1 Thursday, 1 October 2015
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
8 IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 No preliminaries. Therefore, the witness can be escorted in the
12 Mr. Lukic, you have some 25 minutes left, if I understand well.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Ms. Subotic.
15 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
16 JUDGE ORIE: It will not come as a surprise but I still remind
17 you again that you're bound by the solemn declaration that you've given
18 at the beginning of your testimony.
19 Mr. Lukic will now, for another half-hour, continue his
21 Mr. Lukic.
22 MR. LUKIC: Good morning. Thank you, Your Honour.
23 WITNESS: ZORICA SUBOTIC [Resumed]
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 Examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
1 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning again, Ms. Subotic.
2 A. Good morning.
3 Q. Very briefly --
4 MR. LUKIC: 1D05497 on our screens.
5 Q. [Interpretation] But before we begin with your report, I'll go
6 back to what we finished yesterday with. You were talking about the
7 firing tables for modified air bombs.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You mentioned that people from Pretis showed you these tables,
10 and you were asked in whose office you saw them.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Where are the offices of those people in Pretis who came to your
13 office? In which city, in which state?
14 A. Their offices are in Sarajevo.
15 Q. Do you know who was involved in the making of these tables?
16 A. No.
17 Q. You mentioned Krstic yesterday. Could it be Krsmanovic?
18 A. I'm sorry, it was Krsmanovic. You are right.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What is his first name?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I said yesterday already
21 I don't remember, but Counsel Lukic is absolutely right. The last name
22 is Krsmanovic.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And yesterday you referred to a certain Krstic.
24 Who is that?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I got the name wrong. It is
1 Mr. Krsmanovic, not Krstic. I made a mistake yesterday.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What is his age or what was his age at the
3 relevant time?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. But in my estimate,
5 he could have been between 35 and 40; around 35. Never gave it any
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What was his ethnicity?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Serb.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
11 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I was a little late with it, but if
12 counsel can please watch the leading nature of any questions.
13 MR. LUKIC: I just corrected it. The Prosecution interviewed
14 Mr. Krsmanovic --
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
17 MR. LUKIC: So if you need more data --
18 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Lukic, no need to comment on the questions
19 put by Judge Fluegge. And if you think that you should refresh the
20 memory of a witness, you should clearly announce that rather than to lead
21 the witness.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Can we move to D00240, please. At the end of the day yesterday,
25 we talked about the case from 22 June, 1995, Cetinjska Street, 12. We
1 saw figure 97 from the report, and now we'll just see the police report
2 about the same incident. We need page 7 in English version and page 9 in
3 B/C/S. In B/C/S, it's the first paragraph; and, in English, it's the
4 third paragraph from the bottom.
5 Q. [Interpretation] In the police report, it says that it involves
6 an improvised combat device based on a rocket motor, the rocket called
7 Grad, calibre 122 millimetres, and the warhead is probably HE M107
8 Howitzer projectile, calibre 155 millimetres.
9 Does this report of the Sarajevo police coincide with your
11 A. For the most part, it coincides with our findings, except that we
12 checked a certain direction of fire, and it is somewhat different to the
13 direction of fire determined by the police.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 A. But it's very close.
16 Q. You mean the direction?
17 A. Yes, that's what I mean. It's -- our direction is very close to
18 the one determined by the Sarajevo police.
19 Q. Thank you. I should now like to move to an incident of 16
20 June 1995 in Cobanija, number 7. In English, it's on page 192; and in
21 B/C/S, it's page 174.
22 On that day, according to the Official Note, an air bomb exploded
23 on the building of a thermal power station. Concerning this incident,
24 the Prosecution tendered P933 and P1100, and Mr. Turkusic and
25 Mr. Suljevic discussed these documents in their statements.
1 Could we now see on the screen, figure 111 which, in English, is
2 on page 195 and in B/C/S, 178.
3 How far is it between the boiler room which was hit by the
4 modified air bomb, allegedly?
5 A. We didn't measure it, but it's approximately 20 by 20 metres, not
7 MR. LUKIC: Only for the record, it was entered between the
8 boiler room, I think I said in front of the boiler room.
9 JUDGE ORIE: But even how far something is in front of doesn't
10 make sense. A distance is measured between two points, which two points
11 did have you in mind, Mr. Lukic?
12 MR. LUKIC: It's not between. I said in front. That's what I
13 was correcting.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The same is true for in front. If I say in front of
15 a building, how far is that. Or did you mean to say how far was what it
16 was I do not know --
17 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter apologises. The way Mr. Lukic
18 started the sentence, I didn't understand. He said how much space.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... how much space
20 can we find in front of that boiler room.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you mean free space or? I mean, what is space?
22 Space is endless. I have before me 40.000 kilometres of space. Well,
23 that's the surrounding of the earth. Could you please --
24 MR. LUKIC: I didn't go that far, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that. But try to express yourself
1 in such a way so that we understand the evidence is which are you
2 eliciting. Do you mean space up to the next building or ...
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. What kind of space are we talking about, Ms. Subotic?
5 A. I understood that I was asked how much space there is outside the
6 boiler room, limited by the building opposite on both sides. And I
7 answered 20 by 20. That's my estimate.
8 Q. In the case of a descent of a modified air bomb, where should one
9 find the motor?
10 A. The motor is found on the point of impact, on the site of
11 landing, and that's what we saw yesterday. In all the documentation, in
12 all the sketches, it's at the place where the bomb hit, where the
13 explosion occurred. Yesterday we looked at a very illustrative picture,
14 figure 97.
15 Q. Was the motor found in this case?
16 A. No, not -- not the motor and not the chamber.
17 Q. What does that mean?
18 A. We determined that no rocket-propelled modified air bomb fell in
19 this case because the motor wasn't found or the other components either.
20 Q. Based on all the analysis you carried out, what is your
21 conclusion regarding the precision of these modified air bombs?
22 A. My conclusion, based on our complete analysis, and that is also
23 shown in table number 5 on page 199, is that the precision of these
24 modified air bombs is at the level of all the systems of rocket
25 artillery. We have a very good illustrative example for this which could
1 be considered as experimental on such a small sample; namely, the
2 television was targeted once and hit. It was targeted once again a month
3 later, and it was hit again. Concerning number 13, the surveying
4 institute which was hit, it fell, we said, 50 metres away but it's
5 certainly not 50 metres because next to the surveying institute there is
6 a six-lane street and one curb, so in three attempts, targeting one
7 target at different times from different directions, the target was hit.
8 So based on everything we analysed, I believe that this system is within
9 the norms of all the systems of rocket artillery.
10 MR. LUKIC: Only for the record, that table we can find on
11 page 218 in English version.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I can just ask a question for clarification,
13 Mr. Lukic.
14 Ma'am, you said that you found -- you determined that there was
15 no rocket-propelled modified air bomb that fell on day you went and
16 investigated. When did you go and investigate?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I didn't say that I
18 investigated. Maybe it's a matter of interpretation.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... record what
20 you are transcribed as having said: "We determined that no rocket
21 propelled modified air bomb fell in this case because the motor wasn't
22 found on -- or the other components either."
23 Who -- who didn't find the motor?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The investigating group of the CSB
25 which provided a set of photographs from the site --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ...
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We worked with their photo
3 documentation to make our analysis.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I have another question in follow-up. In your
6 experience, did you ever find a modified air bomb not hitting what was
7 targeted? Or coming to that. So a failure to ...
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on these cases that we
9 analysed, we provided the exact distance --
10 JUDGE ORIE: I was asking whether you ever came across a complete
11 failure to hit what may have been targeted by a modified air bomb.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, two cases. One, when an air
13 bomb hit the edge of a privately owned house and hit the ground after
14 that obstacle and ended up in Bunicki Potok [phoen] I believe is the name
15 where it eventually landed after that, conditionally speaking, ricochet.
16 And another case in Cetinjska Street when it hit the edge of a building
17 at the level of the ninth floor without reaching its target. Those are
18 the two incidents.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, are they described in your report? I just
20 don't remember.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, we discussed them
22 yesterday -- I mean, we discussed the ninth floor incident. The other
23 one is not in the indictment, so Counsel Lukic did not even ask me with
25 JUDGE ORIE: So the ninth floor incident was a clear failure, due
1 ricochet only or due to imprecision?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We determined direction based on
3 the impact of the explosion on the building and the direction was good.
4 However, that position which occurred on the trajectory could not have
5 been foreseen. I mentioned it yesterday, this building is only 15 metres
6 higher than the target and the hit was on the ninth floor. So if you
7 look at it from the side, it's exactly the corner of the building that
8 was hit, so we should consider that such a obstacle could not have been
9 foreseen by the gunner, and I would not ascribe this to imprecision
10 because the direction was good. In other words, if that building had not
11 been there at that altitude, the projectile would have reached the
13 JUDGE ORIE: The one you said is not in the indictment. Isn't it
14 true that some of the incidents you dealt with in your reports were not
15 in the indictment?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We did work with documents that are
17 not covered by the indictment and they're all provided in the report, but
18 we just didn't discuss them here.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, you explained that one of the failures
20 that you did not deal with that because it was not in the indictment, as
21 you said, "so Counsel Lukic did not even ask me about this."
22 Does that mean that you have limited yourself to what Mr. Lukic
23 asked you to look at and you didn't deal with any other incidents or
24 experiences which might shed light on, for example, precision?
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know if I expressed myself
2 explicitly. We did deal with cases that are not in the indictment, and
3 we dealt with all the cases for which we had material, and a kind of
4 summary is given in table 6 on the following page.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, there may indeed have been some
7 My -- the gist of my question is: In your experience as an
8 expert, did you ever come across modified air bombs when -- which were
9 launched with a complete failure of reaching what was supposed to be the
10 target? Flying wherever but not coming any close even to the intended
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, are you asking me about
13 my experience with this court or about my experience as a forensic expert
14 in general? You must understand, in peacetime conditions, a forensic
15 expert does not have experience with this kind of projectile.
16 JUDGE ORIE: No, it's -- it's your experience but not necessarily
17 limited to any question that was asked to you in this court, and I'm
18 focussing on modified air bombs that were launched during the armed
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We did not find here any bomb that
21 was launched in all the cases that we had at our disposal, we didn't find
22 any bomb that was launched and then behaved as a technical product with a
23 defect that would make us think or suspect there was something wrong
24 technically with it. And as you see in table 6, all these 16 projectiles
25 that were launched to different extents and percentages, conform with the
1 standards of ballistic requirements for a given system. In this system,
2 dispersion by direction and distance is a bit higher, which is normal,
3 because this is a rocket system, a guided one.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
5 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Ms. Subotic, I'm on my feet just to thank you once again for
9 having responded to our questions.
10 A. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.
12 Ms. Subotic you'll now be cross-examined by Mr. Weber. You find
13 Mr. Weber to your right. Mr. Weber is counsel for the Prosecution.
14 Please proceed.
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Weber:
16 MR. WEBER: Good morning, Your Honours.
17 Q. Good morning, Ms. Subotic.
18 A. Good morning.
19 Q. Mirjana Andjelkovic Lukic was one of the contributors to your
20 modified air bomb report; right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. She also worked at the military technical institute; correct?
23 A. During a certain period of time, she worked at the military
24 technical institute, and then she continued her career at the technical
25 experimental centre, and from there, she retired.
1 Q. During the war, in her position at the technical centre, she
2 worked in the specific section for the testing and verification of
3 munitions; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You relied on her contributions as part of your report in this
6 case; right?
7 A. Yes, but from a different aspect that primarily referred to the
8 effects of bombs and how they affected space. We had a report by
9 Mr. Zecevic that is not well argumented and not well founded, and he
10 claimed that the spaces, the one that is affected, Ms. Andjelkovic's
11 contribution was invaluable there because that is exactly her line of
13 Q. Yesterday you discussed the testing and possible existence of
14 firing tables for modified air bombs. You even suggested at transcript
15 page 39540 that we could get the tables through your institute. The
16 testing you described did not happen, and these tables do not exist at
17 your institute; right?
18 A. I do apologise, but it's a bit difficult for me to follow what
19 you're saying. The tables were from 2002. Sorry, I checked that when I
20 went back to the hotel. 2002, they do exist and they're no different to
21 those that we discussed from the 1990s, in terms of their results and
22 parameters that have to do with precision. They just include a larger
23 number of projectiles.
24 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33121 for
25 the witness. And if we could please go to e-court page 40.
1 Q. Coming up before you will be Ms. Andjelkovic Lukic's, your
2 co-author's testimony from the Karadzic case. I'm going to start at line
3 13. Ms. Andjelkovic Lukic was asked:
4 "Q. Doctor I am -- my question is about the testing of modified
5 air bombs systems. I would like to you answer with a simple yes or no
6 whether, during your period at the military technical institute and in
7 the course of your conversations and dealings with your colleagues at the
8 military technical institute, did you hear of testing of modified air
9 bombs by that institute? I need a verbal response, please."
10 Her answer was: "No, no, no, I did not, because it is certain
11 that if I had heard about that or if that had been done, it certainly
12 would have come to me for verification, or I would have been made aware
13 of it. I never had that on my desk. That is a fact."
14 Do you accept your co-author's statement on this matter as the
16 A. My colleague gave you an answer and since that is what is
17 recorded, for me that is a truthful answer. I'm sure, I assume no one
18 wrote down anything that she had not said.
19 Q. A projectile --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
21 MR. LUKIC: I would like my colleague to tell what kind of bombs
22 were discussed in this instance.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that perhaps may be --
24 MR. LUKIC: Because it's not the same.
25 JUDGE ORIE: -- In re-examination a matter you wish to raise what
1 this exactly means.
2 MR. LUKIC: Then we need the reference is from this was read
3 from [Overlapping speakers] ...
4 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I've given it and I think this is kind
5 of an improper intervention.
6 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I think Mr. Weber has given the 65 ter
8 number and it's page 31505 from, if I understand you well, the Karadzic
10 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. As you know, we are still
11 missing the documents. It takes some time that we get the documents when
12 the cross starts so that's why I cannot follow. So I apologise.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well --
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: It's at this moment on the screen.
16 MR. LUKIC: I mean the actual document I don't have with me
17 so ...
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I take it --
19 MR. LUKIC: The transcript from Karadzic.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Apart --
21 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
22 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... it's a public transcript
23 anyhow, so if it would assist you during the next break that that even
24 can be found on the Internet, if you want to scroll through it in the way
25 you wish to approach it.
1 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: But, for the time being, I think we can proceed.
3 Please, Mr. Weber.
4 MR. WEBER:
5 Q. A projectile goes through a significant amount of testing before
6 a final firing table is created; right?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Yesterday at transcript page 39539, when you were discussing the
9 existence of firing tables from modified air bombs, His Honour
10 Judge Fluegge asked you: "Before the testing you saw them?"
11 You answered: "Yes."
12 Your testimony about the existence of firing tables for modified
13 air bombs is not true; correct?
14 A. No. Although my answer is true, the one that I provided today,
15 the one I provided yesterday is correct as well. This is what it's all
16 about. When a new system is being developed, any system, in order to
17 start testing in the first place temporary firing tables have to be made.
18 They are made on the basis of our knowledge and experience that we have
19 from our work on previous systems. So whoever starts the testing for the
20 first time already has a document in his or her hands called temporary
21 firing tables. Now, whether that is the same as final firing tables that
22 depends on everything that is written down in the meantime and possible
23 corrections that are made on these temporary firing tables, and that is
24 how the final product is attained. That is to say, that I had to have
25 firing tables in my hands before any kind of initial testing so that
1 those who do the testing can embark upon it. That's the procedure.
2 My colleague did not say anything that was incorrect. There may
3 have been no final testing that had reached her. The firing tables did
4 have to exist even before any kind of initial testing is carried out on
5 any one of the testing grounds.
6 Q. Today, you have been confronted about the statements of your
7 co-author and the statement that you made yesterday. This is now another
8 version that you are coming up with; correct?
9 A. This is not yet another version. We did not discuss this. I did
10 have firing tables. My colleague would get the final testing, if that
11 did take place. Sorry, I'm not saying that I made this. But whoever
12 goes out for testing must have firing tables for the first projectile
13 that would be fired during testing. Otherwise, this person would not
14 have parameters.
15 This is procedure, and there is nothing inconsistent there.
16 Q. At transcript page 39317, you were asked about the possibility of
17 firing two shells from one 76-millimetre cannon within an interval of a
18 couple of seconds. You answered: "Usually one minute is required,
19 normally about one minute is required but the firings allegedly happen
20 much faster."
21 A 76-millimetre cannon can actually fire many more rounds per
22 minute than you describe?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, could you quote the full answer of the
24 witness gave yesterday before you put it to her, because I think the
25 one-minute limit was not the only thing she said about it. Just from my
1 recollection something about a crew.
2 MR. WEBER: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes [Overlapping speakers] ... in all fairness to
4 the witness.
5 MR. WEBER: I'll paraphrase.
6 Q. And you did give an indication that this could depend on the crew
7 that was operating the cannon.
8 My question to you is that a 76-millimetre cannon can actually
9 fire more rounds per minute than you describe; right?
10 A. You probably read some characteristic that is there. We say that
11 a certain weapon can follow -- can fire 1.000 bullets per minute, but
12 when it actually happens, this does not occur.
13 I'm sure that within a few seconds, when these two explosions
14 occurred, two projectiles cannot be followed -- cannot be fired in
15 succession following one another. There has to be another round of
16 firing, charge and fire. So it's different from infantry weapons for
17 special units. Then three projectiles are fired randomly. In this case,
18 there is targeting, and I would not agree that somebody fired at a
19 particular target twice within a few seconds, as witnesses have said.
20 That is illogical.
21 MR. WEBER: Could we please have 65 ter 33234 for the witness.
22 Q. These are the firing tables for a 76-millimetre M48 B1 cannon.
23 If we could go to page 4, the lower part of the B/C/S, and page 4 of the
24 English translation.
25 This is the section from the tables regarding rate of fire and we
1 see in the top paragraph, the paragraph 12, that it does depend on the
2 level of the training of the crew. And then we see that there's a table
3 number 4 related to the permitted rate of fire.
4 Directing your attention to this table, the top row appears to
5 indicate that it's one for shooting duration in minutes; and the bottom
6 row indicates for number of bullets per weapon.
7 According to this chart, a 76-millimetre cannon can fire up to 25
8 rounds in a minute; correct?
9 A. But look at what it says up here. That the elements have to be
10 checked after each and every firing. Perhaps you believe that all of
11 that is possible, but I told you, you probably found some table, and you
12 did, indeed.
13 So this is one minute, then 25 number of bullets per weapon; I
14 agree with you that that is what is written there. However, if you take
15 into account the practical situation, these are certain maximums that are
16 being allowed for in case the barrels do not overheat and are not damaged
17 in a more permanent way.
18 Q. Have you ever been deployed as part of an artillery crew
19 operating a cannon during combat operations?
20 A. No. I was always deployed in crews that conduct testing weapons
21 and ammunition. If you're asking me if I was an officer ever, the answer
22 is no. If you're asking me if I ever took part in the war, my answer is
23 no. I don't know how else I'm to understand this question of yours.
24 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution tenders 65 ter 33234 into evidence.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Document 33234 receives exhibit number P7547,
2 Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: P7547 is admitted into evidence.
4 MR. WEBER:
5 Q. On the 29th and 30th of September, you made a number of comments
6 about the ability to rotate the base primary charge at the base of the
7 stabiliser, or a stabiliser, and the amount of force needed to fasten or
8 unscrew it. At transcript page 39485, you stated: "It requires a great
9 amount of force that cannot be exercised by hand either before or after
10 the explosion, when it comes to trying to unscrew the tail-fin."
11 You went on to say that based on your technical knowledge in the
12 area: "I couldn't even think it could be just unscrewed."
13 You also said: "A complete shell is the result of manufacturing
14 with the base charge being screwed into the body of the stabiliser."
15 You further explained the day before, at transcript page 39429:
16 "When the shell is manufactured, the base charge is screwed in by using
17 tools and a lot of force. The actual screw is lubricated by a type of
18 cement, particular cement, which provides for further contact."
19 These statements are not accurate; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Just so I don't misunderstand your answer. When you're saying --
22 are you acknowledging that you've provided inaccurate statements or are
23 you standing by the statements you previously made?
24 A. I stand by what I said earlier on.
25 MR. LUKIC: For the record, the answer was yes they were accurate
2 MR. WEBER: Okay.
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes, "su" [phoen]. The answer was not "da."
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Lukic, I appreciate your assistance. At
5 the same time, you're not supposed to tell what the answer was. But in
6 this case, perhaps, if that's what you heard, I think there's no major
7 objection to assisting in this way, but it shouldn't become routine.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, I intervened after Ms. Subotic
10 answered to the question.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. As I said, it's acceptable under the present
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. WEBER:
15 Q. The fact is, is that it is nowhere near as difficult as you make
16 it seem. Even mortar crews can insert the basic charge at the base of
17 the stabiliser themselves; right?
18 A. Yesterday after my testimony, I saw a video-clip from the Krusik
19 factory that manufactures these 120-millimetre shells and we can see
20 exactly what the final projectile looks like and how it is tested. I saw
21 this video-clip. I downloaded it, and I can even show it to you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please first answer the question that
23 Mr. Weber put to you, whether a crew can screw a base charge on a
24 tail-fin at the mortar -- at the position where the mortar crew is.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I find this information to be
1 totally foreign, because the stabiliser and shell is delivered in
2 complete form with the basic charge, as I've already mentioned during my
3 testimony, and all six charges are there, all the six additional ones and
4 then they take them off or put them on, depending on the charge that they
5 wish to use.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so the simple answer is that you think it's not
7 correct what Mr. Weber says that you can screw them on and off, that it
8 cannot be done by the mortar battery crew itself.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, no, because there's no need
10 to do that. It is provided delivered in completed form. Screwed on.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, would you please answer the question and
12 not a question which was not put to you. The question was not put to you
13 whether a mortar battery crew would be in need of doing that, whether
14 there was any reason to do it, but the question was whether they can do
16 Could you please answer that question.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If they'd assemble it there on the
18 ground, then probably they can do it. But then they'd have to get it in
19 separate parts, which is absolutely impossible.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
21 MR. WEBER:
22 Q. Are you aware of what the mortar manuals and tables say regarding
23 the insertion of the basic primary charge into the stabiliser?
24 A. No, but we can take a look at that together. I mean, I haven't
25 read that part. I usually deal with the numerical part of tables.
1 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33239 for
2 the witness. Page 6 of the B/C/S and page 5 of the English translation.
3 Q. This is an excerpt from the firing tables for a 120-millimetre
4 light mortar. Before you is paragraph 78 which addresses the handling of
5 the shells. The section explains how the ammunition should be prepared
6 for firing and, in the second paragraph, about three bullet points down,
7 it states: "Opening the boxes in which fuses and powder charges are
9 And then about three additional points down from that, it states:
10 "Pressing the basic powder charges into the spaces in the bodies of the
11 stabilisers, if the charges are not already screwed in or positioned."
12 Seeing this, the fact is that a mortar crew can insert and screw
13 in the basic charge to a stabiliser themselves; right?
14 A. These are old tables that envisaged that possibility, that is to
15 say, for the base powder charge not to be in the stabiliser already.
16 However, for decades how, people haven't been doing it that way.
17 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution would tender this document into
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Document 33239 receives Exhibit P7548,
21 Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
23 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I see that we're at the time for a
24 possible break.
25 JUDGE ORIE: At the time for a break. We'll resume in 20 minutes
1 from now. The witness may follow the usher.
2 We'll resume at ten minutes to 11.00.
3 [The witness stands down]
4 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, may I ask your attention for the
7 following matter. There are still a few attestations, I take it, to be
8 obtained by the Defence. The Defence is invited to co-ordinate with the
9 Registry that if a presiding officer is needed for the attestation that
10 it's better to use the presence of Registry staff and co-ordinate so that
11 there's no need to -- for extra travel and that's more efficient and
13 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. We were already informed that we
14 should gather our people in the field.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And co-ordinate and discuss the matter with
16 the Registry.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, you may proceed.
19 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.
20 Q. Okay, Ms. Subotic, I'm going to now start -- oh.
21 Are you able to hear me?
22 A. [In English] Yes, okay. Yes.
23 Q. I'm now --
24 A. [Interpretation] Now I've put them on. Sorry.
25 Q. I'm now going to start by going over some general items with you.
1 Did you personally author all three of the reports or did anyone
2 else write any portions of the reports besides yourself?
3 A. Just as we signed the reports, all who participated in their
4 making are signed on them. And I mean the three reports that I discussed
5 in the previous days were done by Mr. Poparic and I. And this part
6 concerning air bombs were co-authored also by
7 Mrs. Mirjana Andjelkovic Lukic.
8 Q. Did any of those other individuals author portions of the report
9 besides yourself; if so, what portions?
10 A. All the parts of the reports and all the stages were co-authored
11 between us. We worked jointly on all of them. And including all the
12 analyses. We did it all together.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. These documents passed through several stages before they reached
15 you, and we worked on them jointly.
16 Q. Did you, independently, reach all of the conclusions in the three
17 reports that you have testified to?
18 A. All of us individually separately came to the conclusion which we
19 then finalised, discussing whether it's the best technical solution, and
20 that's how it came to its final shape.
21 Q. That means that you personally agreed with all of the conclusions
22 in the report, based on your own analysis?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did you personally review all of the materials referenced in the
25 footnotes of the reports?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Last week, at transcript page 39129, you commented on a
3 correction sheet at the outset of your testimony and stated: "We put in
4 some corrections that we believe clarify the document."
5 Who are you referring to when you say "we"?
6 A. My colleague Mr. Poparic and I.
7 Q. How did these corrections come to your attention?
8 A. I noticed while preparing at home that it would be better, more
9 convenient, to show it that way, and I discussed it with my colleague,
10 Mr. Poparic, all these things that I noticed, and then we jointly made
11 the corrections that we made.
12 Q. I want now to move on to your qualifications. You are not a
13 forensic pathologist or medical practitioner; correct?
14 A. No, I'm not.
15 MR. WEBER: And, Your Honour, I see that the transcript may not
16 have recorded my last phrase there, when I said "medical practitioner."
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but at least it's now on the record.
18 MR. WEBER:
19 Q. Are you not a military expert?
20 A. I don't know what you understand under the term "military
22 If you mean tactician, that I am not.
23 Q. You are not a trained lawyer.
24 A. No.
25 Q. You are not an explosives expert?
1 A. Expert, no, but I studied them in great detail in my university.
2 Q. You were employed at the military technical institute in Belgrade
3 between 1974 and 2010; correct?
4 A. 2009.
5 Q. Thank you for the correction. You worked in the research and
6 development department at the institute?
7 A. That entire institute deals with the research and development. I
8 worked in the sector for classical weapons, the section of ballistics.
9 Q. Your job was to develop new weapons or improve the performance of
10 existing weapons systems; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Conventional
13 weapons, instead of classical.
14 MR. WEBER:
15 Q. You did not conduct any crater analyses during your 35 years of
16 employment at the military institute in Belgrade; right?
17 A. In the sense in which they are dealt with in this report, no.
18 But in terms of their action and impact with a view to improvement, I
19 certainly did.
20 Q. Not sure what you're saying there. A crater analysis being an
21 analysis of a crater after an explosion, you did not do that during your
22 35 years of employment at the technical institute; correct?
23 A. We analysed craters in terms of its impact and effects, not in
24 the sense that was necessary to determine the direction of descent and
25 parameters related to the analyses we discussed here.
1 Have I answered your question?
2 Q. I understand you better now. But just so we're clear, you did
3 not conduct any forensic crater analyses?
4 A. No.
5 Q. The only crater analyses that you have attempted to forensically
6 conduct were the ones you did in 2010 for the purpose of your reports in
7 the Karadzic case; correct?
8 A. Right.
9 Q. You have never analysed a freshly formed crater in person;
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. You have never been to the scene of a mortar explosion
13 immediately following a detonation where individuals were either killed
14 or injured; correct?
15 A. Right.
16 Q. In your CV, you list a number of reports you completed for courts
17 in Serbia. These reports were in cases involving domestic charges for
18 crimes like murder, involuntary manslaughter, and unlawful possession of
19 weapons; right?
20 A. Correct. I said a moment ago that those cases analysed in peace
21 time, circumstances are different to those that we are analysing here.
22 Q. With the exception of three cases in Serbia, the type of weapon
23 at issue was a small-arms weapon, such as a gun or a rifle; correct?
24 A. Correct. In fact, I don't know whether it's with the exception
25 of three cases. You know better at this moment because have you an
1 overview. There are 150 findings there, after all. I don't know what's
2 contained in them off the cuff.
3 Q. With the exception -- sorry.
4 None of your previous reports in Serbia relate to the use of a
5 mortar or modified air bomb; correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33116. And
8 if we could go to page 76, please.
9 Q. Yesterday at transcript page 39479, you indicated that you took
10 part in police investigations many times. Before you is your testimony
11 in the Karadzic case. Starting at line 7, you were asked:
12 "Q. Okay. It's clear from your CV and your publications that
13 you have significant experience in the area of ballistics, but I don't
14 see anything in your CV about any publication [sic] in the area of crime
15 scene investigations. You haven't published in the area of crime scene
16 investigation, have you?"
17 Your answer: "That's not correct. That's not correct. In my
18 CV, there are more than 100 findings which were made for courts, and in
19 each of these I did visit the crime scene. I don't know how you missed
21 Are these the investigations you took part in?
22 A. Yes. It's customary in our country for the investigating judge
23 to bring an expert to an on-site investigation, to ensure that data
24 collection is done the best way possible. So I went out together with
25 the investigative judge. I cannot count all the times now, but those
1 were, many, many times.
2 Q. Just so we have a little bit more clarity, Ms. Subotic, as you
3 might have guessed, we do have your previous reports from Serbia, you did
4 not visit the crime scenes for each of these cases; right?
5 A. Not in each these cases. But if you looked at it carefully,
6 wherever my findings cover reconstruction, I was there on the scene.
7 Wherever there is an item called reconstruction and comparison of data
8 with statements, that means I was on the scene.
9 I cannot really give you a better answer from this position now
10 because I cannot know at this moment how many times out of the total it
12 Q. At transcript page 39191 in this case, you stated that physical
13 evidence "is the only relevant evidence as far as my profession is
15 You understand that physical evidence refers to tangible material
16 objects or items; right?
17 A. Right.
18 Q. Do you consider a photograph or video of an object or an area to
19 be physical evidence?
20 A. In this case, I do have to consider that because I was not there
21 on the scene. The video and photo material about effects at the target
22 were taken into account by me as an expert as material evidence.
23 Q. Should we understand your testimony over the past week when you
24 were discussing physical evidence that you may be referring to, then,
25 photographs or videos?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. If an explosive device such as an artillery shell or mortar round
3 is detonated remotely - in other words, not by an impact - that is going
4 to require, one, a secondary detonating device to be attached to the
5 shell or round; and, two, a secondary explosive charge to cause the
6 detonation; correct?
7 A. Generally speaking, yes.
8 Q. There would be physical remnants at the scene of an explosion
9 from the secondary devices attached to the shell found at or near the
10 scene; correct?
11 A. In principle, yes. But with these electrical initiations, these
12 are symbolic amounts, so they are not always found.
13 Q. If things were not found, you cannot tell us that those things
14 ever existed; correct?
15 A. Certainly not.
16 Q. I'd like to move on to a different topic?
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put one question at this point in time.
18 MR. WEBER: Of course, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Subotic, you heard two different terms:
20 Physical evidence and material evidence. Is there any difference between
21 the two, in your view?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At this moment in this answer, I
23 mean, the Prosecutor used the term physical evidence. When I say
24 material evidence, I speak of the evidence from the crime scene in the
25 documentation that I used. And physical evidence is, for instance, the
1 stabiliser we held in our hands yesterday.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In your report, we very often came across the
3 term physical evidence. Is that only such an artefact like we had in our
4 hands, or is the term to be understood in a broader way?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If what you say is true and I am
6 afraid it's a matter of translation, I will check this afternoon, but I
7 believe we used the term material evidence, not physical. I will look
8 through my reports and I will see if it is perhaps a matter of
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Then it has to be checked because in the English
11 translation, in the English translation of your report, I came across the
12 term physical evidence quite frequently.
13 Mr. Weber.
14 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.
15 Q. Changing topics. You are aware that the BiH MUP and
16 internationals who investigated shell impacts used what is known as the
17 central axis method to determine direction of fire; correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. The accuracy of this method determines the direction of fire
20 within a margin of error of plus or minus 5 degrees and maybe as much as
21 10 degrees, depending on the area impacted and the quality of the traces
22 on the ground; correct?
23 A. That is correct. I believe this plus/minus 10 is a very wide
24 margin. I think the margin is smaller. Because the traces are generally
25 very good, if there are any. But if it's earth or a very difficult
1 surface, then you are right, the margin may be wider.
2 Q. The central axis method is the best method of determining the
3 incoming trajectory of a shell unless you have a radar system to do it;
5 A. That's right. And I believe it exists now, it's in use and this
6 central axis method will not need to be used any longer.
7 Q. Ma'am, I appreciate that you wanted to add stuff sometimes. If
8 you could -- I want to move through, so if you could please listen to the
10 The BiH MUP investigators did not have a better method at their
11 disposal; right?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. Over time, the shrapnel marks or physical traces in the ground
14 caused by the projectile impact will erode and deteriorate; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. This will make it harder to distinguish the markings from other
17 marks on the ground; correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. The erosion caused by weather or human traffic affects the
20 quality of the traces over time; right?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Because of these factors, it will become harder to determine the
23 central axis and overall size of a crater over time; correct?
24 A. Yes, you are right.
25 Q. If the physical traces of an impact were no longer there or were
1 substantially altered, this would obviously impact the reliability of any
2 measurements of these impacts over a decade later; correct?
3 A. That depends, of course, on the damage to the remaining traces
4 and how reliable they are. Some traces remain sufficiently reliable and
5 can be used. But generally speaking, that's correct.
6 Q. The ideal time to conduct a crater analysis is immediately or
7 shortly after the impact; correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You are most likely to get the best and most reliable results
10 when the crater is fresh; right?
11 A. Right.
12 Q. Direction of fire should be determined by an analysis of the
13 crater itself and not by the angles or directions of streets; correct?
14 A. No, no, wait a minute. Crater analysis is done based on the
15 traces on the surface left by the explosion. However, these directions
16 that are determined are always oriented based on direction north or some
17 other point. We had a case when Captain Verdy determined his 17 degrees
18 relative to direction north using as a landmark the building on Kupa when
19 he was working on the scene.
20 Q. Is it your evidence that the direction of fire of a projectile
21 can be determined by the angle or directions of a street instead of the
22 physical traces of the crater itself?
23 A. No. My evidence is that the direction of fire is determined
24 based on physical traces of the crater itself and that direction has to
25 be relative to something, relative to the central axis of the crater
1 compared to direction north or some other fixed point.
2 Q. The first time you -- the first time you went to the locations
3 that are involved in this case was in September 2010, 15 to 18 years of a
4 the explosions; correct?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Now, in terms of angle of descent, meaning -- what I'm referring
7 to is the vertical angle between the flight path and the ground on
8 impact, a minimum angle of descent can be reliably determined based on a
9 distance to surrounding structures and buildings along an incoming
10 trajectory; correct?
11 A. In principle, that is correct. However, that way you could
12 determine the minimum angle of descent for a mortar projectile on the
13 basis of the building that is the closest to it, and that would be, say,
14 42 degrees. And as far as mortar shells are concerned, there are no
15 angles of descent of less than 50 degrees. So that is correct, but then
16 other things have to be taken into account. So obstacles have to be
17 taken into account. The ones that are the closest and the farthest from
18 the point of impact.
19 Q. An approximate or rough estimate of the angle of descent can be
20 made by measuring the distance between the central part of the crater and
21 the outer peripheral traces; correct?
22 A. You mean the distance between the first and second crown? I
23 don't understand what you're asking me.
24 Q. Yes, for example. That would be an example of how to do that.
25 So where the actual crater impacts its central part and the outside
1 crowns, as you're referring to them. An estimate of the angle of descent
2 can be made from that; correct?
3 A. That method does exist, the one that was used by investigators of
4 the CSB, and it primarily uses traces on the ground left by the explosion
5 and these distances that you spoke of between the centre of the explosion
6 and the next crown as left by shrapnel, and, of course, the dimensions of
7 the shell, and the explosive charge or the centre of the mass that they
8 usually used probably because they don't know exactly where the centre of
9 the explosion was because this defect that is taken into account is the
10 most pronounced, of course, in terms of the centre of explosion during
11 the fall.
12 Q. Let's just see if we understand this similarly.
13 If the distance between the central part of the crater and the
14 outer peripheral traces is small, then this would suggest a steeper angle
15 of descent; correct?
16 A. You mean an angle of almost 90 degrees?
17 Q. No ... maybe I'll just give it you all at once and see if we
18 understand each other.
19 If the distance between the centre part of the crater and the
20 outer peripheral traces is small, then this would suggest a steeper or
21 more vertical angle of descent; where conversely if the distance between
22 the central part of the crater and the outer peripheral traces is larger,
23 then this would suggest a lower or less vertical angle of descent. Do
24 you agree?
25 A. That's what I said to you. If the difference is small, then the
1 angle of descent is close to 90 degrees compared to the surface and then
2 if it is greater than it is an angle that is less than 90 degrees,
3 depending on the distance of the second crown and what the parameters of
4 the shell itself are, as I've already said.
5 Q. Accurate determinations of directions of fire and angles of
6 descent cannot be made from a viewing of a photograph alone; correct?
7 A. On that basis, the results can be checked and then the other
8 traces that the shell left when it exploded can be assessed pretty well.
9 Q. Accurate determinations of directions of fire and angles of
10 descent cannot be made from only a photograph; right?
11 A. We did not have a better choice than that, and it turned out that
12 we were very close to accurate answers that corresponded to the
13 measurements on the ground in the immediate aftermath. After the
14 explosion, that is.
15 If you remember, in each and every incident we had contrary
16 results and this photo documentation helped us a great deal, as did the
17 video material. Helped us establish who was closest to the actual values
18 in view of the traces left by the shell after the explosion.
19 Q. In your view, can an accurate determination of direction of fire
20 and an angle of descent be made from only a photograph?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic is supposed not to speak aloud.
22 Mr. Mladic, no speaking aloud any further.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Within the tolerance provided by
24 the method itself. And you already mentioned that at the very beginning.
25 MR. WEBER:
1 Q. So you would say that the -- a determination by a photograph
2 alone would have the same margin of error as looking at the physical
3 traces, plus or minus 5 degrees if the traces are clear in the photo, and
4 then if they're not so clear, it's a bad photo, maybe a margin of error
5 of 10 degrees.
6 Is that what you're saying?
7 A. I want to say that the photograph that was made at the moment
8 after the explosion is equally accurate if it was made properly and then
9 there is also personal insight on the ground. Because, do not forget,
10 that all of these photographs were taken immediately after the incident.
11 And that's what they're used for, so that after a while we can check and
12 determine whether somebody did that correctly on the spot. Otherwise,
13 there wouldn't be any photo documentation, if there weren't for this need
14 to be able to check what an investigator did at the time, to check later,
15 that is.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could I ask you an explanation.
17 You were asked about the accuracy of determining a direction of
18 fire and an angle of descent from a photograph only. And then you said -
19 let me just take at that literally - you said: "We had no better choice,
20 and it turned out that we were very close to accurate answers that
21 corresponded to the measurements on the ground in the immediate
23 So what you're saying: Our conclusions matched with the
24 conclusion reached at the time than explains the accuracy of our -- our
25 ability to accurately draw conclusions from photographs.
1 Is that well understood?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were two questions there.
3 First of all, you asked whether our conclusions correspond to
4 those of the investigators. With regard to many incidents, we had
5 contrary findings amongst the investigators themselves. For example,
6 criminal -- do you understand what I'm saying? And on the basis of that
7 we managed to establish what was correct --
8 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I focussed on
9 the first part of your answer, where you said: We came to the same
10 conclusions as those who investigated on the ground, which then, if I
11 understood you well, was used as an argument that you could accurately
12 draw conclusions on the basis of photographs.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is correct that our results
14 almost always coincided with some of the findings offered during the
15 investigation. Not always but almost always, and that works in support
16 of that.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What's your conclusion from that fact?
18 Because you were asked about the accuracy of drawing conclusions from
20 Now, what's your conclusion in relation to what you just told us,
21 that very often your findings were in accordance, were the same or almost
22 the same as those who did the investigation on the ground. What does
23 that tell us?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said a moment ago that on the
25 basis of photographs that were made after the incident, immediately after
1 the incident, we can carry out proper checks and we can check the
2 measurements that were made by the investigators.
3 Now what happened to us sometimes was that there were three or
4 four results that were offered within the same investigation, and the
5 photographs would help us establish who was right in terms of the traces
6 that can be seen in the photograph, what matches that.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not talking about events where there are more
8 series of photographs but just one series of photographs.
9 If there's a discrepancy between what you conclude and what those
10 who did the investigation on the ground conclude, what does that mean?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, there are no
12 different photographs. It is different findings that were offered to us.
13 Photographs were one and the same. There is one photo documentation, and
14 we had one, two, three findings in terms of measurement, in terms of
15 positions taken. We didn't have any different photographs, different
16 photo documentation except in one particular case. But with the same
17 photo documentation, different interpretations were made. There are
18 photographs there that were taken immediately after the explosion, and we
19 found that to be extremely helpful so that we could reach conclusions on
20 the basis of the traces that can be seen in the photo documentation.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Now, and if your conclusions are not the same as the
22 ones who did the investigation on the ground, what does that mean?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We always found an explanation as
24 to why the investigators came to an erroneous conclusion. And in
25 different cases, there were different reasons, and we documented all of
1 that in -- in -- in these papers of ours. I mean, I can give you any
2 example, if necessary, but I don't think it's necessary.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Have you considered that you may have made mistakes
4 in interpreting the shrapnel pattern, for example, or the ...
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Whenever we had a dilemma like
6 that - and we did have such dilemmas - we made a complete overview of a
7 particular situation. We tried to match all the information that we had.
8 And on the basis of all of this information, in the records, in the
9 on-site investigation, the sketch of the scene and so on, so when you put
10 all of that together, there is a clear and unambiguous answer.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You know? I don't have any
13 dilemma. When somebody writes in his record, That is such and such a
14 direction on the basis of that, and if no picture is taken that is
15 different. However, if I take a picture ten years later and I see what
16 it's like, then I no longer have a dilemma as to what this looked like.
17 Because if that is what it looks like ten years later, then it was much
18 clearer and what had been written was the opposite. Ten years before
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so no doubt at all about your own accuracy in
21 doing this exercise.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
25 MR. WEBER:
1 Q. When viewing a photograph, you are limited by the distance of the
2 camera to the object being photographed and there may be perspective
3 issues that make it difficult to determine angles; correct?
4 A. Yes. That is why we used Google Earth, you see? We would put a
5 street where it was and then we would reduce the negative contribution of
6 the camera to our estimate.
7 Q. Okay. You agree that a photograph should not be manipulated or
8 edited in such a manner that it distorts the content of the photo; right?
9 A. Of course.
10 Q. All of the -- what you call crater analyses that you did for your
11 various reports were conducted either on the visits in 2010 or on the
12 basis of photographs or video stills of the sites or some combination of
13 those efforts; correct?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. In your reports, have you included all of the photos that were
16 taken during your visit to Sarajevo in 2010, or are there any additional
17 photos that were not included in your report?
18 A. There is an entire album. It would have been too much if we
19 included everything in this report, although it is voluminous. I
20 regretted that yesterday; namely, why we didn't include a photograph from
21 the Cobanija incident that was considerably clearer than the one we
22 looked at today.
23 Q. You cannot get precise measurements from a street map; correct?
24 I'm talking about precise measurements.
25 A. Sorry, precise measurement of what?
1 Q. You cannot get precise measurements based on street maps.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could you --
3 MR. WEBER:
4 Q. Distances of, let's say, a curb to a sidewalk, a curb to the
5 building, the angle of a street, these types of things. A street map
6 might give you a general idea of such distances, but they would not be
7 precise; right?
8 A. The distances were not determined on the basis of town maps but
9 directions were on the basis of Google Earth and the angles are rather
10 precise. I mean, the direction in terms of a particular building, say,
11 in relation to direction north. That's what I'm trying to say.
12 We usually - not usually -- always took the distance from the
13 sketch of the scene itself.
14 Q. Do you agree that you cannot get precise measurements based on a
15 street map?
16 A. I would appreciate it if you would tell me what measurements.
17 Certainly not crater measurements. But angles, streets, buildings in
18 relation to direction north, certainly.
19 Q. Okay. I think everyone understands that Google Earth is
20 satellite imagery. That's not a street map; correct? What I'm talking
21 about is a city street map.
22 A. [No interpretation]
23 Q. I'm sorry, I don't know if your answer was recorded.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not hear the
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I'm not following.
2 I'm saying I don't know. I mean, my answer was that I cannot determine a
3 distance or a direction or, rather, magnitude, say the magnitude of a
4 crater using a street map that cannot be done. However, directions, just
5 directions of streets and buildings in relation to direction north, that
6 can certainly be done. That is certainly not being contested.
7 MR. WEBER:
8 Q. It's come up before in your testimony, but for a lot of your
9 descriptions of the incidents or for descriptions of incidents, where
10 you, for example, superimpose a sketch on top of a city street map and
11 then critique the direction or what you feel to have been the direction
12 that it should have been, why did you then not include the Google Earth
13 image, if that's what you were using?
14 A. Some were with one, there wasn't really much of a difference,
15 some were with both. It really wasn't a special reason to use this or
16 that. In some cases we used both. In some cases, perhaps it was more
17 direct to use a street map, a town map, because the names of streets are
18 there and also the names of buildings that were supposed to be
19 recognised. Say, the wire factory we dealt with a few days ago or the TV
20 building, then we use a city map. And sometimes we would check both.
21 Both Google Earth and a city map and then it would always match. I mean,
22 we did not notice that there were any mistakes made in the city maps
24 MR. WEBER: Sorry, Your Honour, I see it's almost time for a
25 break, though.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'd like to start a break in one or two
2 minutes but if this would be a suitable moment, then we'll take the break
4 MR. WEBER: It is.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take the break. And we'd like to see you back
6 in 20 minutes, Ms. Subotic.
7 [The witness stands down]
8 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at quarter past 12.00.
9 --- Recess taken at 11.53 a.m.
10 --- On resuming at 12.16 p.m.
11 JUDGE ORIE: One preliminary matter was announced.
12 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President. May we go into private
13 session, please.
14 JUDGE ORIE: We move in private session.
15 [Private session]
3 [Open session]
4 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
8 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.
9 Q. Hi, Ms. Subotic. The flight of any object through the atmosphere
10 will are affected by, one, the velocity with which it is launched into
11 its flight; two, the shape of the object; three, the mass of the object;
12 and, four, the environment in which the object is flying through,
13 including any meteorological conditions; is this correct?
14 A. Yes. There are other factors but I will come to it later.
15 Q. We're going to discuss many incidents.
16 My next question. Basic firing tables contain the adjustments
17 that need to be made for meteorological conditions, such as air
18 temperature, air pressure and humidity; correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. Firing tables also contain the adjustments that take into account
21 other variables, such as cross-wind, headwind and tail-wind; correct?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. The difference in altitude between the firing point and the
24 target is also relevant when making adjustments; right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. The adjustments in the firing tables are specifically calculated
2 to account for the mass of a projectile, its weight distribution, and the
3 specific aerodynamics of the specific projectile's shape; correct?
4 A. I did not quite understand you -- the beginning of the question.
5 What did you mean? Did you mean that adjustments are made by taking into
6 account all these things you enumerated or what?
7 I did not understand the question.
8 Q. I'll just ask it without that part.
9 The firing tables are specifically calculated to account for the
10 mass of a projectile, its weight distribution, and the specific
11 aerodynamics of the projectile's shape; correct?
12 A. When you make firing tables, you make them for the so-called
13 normal mass of that projectile, which implies plus/minus one weight sign
14 which is simply calculated, and what is understood in the -- in terms of
15 trajectory. It's all given to -- for that normal mass. Adjustments are
16 made also taking into account dispersion in separate tables. And it's
17 true that according to -- or, rather, on the basis of aerodynamics which
18 are calculated and measured, the trajectory of a projectile is
19 determined, depending on the elements you take into account.
20 Q. If the parameters from the firing tables are taken into account,
21 there will be a high likelihood that the projectile will land on its
22 intended target; correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. In a surface-to-surface situation, when a projectile is launched
25 from the ground with the aim of hitting another target on the ground, the
1 total force imparted on the projectile both vertically and horizontally
2 will impact where the projectile lands; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Just to be clear on this, provided the firing angle is the same,
5 range depends upon the initial velocity. For example, if the initial
6 velocity of the projectile is greater, the projectile will travel
7 farther; right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. If you were firing a rocket-assisted projectile, you would need
10 to have precise firing tables in order to fire it with any degree of
11 accuracy; right?
12 A. For every projectile that is fired, you need precise firing
13 tables. This is a rocket-assisted projectile, the one we discussed, of a
14 type which has a very short operation of the motor compared to the total
15 time of flight, and after that, when they reach the end of their velocity
16 of the rocket motor they continue flying as any other projectile. And
17 for every artillery projectile, whether rocket assisted or not, precise
18 firing tables are needed to hit the target.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, could you seek clarification. "The one
20 we discussed, I think we dealt with quite a few incidents where --
21 MR. WEBER: If I could try to clarify in the abstract.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. WEBER: And then see if she wants to --
24 Q. Ms. Subotic, when you're referring to the one we discussed, are
25 you referring generally to modified air bombs with rockets on them?
1 A. I mean generally modified air bombs, because we did not cover any
2 other rocket projectiles in this report.
3 I'm sorry for being imprecise.
4 Q. I now want to talk to you about the embedding of mortar shells.
5 82-millimetre and 120-millimetre mortar shells do not have the
6 same launch velocities when launched with the same number of charges;
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. 82-millimetre mortar shells are launched at a comparatively lower
10 velocity with the same number of charges; correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. A basis physics hypothetical here: If two objects of different
13 mass, one four times heavier than the other, are launched with the same
14 outbound velocity and both impact the same surface in terms of hardness,
15 the object with the greater mass is more likely to penetrate the surface
16 than the lighter object; correct?
17 A. On the condition they arrived to the target at the identical
18 speed. You know, mass and velocity behave differently, depending on
20 Q. Okay. According to the tables, a 120-millimetre mortar shell has
21 a total mass with fuse of between 12 kilos, 280 grams, and 12 kilos, 600
22 grams and this is a light mortar, depending on the type of shell and
23 fuse. An 82-millimetre mortar shell has a total mass with fuse of
24 between 3 kilos, 230 grams, and 3 kilos, 300 grams, also depending on the
25 type of shell and fuse.
1 We'll go into this more specifically but just right now, a
2 120-millimetre mortar shell is significantly heavier than an
3 82-millimetre mortar shell; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33239,
6 page 9 of the B/C/S only. I believe this might have been admitted as
7 P4548. Yep. And if we could to the right of this document, please have
8 65 ter 33098A, page 10 of the B/C/S only.
9 Q. On the left, you have a table for a 120-millimetre light mortar
10 shell for charges 4 to 6. On the right, you have a table for an
11 82-millimetre mortar shell for charges 4 to 6.
12 According to the chart on the left, for the 120-millimetre shell,
13 the firing velocity, or VO, at charge 4 is 256 metres per second;
14 correct? I'm referring you to the top column for charge 4 or the top
16 A. Yes, correct.
17 Q. According to the chart on the right for an 82-millimetre shell,
18 the firing velocity most similar is for charge 5 at 259 metres per
19 second; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. We also see comparatively similar velocities for the respective
22 shells between charge 5 of the 120-millimetre shell and charge 4 of the
23 82-millimetre shell; correct?
24 A. 120 with charge 5 is --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness be asked to speak more
2 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could you speak more slowly so that the
3 interpreters can catch your words. And perhaps start your answer again.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Charge 5 for the 120-millimetre
5 shell, the contact-fuse has the initial velocity of 290 per second. And
6 charge 5, 82-millimetre shell, has the initial velocity of 230. That
7 shell is M4.
8 I suppose you wanted to compare the 120-millimetre shell with
9 charge 5 with charge 4 in an 82-millimetre shell? Am I right?
10 MR. WEBER:
11 Q. Actually, no, and thank you for correcting me. The
12 comparative -- charge 5 of the 120-millimetre shell would be similar in
13 velocity to charge 6 of the 82-millimetre; correct?
14 A. Yes. With the full level of initial velocity.
15 Q. I put it to you that based on its greater mass and higher
16 outbound velocity on lower charges that a 120-millimetre mortar is more
17 likely to embed on charge 3 or greater than an 82-millimetre mortar;
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Due to its significantly lighter mass, much less explosive force
21 would also be required to kick back a stabiliser from an 82-millimetre
22 shell; right?
23 A. Could you please repeat the question? I didn't hear the
25 Q. Okay. Due to its significantly lighter mass, much less explosive
1 force - so when the mortar impacts and explodes - that -- less force
2 would be required to push the stabiliser in a different direction or kick
3 it back; correct?
4 A. The force necessary to kick back a stabiliser is, first of all,
5 defined by the dimension of the stabiliser, which is built into steel.
6 And, otherwise, these two shells have totally different explosive
7 charges. 120, I believe, has 2.6 kilos of explosive, and an
8 82-millimetre has 680 grams.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please answer the question that was put to
10 you by Mr. Weber. Whether it's true that due to the lighter mass of the
11 tail-fin, it requires less force to push it back, I take it, upon impact
12 compared to the heavier 120-millimetre tail-fin.
13 Could you answer that question.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably. Because the dimensions
15 are smaller. But that depends primarily on the size and on the type of
17 JUDGE ORIE: You mean material of what? Of the tail-fin?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The material of the stabiliser.
19 During explosion, it has to be torn off and kicked back, depending on the
20 force acting upon it.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
22 MR. WEBER: I don't know if Judge Moloto had a question or ...
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: I was just thinking that I would accept that the
24 material would be the same, the size and weight would be different
25 because the one is bigger than the other. But they would made from the
1 same kind of steel, so I'm not quite sure what you mean by it depends on
2 the material.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure the material is the
4 same. I would have to check.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
6 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I tender 65 ter 33098A into evidence at
7 this time.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just see when you had it on the screen,
9 didn't you say that it was already in evidence?
10 MR. WEBER: I believe the one on the left for the 120 millimetre
11 is in evidence. There's been multiple references to the relevant pages
12 from the 82 millimetre. There's a lot of pages uploaded in this version,
13 and we're just tendering it all at this time.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Registrar.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Document 33098A receives Exhibit P7549, Your
17 JUDGE ORIE: P7549 is admitted.
18 MR. WEBER:
19 Q. Ms. Subotic, turning your attention to the Vase Miskina shelling
20 on 27 May 1992, you agree that an 82-millimetre mortar shell exploded
21 upon impact on this occasion; right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. The direction of fire was 175 degrees with a margin of error;
25 A. Yes, almost normal to the plane; that is to say, the street.
1 Q. There direction of fire is to the south slightly to the east
2 toward the area of Trebevic; correct?
3 A. I don't know. I would really have to open it and look. I don't
4 know it by heart. I hope you don't mind.
5 Q. Not at all, ma'am.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, it would assist me, and perhaps my
7 colleagues as well, if you would point us to which report we find it
8 exactly and where approximately in that report so that we can open it and
9 have it available for ourselves.
10 MR. WEBER: I'm referring to the shelling report, paragraph 18,
11 which is 1D5498. And my last question went to the witness's more broad
13 A. Yes, that direction is 175. We indicated it on the Google Earth
14 picture and we agreed with the direction determined by the CSB
16 Q. Okay. As part of your analysis and your discussion in your
17 report of this incident, you rely on multiple documents from the BiH MUP
18 investigative file, including multiple reports, death certificates and
19 photos; correct?
20 A. Yes. Yes.
21 Q. Based on your review of the investigative file, you are aware
22 that the location where the shell impacted was in the vicinity of the
23 school of economics; correct?
24 A. Well, we looked at its position at impact, taking into account
25 the sketch of the Vase Miskina Street, 5 metres from the door, opposite
1 the Planika facility, et cetera. We oriented it to the data given in the
2 report and the sketch of the scene.
3 Q. Okay. The conclusions of the investigators conflict with your
4 opinion in this case insofar as they determined the shell came from the
5 area of Trebevic; right?
6 A. Well, obviously they did not take into account all the elements
7 that we had analysed, as you've seen --
8 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... ma'am, I'm just asking to be
9 clear. I'm just trying to define the issue that you're really taking.
10 The conclusions of the investigators conflict with your opinion
11 in this case, as they determined that it came from the area of Trebevic;
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. You based your opinion for the angle of descent for the shelling
15 of Vase Miskina on photos and your visit to the location in September of
16 2010; right?
17 A. No. Those photographs that we made in 2010 are in full accord
18 with the photographs that are in the photo documentation of the CSB and
19 that was subsequently compiled. And it is not in accord with the
20 original photo documentation that was made when help was provided and
21 before Vase Miskina Street was cleared.
22 So these two documentations are not in accord with one another,
23 and we don't know when this other documentation was made. And I already
24 said that it was on the 10th of August that year that it was added to the
25 case file and that that was written in hand, so we saw that on the
1 original footage and on Robert Rogers' photographs because that was
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I get some clarification.
4 Ms. Subotic, you are recorded at page 54, starting at line 2, to
5 say: "No, those photographs that we made in 2010 are in full accord with
6 the photographs that are in the photo documentation of the CSB, and that
7 was subsequently compiled."
8 And then the next sentence: "And it is not in accord with the
9 original photo documentation that was made when help was provided and
10 before Vase Miskina Street was cleared ..."
11 Do I understand that there are three different sets of
12 photographs: The photographs made by you in 2010; the photographs made
13 by the CSB, those are in accord; and then there are photographs that were
14 made to help which was -- when help was provided at the street.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. Your understanding is
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
18 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 1D05498,
19 English e-court page 45 only, focussing on the image. And if we could
20 please focus on the image.
21 Q. This is the side-by-side comparison photograph that was discussed
22 with you on direct examination at transcript page 39144 and shortly
24 According to the end of the paragraph immediately above the
25 photo - if we could please see that - the -- according to this
1 paragraph and the caption, the photo on the left is the Roger Richards
2 image and the one on the right from the BiH MUP investigative file from
3 this event; correct?
4 A. Yes. From that documentation that the investigators compiled
5 after the clearing -- at least that is what is written there after the
6 wounded were carried away. However, we don't know when. And then the
7 handwritten note pertains to that photo documentation. What I said a
8 moment ago. It said that it was on the 10th of August, 1992, that this
9 was attached to the file.
10 Q. Ma'am, please focus on my questions. I will just go step by step
11 and it will actually go faster that way.
12 The photo from the investigative file appears to be taken from
13 immediately above the crater here; correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Looking down at footnote 66 - and I see you have your report in
16 front you - you specify the ERN range of the photo file and the
17 particular ERN 00267984 for the specific photo on the right. You then
18 state: "The distortion has been eliminated from this photograph in order
19 to show it side by side." And you also state: "This correction did not
20 in any way alter the facts as depicted in the photograph."
21 My question: Did you use any computer software, Photoshop or
22 some other sort of image editing software, on the BiH MUP photograph?
23 A. My colleague made this compilation of two photographs, and
24 obviously he equated the measures of the tiles on both photographs so
25 that they could be matched.
1 Q. What is the name of this colleague?
2 A. Mr. Mile Poparic, the co-signatory of my report and my associate.
3 Q. In your previous testimony in the Karadzic case, at transcript
4 page 38362, you discussed a contemporary technology which "allows for
5 each such photograph to be placed in a vertical position by computer
6 analysis and thereby remove the angle from which it was filmed and
7 deformations caused by the photography that can all be removed."
8 Did you apply or did Mr. Poparic apply this technology to the
9 photo from the investigative file which is before us?
10 A. When I spoke about this position in terms of the orthogonal
11 projection I said then when I testified in the Karadzic case I spoke
12 about figure 17 and you see here that thanks to how the photograph was
13 taken it was easy to correlate the tiles --
14 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I'd like to keep moving. If
15 you could please focus on my question is whether or not that contemporary
16 technology that you spoke was applied to the photograph?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
18 MR. LUKIC: I object. My learned friend was just corrected
19 because he was showing figure 14 and Ms. Subotic told him that they were
20 talking about 17. So it was not right to mislead the witness.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first then check whether it's 14 or 17 and
22 whether it's the same in both cases or whether these are corresponding
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, in the paragraph -- I believe this is
25 not correct. In the paragraph above the figure 14, it says: "In order
1 to facilitate the analysis, figure 14 shows side by side the image of the
2 crater taken by war correspondent Roger Richards and the image of the
3 crater from the photo file made during the onsite investigation by the BH
4 public prosecutor." And then the footnote after the sentence is 66 and
5 then I'm referring to 66, so ...
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could you now answer the question, Witness? Was
7 this software applied or not.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it was applied in the sense
9 that the edges of the left- and the right-hand photographs were brought
10 in line so that the craters could be compared in relation to the
11 sidewalk, the tiles, so that it could be seen clearly that these -- that
12 this is not one and the same crater.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you went, again, beyond the question.
14 Apparently the software was applied. Mr. Weber then will put his next
15 question to you, after you have confirmed, and if there's any further
16 explanation needed, Mr. Lukic has an opportunity in re-examination.
17 So would you please focus your answer on the questions.
18 Mr. Weber.
19 MR. WEBER: Could we keep this photo on the screen, this image on
20 the screen, and next to it please bring up a second photo under 65 ter
21 33168, page 23 of the B/C/S version only.
22 Q. Ms. Subotic, coming up before you will be the BiH MUP
23 investigative file and specifically the photo that you reference in
24 footnote 66.
25 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, if we could leave it as is.
1 Your Honours, if we could keep it as it originally appears in the
2 photo file. It's been rotated.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Is that how it is now? It has been rotated quite
4 a -- couple of times. I don't know whether this is the original. Could
5 you have --
6 Mr. Weber, is the way in which you would like to have it?
7 MR. WEBER: I would have to call up now on my own computer the
8 actual file to see if that's the -- for my purposes, I think I can make
9 do with what's up.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's --
11 MR. WEBER:
12 Q. We see the original photo that you referenced from the photo
13 file. This photo was taken from the side and not from above the crater;
15 A. This photograph, yes. As far as I can remember there was a
16 photograph that was taken in front, in that same photo documentation.
17 Q. I put it to that this photo was edited and changed in angle --
18 ma'am, if I could please ask my question.
19 I put it to you that this photo was edited and changed in angle,
20 in an attempt to create an appearance of a different crater; right?
21 A. Of course that's not correct. There are photographs that were
22 provided here in this expert report from this same documentation that
23 were taken from here, and here you can also see that there is no such
24 case. So that is to say, this photograph did not need to be used. These
25 photographs were not redacted, except that we are talking about figure 14
1 now. The only thing that was done there was as follows: In the
2 photograph that is in the photo documentation, it's not the one that you
3 showed us, the tiles, the size of the tiles was adjusted to that that was
4 taken by war reporter Rogers in order to make a global comparison in
5 terms of what this looks like and one can see that nothing else was done
6 on it. Anyone who is familiar with this technology Photoshop, et cetera
7 is aware of that.
8 So by way of comparison, it is only that -- that the only reason
9 why in Photoshop this was done, in terms of this photograph from the
10 photo documentation.
11 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, if we could just scroll down on the left
12 panel. And a little bit over to the right.
13 Q. Just reading in for the record on the screen before us is ERN
14 00267984. If we could please up just a little bit and a little bit back
15 over to the right so the photo is back in -- centred. Thank you so much.
16 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, at this time could we please take a
17 screen capture of what's on the screen, and I tender that into evidence.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
19 THE REGISTRAR: This screen shot receives exhibit number P7550,
20 Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
22 MR. WEBER: Could the --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just ask you --
24 MR. WEBER: Sure.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Is it the Prosecution's position that what we see on
1 the left, which is the non-adapted photograph, that that depicts the same
2 crater as we see on the photograph taken apparently by Roger Richards?
3 MR. WEBER: Yes. It would be and then --
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's your position?
5 MR. WEBER: It is. I will verify it.
6 [Prosecution counsel confer]
7 MR. WEBER: Okay. I was misunderstanding you. I thought we were
8 talking about the photo on the right.
9 JUDGE ORIE: What I'm talking about is --
10 MR. WEBER: [Overlapping speakers] ... the Richards photo.
11 JUDGE ORIE: You -- it's the position of the Prosecution that the
12 photograph to the left which is taken without any further adaptation by
13 software from the report which was made at the time, depicts the same
14 crater as, if I could say so, in the more greyish photograph taken by
15 Roger Richards, that those craters are the same.
16 MR. WEBER: If I could check one thing and then just report to
17 the Chamber after the next break, that would be great.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 --
21 JUDGE ORIE: One second. One second. One second, please.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
24 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 1D5498, page
25 40 of the English and page 41 of the B/C/S.
1 Q. These are two figures from your shelling report related to the
2 incident. The top figure is from the photo file in 1992 with what
3 appears to be an annotation on it; correct?
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We could not hear the
6 MR. WEBER:
7 Q. Ma'am, if you could please repeat your answer.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. The bottom figure contains photos that you took during your visit
10 in 2010; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. The photos you took are closer to the crater and from a different
13 angle than the investigative file; right?
14 A. Not close to the crater. Later on, it was zoomed in from the
15 photograph. And then details were provided.
16 Q. The area where the shell landed is located in a part of the city
17 with heavy foot traffic; correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. During your visit in 2010, you could see that the blast marks
20 were worn down; correct?
21 A. Yes, yes, that is why they were marked in red so that they would
22 be preserved.
23 Q. Do I understand correctly that, according to figure 7 of your
24 report, you measured the distance between the centre and the farthest
25 edge of the crater to be 16 centimetres?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Directing your attention back to --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: But is the top line on the centre or a
4 few inches -- a distance away from the centre?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't understand what you mean.
6 I'm sorry. The measuring was carried out between the 24th and the 40th
7 centimetre. That was our assessment, I mean.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: The question had been whether the 16 centimetre
9 distance starts from the centre of the crater. I assume that the centre
10 of the crater is that white dot in the centre where your measuring ruler
11 stands and I'm saying is it really from the centre or is it --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise. The photograph
13 with the scale is a photograph from the photo documentation of the
14 Bosnian investigators with the 16 centimetres marked red from the edge of
15 the crater to the edge of the tile.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: So it's not from the centre of the crater. That
17 explains it. Thank you very much.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no. The very edge of the
19 crater to the tile.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
21 MR. WEBER:
22 Q. Directing your attention now to the top photo, you agree that the
23 blast marks from the crater extend beyond 16 centimetres; right? The
24 farthest blast marks?
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Weber, your question has not been transcribed
1 fully, and as a result I can't remember it.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
3 MR. WEBER: I will repeat my question.
4 Q. I was directing your attention back to the top photograph and
5 asking if you agreed that the blast marks from the crater extend beyond
6 16 centimetres? The top photo. You agree; correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think your question was a little bit
9 problematic, Mr. Weber. We were told the 16 centimetres indicate the
10 distance between the line between the blocks on the footpath and the
11 edge -- it's not from the centre of the crater, as the witness responded
12 to Judge Moloto. And, therefore, perhaps you should rephrase your
14 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps would it assist if we have the title that we
16 could read the title of figure 7 in English version. That's on the next
17 page. So that we know what is depicted in --
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We are, at the moment dealing with figure 6.
19 JUDGE ORIE: 6. Okay. Then we'll leave it to figure 6 at this
20 very moment.
21 MR. WEBER: Let's keep moving along. Could the Prosecution
22 please have 65 ter 331 --
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You should put the question in the correct form
24 again with respect to figure 6.
25 MR. WEBER:
1 Q. So what I'm asking you generally - and we do see that there's
2 some measurements that you annotated on here - is whether based on this
3 photo, you would agree that from the centre of that crater, as marked by
4 that white dot to the external peripheral outer traces, that that is more
5 than 16 centimetres?
6 A. It's not the edge of the crater. That is a different effect.
7 Q. I understand you're saying that. What I'm asking you is that
8 distance is more than 16 centimetres; correct?
9 A. Yes. You see that the investigators marked it with chalk.
11 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33168, page
12 5 of the B/C/S and page 3 of the English translation.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, are we at the beginning of a longer
14 exercise --
15 MR. WEBER: We are.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps it's better to -- to take the break
18 We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes, Ms. Subotic. You may
19 follow the usher.
20 [The witness stands down]
21 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at 25 minutes to 2.00.
22 --- Recess taken at 1.15 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 1.40 p.m.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
25 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour, I can report back on -- as I
1 indicated last session with regards -- this is with respect to the
2 Richards photo, what's been called that. In the report, it's not really
3 clear to us what the source of the photograph is. We have independently
4 checked the available information from the institute for genocide and
5 according to the online photo gallery, it does indicate it from
6 Mr. Richards. However, it does not include information on the location
7 of the crater or the site being depicted. So --
8 JUDGE ORIE: That's not what we asked for. We asked whether the
9 position of the Prosecution is that it's the same; yes or no.
10 MR. WEBER: Based on that, which is why I'm saying that, the
11 Prosecution is not able to agree that is the same crater that is being
12 depicted in the Richards photograph.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 [The witness takes the stand]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Let's proceed.
16 And I think that's exactly what the report tells us, that it's
17 not the same crater. Apart from whatever else may have been written
18 there, but --
19 MR. WEBER: I've reported what the known information is and I'm
20 happy to proceed.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
22 MR. WEBER:
23 Q. Ms. Subotic, before you is the first full document in the
24 investigative file for the Vase Miskina Street shelling. It's the
25 official report of the incident dated 30 May 1992. We could not locate
1 reference to this document in the footnotes of your report.
2 Could the Prosecution please have the next page of the English
3 translation, e-court page 4. And if, for the witness, we could please
4 enlarge the lower portion of the page before her.
5 So I believe we are seeking page 5 of the B/C/S, lower half and
6 page 4 of the English translation.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: English page 4.
8 MR. WEBER: We have the correct pages. If we could please zoom
9 in the middle section of the B/C/S version so it is a little bit more
10 visible for her. And if we could -- it's going to the second full
11 paragraph down in the English version.
12 Q. Ms. Subotic, toward the bottom half of the page before you, the
13 report states: "The shell made a 50 by 60 centimetre elliptic-shaped
14 crater on the concrete sidewalk with peripheral traces of 60 to 100
15 centimetres away from the centre of the crater and arranged in an arc
16 around it."
17 The peripheral traces measured in May 1992 indicate that the
18 distance from the centre of the crater to the peripheral traces was at
19 least 40 centimetres; correct?
20 A. Correct. And we quoted this in our report.
21 Q. Based on these measurements, I put it to you the actual angle of
22 descent was much lower than the 83 degrees you arrived at.
23 A. On the basis of these measurements, yes, you are right.
24 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 10 of the
25 B/C/S and page 80 [sic] of the English translation.
1 I'm looking for page 8 of the English translation.
2 Q. Last week at transcript page 39136, you stated regarding this
3 incident: "First of all, there is no police report from an on-site
4 investigation which was conducted at the time of the evacuation."
5 Before you is the 27 May on-site investigation report related to
6 the Vase Miskina shelling. According to the document, an on-site
7 investigation was carried out under the supervision of an investigating
8 judge on the same day of the shelling, 27 May 1992, at 1400 hours.
9 The ballistics findings are in the same document.
10 You agree that there was an on-site investigation on the same day
11 of the shelling; correct?
12 A. When I said that, I meant there was no special police on-site
13 investigation. As for this investigation that was carried out with the
14 investigating judge, we know about that, and it was quoted.
15 Q. At this time, the Prosecution would tender the complete BiH MUP
16 investigative file for the Vase Miskina file under 65 ter 33186. I
17 believe a number was already reserved for it as D1243 MFI and this was at
18 transcript page 39142.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, that is the complete report.
20 MR. LUKIC: The problem, it's obviously recently uploaded a
21 couple of days ago so we really have to go through the same and we are
22 checking when, actually, it was uploaded into the system. So.
23 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ...
24 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... most of this document has
25 never been given to the Defence.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Has it not been disclosed? That's apparently what
2 you are telling us.
3 MR. WEBER: According to our records, copies of this material and
4 files were disclosed in the Karadzic case on 2 February 2010 and also in
5 the Mladic case on 24 February 2012.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: In addition, the witness said she quoted, she had
8 MR. LUKIC: She didn't see this whole document. I'm talking
9 about the whole document.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] I don't know about that.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's been disclosed and if portions of this
12 had been used by your expert, Mr. Lukic, then I take it that you have --
13 is the only issue that you do not know whether this is the complete
14 report or is it there anything else? Is there any other reason why it
15 should not be admitted.
16 MR. LUKIC: I know that I have never seen this document before.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but that's not relevant, whether you or --
18 MR. LUKIC: I thought I saw everything they saw and we are trying
19 to locate it in EDS system, it's not there. So it is not disclosed to
21 JUDGE ORIE: So your conclusion then is that it would have not
22 have been disclosed.
23 MR. WEBER: And, Your Honours, I'm happy to assist Mr. Lukic. I
24 know there are multiple ERNs related to this file. So what I quoted from
25 were copies of this, and I do have an ERN range I can give to Mr. Lukic.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated]
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Microphone. Microphone.
3 MR. LUKIC: I don't understand whether we received more documents
4 and now it's compiled or whether everything was disclosed to us before.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently if the witness says that she referred to
6 it, then it comes a bit as a surprise that the Defence is totally unaware
7 because this is evidence you are presenting before this Chamber.
8 Give me one second, please.
9 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, if I may add ...
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: The problems potentially remaining, Mr. Lukic, is
12 because you used the -- at least portions of this document as well, there
13 are two issues remaining. The one is whether it was never disclosed.
14 Then, still, you apparently were aware of portions of it. The second
15 issue is whether this now is the complete document, yes or no.
16 We'll admit it into evidence. You have one week to revisit one
17 of these questions if there's any reason to do so.
18 Madam Registrar.
19 THE REGISTRAR: The reserved number for the document is D1243,
20 Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence and the Defence has
22 one week to revisit the issues I specifically raised.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, just to assist the Defence, because I
25 think that there are multiple ranges that the file has been restamped.
1 We were showing ERN range 02179616 to 02180115 was disclosed in
2 February 2012 in disclosure batch 5 and then redisclosed again on
3 20 July 2012 in disclosure batch 5.2. If that's assistance.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, if you would read the transcript, it says
5 it was "slowed." Well, perhaps you said that it was disclosed, but
6 perhaps slowing down was the real thing that needed your attention at
7 this very moment.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.
10 At this time the Prosecution also tenders the original video
11 footage related to the shelling under 65 ter 33096A. Ms. Subotic relies
12 on footage from the shelling as part of her report and this is the better
13 quality video we referenced at transcript page 39140.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections.
15 Madam Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Document 33096A receives Exhibit P7551
17 Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And I see that Ms. Stewart is offering the copies on
19 CD. Therefore, P7551 can be admitted and hereby is admitted.
20 MR. WEBER:
21 Q. Ms. Subotic, you are aware that Mount Trebevic is a significant
22 elevation to the south of Sarajevo; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Could the Prosecution please have 1D05498, page 50 of the English
25 and page 51 of the B/C/S. And if we could focus on table 5 -- I believe
1 table 4.
2 In paragraph 15 of your report, where you are discussing the
3 Vase Miskina shelling, you include table 4 with ranges for different
4 82-millimetre shells. Could you please first confirm that these ranges
5 are taken from the 82-millimetre mortar table you reference in footnote
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You did not factor the elevation of Mount Trebevic into these
9 ranges; correct?
10 A. I think the tables were made for 500 metres, but, no, I did
11 not -- well, I had to do it directly. I'd have to check. I mean, plus
12 500 is the standard way of doing these tables. At least over the past 20
14 JUDGE ORIE: I think there may be some misunderstanding.
15 Mr. Weber, you may have not been very precise, but what you
16 wanted to refer to, I take it, is the difference in elevation rather than
17 at what standard elevation you would test these projectiles.
18 Did you, when you used this table, did you consider that there is
19 a difference in altitude for possible places of firing and places of
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- this is.
24 JUDGE ORIE: You have not considered that. That is an answer to
25 my question.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. WEBER: And Your Honour thank you for the clarification.
3 Q. Now for 82-millimetre M74, you list the ranges for the primary
4 charge through charge 4 and nothing for charges 5 and 6. Later in the
5 paragraph, you state that an 82-millimetre M74 fired with charge 6 could
6 have been fired from the territory controlled by the VRS. Based on the
7 tables the information you have for the M74 does not appear to be
8 incorporated into table 4 of your report. Do you agree that we should
9 rely on the actual tables which do indicate that an M74 has the range you
10 describe later in your report?
11 A. I didn't think it was necessary for me to mention the other two
12 either because this has to do with the stabiliser that was found far
13 away. I mean, it doesn't even -- people don't even know where it was
14 found and no attempt was made for it to be in the surface at the place
15 where the explosion took place. That is to say, that no way more than
16 charge 4 could have been used.
17 Q. An M68 82-millimetre mortar is a practice round; correct?
18 A. I don't think so but we can look. I don't think so because these
19 are data for M68, M1. We can look at the tables.
20 Q. I want -- the Chamber actually now has them in evidence. If we
21 could have 65 ter -- I'm sorry, it's just been admitted. Exhibit P7549.
22 And if we could go to page 34 of the B/C/S and page 59 of the English.
23 Could we actually go one page further in the B/C/S. But I
24 believe we can leave the same translated page up. And if we could still
25 go one further, to the end of charge 6 is what I'm looking for. If we
1 could go on. And one more further. Thank you.
2 Thanks for your patience. I'm sorry. We're almost there. One
3 page further. Here we go. Thank you very much.
4 In paragraph 16 of your shelling report, you indicate that the
5 maximum range of an 82-millimetre M74 is 4850 metres. Before you is a
6 page of the firing tables for this type of mortar, and if I direct your
7 attention down to the very last line of it, is it correct that you based
8 the maximum range on the last entry from this page of the table?
9 A. Yes. I don't see where the problem is. But this has nothing to
10 do with what you asked a moment ago.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Wait for the next question, please, Ms. Subotic.
12 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 13 of the
13 B/C/S and page 17 of the translation. And, I apologise, I have some
14 wrong paginations here. If we could go forward six pages in the B/C/S.
15 And if we could please go ... I'm looking for the ERN that ends in 4842,
16 so I believe it's now three pages back.
17 JUDGE ORIE: There's not 42 at the end. There we are.
18 MR. WEBER:
19 Q. All right. Based upon this page of the table, the maximum range
20 for an 82-millimetre M74 mortar fired on charge 2 is 2180 metres;
22 A. Yes. But it doesn't have an angle of descent of 82 to 84
24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
25 A. The angle of descent in this table is indicated for that weapon
1 with that charge as 83 to 84 degrees.
2 Q. Okay. Consistent with the findings of the BiH investigators,
3 Serb military forces in the area of Sarajevo were firing shells on
4 27 May 1992 from the direction of Trebevic; right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. I want to show you something --
7 A. I don't understand the question.
8 Q. Okay. Let's look at an exhibit. Could the Prosecution please
9 have 65 ter 17610 for the witness.
10 This is an intercepted conversation involving Milisav Gagovic
11 from 27 May 1992. Colonel Gagovic was the acting commander of the JNA
12 4th Corps in May 1992. He -- during the conversation he's speaking with
13 a Colonel Cado, who states: "People have just told me that a shell
14 coming from the direction of Trebevic fell down near the faculty of
15 economics and killed five people."
16 "Gagovic: From Trebevic?
17 "Cado: Yes, somewhere from that direction.
18 "Gagovic: Who the fuck is firing from up there constantly."
19 Seeing this, I put it to that you the fact is that Serb forces
20 were aware of the firing from Trebevic on that day and fired in the
21 vicinity of the Vase Miskina shelling referenced here as the faculty of
22 economics. Do you agree?
23 A. No. Maybe you can assert that on of the basis of this, but I
24 don't have that choice unfortunately. I have to show evidence and I must
25 have all the evidence consistent with each other in order to determine a
1 direction of fire. I would maybe have -- like to have the same degree of
2 liberty as you do, but I don't.
3 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution tenders 65 ter 17610 into evidence.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar -- Mr. Lukic.
5 MR. LUKIC: We always object to these intercepts.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's the standard objection and that
7 objection is denied.
8 Madam Registrar.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Document 17610 receives Exhibit P7552,
10 Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: P7552 is admitted into evidence.
12 MR. WEBER:
13 Q. Ms. Subotic, we just have a couple of remaining moments, so I'll
14 just try to cover some general questions before the end of the day.
15 If multiple projectiles were fired at the same location within a
16 period of time of not more than 15 minutes, do you agree that this shows
17 that the location is being intentionally targeted?
18 A. It would be logical to conclude that.
19 Q. Okay. If multiple projectiles were fired into the same
20 half-kilometre area over the course of four to six hours, do you agree
21 that the intention is to target that area?
22 A. As you said, I'm not a military expert. I don't want to
23 interfere into tactics. Let's say that I would try to get away from that
24 area. I cannot give you a qualified answer.
25 Q. That's why I was asking --
1 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... Mr. Weber, the Chamber, at
2 various moments, has made observations as to what are the limits of the
3 expertise of this witness, and I would like you to keep in mind those
4 limits as well.
5 MR. WEBER: Of course, Your Honours. I appreciate your
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
8 MR. WEBER: And actually, Your Honours, I'm about to start into a
9 large different area. I know it's a couple of minutes early --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps better not to interrupt if it is --
11 unless you would have one or two small questions, but if not. It's of
12 some concern anyhow, Mr. Weber, that you don't have a few small
13 questions, but then perhaps it's better to adjourn for the day.
14 Ms. Subotic, same instruction applies as I gave the previous
15 days. We adjourn for the day. Since we are not sitting on Fridays,
16 we'll adjourn until Monday, the 5th of October, 9.30 in this same
17 Courtroom I, and you, again, hereby are instructed not to communicate
18 with whomever about your testimony, either given or still to be given.
19 You may follow the usher.
20 THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic, you're supposed not to speak aloud. If
22 you want to bring anything to the attention -- and you have been
23 communicating the whole of the morning with the public gallery which you
24 are supposed not to do, so please refrain from doing it. Focus on what
25 happens here rather than on the public gallery.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 JUDGE ORIE: However, before we really adjourn --
3 THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic, if you want to in any way address the
5 Chamber, you can do so through counsel.
6 Mr. Stojanovic, if there's really anything then ...
7 [Defence counsel confer]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic, your behaviour is fully contrary to what
9 you're expected to do, and that's already the whole of the morning.
10 Mr. Stojanovic, anything to be addressed at this moment.
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Very briefly, Your Honour. What
12 Mr. Mladic was trying to protest is that his request to have a visit
13 today was rejected, and he is protesting because the Detention Unit did
14 not allow that visit. That's all. Nothing else that is not connected
15 with the goings-on in the courtroom.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, you know exactly how to deal with
17 any request which is denied and how to approach that. And you also know
18 that the Trial Chamber is not involved in such matters and Mr. Mladic is
19 apparently insistent on his bad behaviour. We leave it to that.
20 But I would -- I would like to briefly deal with a matter before
21 we adjourn in private session.
22 Could we turn into private session.
23 [Private session]
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
1 We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume Monday, the 5th of
2 October, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.16 p.m.,
4 to be reconvened on Monday, the 5th day of October,
5 2015, at 9.30 a.m.