm interested to have this video
11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Lukic, if the Prosecution says they have
12 disclosed everything with ERN numbers, then they have their records of
13 disclosure and you have your records of what you received in disclosure.
14 So apparently it slipped through; that's your position. Then you should
15 explain when and how you got without an ERN number, whereas Mr. Weber's
16 records say they have an ERN number. Try to resolve it, see where you
17 can reconstruct how one or two versions were disclosed; and then if you
18 don't agree, come back to the Chamber.
19 MR. LUKIC: Okay, then --
20 JUDGE ORIE: We leave it to that for the time being. One second.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: And I expect that the parties will have finished
23 their discussions by next Monday, so if there's any matter not resolved
24 by then, we'll further hear from you.
25 MR. LUKIC: Only we would like the position of the Prosecution
1 whether their position is that something was tampered on this video by
2 the Defence --
3 JUDGE ORIE: At this -- Mr. -- that's a next step. At this
4 moment there's no need to have that in court. If that's the result that
5 that's their position, we'll hear that as well.
6 Now we'll move on and could the witness be escorted -- oh, one
7 second, please. One second.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, there is one urgent matter I don't know if I
10 have to address you, Mr. Weber or Mr. Tieger. On 25th of September the
11 Defence filed a motion - and I think it's public - to hear
12 David Del Pinto's evidence via video-conference link during the week of
13 the 19th of October, 2015, or at another agreeable date. And considering
14 that the Defence's preferred date of testimony is only a few weeks away,
15 the Chamber invites the Prosecution to provide an expedited response.
16 MR. TIEGER: And we will do exactly that, Mr. President. We're
17 working on it now. It may involve a quick discussion with the Defence,
18 but we'll keep that in mind and get back to the Court as soon as
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
21 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
22 JUDGE ORIE: We briefly move into private session.
23 [Private session]
20 [Open session]
21 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
23 Earlier, when I addressed the urgent matter, I said on the 25th
24 of September the Defence filed a motion and I said I think it's public.
25 It's not a public motion. However, nothing was touched upon which caused
1 the motion to be confidential; and for that reason there's no need for a
2 redaction of the transcript, but I'll be more cautious next time.
3 Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Ms. Subotic.
6 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, I'd like to remind you again
8 that you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the
9 beginning of your testimony.
10 Mr. Lukic will now continue his examination-in-chief.
11 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I couldn't translate.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Could we check. Perhaps it's the volume;
13 perhaps it's the channel.
14 Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now in B/C/S?
15 THE WITNESS: No translate. Uh-huh, yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you receive translation now?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it was the easiest probably to resolve today,
19 I think.
20 I remind you again that you are still bound by the solemn
21 declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony, and
22 Mr. Lukic will now continue his examination-in-chief.
23 Mr. Lukic.
24 WITNESS: ZORICA SUBOTIC [Resumed]
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Would you allow me to address you,
2 Your Honours? I want to say something regarding yesterday's testimony
3 before we begin.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may do so briefly.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, very briefly.
6 Yesterday after leaving the courtroom I realised, because the
7 whole thing shocked me, rather, I confused the artefacts in court when I
8 spoke about the object that was in the courtroom, the stabiliser from the
9 Markale I incident. I was talking about events concerning the
10 identification in this courtroom of the artefact from Markale II, so
11 everything I said yesterday is related to the artefact that is only going
12 to be shown later, Markale II, whereas, the artefact we had in the
13 courtroom from Markale I, we saw in September 2012. And it was the
14 representative of the Registry who brought it into our rooms.
15 Mr. Poparic, Aleksandar Stefanovic, and I were in the room, and, of
16 course, the person from the Registry. We reviewed on that occasion the
17 documentation, we measured the length of the stabiliser. I apologise
18 from -- for this error. It must have been caused by my great surprise
19 over what I saw.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Does that mean whatever you said about what
21 happened and trying to unscrew, et cetera, and that you thought it would
22 be of no use because you considered it to be impossible, that also now
23 relates to when you inspected the Markale II artefact; is that well
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Thank you for this correction.
2 Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.
3 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
5 Q. [Interpretation] We need on our screens 1D05496, and that is an
6 expert analysis relating to Markale. In English, we need page 97 because
7 we need figure 95; and in B/C/S it would be page 143.
8 As a reference, this photograph was taken from a video which is
9 65 ter 1D05915, and this still is taken from 0021 minutes and 49 seconds.
10 We will also tender that video, or do you wish to see those couple of
11 seconds from which the still was taken?
12 MR. LUKIC: Your Honours, I'm asking if you want to see those
13 couple of seconds or still is enough, because we just need the still?
14 JUDGE ORIE: We do not ask for anything in addition to what
15 you're presenting to us; and if that changes, we'll let you know.
16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. [Interpretation] So, Ms. Subotic, in this figure, 95, we see - as
18 we see on the video - that this man who is sitting is injured. Below the
19 photograph, the caption -- there is a legend, number 1 is the site of the
20 explosion; number 2 is the injured man, who is conscious with his lower
21 leg amputated; and 3 is injured man sitting.
22 How far is the site distant from these people marked 1, 2, 3?
23 A. According to the documentation we found, which was prepared by a
24 team from the CSB, the site of the explosion is 1.95 metres from the
25 curb, no more than 2 metres, in my estimate.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic, you just said those people marked 1,
2 2, 3. But 1 is not a marking of a person.
3 MR. LUKIC: The people marked numbers 2 and 3.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: People marked as 2 and 3.
5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, yes.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes, you misspoke.
7 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I also ask for clarification here.
9 Point 1 on this picture is called "point of impact," and your
10 question now, Mr. Lukic - as explained by the witnesses - relates to the
11 site of the explosion. My question is: What is the difference between
12 "site of explosion" and "point of impact"?
13 MR. LUKIC: I don't know how that was translated. I said --
14 [Interpretation] I said "place of the explosion." I didn't know how it
15 was translated.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, in your question, I can quote you, you said:
17 "How far is it the site distant from these people marked 1, 2,
18 and 3?"
19 I was going to interrupt you and ask you: Site of what? But
20 then the witness carried on to answer, understood you to talk of the site
21 of the explosion; in her answer, that's what she says. Because in her
22 answer she says:
23 "According to the documentation we found which was prepared by a
24 team from the CSB the site of the explosion is ..."
25 So I'm asking: What is the difference between the "site of
1 explosion" and the "point of impact" that is referred to in the picture,
2 which is here where these people are, not 1.5 metres away?
3 MR. LUKIC: I think it's translation issue.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think you expressed yourself also in B/C/S
5 and you said that you said "mesto eksplozije," which is the --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: "Point of impact" --
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- B -- well, "point of impact," but was translated
8 a moment later as the "site of the" --
9 MR. LUKIC: "Explosion."
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- "explosion." So if the parties would -- or
11 Mr. Lukic, you used the language "mesto eksplozije." That's --
12 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. And you consider -- in your understanding of
14 your own language, does that mean that the site of the explosion is the
15 same as the point where the shell impacted?
16 MR. LUKIC: That's how I understand it.
17 JUDGE ORIE: That's how you understand it; for you, it's the
19 MR. LUKIC: For me, it's the same.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then let's move on.
21 What, of course, remains is that it is in the written version, it
22 is translated as "point of impact"; and in our oral interpretation, it
23 was interpreted as the "site of the impact." Now I think the question is
24 whether it's the same or not. It's certainly not the same words.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's certainly not the same words. Let me explain
1 my problem. My problem is: According to the witness, the site of
2 explosion is some 1.5 metres away.
3 MR. LUKIC: I think 195.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: 1.95, yeah. My question is: Away from what?
5 MR. LUKIC: From the curb, I think she said.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: From the curb?
7 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: And how does it relate -- how far is it from this
9 1.1 or is this 1.1 said to be 1.95 metres away?
10 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Then I understand. Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Having resolved all the misunderstandings, please
13 proceed, Mr. Lukic.
14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
15 Can we have figure 96, please, it's same page in English; and the
16 next page, 144, in B/C/S. This is just the same -- probably the same
17 moment from another angle, only this one is recorded in 65 ter video
18 number 1D01227A at 0 hours, 01 minute, and 34 seconds.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have the English version on our screen as
20 well. I think I'm looking at --
21 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, the first line on this page is the second line
22 of the text underneath the picture --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, okay, then we have to go back --
24 MR. LUKIC: -- that figure --
25 JUDGE ORIE: -- and we have to go back one page in English, so as
1 to be able to read the -- yes. Figures 96 reading: "Men who survived
2 explosion of a 120-millimetre mortar shell 2 metres away."
3 Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. We referenced video from which this
5 picture is taken. Now we'll have -- we could -- we should go to --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Don't you put a question to the witness with
7 respect to this?
8 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, I'm sorry.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, is it the same place from a
10 different angle or are these two different places? And in which one do
11 you better see the point of impact?
12 A. It's the same place photographed from another side. And in the
13 previous photograph, I would say the point of impact is seen more clearly
14 and it gives one a better picture of that space. In any case, in
15 figure 96, this man whom we see is the same man as marked number 2 in the
16 previous picture.
17 Q. Do you mean the one lying down or the one sitting?
18 A. The one who is half-sitting, trying to find some help; the one
19 with a amputated leg.
20 Q. Did you draw any conclusions --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... the person
22 sitting in this picture or a person sitting in another picture.
23 MR. LUKIC: No, both lying but both lifted.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Mr. Lukic, if you want us to hear any
25 conclusions to be drawn on the previous picture we had one as the
1 "mesto eksplozije" - I don't use the English language any further - and
2 we had two persons. Okay, now first, are we now talking about --
3 MR. LUKIC: Number 2, I think.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Number 2. And that's --
5 MR. LUKIC: -- a man who is lying down.
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- that's a man who is lying down and not a man who
7 is sitting.
8 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could we go back to the previous so that we can well
10 memorize -- yes. Number 2 is not a sitting person. It is a person you
11 say is lying and he is not the one with the amputated leg, or is he?
12 MR. LUKIC: I think he is.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now do we see that here because --
14 MR. LUKIC: -- not from this angle we cannot see his legs --
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- we cannot see his legs --
16 MR. LUKIC: -- but we can see that he is a bit lifted as well.
17 JUDGE ORIE: He -- well --
18 MR. LUKIC: His head is not on the pavement --
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- well, you're giving evidence at this moment. We
20 can see what we see, and later you argue that he's not lying for the full
21 hundred per cent but is a little bit upright. And do I see that that is
22 a person not with a white or whitish shirt -- as a matter of fact, I
23 can't see -- it's dark. That's what it is, what we can see, nothing
24 more, nothing less. Okay --
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could the witness perhaps mark the person she was
1 talking about?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps that would assist.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Figure 96.
4 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Subotic, is this person you marked with the
7 circle the same person as number 2 in figure 95?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It could be. The picture is not
9 quite clear, but it's about 1 metre from the point of impact; and looking
10 at it, this man marked number 2 is also trying to get into a sitting
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And when you marked the person in figure 96,
13 what -- I'm now a little bit confused because are you not certain about
14 the person you marked or what is your position? Can you help us?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The person I marked is about
16 1 metre from the point of impact. And as far as I can see in the film,
17 his legs are amputated, he is trying to lift himself up, and looking for
18 help. If you look at the video and all these scenes in sequence, it will
19 be much clearer.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, I'm asking about --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It could be the person marked 2 in
22 figure 95 because he is approximately in the same place.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But I take it you are not certain about it?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, one cannot be quite sure, of
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now, you said both legs were amputated. I
2 understood from your previous answers that a leg was - that means one
3 leg - was amputated. What is it in your opinion?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my opinion, as far as I can
5 see - but I cannot be sure - it looks like both legs.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I have a few follow-up questions there as
9 Mr. Lukic -- no.
10 First of all, trying to get a bit upright, does that mean that
11 you consider these two photographs to have been taken at the same time?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, not in the very same moment
13 were these pictures made from two different directions, because obviously
14 in figure 96 some of the people are missing because they had already been
15 taken away, injured people. Some of them had been taken away, although
16 the interval is very small. If you look at the road, some of the injured
17 people are already missing, whereas we can see seem this figure 95. But,
18 still, a lot of the injured people are still there.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So it's a picture taken at not the same
20 moment, where you're not sure whether the person number 2 in picture 95
21 is the same as the one you marked on 96.
22 Do you have any clue as to how much time there was between the
23 two pictures?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, but a very short time, I
25 suppose, because the evacuation proceeded very fast.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that's not something which is in the realm
2 of your expertise, is it?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly not.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
5 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
6 MR. LUKIC: I thought to avoid showing the video, but let's have
7 1D5915 from [indiscernible] 21 minutes, 42 seconds to 21 minutes 49
8 seconds --
9 JUDGE ORIE: I think we had a marked picture. Now the marking
10 is --
11 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, we can -- gone --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Is it still retrievable?
13 I take it that you want the marked -- and do we have them -- you
14 tender that, Mr. Lukic?
15 MR. LUKIC: Yes, we do.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 Madam Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: The marked figure 96 of the document 1D5496
19 receives Exhibit Number D1264, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 We'll first --
24 MR. WEBER: Sorry, Your Honour. Would that be the full screen
25 with the figure 95 also in it, or just the marked figure of 96?
1 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's only the marked figure 96, but since
2 the other one is --
3 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
4 JUDGE ORIE: It's everything, so it's even easier to --
5 MR. WEBER: Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- to compare the two pictures.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
9 I'm -- just spoke with Mr. Ivetic. He told me that he has
10 another video on his screen and then we'll move to the previous one. So
11 we'll see first 1D01227A from 1 minute, 32 seconds to 1 minute, 34
13 Can we start.
14 [Video-clip played]
15 MR. LUKIC: Can we go back, if possible.
16 [Video-clip played]
17 MR. LUKIC: I think that on this video we see that both legs were
18 amputated, but that's my opinion.
19 JUDGE ORIE: That's your evidence, which we are not seeking.
20 MR. LUKIC: And we paused at 1 minute 33 seconds.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Would the parties agree that whatever is to be seen
22 on this video is observation by whoever looks at it; and that where
23 there's no specific - unless you demonstrate there is, Mr. Lukic - if
24 there's no specific expertise of the witness which would help us to
25 better understand this video, that everyone can argue what he sees on
1 this video as he wishes. And that the Chamber will finally determine
2 whether it sees anything here relevant and what that is.
3 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the Prosecution's position would be -
4 and we've had witnesses comment on the images from our colleague too -
5 that the Chamber, I understand, would evaluate that and it's in the
6 totality of the evidence that it has before us. And in the context of
7 this witness, we understand what Your Honour is saying.
8 MR. LUKIC: Same position here.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Same position, that's good.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. LUKIC: And can we see the previous video, it's 1D05915 from
12 21 minutes, 42 seconds up to 21 minutes, 49 seconds.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can you repeat the 65 ter number, please, it's
14 not recorded.
15 MR. LUKIC: 1D05915.
16 [Video-clip played]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, you lose ...
18 [Video-clip played]
19 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated]
20 We can start from 21:31 since, for us, it's very hard to adjust
21 to the precise point in time, so we can start.
22 [Video-clip played]
23 MR. LUKIC: Can we move a bit forward? Maybe we would see
25 [Defence counsel confer]
1 MR. LUKIC: So we just wanted to show it and we would offer both
2 videos into evidence as well.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And you are not relying on the text spoken?
4 MR. LUKIC: No, we just need the video.
5 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, we have no objection, provided that it
6 is translated and the text is understandable. So if counsel can upload a
7 translation or get one done, we have no objection to it being MFI'd for
8 the time being.
9 MR. LUKIC: We are not leaning on audio --
10 JUDGE ORIE: You're not --
11 MR. LUKIC: So if the Prosecution wants to use it, they are free
12 to do so.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic only offers into evidence the images seen
14 here, and that's the reason why -- of course, there is some text on the
15 images as well. There are names, for example, I saw. But Mr. Lukic,
16 refraining from relying on that and just want to us look at the pictures.
17 If you want to us do more and not just to rely on the images,
18 then, Mr. Weber, if you would --
19 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I mean, this is -- the proponent into
20 evidence is the Defence. The Defence is seeking to admit it. If they
21 want the Chamber to consider it, then --
22 JUDGE ORIE: To consider the --
23 MR. WEBER: -- the video, where it's from, its context, we would
24 like to have the -- I mean, they're offering it into evidence. I don't
25 see what's --
1 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that the Defence is tendering this
2 video, asking the Chamber to pay attention only to the images, whereas
3 the Defence claims - I don't know on what basis exactly - but that this
4 is a video taken immediately after the --
5 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, you just pointed out the reason we'd
6 like the -- it transcribed, so we understand what is being depicted and
7 what is being broadcast and shown. It has not been identified for the
8 record. And the text, I believe, would properly describe, so we have
9 some basis to understand what the broadcast is.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think there are two issues here. There is the
11 audio of what is being said by the person who speaks, and there's the
12 text that is on the thing which is part of an image. And that what's
13 you're asking for; is that it?
14 MR. WEBER: I believe there was some audio that was being spoken.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's what I'm say.
16 MR. WEBER: Yes.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: And the Defence says it doesn't rely on the audio,
18 but you want the context. And I thought you were saying what is written
19 as text --
20 MR. WEBER: No --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- is the -- is part of the image that needs to be
23 MR. WEBER: The audio from the [overlapping speakers] --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: You want the audio as well? Okay. That's a
25 different position.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Is there any --
2 MR. WEBER: And, Your Honours, if I was not clear about that,
3 that is my fault. I just -- I think it's self-identifiable as to what we
4 just watched, which has not otherwise been fully identified if we have a
5 transcript of what was just said on this video.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the position --
7 MR. LUKIC: We --
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- of the Prosecution is that without the
9 translation of the words spoken that the Prosecution considers, that
10 it -- this event has not been identified in time and place. That's --
11 MR. WEBER: Well, we understand what it depicts, but just so we
12 have a freestanding piece of evidence, I think it would be -- it's not a
13 very long clip.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. First of all, is there any dispute that
15 this is a video depicting the immediate aftermath of an impact on the
16 28 August 1995 at Markale II?
17 MR. WEBER: In part. There's other images that we're also shown.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Okay. So if there's such a problem, then --
19 Mr. Lukic, now you know what you've shown, to some extent - and perhaps
20 you could agree to what extent - depicts the immediate aftermath of that
21 shell falling; and in other respects you can expect the Prosecution to
22 later say this is not related or not related, as you suggest, with
23 Markale II. That's then --
24 MR. LUKIC: What I was thinking is that before when we could hear
25 a reporter speaking about something, that's not in evidence, that was not
1 in evidence. Only if the witnesses would talk: This is reporter telling
2 us about the attack by Serbs. That's why the Prosecution wants it. And
3 the reporter cannot decide actually who actually caused this explosion.
4 So I don't know -- I don't see here why is it important.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Now -- yes, okay. Let's try to continue.
6 You again, you sit together. You talk about it. You see to what
7 extent you agree, to what extent you disagree, what is depicted here; to
8 what extent you need or you do not need the transcription. If you agree
9 on the text, then of course you could agree on that, present that to the
10 Chamber, and then -- but let's -- there apparently is some concern and
11 the only thing -- the only reason why I dealt with in the way I did is so
12 that you are aware that your assumption of what it all is, even without
13 the words spoken, may not be what is accepted by the Prosecution. And
14 therefore, it's good to find out to what extent it is and to what extent
15 it is not, so that you know what you could expect later when the
16 Prosecution argues about this video and what your argument will be.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. LUKIC: Can you just then MFI those two videos, please?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, until we have heard from the parties.
20 Madam Registrar, the numbers would be ...
21 THE REGISTRAR: Video 1D01227A receives Exhibit Number D1265.
22 Document 1D05915 receives Exhibit Number D1266.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Both are marked for identification, that is, D1265
24 and D1266.
25 A couple of minutes until the break, Mr. Lukic.
1 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. Now we should see --
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we clarify the number on line 11. Page 25,
3 the exhibit number.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I repeated it for that.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Okay.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I think be repeating the number, as I heard it, I
7 think we have the right numbers on the record.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. LUKIC: Now we'll see 1D05916 again. It's a video that was
10 brought in December 2012 and we should see the same from the -- it's one
11 that is very hard to handle. We need 23 minutes and 15 seconds.
12 [Video-clip played]
13 MR. LUKIC: Judge?
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] -- when you were at 15.
15 [Video-clip played]
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. What did we just see, Ms. Subotic, on this footage?
18 A. In this part of the footage, we see a tail-fin marked with a
19 number 13 some 20 to 30 metres away from the point of impact.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And we stopped the video at 23:54.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And could you tell me whether you measured that, the
22 20 to 30 metres, or that you took that from any recording or any report?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that is how it was depicted on
24 the sketch of the scene.
25 JUDGE ORIE: In a report, therefore?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Which report?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just one moment. It is a CSB
4 report drafted on the day the on-site investigation was conducted. If
5 you bear with me, can I find it.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I think that would be sufficient to know that it's a
7 CSB report of that same day.
8 Please proceed.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 318, yes.
10 MR. LUKIC: Can we start again from 23:15.
11 [Video-clip played]
12 MR. LUKIC: Can you stop?
13 Q. [Interpretation] On the screen in front of you, we also see this
15 A. I don't have it on the screen. I can see you on my screen.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You stopped at 23:15.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. You can see it on the screen now?
20 A. Yes. It is a tail-fin marked with the number 12 close to an
21 entrance that can be seen on another part of the footage. We can see the
22 entrance to the building.
23 Q. Can one and the same tail-fin be marked with two different
24 numbers or can two tail-fins be marked with one and the same number when
25 conducting investigations? Do you know how a police investigation
1 develops? Did you write any instructions on how to conduct
3 MR. WEBER: [Previous translation continues] ...
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's five questions in one.
5 MR. WEBER: Yes, and I believe that actually probably the first
6 one should be the second-to-last one probably would be the first one to
7 establish first.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps, Mr. Lukic, you take them one by one, and
9 perhaps -- and let's clearly distinguish between what should and what
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. So have you ever taken part in police investigations?
14 A. I apologise. I didn't hear you.
15 Q. Have you ever taken part in police investigations?
16 A. Yes, many times.
17 Q. Do you know what kind of instructions are applied to police
19 A. Yes, I even drafted some.
20 Q. Can you tell us whether it is allowed to use one number to mark
21 two traces or pieces of evidence or to use two different numbers to mark
22 one single piece of evidence?
23 A. It is absolutely impermissible according to the forensic
24 profession and on-site investigation rules. Any scene-of-crime officer
25 would know that.
1 Q. In your view, what we could see on this footage, would it be one
2 and the same tail-fin or two?
3 A. Two tail-fins.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I'm looking at the clock. One more
5 question after two tail-fins. Yes, please.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. In the police report compiled by the Sarajevo police, how many
8 tail-fins were part of the investigation?
9 A. In the Sarajevo police report concerning this incident, one
10 tail-fin was investigated.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] It is time for a break.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may follow the usher. We'd like to see you
14 back in 20 minutes.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 JUDGE ORIE: We'll resume at five minutes to 11.00.
17 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 [Defence counsel confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
22 MR. LUKIC: Before the witness is actually ...
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. And just for the record,
1 before we continue, 1D05916 is the only video where we can find this
2 tail-fin number 13.
3 Sorry, I was just warned that this video were -- we just saw is
4 not 1D05916 but 1D05915, so my mistake.
5 JUDGE ORIE: That was shown to us a minute ago --
6 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- and you tendered that one?
8 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And have you given a CD with that video-clip?
10 MR. LUKIC: I think we provided it to the Prosecution this
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And, of course, the Registrar is most
13 important because the Registry is the custodian of the evidence.
14 Madam Registrar -- yes, Mr. Weber.
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, the Prosecution is a bit confused. We
16 thought that the video being played was 1D5916, which we do indicate
17 corresponds to V000-8939, which we do find the images that were
18 broadcast. Now there's a reference to 1D5915, which we show as actually
19 possibly - and I haven't yet had the opportunity to check this other
20 video - V000-2821 according to the Defence list. So I would need to
21 check that.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then we'll mark it for identification, and you
23 have an opportunity to check whether what we saw on our screens is --
24 MR. LUKIC: Mr. Weber is right actually. We had some confusion.
25 The one that was shown was --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could we also call it --
2 MR. LUKIC: -- one on the screen --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- by its 65 ter number.
4 MR. LUKIC: Yes, one on the screen was 1D05916.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so what the Prosecution thought that was being
6 played was indeed played, and therefore there's no need then to mark it
7 for identification because no further verification is needed on your
8 part. No objections.
9 MR. WEBER: No objections. And as long as we say for the record,
10 though, that that is an excerpt of the entire video. I see it's only
11 half of it.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you intend in cross-examination to add
13 portions to it, because then it's our usual practice that we put together
14 what both parties need?
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, we see that part of this video has
16 already been admitted under a Defence number. We also have tendered
17 videos from -- depicting these images, so we do not intend to tender more
18 images from the same video.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then it is ready for admission.
20 Madam Registrar, 1D05916 receives number?
21 THE REGISTRAR: D1267, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: D1267 is admitted into evidence.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. We'll just shortly move now, Ms. Subotic, to your expert report
1 number 1D05496.
2 MR. LUKIC: We need figure 126. It's on page 126 in B/C/S -- no,
3 sorry, 183 in B/C/S and 120 in English.
4 Q. [Interpretation] We -- or you established that the base charge --
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps could you check if the English is the
6 correct page. It refers to figure 100 --
7 MR. LUKIC: It's 120, should be 120.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: There we are, 120.
9 MR. LUKIC: That's right.
10 Q. [Interpretation] We could see before that the primary charge on
11 the artefact concerning Markale II can be turned. What did you compare
12 in figure 128? What does it relate to?
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Did you say "128"?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean 126?
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Yes, 126.
17 A. In figure 126, we compared the place the firing pin struck with
18 regard to the tightening area of the bottom plate of the primary charge.
19 We have a comparison of the photo documentation on the left-hand side,
20 and on the right-hand side we have the photographs which exist as
21 evidence before this Tribunal.
22 Q. Is there a difference?
23 A. Yes, there is, and we can see it with the naked eye. The place
24 where the firing pin struck on the primer is not positioned the same way
25 on the two stabilising fins. We can clearly see it on the upper part of
1 the picture. The place is marked in red in order to make it more
2 visible. In the lower part of the picture we have the same thing without
3 the marking, and we can also clearly see that the point of firing pin
4 struck on the left-hand side picture in the photo documentation report is
5 at the very edge of the circle. The tool marks are also different. On
6 the piece of evidence before this Tribunal on the right-hand side, it is
7 moved slightly upward when compared to the same tangent drawn across the
8 two holes for the tools. So we have the same images up and down. The
9 only difference is that in the upper part of the imagine the place where
10 the firing pin struck was marked in order to make it more visible.
11 Q. The fact that the primary charge can now be turned, does it
12 change your finding in any way?
13 A. No, it doesn't, because it rotates together with the tool
14 openings and they can be freely moved together. They all spin together,
15 the primer and the holes for the tools at the base of the primary charge.
16 Q. Let us not dwell any longer on what the primary charge can be
17 turned or not. How -- what is the minimum number of fins appearing in
18 the photo documentation?
19 A. Two at least -- I apologise, sorry. Yes, in the photo
20 documentation there are two; in the footage there are two; and in the
21 report there's only one.
22 Q. When you say there are two in the photo documentation -- just one
24 When you say there are two in the photo documentation file, what
25 do you have in mind?
1 A. I had in mind the fact that two tail-fins are analysed as one. I
2 had in mind the photo documentation file compiled together with the CSB
3 report. The CSB treated only one tail-fin, and it appears recorded
4 marked and fixed as two. One was at 20 to 30 metres away from the point
5 of impact, and another one was further down the street marked with a
6 different number, number 12, whereas the previous one was 13.
7 There was something else I needed to say. While viewing the
8 footage, we established that both tail-fins were moved during the on-site
9 investigation. It is clear to everyone that it creates problems while
10 trying to analyse because they were no longer there as a consequence of
11 the explosion. It is all dealt with in detail in the report.
12 Q. What kind of force is needed, as we discussed it yesterday? It
13 normal that one can use one's hand or pen in order to unscrew the primary
14 charge after an explosion or before?
15 A. I said yesterday that it requires a great amount of force that
16 cannot be exercised by hand, either before or after the explosion, when
17 it comes to trying to unscrew the tail-fin. There is no force created
18 during the explosion that could assist in being able to unscrew it by
19 hand or pen or even a screwdriver or a similar tool. It requires much
20 force which requires a certain application of momentary force in order to
21 do that.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: On which basis do you assess that?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of the knowledge that
24 I have about how such shells are manufactured. I also know what kind of
25 force is applied in flight and at explosion.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I think you explained to us that it was a
3 combination of the force by which it was screwed in and that there was a
4 kind of cement or glue which was there.
5 Would you agree that once it's loosened one time, that after that
6 it's apparently rather simple to screw it in and screw it out?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If someone applied the appropriate
8 amount of force at the right moment and with the right tools and actually
9 succeeds in unscrewing it, then of course it is very possible that the
10 next time around it would be far easier to do. Because I suppose that
11 whoever unscrewed it probably would not use the same torsion and the
12 amount of force to screw it back in, at least not the same amount of
13 force that had been used in the process of manufacture.
14 JUDGE ORIE: In the process of manufacturing who finally applies
15 that -- that basic charge, is it done immediately in the factory or is it
16 done later while preparing for firing a projectile? When is it in the
17 process of manufacturing when it is screwed in at the -- on the tail-fin?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A complete shell is the result of
19 manufacturing with the base charge being screwed into the body of the
20 stabiliser. The only thing that can be changed at the place of usage is
21 the additional type of charge that can be chosen as per situation. They
22 are mounted from the outside, and I have in mind the first, second,
23 third, and so on charge that can be put on or taken off, as you could see
24 in some of the photographs and firing tables in the report. The primary
25 charge leaves the factory together with the shell as a final product.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. Please proceed.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sorry, Mr. Lukic.
3 I have a follow-up question to your answer you provided me with.
4 I asked you:
5 "On which basis do you assess that?"
6 And then you said:
7 "On the basis of the knowledge that I have about how such shells
8 are manufactured."
9 Yesterday you -- we talked about how to open this base charge,
10 and then you said -- well, Judge Orie asked you:
11 "Could you tell us how you tried to move the base charge?"
12 Your answer was:
13 "In a way similar to what you did without any particular tools.
14 Mr. Sladojevic tried to do the same thing on that occasion, finding it
15 interesting; however, the lack of my technical knowledge in that area
16 would not allow it."
17 MR. LUKIC: It was corrected later on, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What was corrected?
19 MR. LUKIC: That lack of technical knowledge.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can you draw my attention to the ... yes, "the
21 lack of my technical knowledge," that was what was said.
22 And the interpreter said we believe the original interpretation
23 was "technical knowledge."
24 Previously it was on the transcript -- the word "technology"
25 appeared. That was corrected later, and therefore I used the corrected
2 Again, the question for you: What is your technical knowledge
3 with respect to the possibility to open the tail-fin? Yesterday you said
4 you don't have the technical knowledge; today you told us how you base
5 your knowledge about these matters.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With all due respect, I didn't say
7 I didn't have any knowledge. I said this should not even be checked in
8 view of my technical knowledge. How this thing in the record occurred, I
9 don't know.
10 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... different.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You were already talking while the interpretation
12 went on.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could you then perhaps now repeat what you want the
14 to say.
15 MR. LUKIC: Page 58, line 9, Ms. Subotic corrected the transcript
16 and said:
17 "I said that based on my technical knowledge, which is primarily
18 based on my knowledge ..." and so on.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Of today's transcript?
20 MR. WEBER: There's no [overlapping speakers] --
21 MR. LUKIC: It's yesterday's transcript. So two pages down,
22 page 58, line 9.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I have already -- you -- the witness said
25 "I said that based on my technical knowledge, which is primarily
1 based on my knowledge in -- as to how the shell is produced and used. I
2 do not feel any need to do so because I wanted simply to be able to
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But I'm still confused about these two different
6 answers. Can you help me to understand what your position is.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My position is this. I graduated
8 from a school where people are trained to design these things. Even
9 without anything additional, I would still know how it is produced. My
10 technical knowledge in this area is such that I couldn't even know --
11 that I couldn't even think it could be just unscrewed --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to slow down.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you please slow down. The interpreters
14 can't follow.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You said:
17 "My technical knowledge in this area is such ..." and then please
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My technical knowledge -- I will
20 repeat from the beginning.
21 My technical knowledge in this area is such that I have no reason
22 to suppose that something like this could happen on the following basis.
23 If you perhaps looked at my CV, this shell is one of the projects in
24 which I participated from its very conception. Second, I know
25 technologically how it's produced. Third, I know which aerodynamic
1 forces act upon this shell in flight. And fourth, I know which forces
2 act upon that shell during its action on the site, that is to say,
3 explosion. There is no reason either technical or physical or
4 aerodynamic for which we could even think that might happen. We, when we
5 make such projectiles, the basic thing that we have to ensure according
6 to PKP is that the projectile be safe during flight and reach its target,
7 which means that all quality standard versus to be made, including the
8 screwing in of the base charge.
9 So I have no technical or any other reason to think this might
10 happen, nor have I ever encountered that in my career, and I believe in
11 August 2014 Mr. Turkusic said the same thing in this courtroom.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Why do you believe that - it happened yesterday -
13 that we, the Judges, without this kind of technical knowledge were able
14 to unscrew both tail-fins?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Anything that I would say here now
16 would be some kind of speculation. Obviously, by the time you got them
17 in your hands, they had already been unscrewed before.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
19 Mr. Lukic.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I have one additional question.
21 As far as I understand a bit from -- from manufacturing
22 protocols, there should be somewhere an instruction with what force the
23 base charge should be screwed in. Because that's what I understand
24 industrial production is usually set out step by step, this has to be
25 done, that has to be done, and also the force to be used in order to have
1 the base charge screwed in.
2 Are you aware of any such a protocol for the production of
3 this -- for this tail-fin which would provide exactly the data we are
4 talking about now for a long time, a lot of power, and the same for the
5 glue to be used in screwing it in and fixing it well to the tail-fin? I
6 mean, that would resolve so many problems if that would exist.
7 Are you aware of any such protocol or any such instruction?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The protocol exists, and a very
9 detailed one, for every technology process. Such a protocol exists for
10 the factory where these shells and has everything defined step by step
11 and process by process in the production. The first step before that is
12 when we send the documentation, if we were the first one to master this
13 technical knowledge if it wasn't the factory itself --
14 JUDGE ORIE: You have answered my question that such a protocol
15 does exist in the manufacturing production side.
16 Mr. Lukic, I mean, if we're talking about how easy it is or how
17 easy it not is, then the easiest way would be to look at that and to see
18 what force is used to screw it in, which may relate to what force is
19 needed to screw it out and what glue is used.
20 Mr. Lukic, that seemed to me to be an obvious source of being
21 able to look at it.
22 MR. LUKIC: Only if you want to acquire it, you have to ask it
23 from the state.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you can ask it from the state; and if you need
25 our support, you'll get it, as you know. But that's the --
1 MR. LUKIC: I don't know. We can discuss with Ms. Subotic when
2 she finishes here what -- which I should look for.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Well, let's proceed for the time being.
4 MR. WEBER: If it is any assistance to Mr. Lukic, there's a very
5 specific manufacturing number related to this mortar; and also, we've
6 entered into evidence the test range related to the same batch, the
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed. But for screwing in and screwing
10 MR. WEBER: No --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
12 MR. WEBER: -- but it could follow on as to where it was produced
13 and things like that.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Please proceed.
15 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, according to you, what is the
17 probability that both these base charges on the tail-fin turn without
18 anyone unscrewing them first?
19 A. You mean the base charges on the stabilisers from Markale I and
20 Markale II? I didn't quite understand the question.
21 Q. Precisely, these two stabilisers from Markale I and II.
22 A. Excuse me, but such probability does not exist. As far as
23 probability is concerned, it's not probability; it's impossibility.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, perhaps I do not fully understand what
25 you meant by these base charges on the tail-fin turn without -- you mean
1 that they move; is that what you --
2 MR. LUKIC: That you can unscrew them with hand or pencil.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me then see. Yes, you mean unscrew --
4 prior unscrewing with more force --
5 MR. LUKIC: Yes, is there any possibility to be able to unscrew
6 them with hand or pen without have that actually base charge unlocked
7 with a tool.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Loosened before --
9 MR. LUKIC: Yes --
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- with more force.
11 That's how you understood the question?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the answer is clear; now the question is
14 clear as well. Please proceed.
15 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. We would finish with
16 Markale. At this moment, I would switch to modified aerial bomb with the
17 third report of Ms. Subotic, if she has it with her, and it's 65 ter
18 number 1D05497.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, that document remained
20 back in that room.
21 If you don't mind, I would like to go and pick up my document
22 before we continue.
23 JUDGE ORIE: That's your report, I then take it?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but it was -- it remained in
25 the witness room outside the courtroom.
1 MR. LUKIC: I think Madam Registrar is trying, with usher's help,
2 to organise getting that report.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The witness may be escorted to the witness
4 room in order to find the report.
5 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, just so we can organise on our end, it
8 would be of assistance if Mr. Lukic could let us know if he is going to
9 be finishing today or if he is planning to go into tomorrow about the
10 modified air bombs too.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
12 MR. LUKIC: I think that we do not have enough time to finish
13 today because I think I have two hours left.
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, on the ten hours you have claimed --
16 MR. LUKIC: Yes --
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- yes. You have gone beyond the --
18 MR. LUKIC: I think I'm at the --
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- the five hours you initially claimed --
20 MR. LUKIC: Yes --
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- by far, and I think we urged you to see whether
22 you could --
23 MR. LUKIC: But as you saw, Your Honour, it was really a lot of
24 materials, 1.000 pages of expert reports and more than 2.000 exhibits.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Quantity certainly is huge.
1 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
3 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
4 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, you have your work before you now?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. First --
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We are now looking at the cover page
8 and because the introduction is long, we need page 46 in English and 47
9 in B/C/S.
10 Q. We are beginning from the incident from the indictment G-10. It
12 "7 April 1995 around 0850 a.m., a modified air bomb hit a private
13 house at Aleksa Santica Street number 1 in Hrasnica. The house was
14 demolished and 11 houses in the neighbourhood were damaged. One person
15 was killed and three were lightly wounded in the incidents?"
16 What are the features of this incident?
17 A. Two things. First of all, this building that was hit is
18 20 metres away from Aleksa Santica school, which was used by the BH army.
19 And second, it is curious that the commander of the 5th Motorised
20 Brigade, I think, prohibited UNPROFOR members from attending the on-site
21 investigation and the expert analysis. So that from what we were able to
22 find out, they came there only the next afternoon. After the on-site
23 investigation was completed and after everything was cleaned up and
24 injured persons removed, it was only then that they gained access to the
25 place and gain some information on the basis of which to arrive at some
1 opinion of their own. And, excuse me, it was the 4th Motorised Brigade.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I ask you a question, please. The
3 4th Motorised Brigade of which army?
4 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we have interpretation of the answer.
7 Could you repeat your answer, please.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The BH Army.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, perhaps needless to say, but of course
10 what the witness told us, I -- that's all matters which, if I understand
11 it well, are not within her expertise and all second-hand knowledge what
12 she learned from reports where the Chamber received evidence on many of
13 those issues in a more direct way.
14 So I take it that when the witness said "these are the features,"
15 that that is what she concluded on the basis of the documentation she has
16 seen as relevant information for what is within her expertise.
17 Please proceed, unless you would disagree with me, then I'd like
18 to know why.
19 MR. LUKIC: I -- I don't know. Should I testify now,
20 Your Honour? I --
21 JUDGE ORIE: No. But -- you shouldn't testify, but whether it's
22 true or not is for the Chamber to determine. The witness gives all kinds
23 of answers what happened, whereas I understand what she does is to
24 reflect what you found in documents, whereas this Chamber has received
25 evidence through documents - and otherwise as well - on the same events.
1 And that therefore if the witness says, This is what are the features,
2 what happened, that I think she would tell us, This is what I learned
3 from documents that may have happened and these are my conclusions on
4 what happened, whereas on the basis of all that evidence the Chamber, of
5 course, later will determine what actually happened, to the extent
6 relevant and necessary to establish.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Can we now see figure 8 from your report?
10 That's page 54 in English and 53 in B/C/S.
11 What can we see in this sketch?
12 A. This is the sketch of the scene with markings of places where
13 this projectile exploded, and of course the direction from which the
14 projectile came is also marked. I could say that at this time the CSB
15 correctly determined the direction from which the projectile arrived.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... this sketch is
17 taken from 65 ter 15695.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Footnote 61.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We can see it in the B/C/S version.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can't see the English.
21 MR. LUKIC: And in this 65 ter number we have legend as well that
22 everything is explained on page 1 and 2.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, the Prosecution has uploaded the entire
25 investigative file on this incident under 65 ter 33105 - and I know the
1 witness is commenting on multiple documents from it - it includes the
2 sketch. We have no problem with that being admitted at this time.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, for context, the whole of the document
4 from which the witness selected portions to comment on, any problem?
5 MR. LUKIC: Not if it's really complete because we see -- saw
6 that some complete files do not contain what we need. We'll have to
7 check it first if something is missing.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you have a complete file somewhere so that
9 could you do -- because -- and just tender that.
10 MR. LUKIC: I just -- the number obviously, this number, is
11 uploaded pretty late, this 33105.
12 JUDGE ORIE: We already reserve a number for the -- and let's
13 make it then a D exhibit because it is at the basis of the evidence of
14 this witness.
15 Madam Registrar, what number would be reserved for the full
16 investigative file for this incident as just mentioned by Mr. Weber?
17 THE REGISTRAR: It receives Exhibit Number D1268, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And that is then marked for identification and we'd
19 like to hear from the parties very soon -- especially from you,
20 Mr. Lukic, whether you consider this to be the complete file or not; if
21 not, please tell us.
22 You may proceed.
23 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Can we have 65 ter 1D05502, please.
25 Q. [Interpretation] This is the statement of Mr. Overgard made to
1 the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal in several interviews in
2 1995 and 1996.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 2 in both English and
4 B/C/S. We need the bottom of the page in English. Line 3 from the
5 bottom. And going over to the next page. And, in B/C/S, it's the second
6 paragraph from the bottom towards the middle. It says:
7 "When we came back we found out -- when we came back on site, we
8 walked around the site. We found out that one woman was dead and
9 supposedly some others. I saw some legs under bricks with camouflage
10 trousers and boots. The commander of the 4th Motorised Brigade who came
11 to the site of the incident told us to go back. He didn't want to
12 discuss with us. He told us to go back to our base, which we did."
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I think the witness was -- made a gesture
14 which I did not fully understand.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My headset slipped on and I tried
16 to bring it back on my head.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you didn't miss anything from what
18 Mr. Lukic said?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
21 MR. WEBER: And, Your Honours, I do think that the word may be
22 significant actually. The original, I believe, says "accommodations" as
23 opposed to "our base."
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The original said "base."
25 MR. LUKIC: I accept that, although then the translation to B/C/S
1 has to be a bit corrected.
2 MR. WEBER: I believe the original is the English and I'm reading
3 "our accommodations."
4 JUDGE ORIE: And let me just then check exactly. One second.
5 MR. LUKIC: In B/C/S it says "base."
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: In English it says "accommodations," but let's keep
8 that in the back of our minds and let's try to resolve that --
9 MR. LUKIC: We accept that it is "accommodations."
10 JUDGE ORIE: You accept that it's "accommodations."
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
13 Q. [Interpretation] So, Ms. Subotic, who carried out this
15 A. The army, obviously, and the CSB. The Security Services Centre,
16 the CSB, came from Sarajevo that afternoon; but according to the
17 statement of a witness who carried out that investigation, he completed
18 most of it that day and collected most of the parts of the exploded bomb
19 and he finalized it on the next day.
20 Q. Was UNPROFOR given access subsequently?
21 A. Subsequently, yes.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let us look now at a video, 1D05923
23 from 23 seconds to 27 seconds.
24 [Video-clip played]
25 "JOURNALIST: Dreznica came under Serbian attack for the third
1 successive day ..."
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. You told us that the school was used by the BH Army.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What did we see in this film?
6 A. We showed this frame on page 48.
7 Q. Then we can look at page 48 in English and B/C/S, in the report
8 of Ms. Subotic.
9 A. It's figure 3, footnote 25.
10 MR. LUKIC: It's -- Mr. Ivetic just warned me that I have to give
11 the number of this evidence. It's 1D05497. Then we need page 48.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We have it in English. And what is the page
13 number in B/C/S?
14 MR. LUKIC: Same, 48.
15 Q. [Interpretation] You said that you believe CSB investigators
16 approximately determined the accurate direction of flight and angle of
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did this shell explode before or after it flew over the school?
20 A. It exploded some 20 metres in front of the school when it touched
21 a roof, the roof of a house at Aleksa Santica Street number 1.
22 Q. In terms of precision, what conclusion can be drawn?
23 A. In terms of precision, it was very precise because 1DD [as
24 interpreted] at a distance of 4 to 5 kilometres is 45 kilometres for
25 projectiles such as this one.
1 Q. Thank you. I would now like to turn to --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
3 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, the transcript recorded it as "1DD." I
4 don't know if that's the correct thing that the witness actually intended
5 to say.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I said "VD," "1VD," which is
7 possible deviation by distance. I will use the full term in the future.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have one question. If I say it was very
9 precise, wouldn't that depend entirely on what you intended to target?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course.
11 JUDGE ORIE: So anything about precision here is related to --
12 from what I understand, is a target which is unknown or did you find
13 anything about what was intended to target by those who fired this
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course. On page 54, figure
16 9, when the sketch is placed against a Google Earth map, we clearly see
17 that the trajectory over shots the school at Aleksa Santica Street.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but that wasn't my question. My question was
19 whether had you any knowledge of what those who fired the projectile had
20 on their mind as what they wished to target, what they wished to hit.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on the incoming trajectory
22 and the closeness of the impact, as well as the fact that it involved a
23 location used by the 4th Motorised Brigade, as well as -- oh, and there
24 were some other military targets in the location where the school is, on
25 the basis of all that, we concluded that the school was the target.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And this is all based on an assumption, that
2 is, that it was intended to hit a military target?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. It is based on a technical
4 fact, the fact being that the target was along the incoming trajectory
5 and very close to the place of impact at Aleksa Santica number 1.
6 JUDGE ORIE: You may --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just to clarify.
8 Ma'am, when you first answered Judge Orie's question, you said:
9 "Based on the incoming trajectory and the closeness of the
10 impact," closeness of the impact to what?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The impact is located close to the
12 school, to the Aleksa Santica primary school which is now called the
13 second primary school.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
16 It's time for the break so you should not proceed, as a matter of
17 fact. You're hereby instructed not to proceed.
18 Witness, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes, that's quarter
19 past 12.00. We'll resume then. You may follow the usher.
20 [The witness stands down]
21 --- Recess taken at 11.56 a.m.
22 --- On resuming at 12.17 p.m.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic is supposed not to speak aloud.
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic. Mr. Lukic, I expect you to continue your
3 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Ms. Subotic, in video 1D05922, corresponding to figure 3 in your
7 report we can see on our screens, on the basis of it, did you manage to
8 determine the type of clothing the man receiving aid is in?
9 A. Yes, it is a combat fatigue worn by members of the armed forces.
10 The armed forces still have the same uniform.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Armed forces of, again, which army?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The armed forces in the area of the
13 former Yugoslavia. All armed forces present there wore combat fatigues.
14 And I suppose in this particular instance it was an ABiH soldier, since
15 it was a place where they had a centre of theirs. In any case, it is a
16 military uniform.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Thank you. I'd like to move onto case G-11, 58 in the B/C/S and
19 it's page 60 in the English.
20 On the 24th of May, 1995, an unidentified projectile fell in
21 Safeta Zajke Street in front of house number 43.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need 65 ter 1D05545 next.
23 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
24 JUDGE ORIE: There's no English translation, Mr. Lukic.
25 MR. LUKIC: We just have to shortly look through the pages 11
1 through 14 in this version and then we'll go back to the report.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's -- but at least we have no English
3 translation before us now. Let's move on.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The cover page states:
5 "The sketch of the location, shelling Safeta Zajke Street in
6 front of number 43, the 24th of May, 1995."
7 Let's look at page 11.
8 Q. On page 11, we can see the key and the description of events.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we see the next page.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: We need the key in English?
11 MR. LUKIC: We will provide it, but still it's not in the system.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
13 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, the Prosecution has also tried to
16 upload and reassemble the investigative file for this. I believe that
17 the English of the key could be found on e-court page 20 of the English
18 version of 65 ter 33106. And I imagine - consistent with the practice on
19 the last one - that counsel would like the opportunity to review the full
20 materials under that ERN to see if we would like a -- for that one to be
21 tendered. But we have uploaded the available translations under that
22 65 ter.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, any problem in having the whole of --
24 MR. LUKIC: No, we can use that one for now since there is a
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then could we then have on our screens -- and
2 you said page 20, I think it was?
3 MR. WEBER: Your Honour was inquiring about the key, so --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. WEBER: -- I mentioned the e-court page for the key, which
6 then -- I believe the sketch then follows in the subsequent pages.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's have a look at page 20 where we will
8 find the key and see whether ...
9 MR. WEBER: Then --
10 JUDGE ORIE: No, the key is here. I see that.
11 MR. WEBER: Then I believe that the image that counsel may be
12 seeking could be in the B/C/S version --
13 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
14 MR. WEBER: -- on page 20, the actual sketch.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think this would help because now we have
16 the English translation of the key and we have the sketch.
17 MR. LUKIC: This is -- that's why I wanted to show this page and
18 the next one since they separated the sketches on two pages, this one and
19 the next one. So if we can just see the next one. So those two pages
20 were joined on figure 13 in the report of Ms. Subotic.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It may be difficult to have on the one hand
22 the pages of the report giving the full sketch and at the same time to
23 have the English --
24 MR. LUKIC: Maybe we can keep this English document, 65 ter
25 33106, and have on the B/C/S version 1D05497.
1 JUDGE ORIE: If that's possible to have the B/C/S on the left
2 side, the full sketch.
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would it be possible to have on the
5 left-hand side page 54 of the report, figure number 8?
6 MR. LUKIC: No, figure number 13.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, 13.
8 MR. LUKIC: Yes. Page number 64 in B/C/S.
9 JUDGE ORIE: 64.
10 MR. LUKIC: 63 -- but, no, we keep this one. 63, sorry.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 60.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... 60. That's it,
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's move on.
15 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
16 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, based on this sketch and the rest
17 of the material, were you able to determine the incoming trajectory?
18 A. Yes, we were able to. We believed the accuracy of the sketch in
19 terms of the direction of the crater. Our results proved to be the same
20 as that of the scene-of-crime officer, it is south, south-east. When we
21 entered corrections - and you can see that north was designated wrongly
22 in this sketch - it is 146 degrees, so the projectile came from
24 Based on the sketch shown in figure 14 -- well, we superimposed
25 it over the city plan and marked the street designated on the sketch,
1 finding it on the city map. You can see it in figure 14.
2 Q. Please tell us what was the direction of the shell or air bomb?
3 A. This air bomb arrived from site of the south-east, as can be seen
4 in figure 14, and its precision, the precision of the marking, depends on
5 the precision of the sketch --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could Mr. Lukic repeat his
7 question and the witness her answer.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic -- one second.
9 Mr. Lukic, you're invited to repeat your question and then the
10 witness to repeat her answer.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. My question was not recorded in the transcript. I was too quick.
13 Can you tell us where the air bomb exploded?
14 A. It exploded in Safeta Zajke Street in front of number 43,
15 immediately close to the wire factory, some 100 metres away, as confirmed
16 by witnesses.
17 Q. What could be found in the wire factory?
18 A. It was used for military-purpose production.
19 MR. LUKIC: Only English version --
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before we move away, I have one question.
21 Witness, you said, on page 54:
22 "Our results proved to be the same as that of the scene-of-crime
23 officer, it is south, south-east. When we entered corrections and you
24 can see that north was designated wrongly in the sketch."
25 How can we see that the north was designated wrongly? On which
1 basis did you make this comment?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It can be seen in figure 14. The
3 sketch was placed along Safeta Zajke Street so as to compare the street
4 against a city map. North is marked as always with the letter S and an
5 arrow through it, and can you see it on the sketch. When you compare it
6 to the vertical direction of magnetic north, you can see that it is
7 marked at an angle of, say, 15 degrees to the east.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. You have answered my question.
9 JUDGE ORIE: But I would have -- could we zoom in maybe a little
10 bit more on the upper part --
11 MR. LUKIC: Maybe English version so Ms. Subotic can mark
12 something, because I would ask her to mark a few points.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, before we invite her to do that, I would have
14 some questions.
15 Could we zoom into the left upper part, that means including -- a
16 little bit smaller, little bit smaller. Let me have a look.
17 Witness, you see close to the point of impact on the city map,
18 you see a green structure just above where the point of impact is there.
19 Do you see that?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Do you see that on the white sketch which apparently
22 overlays the relevant portion of the map, that there is also a structure.
23 Is that the same? And you see that the pointer is now at that time and
24 only if we zoom in we can see -- yes, that's zoomed in a bit too much.
25 Could we zoom in slightly. No, that's not making it any better.
1 Can you see what is there in that rectangular structure just what
2 is written there? Perhaps we could look at the original one.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is unclear, but we can probably
4 find in the key.
5 JUDGE ORIE: It says P plus 2. I looked in sketch number 13.
6 Now I noticed - and could we go back to what we had a minute ago on our
7 screen - I noticed that the position of that green block is not
8 corresponding with the position of P plus 2, because P plus 2 seems to be
9 exactly at an angle of 90 degrees to the top of the picture, whereas for
10 the green structure, it seems that it's not 90 degrees. It's a little
11 bit more or less, irrespective from where you look at it.
12 Have you considered that whether the green block is the same as
13 what we find as P plus 2?
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That should be it. The point of
16 impact is marked with an arrow, let's say, that's the thing, the same
17 thing, but I can't -- well, I can't be certain that it is exactly the
18 same thing.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Now, if we would bring in line -- that's just based
20 on the assumption that the rectangular shape is the same as the green one
21 close to the point of impact. If you would move it and bring it in line
22 with that, would you agree that north would come far closer to north of
23 the map?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that there may be some
25 misunderstanding of our image. The sketch was taken out and placed here
1 in order to make description easier. It is intentionally placed to the
2 right so as to be able to see the wire factory and the point of impact.
3 Had we placed the sketch precisely over the point of impact of the bomb,
4 all of the rest on the map would have been invisible. So it was just
5 shifted parallelly to the left --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see that. But apparently the orientation of
7 the sketch and the map, if you look at this rectangular feature there, is
8 not the same anymore. Would you agree with that?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, because the green line is
10 actually Safeta Zajke Street and we matched the two images precisely; it
11 is based on that that we can see that the direction as determined does
12 not mark true north.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, have you also looked at whether the
14 street you just mentioned slightly bends there and is not on the map
15 strictly horizontal anymore -- the street below the street with the green
16 line, as you said, that it slightly bends close to the point of impact,
17 bends in northerly direction?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you can see it. But I think
19 that Safeta Zajke Street is matched precisely on both images. Finally,
20 we did not correct the mistake about true north but we simply calculated
21 the incoming trajectory based on the crater left by the bomb on the site,
22 which is quite well oriented -- orientated and marked towards the east.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Your answer went far beyond my question, but you've
24 answered my question.
25 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
1 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. We'll keep this -- what --
2 and I'll kindly ask Ms. Subotic to mark something on this.
3 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Ms. Subotic, can you mark the wire factory on the map for us.
6 A. It is the purple building immediately underneath the red arrow;
7 and if you want me to, I will encircle it.
8 Q. Kindly do.
9 A. [Marks]
10 Q. Just before it fell, what kinds of area had the bomb flown over?
11 A residential area? An industrial area?
12 A. It is an industrial area, and we explained it in detail in our
14 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... by Ms. Subotic
15 and we would offer this into evidence.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
17 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution -- the only question we have is:
18 What's the scale of the map? I don't see it on the thing. If Defence
19 counsel knows.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Do you know what the scale of the map is? Now to
21 make any measurement and scale of the map, Mr. Weber, requires that you
22 know whether there's -- zoomed in on the map, yes or no, because
23 otherwise it doesn't help. But I think it is a map which is often,
24 often, often used, so if you find it and if there's any -- there are
25 certainly other ways of defining what the distances are as found here.
1 Therefore, if Mr. Lukic doesn't have the answer right away, it is
2 not a reason not to admit.
3 Madam Registrar, the number would be?
4 THE REGISTRAR: D1269, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Except that now circle is around 146 degrees and
7 not longer around the wire factory.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, indeed. It seems to have moved in one way or
9 another. Could we go back ...
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is the 65 ter of this map?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness mark again where the wire factory
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: She needs the assistance of the usher.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could the usher assist with the marking.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: He has it and ...
16 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
17 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that it has been saved before it
18 moved. Let's look to see what was saved to see whether the marking is in
19 the right spot. The marking is in the right spot, I think, so if that's
20 the one that is tendered, it is admitted -- and let me just check whether
21 the number was already given. Number was not -- yes, P -- D1269 is
22 admitted into evidence.
23 Please proceed.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could you give the 65 ter number again of the same
1 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated] -- this was taken from the
2 report. It's figure 14.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Figure 14.
4 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
7 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
8 Q. [Interpretation] We will now move to G-12.
9 MR. WEBER: Before moving on to the next incident, is there any
10 way we can we mark for identification the 65 ter 33106 related to the
11 last incident, the investigative file?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: I'm a bit lost, Mr. Weber. You mark -- you would
15 like to mark 65 ter related to the last incident?
16 MR. WEBER: I believe counsel wound up and we see the key in the
17 English version for 65 ter 33106.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that was ... that's the Prosecution's
19 65 ter number --
20 MR. WEBER: Correct.
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- and for the Defence it was ID5545, is that --
22 MR. WEBER: 1D --
23 JUDGE ORIE: 1D5545, that was the one? And I think it was
24 intended to have the whole of the file --
25 MR. WEBER: Yes. And I see that the -- no translations are
1 uploaded under the Defence 65 ter, so that's why I just mentioned the
2 Prosecution one.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, would you be inclined to tender 33106 and
6 that's the 65 ter number, the complete file, including translations as
7 uploaded by the Prosecution?
8 MR. LUKIC: We'll -- I have to see it, Your Honour, and I'll
9 discuss it with Mr. Weber. We already have arranged coffee for Friday, I
10 think, extended one.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll mark it for identification for the
12 time being and so that it already receives a D number in this context.
13 Madam Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Document 33106 receives Exhibit Number D1270,
15 Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And is marked for identification.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
19 Q. [Interpretation] So we are already at G-12. It's on this page 71
20 in English and 67 in B/C/S. This is an incident from 24 May 1995 in
21 Majdanska Street without number, next to the power transmission station.
22 A modified air bomb fell there.
23 Could you tell us briefly about the features of this case.
24 A. First of all, it was necessary to determine which air bomb fell
25 there based on the traces and the crater, and there was a minor error in
1 determining north which we determined after detailed analysis. In any
2 case, what was important --
3 Q. Just a moment. Could we look at figure 19 from your report to be
4 able to follow what you're saying.
5 MR. LUKIC: It's English version 76 and B/C/S version page
6 number 72.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Go on, please.
8 A. To be able to determine the exact error made in determining
9 direction north on the sketch of the scene, we juxtaposed it with an
10 image from Google Earth which is in figure 19; and to the right are
11 characteristic angles that we marked. And after calculations, we
12 determined a minor error of .35 degrees and the range that we determined
13 was 137.40 degrees, which we cannot consider after detailed analysis a
14 precise result. So we determined the direction of descent between 130
15 and 150 degrees. In this case, based on material traces on the scene, it
16 was a FAB 100 bomb that was used and we arrived at that based on the
17 crater that it created, and we took the data from the CSB report and
18 compared it with experimental investigation that we had at our disposal.
19 So our conclusion was that it was an air bomb filled with TNT,
20 FAB 100.
21 Q. What was hit?
22 A. The bomb fell 10 metres from a transmission line pole, a
23 high-voltage transmission line poll. It hit the pole which collapsed and
24 the cables fell onto the ground.
25 Q. What kind of zone is it?
1 A. It's an industrial zone.
2 Q. From whose positions did this air bomb come, were you able to
4 A. We did not determine the distance, so we did not have parameters
5 for establishing the distance.
6 Q. We will now move to G-13, English page 78, B/C/S 73. It says:
7 "On 26 May 1995 a part of the Svrakino Selo neighbourhood was
8 partially shelled allegedly and one modified air bomb hit a residential
9 building at Safeta Hadzica Street at number 52, and at that time ten
10 projectiles fell all around."
11 What is typical of this case?
12 A. There are two things that are worth noting. First of all, the
13 Safeta Hadzica building number 52 we determined, after analysing, was hit
14 by an air bomb which ricochetted from the BH TV building, and all the
15 alleged ten projectiles were analysed by us individually. And we
16 noted -- we determined that none of them came in, nor were there any
17 traces that could be considered as traces of any kind of projectile,
18 except at numbers -- 102 in Safeta Hadzica Street there is a trace on the
19 facade which is a trace of a projectile from close range.
20 Q. Let us look at figure 33 in your report - I think you mentioned
21 it - it's 97 in English; 89, page 89, in B/C/S. That's where you
22 referred to that incident?
23 A. Yes. Evident here are traces of a smaller-calibre projectile
24 coming in from the top, according to the traces on the facade, which
25 indicates that it could be a mortar projectile from a distance of 10 to
1 15 metres from the building.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please. I don't know whether I fully
4 were able to follow.
5 Yes, please proceed.
6 MR. LUKIC: If we could have P3 on our screens, page 39, please.
7 It will take some time to upload it into the system since there is a lot
8 of colour pictures.
9 JUDGE ORIE: We'll wait for it.
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. So we see it's G-13 incident from the atlas of the Prosecution
12 regarding incidents in Sarajevo. I would kindly ask you to mark on this
13 photograph certain buildings and features, and I should ask the usher for
15 Okay. Could you mark the building of the television.
16 A. It's easier for me to see on the other photograph.
17 MR. LUKIC: It's not working.
18 Q. Still, somebody has to help you.
19 A. [Marks]
20 Q. [Interpretation] Will you put number 1 inside the circle.
21 A. [Marks]
22 Q. And now the transformer station, please, or the transmission
24 A. [Marks]
25 Q. Could you mark the police station.
1 A. [Marks]
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Both should be given numbers as well.
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
4 Q. [Interpretation] So the transformer station, number 2, please.
5 A. You mean the transformer station, number 2; right?
6 Q. Yes. Now the police station, number 3.
7 A. [Marks]
8 Q. Could you locate on the photograph where could be the mortar
9 which hit the facade? And that picture is on figure 3 -- 33 in your
11 A. It's one of these two buildings.
12 Q. How far would that mortar be from one of these two buildings that
13 left the traces on that building?
14 A. Whichever one it is, it couldn't be more than 10 to 15 metres
15 away from that facade, in view of the appearance of the traces.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 A. Shall I put number 4?
18 Q. Please put number 4.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... Your Honour.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You are not recorded. You tendered it?
21 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
23 THE REGISTRAR: The marked picture of document P3 receives
24 Exhibit Number D1271, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
1 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I didn't say I tendered it. I asked you if you
3 tendered it. I'm not tendering anything.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Could we now look at figure 37 from your report, 1D05497.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, you marked a minute ago the two
7 buildings on which the impact would have taken place. I saw on the
8 picture that there are five similar buildings there. What made you
9 choose the two you marked? It seems that there's row of five apartment
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, certainly, that's an
12 understandable question. I was there on site, and in my memory, it could
13 be one of these two buildings. I'm not sure which one is number 102.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did you see the impact still there at that
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
17 JUDGE ORIE: What then -- it's mainly on the basis of -- in one
18 of these two buildings number 102 is there - is that what you're telling
19 us - and that made you believe that it's one of those two buildings?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, number 102 is on the building,
21 and this information is in the CSB report.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
23 Please proceed.
24 On one of the buildings then, I take it, one of the two
1 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
2 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 So if we have 1D05497 on our screens. We need page 103 in
4 English version and 94 in B/C/S.
5 Q. [Interpretation] We don't have much time. I will not dwell op
6 this much.
7 You have covered in your report this shell. It is stated about
8 this shell that the projectile landed in a -- in the garden of a
9 residential building in Safeta Hadzica Street number 70 creating a crater
10 200 by 80 by 30 centimetres and that it was produced in Nazi Germany.
11 First of all, is it possible for this shell to create a crater
12 like that without exploding and would it be possible for such a shell to
13 make that crater even if it had exploded?
14 A. According to the CSB, they describe it as you said. First of
15 all, it's not possible for that shell to make a crater of that size
16 because it just can't if it didn't explode. It could create a furrow
17 possibly, but if it had created a crater 30 centimetres deep it would
18 just continue getting buried into the ground and it certainly couldn't
19 create a crater of that length that was stated in the report.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
21 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, we have multiple impacts on this
22 occasion. It's not clear to me what specific crater we're associating
23 with this shell.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Lukic, it might assist already to clarify
25 this now; otherwise, Mr. Weber will deal with the matter in
2 MR. LUKIC: I think there is only one shell mentioned in this
3 report produced allegedly in Germany.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I think it is more about the crater than about the
5 shell. If you can clarify, please do; if not, then Mr. Weber will be
6 doing his task --
7 MR. LUKIC: I will find you in the break where it is mentioned.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. LUKIC: I have cut out from that report but I don't have the
11 JUDGE ORIE: Take your time during the break.
12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
13 Q. [Interpretation] On this photograph, the one we're just looking
14 at --
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we enlarge just the English
16 version and have only the photograph on the screen?
17 Q. Let me ask you, Ms. Subotic, in your opinion, was this shell
19 A. Absolutely not. You can see it by the traces on the shell
20 itself. Alongside -- along the projectile between the centre and the
21 leading rings, they don't exist on any projectiles because both the
22 centre ring and the guiding rings are larger in diameter.
23 Q. Would you mark the guiding and the centring ring and mark
24 whatever you're going to mark with numbers 1 and 2.
25 A. [Marks]
1 Q. What kind of ring is that, the centring ring?
2 A. [Marks]
3 Q. And what is number 2, the guiding ring? Just a moment. This
4 space between the centre ring and the guiding rings, what is it like
5 compared to the rings?
6 A. It has corroded and it bears some lines that are not the kind of
7 lines that could be seen if it had been fired, and if it had been fired,
8 there would be no corrosion because -- because the -- the -- it would be
9 cut into the grooves during firing.
10 Q. And this part of the hull between the rings, what is it like?
11 A. It is smaller compared to the diameter of the rings?
12 Q. Let us now move to G-14. In English it's --
13 MR. LUKIC: Sorry.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, just for the record, it was completely
16 unclear to me some of the comparison that was going on, comparing
17 whatever is in this to other items, but I leave that to counsel as to
18 whether or not he wants to --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if it's unclear to you, you can seek
20 clarification in cross-examination, but Mr. Lukic is now aware of it.
21 Could I ask one very short question. The top of what we see next
22 to number 7, at the top of this projectile, is that how a projectile
23 looks when it's intact and still to be fired, or could you comment on
24 what we see at the top of this -- of this ...
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Towards the top, it is obvious that
1 there is no fuse.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you have any explanation as how a fuse
3 is -- has loosened itself from the body of a projectile?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no idea when it fell apart
5 and off, but it is quite clear that the projectile has not been fired
6 from a tube. All we see is that there is no fuse. It could have gone
7 missing in any way we can think of now. And, first of all, we don't know
8 how this projectile found its way here.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
10 Please proceed.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do you tender this photograph?
12 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, I'm tendering this into evidence.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Photograph of a projectile marked by the witness
14 receives, Madam Registrar?
15 THE REGISTRAR: D1272, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. LUKIC: And it's a break time.
19 JUDGE ORIE: It's break time. Again and again, I make the
20 mistake that I invite you to proceed when I should invite you not to
22 Witness, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.
23 [The witness stands down]
24 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break.
25 --- Recess taken at 1.15 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 1.38 p.m.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, do we have to -- need to be in private
4 MR. TIEGER: No, Mr. President we do not.
5 It is possible an inquiry by the Court may trigger that, but I
6 don't believe so.
7 This concerns the Court's earlier request for an expedited
8 response by the Prosecution to the videolink request for Mr. Del Pinto.
9 The motion appears to be analogous, at least in broad terms, to a
10 circumstance that is not cited by the Defence in its motion, and that was
11 the motion for videolink for RM088, for whom videolink was indeed
12 granted. So in light of that and in view of the stage of the case and
13 all of the circumstances surrounding this matter, we do not oppose the
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that response. The Chamber will
16 decide in due course.
17 Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.
20 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
21 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, preparing for the rest
23 of my testimony today, I noticed I made a -- had an oversight in my
24 presentation today. I said that for the FAB 100 air bomb a possible
25 dispersion by distance is 45 metre. Then I consulted my report and
1 firing tables, I realised I was wrong. What I specified was the value
2 for dispersion by axis. In terms of distance, that dispersion would be
3 98 metres.
4 JUDGE ORIE: The correction is hereby on the record.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you again.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Let us move onto G-14, which is page 104 in the
8 B/C/S and 115 in the English. The incident took place on the 16th of
9 June, 1995, in Dositejeva 2 [as interpreted] when a modified air bomb hit
10 a -- the UMC building.
11 In line 21, page 72, it was stated that we were going to look
12 into case G-1, whereas we are interested in case G-14?
13 JUDGE ORIE: And did you say Dositejeva 2 or...
14 MR. LUKIC: 4a, I think.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: That should be the correct one.
16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. [Interpretation] Let me ask you this: Do you know what was
18 located in Dositejeva Street close to the number referred to?
19 A. In Dositejeva Street close to the number specified was the
20 command of the 1st Corps of the ABiH, as well as the command of the
21 105th Mountain Brigade of the ABiH, and only 80 metres away was the
22 Presidency of BiH. You can find it in footnote 286, 287, and 288.
23 Q. Thank you. Next I'd like to have a look at 1D00747.
24 We see a report of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps Command from
25 February 1995. The consolidate unclear. We don't know if it's the 25th
1 or the 5th of February.
2 In the document -- we need page 9 in English and 8 in B/C/S. In
3 the B/C/S it's towards the bottom of the page in the red frame. In the
4 English, we see it towards the top, beginning with the words "Sarajevo
6 It reads: "Sarajevo Squadron, squad comprising eight pilots from
7 the former JNA located in Dositejeva Street, number 2. Six of the pilots
8 flew the Gazela, one an Mi-8, and one a Jastreb."
9 How far is Dositejeva number 2 from Dositejeva Street number 4A?
10 A. As far as I know there is a just a passage between the two
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. LUKIC: We would offer this one into evidence, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, the B/C/S copy is quite poor and I'm
16 not sure it's complete. Does counsel have an ERN, which I cannot locate
17 on this document, so I could check our records to see if we have a better
18 copy; or alternatively, could he inform us where this copy comes from?
19 MR. LUKIC: We will check it and I'll inform my colleague.
20 MR. WEBER: And until that information is provided, if we could
21 just hold off on even marking it at this time.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Madam Registrar, the number would be?
23 THE REGISTRAR: D1273, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And is marked for identification.
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Next document I would like to see on our screens is 1D00748.
2 Q. [Interpretation] It is a letter sent by the President of the
3 Presidency, Alija Izetbegovic, to the Prime Minister, Haris Silajdzic.
4 In the third paragraph from the bottom, we see the following:
5 "There is another problem. The Chetniks fire at the Presidency
6 building and constantly state that they are doing it because it houses
7 the defence ministry. They know this. It does not matter what the
8 Chetniks say, but UNPROFOR also tells us this. For them, this is a
9 military facility. In addition, the building is entered in the register
10 of cultural monuments and such buildings, pursuant to The Hague
11 Convention and our laws, must not house any potential military targets.
12 Therefore, the Ministry of National Defence should be relocated, first of
13 all, when the moving out starts.
14 "There are supposedly two more buildings in the city owned by the
15 republic which, for unknown reasons, have not been taken over. One is in
16 Dositejeva Street (20 offices) and the other in Kersovanija Street
17 (40 offices). They might help you in resolving this problem."
18 Did you analyse this document?
19 A. Yes, we took note of it.
20 Q. Dositejeva Street is mentioned?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Twenty offices?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you know whether it is one of the addresses we have mentioned
25 before, Dositejeva 2 or 4a?
1 A. As far as I can see, it is not. They --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness kindly
3 repeat the last sentence.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I would say it is some
5 80 metres away from the place of incident.
6 MR. LUKIC: We would offer this one into evidence, Your Honour,
7 as well.
8 MR. WEBER: No objection.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D00748 receives Exhibit Number D1274,
11 Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
13 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
14 [Interpretation] Next I would like to move to incident G-17 which
15 is not in the indictment but the Prosecution tendered P752 and P757
16 related to it. In the English version, it is page 131; in the Serbian,
17 it is 118.
18 Q. Why did you have to study this case too; is it related to another
20 A. I apologise, did you say G-15? I was a bit confused. It's fine
21 now. I know that G-15 was not related to any other event. It seemed I
22 turned the next page.
23 G-17 is something I mentioned today when we discussed
24 Safeta Hadzica 52 where an air bomb fell having had a ricocheted off the
25 TV building. When we studied the incident where an air bomb fell on the
1 TV building, we concluded, based on all the documents at our disposal
2 that this incident is directly related to the air bomb which fell in
3 Safeta Hadzica Street at number 52. There was ricocheted off the studio
4 C roof on the TV building. That is why we had to study this incident in
5 detail in order to clarify the sequence of events and how the projectile
6 reached Safeta Hadzica 52 after the ricochet because, ultimately, it fell
7 in a civilian area.
8 Q. In your report, did you come to any conclusion as to whether in
9 the TV building there was a command post?
10 A. Yes, we provide that in our analysis. Let me tell you where it
11 is. Page 136, figure 72, referenced in footnote 403. That is where the
12 command of the 1st Corps of the ABiH was. It was marked during a
13 testimony as can be seen on the map provided in our report under number
14 3, depicting the TV building.
15 Q. We can find in the transcript that the command of the 1st Corps
16 of ABiH was there. Was it the command of the 1st Corps?
17 A. Of the 1st Corps and a brigade of the 1st Corps of the ABiH.
18 Q. Can we next have 1D5710.
19 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
20 JUDGE ORIE: We have no English version, Madam Registrar tells
22 MR. LUKIC: It's just a map.
23 JUDGE ORIE: It's just a map.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. At the top, it reads: Command posts of the command of the
1 1st Corps and of the brigades of the 1st Corps of the Army of the
2 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1993, signed by Commander
3 Vahid Karavelic.
4 Did you rely on this map?
5 A. Yes. Part of that map is shown on page 136, figure 72.
6 MR. LUKIC: In English version, that figure 72 is on the
7 page 150. And we would offer this map into evidence.
8 MR. WEBER: No objection to the admission of the map.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D05710 receives exhibit number D1275,
11 Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. The bomb which exploded at studio C in the TV building, are there
15 any photographs in existence concerning that incident?
16 A. Yes. Yes, of course -- no, no. There are some photographs that
17 we used, whereas other photographs were not taken. There is no
18 photograph in the photo file that would show the interior of studio C.
19 So there are some photographs but none of them show the interior.
20 Q. Is there any information about a command post in studio C?
21 A. Yes. It housed the command - please bear with me - of the
22 1st Corps of the ABiH. As far as I recall.
23 Q. In the documents you studied, did you find any confirmation of
24 your findings, or did you confirm someone else's?
25 Actually, let me ask you who Andrew Knowles is?
1 A. Yes, he was a witness. He testified to the incoming trajectory
2 of the projectile. Based on his testimony and that of Per
3 Anton Brennskrag, we were able to confirm the incoming trajectory which
4 is completely different from the one determined by CSB investigators who
5 analysed the traces on the roof of studio C, determining the trajectory
6 in that way. We managed to show that what was in question were two
7 completely different bombs which fell a month apart. Thanks to his
8 testimony -- actually, both testimonies, we were able to determine the
9 incoming trajectory and to use all of the photographs with the traces
10 which existed in the photo file to reach a conclusion.
11 Q. Thank you. Next I'd like to move to the Cetinjska incident dated
12 the 28th of June, 1995. It is now called Geteova Street --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could Mr. Lukic kindly
14 repeat the page numbers.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat the page number, Mr. Lukic.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] It is 147 in the B/C/S and 163 in the
18 In terms of this incident, the Prosecution tendered P4622, the
19 entire investigation file.
20 Q. Let me ask you this: What was found or determined?
21 A. What was found by them or by us?
22 Q. By you.
23 A. We established, based on the traces left on the building which
24 was hit at the level of its ninth floor by a modified air bomb, we
25 determined that the projectile came along the north-south axis, or very
1 close to it. The impact occurred at great height and that it was
2 probably by mistake because the fact -- wire factory is on the same axis.
3 We know that it had been targeted before and that it was used for
4 military-purpose production. Unfortunately, there were civilian
5 casualties by accident because the high-rise is at an altitude of 50
6 metres above sea level --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: It is some 50 metres
8 taller than the wire factory.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We also concluded that it was
10 technically very likely that the projectile hit the high-rise by chance
11 as can be seen in the documents. In detail B, the axis is marked with a
12 2, and it corresponds exactly to the direction in which we find the wire
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. What was the situation in the battle theatre at the time?
16 A. I think there was an all-out offensive at the time.
17 Q. Whose offensive?
18 A. There were attempts made to break through the siege of Sarajevo,
19 attempted by the ABiH.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I ask the witness what is the basis of this
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The basis of my knowledge are
23 reports from different places which happened simultaneously; reports on
24 incidents, that is.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: About the battles, the all-out offensive, the
1 attempt to break through the siege of Sarajevo? All that is to be found
2 in the reports you studied; correct?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It can be found in such
4 reports, as well as UNPROFOR reports.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Have you specified these reports in your -- could
7 you refer to any footnote where you have specified the reports on which
8 you drew these conclusions?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could review it and tell you
10 later, but whenever we referred to a report, it is mentioned in the
12 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine. If you could find for us exactly the
13 references for what you just told us, where it is found in the report and
14 to what documents you referred.
15 Mr. Lukic.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 Q. Let us focus on the incident that took place on the 22nd of June,
18 1995 in Cetinjska Street, number 12. It is page 163 in the B/C/S and 180
19 in the English. It is in Geteova Street, as it is called nowadays.
20 P993 is the photo file related to the case, as well as P992. Can
21 we have figure 97 on our screens, please. In B/C/S, it is 164; in
22 English, it is 182, the page.
23 What is characteristic in this case?
24 A. Investigators determines it was a projectile of 155 millimetres
25 with one rocket engine, and they determined the direction as 270 degrees;
1 whereas, in the official report it is stated that it was fired from
2 Energoinvest factory.
3 Let me note straight away that this direction corresponds to the
4 azimuth of 250, according to the official report.
5 As you can see, there is a sketch of the scene, not quite clear.
6 Q. Which number?
7 A. The sketch is 229.
8 THE INTERPRETER: 299; correction.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot make it out, but the
10 direction of descent is marked with number 5, whereas direction north is
11 visibly marked. It is a bit clearer in this picture in the sketch.
12 The question arose why would someone who had both 155-millimetre
13 projectiles and Howitzers of the same calibre set up and modify a
14 projectile like this in order to fire it. We made our analyses, and the
15 outcome was considerably different in the end, as you can see in
16 figure 102. We determined in colour blue.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic, this is a little bit problematic to
18 follow. You don't have the sketch and the figures before us.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I'm also I'm looking at the clock.
20 MR. LUKIC: Figure 101 where we can probably better follow --
21 JUDGE ORIE: But we have 97 on our screens at this moment. It is
22 approximately time to adjourn anyhow. So if you could take us tomorrow
23 with the witness through the relevant portions.
24 Now, Mr. Lukic, even thinking in terms of ten hours, you're very
25 close to that. So would you wind up tomorrow.
1 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, I'm aware. And I'll check with
2 Madam Registrar to know exactly.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You're over nine and a half hours.
4 Mr. Weber.
5 MR. WEBER: I have just one quick matter since it just happened
6 on the record. I just want it to be clear that -- my non-objection to
7 Exhibit D1275 was not to be understood that I was acknowledging that it
8 was the same as figure 72 in the report, so I see that could be unclear
9 and I just wanted to put that on the record.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's hereby clarified.
11 I would have one matter which I'd like to raise, rather, today
12 because we'll adjourn and you have some time until tomorrow.
13 Witness, here and there, reference is made to firing tables of
14 modified aircraft bombs. Are you aware of any -- or do you have copies
15 of any existing modified air bombs firing tables which existed at the
16 time when those modified air bombs were launched? Do you have them? Do
17 you have references to -- again, not to tables which were produced later
18 but tables in existence at the time of firing of those modified air
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have firing tables from 2001, and
21 the only thing I can say --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, I was, of course, asking about not 2001 but
23 in the early 1990s. So the answer is you don't have them?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And -- yes. Okay. Then that answers my question.
1 Then I don't have to ask to you try to find them.
2 Do you know, even if you don't have them, whether they existed at
3 the time?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I know, they did.
5 JUDGE ORIE: They did. And you were not able to retrieve them or
6 to ...
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said I don't have them now. And
8 now they don't exist.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Did you ever have firing tables in your hands or on
10 paper, firing tables that existed during the armed conflict, that is,
11 between -- for these purposes before -- before December 1995, and is
12 there any way you could retrieve them and present them?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had them in my hands. I saw
14 them. But I have absolutely no way to show them to you now or to
15 retrieve them.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And who showed them to you?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I saw those tables in -- when those
18 projectiles were tested in Nikinci.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And when was that?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Before they started being used.
21 JUDGE ORIE: But -- yes. But when was that? Was that in 1990,
22 1995, 2000? When was it?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I really don't remember.
24 No, certainly not in 2000. Before they started being used in the war,
25 verifications and testings were made, and on that occasion, I saw the
2 JUDGE ORIE: And my question was who showed them to you?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember anymore, but now I
4 think it's one of the engineers from Pretis, one of those who worked on
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just one clarification. You said, ma'am, that
8 those tables did exist at the time but they no longer exist.
9 What happened to them?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't say they didn't exist. I
11 said I could not get hold of that material anymore. Maybe they do exist;
12 maybe they don't.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Maybe you were misinterpreted but I thought I
14 heard you say so.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We can perhaps --
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: One final question from my side.
17 You said you saw them "before they started being used in the war.
18 Verifications and testing were made, and on that occasion, I saw the
20 Were you present when this testing was made and carried out?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Then please explain --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Colleagues make to my office
24 and, on that occasion, I saw them.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Were the colleagues present during this testing?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Those are colleagues from the
2 Pretis factory. That's what I meant.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Can you give us the names?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Hmm ... I think one of them was
5 colleague Krstic. I can't remember the first name.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Was he in your office or was it in his office?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, he came to me office.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do you know the time?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I really can't remember. It
10 was around the time before they started being used. Before the testing.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before the testing you saw them?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But, again, when did they start to use them?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can see, it was 2005 --
15 no, no, sorry, 1995. All these incidents that we have been discussing
16 were involving air bombs and obviously it was according to those tables
17 that they were used. I can only infer that based on the high precision
18 that was achieved in the incidents that we analysed.
19 You know, rocket artillery is, generally speaking, not a precise
20 weapon compared to mortars, for instance, but in the incidents that we
21 discussed, a high precision was achieved which without firing tables is
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This was not my question. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I think we are --
25 We can see -- Mr. Weber.
1 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, it did come up just in your examination
2 that she had tables from 2001. Could we please have those by tomorrow,
3 if possible, or before the end of tomorrow.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, do you have the tables that were produced
5 later in 2001 and could you provide them?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have them with me. I
7 didn't bring them. But you could get them through my institute if a
8 request were to be made to the government. I don't think that would be a
9 problem. You know, I don't work there anymore. I could not ask them to
10 give it to me personally now.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's hereby on the record, Mr. Weber.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: I would like to go back to my question.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I must apologise, first of all, to
14 interpreters where I tried just to establish whether or not the witness
15 could bring us anything tomorrow, that we now have gone over the time for
16 ten minutes --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that. But I would like to go back to
18 my earlier question.
19 Ma'am, at page 83, starting at line 13, Judge Orie asked you:
20 "Do you know, even if you don't have them, whether they existed at the
22 Your answer was: "Yes, I know they did."
23 Next question: Did -- "they did. And you were not able to
24 retrieve them or to --
25 "A. I said I don't have them now. And now they don't exist."
1 That's what you said.
2 I'm asking you: What happened to them?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe I expressed myself
4 explicitly. Maybe they do exist.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers] ... then you must be clear
6 what you said, and that's what you explicitly said: Now they don't
7 exist. That's explicit. Unless --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could I -- one at a time.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: I was saying to you, yes, you expressed yourself
10 explicitly that they do not exist now. That is an explicit answer. I'm
11 saying what happened to them?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From what I know, they don't exist
13 because I never saw them again, and there are some that go together with
14 the system made in 2001.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. Unfortunately, that's not an
16 answer to my question. My question was: What happened to them now that
17 you know they don't exist.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The tables were never my work
19 product or my property or the property of the institute, so I can't
20 follow what happened to them.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... again that
22 doesn't answer my question. My question simply is what happened to them.
23 You know they do not exist. What happened to them?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is my conviction they don't
25 exist for the reason that I never saw them again. After the war, new
1 ones were developed, and when something new is developed, then the old
2 ones are not used anymore.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: So you are changing your evidence. You don't know
4 for a fact that they don't exist. You conclude they don't exist. You
5 assume they don't exist. Is that your evidence now?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Right, right, yes.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then with apologies to all those assisting us,
9 Witness, we have a late conclusion today. We'd like to see you back
10 tomorrow morning, 9.30. That's on the 30th of September in this same
11 courtroom. I give you the same instruction ...
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's the 1st of October. Same instructions
14 as I gave earlier; that is, not to communicate in whatever way, with
15 whomever about your testimony. You may now follow the usher.
16 [The witness stands down]
17 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow,
18 1st of October, 2015, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.
19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.28 p.m.,
20 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 1st day of
21 October, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.