1 Wednesday, 7 October 2015
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.38 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 The Chamber was informed that the Defence wanted to raise a
12 preliminary matter. But before we do that, I apologise for the late
13 start. I apologise, not the Chamber. I do.
14 MR. LUKIC: Good morning, Your Honours.
15 We have several open issues, and one of them is that the
16 Prosecution, on October the 1st, on transcript pages 39612, line 24, to
17 39613, line 3, said and gave us the ERN range numbers that should
18 correspond now to D1243, and we said that we didn't see the whole
19 document, and only pages from that document, 5 to 8, 10, 11, and 13 from
20 that range were disclosed to the Defence previously. So only after the
21 Prosecution uploaded 33 -- 65 ter 33168 we have the rest of the document.
22 We checked on EDS and that's what we could find.
23 Next --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could you remind me what it was. Because you'll
25 understand that I have no recollection just on the top of my head.
1 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I believe we're discussing the Vase
2 Miskina shelling file from the 27th of May, 1992. I do believe that --
3 JUDGE ORIE: By the way -- and, Mr. Lukic, this was your first
5 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps it's better to immediately hear from
7 the Prosecution.
8 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution, as we've indicated before, is happy
9 to sit down with counsel and go through the records. We -- this hasn't
10 been discussed with us, so we're happy to go through our disclosures and
11 everything, these are similar matters, and direct them to where the
12 materials were disclosed.
13 JUDGE ORIE: If they were disclosed. Because that's the issue,
15 MR. WEBER: Yes, but if --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's -- you do that and then we'll hear
17 whether there is still a disclosure issue or not.
18 Next one, Mr. Lukic.
19 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. The next item is video that we did
20 not have ERN number. It's 1D05916 --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Video of?
22 MR. LUKIC: Video of -- it's compilation of Markale and Dobrinja,
23 I think, and there is something from the later stage.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's the video. I see you have it in your
1 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: So you want to give it to the Registry. And was a
3 number assigned already? You'll understand that not knowing what the
4 65 ter number -- the ERN number or -- no.
5 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe that the number assigned was
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could well be.
8 MR. WEBER: And --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar confirms, yes.
10 MR. WEBER: And, again -- I mean, I'm not sure if these are all
11 going to be in the same vein, but we're happy to discuss with counsel,
12 and that we wanted just verification of the ERN for it. And I know that
13 Mr. Lukic's colleague has informed me that the video might have presented
14 in court, thereby without an ERN, and there was a transcript reference.
15 So if there's transcript reference, that's all we're really waiting for
16 just so we could verify it.
17 MR. LUKIC: We can do even better. We have ERN number.
18 MR. WEBER: [Microphone not activated] Okay.
19 MR. LUKIC: It's V000-8939. And it came through Sead Besic and
20 was tendered through Turkusic, Emir.
21 MR. WEBER: I guess I'm a bit confused if counsel is saying that
22 the video is already tendered and admitted. But aside from that, we're
23 happy to check the video that was played against that ERN, and if there's
24 any difficulties we'll re-raise it with the Chamber. I don't want to
25 unnecessarily hold up counsel's exhibits, so we will raise that
1 independently if that's an issue.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
3 Mr. Lukic, you said it was tendered. It wasn't admitted. What's
4 the status of --
5 MR. LUKIC: I just have the reference that it was tendered.
6 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
7 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar informs me that it was admitted, or
9 I take it then provisionally admitted if there's no --
10 MR. LUKIC: Probably some portions. Not the portions we played
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then what we then should do --
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What is the 65 ter number? That would help.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And I do understand that the matter was dealt with
15 on the 30th of September.
16 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
17 JUDGE ORIE: And most likely, but I'm speaking on behalf of the
18 authority of Madam Registrar, the 65 ter number -- the doc ID would be
20 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: That's the 65 ter number. And the number.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: That is 1267, yes. So what you then, as a matter of
24 fact, wish, Mr. Lukic, is that you wanted the existing video be replaced
25 by the newly uploaded one?
1 MR. LUKIC: I didn't understand 1267, is it 65 ter?
2 JUDGE ORIE: No, that's -- D1267 is an exhibit number.
3 MR. LUKIC: Then we will replace the existing one with a new one.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I guess what caused me confusion in
6 Mr. Lukic's statement was that the reference to being previously
7 tendered, and I believe Mr. Lukic indicated it was Mr. Turkusic, which
8 was quite a while ago, that's when --
9 JUDGE ORIE: It's my information that it was done with Mr. Besic
10 on 30th of September. Then I'm mistaken.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: It was, I do understand, 30th September. Of course,
13 Ms. Subotic was -- was --
14 MR. WEBER: Ms. Stewart has kindly provided some additional
15 information. It appears that some of this video, just to put the pieces
16 together, was tendered with Mr. Turkusic as Exhibit D352. Previously.
17 So --
18 JUDGE ORIE: This was previously and then it was more portions
19 then, or at least another selection was tendered, with Ms. Subotic.
20 MR. WEBER: It's not clear right now to the Prosecution the exact
21 whole time of what's being tendered now, so if we could just verify what
22 portions are that would be just appreciated and with that we can go
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, what we'll do is if you hand over, or
25 perhaps you have done that already, the video, then within the next 48
1 hours we'd like to hear the result of your short conversation with
2 Mr. Weber. We'll then also hear from Mr. Weber whether there's any
3 objection against this new version of most likely D1267.
4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Next one.
6 MR. LUKIC: We -- I noticed that I did not offer into evidence
7 our exhibits on the first day, so I have that list with me, or you want
8 me to do the whole thing with Mr. Weber?
9 JUDGE ORIE: If -- how long is the list?
10 MR. LUKIC: Seven, eight.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then I would -- then I would suggest that you --
12 when you meet anyhow with Mr. Weber, that he considers whether or not
13 there's any objection, you read the numbers and ...
14 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour. I'm not sure what the exact list
15 is. If we could have it. We've had full discussions over the exhibits
16 from the list last Friday about what we do not oppose, so if -- I don't
17 know to what degree the current list incorporates that, but that's the
18 current status, it's my understanding, of where those discussions are at.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you check whether your exhibits are the
20 ones, the non-opposables. If so, you can just read them into the record
21 and then we'll deal with it very quickly. If there's anything else, then
22 I will hear from you.
23 MR. LUKIC: Okay, thank you. I'll wait to discuss it with
24 Mr. Weber.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we hear from you preferably this week.
1 These were the matters you wanted to raise.
2 Could the witness then be escorted in the courtroom.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Judge Fluegge reminds me that "this week" means
5 not later than tomorrow, because we have -- [Overlapping speakers].
6 MR. LUKIC: That's what I was concerned about. I don't know if
7 we are going to -- whether we will be able to finish everything.
8 JUDGE ORIE: We'll see.
9 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Ms. Subotic.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Again, I remind you, you know the routine, although
15 it's a routine with a meaning, that you are still bound by the solemn
16 declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
17 Mr. Weber will now continue his cross-examination.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise. I --
19 JUDGE ORIE: You made the calculations?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: That's highly appreciated. Could you give them to
22 the usher. And then if the parties would not object, the Chamber would
23 have a look at it and then it will be distributed.
24 Please proceed, meanwhile.
25 WITNESS: ZORICA SUBOTIC [Resumed]
1 [Witness answered through interpreter]
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Weber: [Continued]
3 Q. Good morning again, Ms. Subotic.
4 A. Good morning.
5 Q. The 122-millimetre Grad rocket is designed to be launched from a
6 multi-barrel rocket-launcher; correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. The 122-millimetre Grad rocket has no guidance system; right?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Grad is just a nickname. The more formal name for the
11 122-millimetre Grad rocket is the M-21-OF; correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. In the Karadzic testimony, at transcript page 38484, you were
15 "Q. Right. Well, I'm going to put this to you that rockets are
16 not designed to be fired simultaneously. They're designed to be fired in
17 a salvo, which is to say consecutively, albeit with extremely short
18 durations of time between the exit of each rocket from the MBRL?"
19 Your answer:
20 "Well, we're discussing this all this time. This is what I told
21 you to start with, didn't I?
22 "So you'll agree with that assertion," was the next question.
23 Your answer was:
24 "That's what I already said at the beginning."
25 Do you stand by this testimony.
1 A. Yes, of course.
2 Q. By rockets being fired in a salvo, there's a distance created
3 between each rocket in the air, correct, since they are fired
5 A. Minimal. If a salvo is being fired you choose the number of
6 rockets that you are going to fire. And then through the firing system,
7 that is regulated. If three or four are being fired, salvos,
8 conditionally speaking, then it is a very small time distance, if we can
9 put it that way.
10 Q. The amount of impulsive force is different if an air bomb is
11 propelled by one rocket, three rockets, or four rockets; correct?
12 A. Yes, it is different. The total impulsive force, yes.
13 Q. Given that we are dealing with rockets of different numbers and
14 air bombs of different weights, the total mass of each modified air bomb
15 in each variety is different; correct?
16 A. Every construction solution has a different mass, individually
17 speaking, yes.
18 Q. Given there was a --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, sorry to interrupt you, but earlier you
20 said aerial bombs to be fired. It was my understanding that you drop
21 aerial bombs from planes and that, therefore, you don't fire them but you
22 release them and that they -- so I'm a bit puzzled by what you said about
23 firing aerial bombs if not mounted with rockets.
24 MR. WEBER: I -- I don't know if Your Honour is referring to line
25 24 of page 8. But I meant to be saying in that that when asking if the
1 air bomb is propelled by the rockets, so referring to then a modified --
2 it being -- the air bomb being attached with a rocket.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because earlier you said they are not -- yes.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: I think it was a little bit further back that
6 you ... let me see.
7 [Prosecution counsel confer]
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I believe my earlier question might have
10 been with respect to the rockets, not necessarily the air bomb. I don't
11 know if that's what you're referring to.
12 JUDGE ORIE: By rockets being fired in a salvo -- let me just
13 see. Yes, it's all about rockets and not about ... yes, I now better
14 understand where I went wrong. But if you are talking about rockets
15 attached to an aerial bomb, then if that's what you mean, or rockets
16 being fired separately apart from being mounted on an aerial bomb, then
17 it may become clearer for me.
18 MR. WEBER: I will keep that in mind. I was earlier referring
19 just the rockets.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Just the rockets. Yes, thank you.
21 MR. WEBER:
22 Q. Ms. Subotic, given that there was a different combination of mass
23 and propulsive force for each of the configurations of modified air
24 bombs, the ballistic properties for each of the configurations was
25 different; correct?
1 A. Well, that's not correct. Each individual one went within a
2 technical solution. It's not that every one of them went individually.
3 There were FAB-100s and FAB-200s. The 100 had three motors and 250 had
4 three and four motors, so these were separate technical solutions. It's
5 not that each and every one of them was different. Each and every
6 modified air bomb, that is.
7 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
9 MR. LUKIC: I think that Ms. Subotic should answer again since
10 everything was not recorded correctly.
11 JUDGE ORIE: If there's any doubt in that respect --
12 Could you please.
13 MR. WEBER: And I --
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- repeat your answer. I noticed that at least the
15 FAB-200 -- FAB-200 a little bit later were FAB-250.
16 MR. LUKIC: I think it's even correct but for 100 it is --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Could you repeat what you said about the
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, I said it's not true
20 that each bomb had its own design, its own technical solution. Within
21 certain technical solutions there existed FAB-100, which had one rocket
22 or three; and FAB 200, which had a three-motor or four-motor option.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
25 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 1D5497;
1 page 222 in the B/C/S and page 246 in the English. And we may need to
2 rotate the image. Yes, thank you.
3 Q. This is what appears to be a thrust diagram for a 122-millimetre
4 Grad rocket from Appendix 2 of your modified air bomb report. The
5 information in this chart is for a single Grad rocket; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Where did you get this information from?
8 A. From my lab which tested these Grad rockets.
9 Q. According to this chart, the propulsive force of a Grad rocket is
10 used up in about 1.8 seconds; correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. You agree that it would be vitally important to ensure the
13 accuracy of an air bomb, if it is modified with multiple rockets attached
14 to it, that each of the rockets ignite at exactly the same moment?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Let's say -- and I want to direct you back to this chart. Let's
17 say there is an air bomb with four rockets attached it, and one of the
18 rockets were to ignite .4 of a second after the other three. This one
19 rocket would still be burning .4 of a second after the other three stop
20 burning; correct?
21 A. Hypothetically, it's true. However, such a rocket does not
22 exist. It doesn't pass the checks, the tests, and there are a series of
23 tests measuring the time of ignition and the time of burning. These
24 tests are made on every series of motors and these never pass assembly.
25 .4 would be extremely high. You see how much it is. It's 20 per cent of
1 the total burning. It's absolutely out of the question.
2 Q. Ma'am, if we could stay focused. According to your graph with .4
3 seconds left in the fuel tank, the impulsive force being driven on the
4 modified air bomb from, let's say, that one last rocket is still going to
5 be 25.000 newtons down to 0; right? That's what this chart would
7 A. No, this chart shows what kind of propulsion force a regular
8 Grad motor has, what its burning is like, how the propulsive force
9 develops in the chamber, and how it disperses during the burning. It
10 doesn't show anything like what you said.
11 Q. In the Karadzic case at transcript page 38494, a question was put
12 to you:
13 "I want to put it to you that after -- with 0.4 seconds left in
14 the fuel tank, if you like, the impulsive force being driven on the
15 modified air bomb system by that one rocket that is still going is by
16 your own graph 25.000 Newtons decreasing down to 0. Do you accept that?"
17 You answered:
18 "Yes, that is indeed the case."
19 That was your previous testimony; right?
20 A. I said that previously, but that's a hypothetical proposition.
21 Such a thing does not exist. Such a thing does not happen. Because a
22 motor like that does not ever get through to assembly.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I'm afraid, to the extent I understand the
24 discussion, you're talking at cross-purposes.
25 Mr. Weber presents a chart in which the development of the
1 propelling power is shown and then asked questions about the consequences
2 if the rockets are not ignited exactly at the same time.
3 You're saying it doesn't say anything about that because you do
4 not accept that it could happen that they do not ignite at the same time.
5 And that's the reason why you say it's all hypothetical, because it
6 wouldn't have passed assembly.
7 Now you can go on for a long time to do this, but the core
8 therefore is two questions: First, how precise is the simultaneously --
9 is the ignition simultaneous, is it really exactly the same time; and if
10 not, what are the consequences for the trajectory or at least for the
11 flight path.
12 I think these are the two core questions Mr. Weber wants to touch
13 upon. If you try to understand that and not say it has got nothing to do
14 with it, because it has something to do it, irrespective of whether it
15 would have passed assembly. If the ignition is not accurately
16 simultaneous, then, of course, that may have consequences, I take it.
17 You say that doesn't exist. Mr. Weber is putting questions about that
19 I think -- I tried to find out how much you were in
20 cross-purposes. I hope you both are now on the same line again so that
21 we can receive useful testimony.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. WEBER:
24 Q. Absolutely synchronised ignition of a modified air bomb with
25 three to four rockets is impossible to achieve; correct.
1 MR. WEBER: I see that the transcript refers says "absolutely
2 ignition." I was referring to "absolutely synchronised ignition."
3 Q. I'm sorry, ma'am. Could you please answer the question.
4 A. Synchronised ignition is precisely defined by designed
5 documentation, and its tolerances are determined in such a way that it
6 has no influence on dispersion at target.
7 Q. In the Karadzic case your co-author, Mr. Poparic, testified at
8 transcript page 39038 to the following:
9 "Q. The modified air bombs with three and four rockets required
10 absolutely synchronous ignition of those rockets; correct?"
11 His answer:
12 "Absolutely synchronised ignition does not exist; it's impossible
13 to achieve."
14 He then went on to explain the requirements. Do you agree with
15 Mr. Poparic?
16 A. Absolutely.
17 MR. WEBER: Can the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33191 for the
18 witnesses. And if we could please just have one of the images in front
19 of us.
20 Q. Before you is a photograph that was taken by an investigator of
21 the Office of the Prosecutor on 19 April 1996 in Vogosca. We see that
22 there's four rocket motors attached in a manner that they were supposed
23 to be used with a modified air bomb; correct?
24 A. I really see four motors here linked into one whole, but I don't
25 see a bomb. It's possible they were used, but I cannot see that from
1 this photograph.
2 Q. For a modified air bomb to be attached with a rocket system like
3 the one we see here, it would be important, if not vital, that each
4 rocket is connected in a manner that is exactly parallel to each other
5 rocket; correct?
6 A. That's one of the conditions.
7 Q. Another thing if you're going to connect this to an air bomb, the
8 assembly that we see here would have to be exactly parallel to the air
9 bomb itself; correct?
10 A. Relative to the horizontal axis of the air bomb, yes.
11 Q. If we could go into the -- focus in on the -- let's take the rear
12 part of the upper right rocket.
13 We are zoomed into the rear part of one of the rockets. Do you
14 see the pieces of metal that are underneath what appears to be a -- I'll
15 describe it as a greyish/green metal band?
16 A. If this is a metal band, I see something greyish/green and it
17 does look like a band.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, could you, with the assistance of the
19 usher, take care that the cursor moves in such a way that we know exactly
20 what you're talking when you're talking about the metal band.
21 MR. WEBER: Sure. If the -- if the court usher could please go
22 to the right -- to the back end of the rocket that's visible on the
23 screen. To the back end of it, please. To --
24 JUDGE ORIE: That's the far end.
25 MR. WEBER: Yes, to the far right.
1 JUDGE ORIE: The back is where the -- where the seven circles
2 are --
3 MR. WEBER: Correct --
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- or the seven dark spots. Yes.
5 MR. WEBER: Yes. So right there do you see what appears to be --
6 I'm going to describe it as a piece of metal underneath what -- a band on
7 the rocket.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Is that where the cursor is now at this moment?
9 MR. WEBER: Yes, at the top of what I'm referring to as a piece
10 of metal, underneath the band.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And that piece of metal is then where. Could you --
12 MR. WEBER: It's right on it. Now it just moved off it.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let's see just a little bit up, then. There it is?
14 Is that what you --
15 MR. WEBER: Nope, a little off. If you're following the
16 circle -- there it is.
17 JUDGE ORIE: There it is. Okay.
18 Please proceed.
19 Perhaps it later could be marked, so let's keep the picture as it
20 is at this moment.
21 MR. WEBER:
22 Q. Ma'am, do you see what I'm referring to? What I'm directing
23 to you -- is that the stabiliser of the rocket that's fastened under --
24 that's fastened what is a band, what I'm describing as a band?
25 A. I really can't see that from this position on this kind of
1 photograph. Yes, there is something.
2 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution would tender the photograph into
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The photograph is not clear.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Nevertheless, in order to understand what
6 we're talking about, it's good that that portion will be marked. Now,
7 you can invite the witness to do so, but it should be clear then that
8 it's not her expression of the marking --
9 MR. WEBER: Yes --
10 JUDGE ORIE: -- because she has the pen and she's in control at
11 this moment.
12 Mr. Usher, could you please assist the witness.
13 Witness, it's perfectly clear that it's not primarily your
14 testimony but that you mark the area where the cursor is now and that it
15 only reflects where the cursor was at the time. You make perhaps a
16 little cross. A tiny little cross there. No, could you -- no. Could
17 you erase that, Mr. Usher.
18 Witness the only thing is a tiny little cross at the spot where
19 the cursor was a second ago and where the pen is now.
20 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, this is up. It's not exactly the same
22 place, as a matter of fact. It is -- could it -- could it be erased
24 Mr. Usher, perhaps you -- yes. I think that was the spot, if all
25 parties agree. Yes, that's then the little blue cross. That's where the
1 witness marked where the cursor was a second ago, and it's not her own
2 that it's -- means anything.
3 Please, Madam Registrar, the number would be for this enlarged
4 zoomed in photograph marked by the witness.
5 THE REGISTRAR: P7562, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence. Please proceed.
7 MR. WEBER: And, Your Honours, if I could also tender the full
8 photo, 65 ter 33191 into evidence.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We want this to be separate exhibits, yes.
10 Madam Registrar the full photograph.
11 THE REGISTRAR: The full photograph of document 33191 receives
12 Exhibit P7563, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
14 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
15 MR. WEBER:
16 Q. Modified air bombs were launched on rails; correct?
17 A. Yes. These modified air bombs were launched from a rail
19 Q. If we could step by step, please. The length of the rails
20 impacts the precision of the modified air bomb. For example, a rail that
21 is 25 metres long will be more precise than one that is 4 to 6 metres
22 long; correct?
23 A. I think it's quite enough to secure the whole length of the bomb
24 together with a motor, plus one length. That's quite enough.
25 Q. I'll ask if you confirm a part of your previous testimony at page
1 38498 in the Karadzic case:
2 "Q. Well, it looks like we've reached agreement that the length
3 of the rails will have an impact on the precision?"
4 Your answer was:
5 "Yes, on the precision, but this has no bearing on the range
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, the problem is that the witness doesn't
8 answer your question. The witness says what she thinks is enough,
9 whereas your question was whether 25 metres would be better than 4 to 6
10 metres. So therefore, Witness, if you would please answer the questions.
11 That saves a lot of time. Do you agree that a rail of 25 metres would
12 give more precision than a rail that is 4 to 6 metres long?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know why exactly 25 metres.
14 I can't understand that. It's very important --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you don't have to understand that. The
16 question simply is whether it gives more precision, not in range but in
17 the direction of firing.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Higher precision in terms of
19 dispersion of target, that could be. But not necessarily. It's not a
20 pre-condition. They just provide a more secure start.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Which means a more secure flight path, isn't it?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. The thing is, it would
23 positively influence the reduction of impulse at start that the rocket
24 has when it leaves the rail launcher. In the beginning of flight of any
25 projectile, there are disturbances at the beginning that affect
1 precision. This perhaps could be favourable because it could reduce
2 these initial disturbances.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
4 MR. WEBER:
5 Q. In paragraph 167 of your modified air bomb report, you state:
6 "It was assumed that the average range of bombs was 6.000
8 This was the base-line distance you used for the range of a
9 modified air bomb; right?
10 A. No. That was the basic distance for which we determined
11 precision. That is the distance at which we defined precision and
12 conducted further analyses because, of course, we were in a position to
13 determine exact distances of firing in the incidents that we analysed.
14 For the most part.
15 Q. Okay. Since it appears you say that the average range of bombs
16 was 6.000 metres, would it be correct that the angle of elevation of the
17 rails would either increase or decrease the range of the modified air
18 bomb and the distance it travels to the target?
19 A. The start angle is always a parameter that is closely related to
21 Q. Yes. So if the rails would be either raised or lowered, that
22 would affect whether the modified air bomb could possibly travel,
23 according to you, more than 6.000 metres or less than 6.000 metres;
25 A. Correct.
1 Q. In paragraph 11 of your report, it appears that you take issue
2 with Berko Zecevic's calculations for modified air bomb of between 4800
3 and 6800 metres. The fact is your assumed range falls within the ranges
4 provided by Mr. Zecevic, and actually Mr. Zecevic's ranges appear to be a
5 bit conservative compared to yours; right?
6 A. No. What you just said is a conflation. In our analysis, we
7 made analysis of precision for an average range. That's one kind of
8 range. There is a point in our report where we contested the analyses of
9 Mr. Zecevic, and they refer to ricochet start angles, ricochet angles on
10 the ground, the exact co-ordinates at sites that he referred to,
11 et cetera --
12 Q. Ma'am --
13 A. Those are different things.
14 Q. Those are different things. I was just focusing on the range
15 that he says. You agree that your average range falls within the ranges
16 that he calculated; right?
17 A. He also dealt with ranges of 8.000 metres and various other
18 ranges. Maybe at one place we coincided.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, why don't you answer the question? The
20 question is about a range given by Mr. Zecevic between 4800 and 6800,
21 whether the range you calculated - that is, 6.000 plus or minus - falls
22 within that range. That was the simple question.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The question is simple but it's not
24 correctly put because it's not the same analysis. He was not contested
25 on the ranges he proposed.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then if you are contesting - and that's apparently
2 what your answer implies - that Mr. Zecevic calculated the range between
3 4800 and 6800, then we'll check that or Mr. Weber will put it to you,
4 perhaps now or later, that that is what Mr. Zecevic says. And if you
5 then says he does not, then at least we know where the difference of you
7 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
8 Yes, I saw you looking at the clock. I should have done that.
9 Let's take a break, and the witness may follow the usher. And we'd like
10 to see you back in 20 minutes.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at ten minutes to 11.00.
13 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
14 --- On resuming at 10.50 a.m.
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
17 MR. WEBER: I did further confirmation and checking over the
18 break on what Mr. Zecevic listed as the effective range for the modified
19 air bombs. For a FAB-100, it was 4.145 to 5.560 metres, and the
20 effective range of a FAB-250 as 5.820 to 7.680 metres, and this is being
21 based on --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Is that anywhere in evidence before us?
23 MR. WEBER: No, Your Honours. It's based on his testimony and --
24 well, Your Honours, I believe that there are some adjudicated facts that
25 relate to range of modified air bombs which may be based in part upon
2 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a look at them.
3 [The witness takes the stand]
4 JUDGE ORIE: And the difference in range is the result of the
5 angle of firing or.
6 MR. WEBER: That -- that -- that is my understanding.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well --
8 MR. WEBER: But I --
9 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will not deliver its judgement on the
10 basis of the understanding of the OTP if --
11 MR. WEBER: I would -- I understand that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: So please try to be precise in that respect.
13 Mr. Weber, you may continue.
14 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.
15 Q. Ms. Subotic, a fully assembled modified air bomb as well as the
16 launch systems for the modified air bombs would have to have had to be
17 manufactured under tightly controlled factory conditions and thoroughly
18 tested before being approved for use; right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In order to fire any modified air bomb with accuracy, you would
21 need detailed firing tables; correct?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Nowhere in your report do you refer to contemporaneous test data
24 from 1994 or 1995 for modified air bombs or the system used to launch it;
1 A. Yes, that is correct. That was not the subject of this analysis.
2 Q. Do you accept that a modified air bomb could be off target by at
3 least - and I'll just use this as a figure - 250 metres in any direction?
4 A. No, not in any direction. There are exact calculations involved
5 and probably certain deviations, and we'd have to know in some of these
6 deviations are larger and in other cases they are smaller, so we'd have
7 to take a look. It's that kind of a system. We'd have to see what kind
8 of range we're looking at and what this is all about. In principle that
9 can happen, but again it's not in any direction. Just one. That would
10 probably be the biggest deviation that could be found in the system.
11 Q. Okay.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try to understand. In every direction I
13 understand to be the left, to the right, short, and long. You said it
14 could be found not in any direction. Just one. Which one? Or would you
15 say that it never would go -- which one?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to say, and I thought that
17 I was precise enough, it behaves differently during flight depending on
18 the range. Deviation in terms of direction and in terms of distance. It
19 cannot be that big in both ways. It's either in terms of distance or in
20 terms of direction. That's the nature of the system. That is how the
21 forces work. That is how the flight takes place. I never saw anything
22 that big, but let's say it's up to 200 metres.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Now let me to try to understand. You say it's
24 either the direction or the range. Do I understand you well that if
25 there's a deviation in the range - that is, that it's short or longer -
1 that it couldn't deviate to the left and to the right?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, not to that extent. Perhaps
3 to a smaller extent. It's not going to be 200 left, 200 right, 200
4 front, 200 back. If it is range, then it is considerably less in terms
5 of direction and vice versa.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any data or tables for -- or any outcome
7 of research on that, for the specific modified air bombs?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, I have told you. I had
9 tables in my hands from 1990-something and 2002, so, yes, I did see that.
10 JUDGE ORIE: These are firing tables which is something not
11 exactly the same as research on deviation.
12 My question is: Do you have not what you once had in your hands,
13 but do you have any reliable documentation on the deviations either in
14 the -- in short, long, left, or right, any test results or whatever, so
15 that we can look at it.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The results of the testing were
17 certainly included in firing tables. They're always attained in an
18 experimental way. They're not being calculated --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But we don't have the firing tables. You once
20 had them in your hands. And now I'm asking you whether you have any of
21 these test results, and you say you can't produce them. You don't have
22 them so that we can look at them.
23 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have a follow-up.
25 What Mr. Weber asked you was whether the deviation could be 250
1 metres. You say no it could be less. How much less?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I saw up to 200, 210. But
3 again, I'm saying not at the same time in the same range.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Weber's question didn't include time. He just
5 asked whether you accept that the deviation would 250 metres in any
6 direction. You're saying no, not 250. 200, 210. Thank you so much.
7 JUDGE ORIE: But then just for my understanding, it could be 200
8 metres to the left or 200 metres to the right?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Which then covers 400 metres; or on 210 metres, 420
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And now short and long, the same? Also 200 to 2140
14 metres short or 200 and 210 metres long.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In terms of range, I think a bit
16 less. Because the very characteristic of forces of reaction leads to
17 more dispersion in terms of direction.
18 The bigger the range is, the smaller the dispersion is.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you have any documentary test results so
20 that we can look at those?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Not except for those tables I
22 said you could ask for.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I just understand one thing.
25 Ma'am, you're talking of dispersion. Does an air bomb disperse
1 or does it -- is it just one solid thing that falls on a particular
2 object, a particular target?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Air bombs are solid and they fall
4 on a certain target. When speaking of dispersion, it has to do with a
5 surface. Say if we fire seven or eight projectiles in the same
6 direction, and then we are talking about that dispersion. And then when
7 we're talking about deviation --
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm talking about one bomb.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- we're talking about 1. -- yes,
10 one bomb, yes.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: So one bomb, does disperse or does it hit a
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I say "dispersion," I'm
14 talking about possible deviation in terms of where the bomb will fall in
15 relation to the desired target.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Oh, so you mean "deviation," then that's a
17 different story. Thank you so much. I understand you better now.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, that is a characteristic
20 of dispersion.
21 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 1D5497,
22 page 199 of the B/C/S and page 218 of the English translation. And could
23 I please have the B/C/S version rotated.
24 Q. Coming up before is table 5 from your modified air bomb report in
25 this case, which is -- follows as part of paragraph 167 of your report
1 where you indicate you assume the average range of modified air bombs was
2 6.000 metres.
3 I would like to discuss a few of the entries with you.
4 First, column number 5 is entitled: "Deviation from target." In
5 this column, you entered what you considered to be the distance from a
6 probable target that you felt was there to the point where the projectile
7 impacted; correct?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Going down the column to number 8, it appears that you list the
10 impact at Cobanija number -- I'm sorry to the row, not column. Number 8.
11 It appears that you list the impact at Cobanija number 7 as being 490
12 metres from an army command. At number 14, the point of impact appears
13 to be 250 metres from what you considered to be a business commercial
15 Assuming these distances are accurate - and just for the record
16 we -- the Prosecution isn't conceding that they are - and the type of
17 projectiles you list impact at these locations, these are instances where
18 modified air bombs were off target by at least 250 metres; right?
19 A. That's right. But I have to note something here.
20 We intentionally put Cobanija 7 there, that is, as you can see,
21 490, in order to give the most unfavorable case. If you remember, what
22 we established there was that not a single air bomb was there. Rather,
23 that there was --
24 Q. Ma'am --
25 A. -- a staging that took place. It didn't fall there but we dealt
1 with it so that it would not seem that we did not want to include
2 something that was unfavorable.
3 Q. I'm focusing on your chart. We'll eventually admit
4 the investigative materials and let the Chamber deduce what happened.
5 But I want to just -- for these two entries, the 490 at Cobanija and the
6 250 that you list in row 14, would these entries -- would these have been
7 overshoots, undershoots, wide left, or wide right?
8 A. Well, you know? No. It didn't go too far, too close, too much
9 to the left, too much to the right. Just look at 6 and 7 here. These
10 are columns that speak about probable --
11 Q. Excuse me, I'm focusing on two entries: Entry on line 8 and
12 entry on line 14. Let's take very specifically line 8. Was this an
13 overshoot, an undershoot, wide right, or wide left?
14 MR. LUKIC: Objection. I think that Ms. Subotic answered number
15 8 already.
16 JUDGE ORIE: In cross-examination, certainly under the present
17 circumstances, you can put a question twice and it's still questionable
18 whether she answered the question.
19 Please proceed, and you may answer the question, Witness.
20 MR. WEBER:
21 Q. If this was a -- if this was an impact, as you indicate in this
22 chart, would this have been an overshoot, an undershoot, wide left, or
23 wide right?
24 A. Yes, that is the only projectile out of these 16 that were
25 analysed that had a deviation that was more than 3, according to tables.
1 And in artillery, left, right, overshoot, undershoot, that is considered
2 to be standard deviation that is permissible. That is a characteristic
3 of a system that is satisfactory as far as ballistics is concerned.
4 So a normal deviation is --
5 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not catch what.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is the only projectile that
7 left this border, if you will, and that can be seen on the next page.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And now you should answer the question.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Would you now please answer the question. It was
10 490 metres off target. Which direction. Left, right, overshoot,
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't have that information
13 here, whether it's an overshoot, undershoot. I mean, in the table that
14 is. And --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you gave us a long answer, whereas
16 apparently you now are telling us you don't know. Just tell us that
17 right away that you don't know. That's fine.
18 Mr. Weber, please proceed.
19 MR. WEBER:
20 Q. Are you saying that an acceptable deviation for a modified air
21 bomb is 490 metres in any given direction?
22 A. For any artillery system, regardless of whether it's a mortar
23 system, an artillery system, or a rocket artillery system, 3 VV
24 plus/minus and 3 VD plus/minus are acceptable deviations.
25 Q. Yes. So are you saying then that's an acceptable deviation for a
1 modified air bomb? That's what you're saying; right?
2 A. No. I'm saying no for 8, because it probably went beyond that.
3 And it's best for us to analyse it according to the circular one in
4 column 8. And that is the only analysed bomb out of the 16 that went
5 beyond normal ballistic expectations.
6 Q. Let's take number 14. The 250 metres, was that an overshoot,
7 undershoot, wide right, wide left, or do you not know?
8 A. Circular deviation within 2 and 3 deviations in terms of a
9 circular direction. Now, I would have to know exactly on the map whether
10 it was overshoot or undershoot. I would have to look at that case. It
11 would be best to discuss what is in column 8.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Your short answer would be: I don't know.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If the question is repeated for me,
14 I will respond by saying "I don't know." The answer I provided is the
15 one that I thought was appropriate.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Let's move on.
17 MR. WEBER:
18 Q. Do you find 250 metres to be an acceptable deviation for a
19 modified air bomb?
20 A. According to all rules and regulations of the profession, yes.
21 Q. Let's focus a little bit more here. In columns 6, 7, and 8 of
22 the table, you include values for different variables under the heading
23 of "Probable Table Deviation." These are values that you selected,
24 correct, for the FAB-250s and the FAB-100 modified air bombs?
25 A. This is experimental data taken from the firing tables for
1 FAB-100 and FAB-250 for analysing a range of 6 kilometres.
2 Q. Okay. I -- let's -- let's define things here. The VD -- I don't
3 accept that these come from the firing tables, but I want to go through
4 your chart nonetheless.
5 Let's define what we're talking about here. The VD is a value
6 for the dispersion of hits according to distance. VP is the dispersion
7 of hits according to direction. Probable deviation is a measure of the
8 dispersion of hits whose value in metres is calculated so that it is
9 equally probable that half the hits are less than and the other half
10 greater than this value.
11 You agree that these are the standard meanings of these values;
13 A. These are probable deviations according to direction and
14 according to range, and this is probably circular deviation, yes.
15 Q. Let's just see if we can go through some examples.
16 In column 6 for the VD --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could you explain briefly again what is circular
18 deviation is?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it is precisely what the
20 Prosecutor, Mr. Weber, referred to.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The problem is perhaps that ... let's move on.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. WEBER:
24 Q. In column 6 for the VD of the modified air bombs, you indicate
25 the 100 and 250 kilograms varieties all had the same value: 43 metres.
1 And in this chart, you have no indication whatsoever of the rocket
2 composition or the angle of fire.
3 Do you really think that the values would be exactly the same for
4 air bombs of different weights with differing amounts of rockets being
5 fired at different angles? This would not be the case; right?
6 A. Of course. You're right. Special cases were dealt with here.
7 They were analysed and information was provided for them; that is to say,
8 if we established that there's a FAB involved with three motors, then
9 that is the information contained here. And if it was established that
10 it is FAB-250 with three motors, then again - here we had these cases,
11 mostly - we provided that information. It has nothing to do with the
12 angle if we defined range, so we gave it all for one range. There is --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness slowly
14 state her last question [sic]. Thank you.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is different for 6 kilometres
16 for the other bomb. So information was provided for specific cases in
17 accordance with firing tables.
18 MR. WEBER:
19 Q. You understand that the variables for mortars are different in
20 the mortar firing tables depending on size and the type of mortar, its
21 weight, the number of charges, and the angle of fire? You must realise
22 that; right?
23 A. Well, of course. That is an elementary thing, professionally
25 Q. You have inserted values here that are not much greater than the
1 deviations for a mortar; for example, an M62 P3 120-millimetre light
2 mortar fired on charge 6 at its lowest angle has a VD of 38 metres. It's
3 not credible that you are asserting here that modified air bombs were
4 about as accurate as mortars; right?
5 A. Anything can be convincing for you or anything cannot be
6 convincing for you. You're not in your own field. I have a honourable
7 proposition for you and the Trial Chamber: Do write a request for the
8 firing tables. They will probably provide that to you, and you will find
9 that information there. I am not lying.
10 JUDGE ORIE: We're not seeking your advice. We're seeking your
11 answers to the questions that are put to you, and one of -- the last
12 questions was, whether you -- it's your view - although that was
13 expressed slightly different - whether it was credible or not credible
14 that modified air bombs were about as accurate as mortars.
15 Could you please answer that question, whether the position --
16 the accuracy is the -- approximately the same.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The precision approximately is not
18 the same. But if it coincided with regard to this range, then it is
19 exactly what is contained here in the table. It was exactly taken over
20 from the firing tables. It was obtained on the basis of research, and
21 there is no mistake involved here.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
23 MR. WEBER:
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm slightly confused. You said the data you
25 have taken from firing tables. Which firing tables?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Firing tables from 2002, compiled
2 by the institute in 2002. And there is detailed testing and research
3 involved of all the equipment, including these bombs, before they were
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But we are talking about weapons used during the
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Technically it is more or less the
8 same weapon, as far as the technical design is concerned. There is no
9 particular effect in differences in construction with regard to the
11 I think that that model that was presented in 2001 is something
12 that I attached to one of my previous papers.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
14 Mr. Weber.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Again, do you have the detailed fabrication -- the
16 detailed sketches, the material for those bombs that were produced during
17 the war? Do you have the -- the -- as technicians do, they have details,
18 centimetres, millimetres, material, et cetera? Do you have them?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
20 JUDGE ORIE: So it's very difficult for you to be --
21 to accurately compare the -- what was produced during the war with what
22 was produced after the war. It's only a general comparison rather than a
23 detailed comparison. Is that accurate?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's true --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. WEBER:
3 Q. I just want to translate your evidence a little further here, and
4 I'll take the values that you have for the -- for a FAB-250 modified air
5 bomb and try to put it to you in lay terms.
6 According to these valuations, you are saying that there is a
7 50 per cent chance that a FAB 250 modified air bomb fired from 6
8 kilometres away would land in an elliptical area of 154 metres by
9 86 metres; right?
10 A. I apologise. I didn't hear the beginning of the question.
12 Q. Yes. What I'm taking is -- let's just focus on row 1. You
13 have -- for a FAB-250, you have a VD of 43 and a VP of 77. So that would
14 translate, according to these values -- what you're saying is that there
15 is a 50 per cent chance that a FAB-250 modified air bomb fired from
16 6 kilometres away would land in an elliptical area of 154 metres by 86
17 metres; right?
18 A. I see here some data that doesn't fit in with your reckoning. I
19 said that 50 per cent should fall within a circle of a 270 diameter if we
20 look at column 8. But if we look at column 7 and 6, those are 3 VV to --
21 ahead and 3 VP to the left and right. So in the first case we are
22 talking about all fired projectiles, and in the second case 50 per cent.
23 Q. I'm not looking to go into Gaussian discussions with you here.
24 I'm just asking for a simple one variable distance, okay? And this --
25 this was gone through with your colleague in the past. So the elliptical
1 area that would be covered, according to this, would be in 154 metres by
2 86 metres, and 50 per cent of the hits, according to what you're saying
3 in this chart, would land inside that elliptical area and 50 per cent
4 would land outside; right? And this is standard stuff in the firing
6 You're nodding your head. If you could please give a verbal
8 A. 50 per cent.
9 Q. You agree; right?
10 A. Yes. That's correct.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You have to wait for the translation.
12 MR. WEBER: Sorry.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Don't be impatient.
14 MR. WEBER: Sorry.
15 Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33201, page 12 of the
16 B/C/S. And if we could just enlarge this one because there's lot of
17 information on the one table for the witness to see. And if we could --
19 Q. All right. This is the firing table for the M21-OF, as you've
20 acknowledged, known as the Grad rocket of 122-millimetres. I'd like to
21 go on this table to about seven rows down, the row starting with the
22 figure 6.000 on the left-hand side. You agree that according to this
23 chart that a 122-millimetre Grad rocket fired from 6.000 metres has a
24 VD of 202 metres and the VP of 43 [sic] metres; correct?
25 A. No, it has a VP of 34 metres.
1 Q. That's what I said. So you agree that the VD is 202 metres and
2 the VP is 34 metres; correct?
3 A. Yes. Yes, I heard in my headset 43 metres. That's why I
4 corrected it.
5 Q. According to this if you're firing a fully tested 122-millimetre
6 Grad rocket from a fully tested rocket-launcher located 6.000 metres from
7 a target, there's a 50 per cent chance that the rocket will land within
8 an ellipse which is 404 metres by 68 metres; correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. In your report in table 5 that we just looked at, what it appears
11 that you're saying is that both FAB-100 and FAB-250 modified air bombs,
12 regardless of their configuration, launched from a modified rail
13 launcher, were far more accurate than the 122-millimetre Grad rocket when
14 it was just fired on its own as intended; right?
15 A. The results that we presented are a bit different. We had
16 50 per cent more dispersion by direction, compared to Grad, and half the
17 dispersion by length -- by range, by distance. There is a great
18 influence of the aerodynamic shape on the velocity of a projectile, and
19 one should not forget that we talking here about subsonic projectiles
20 which are far more precise than the type of Grad, for instance.
21 Q. I'm not sure you're answering my question. What you're saying in
22 your table 5 of your report is that modified air bombs - FAB-100,
23 FAB-250 - regardless of their configuration in terms of number of rockets
24 are far more accurate than a 122-millimetre Grad rocket when it's just
25 fired on its own; right?
1 A. At the beginning of my sentence, I said, and I don't see why you
2 are neglecting it, the precision per direction at 5 kilometres in
3 modified air bombs is almost 30 per cent less than the Grad rocket, and
4 the precision -- I wanted to say more. We have 43 and 48, and here we
5 see 34; whereas, in terms of range, it is more precise. That is to say,
6 less dispersion.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Now, at the end, the surface of where the rockets or
8 the modified air bomb would land, is it smaller for the rockets, or is it
9 smaller for the modified air bombs? What area where they are likely to
10 fall with the 50-per cent rule, I think.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Grad would fall into an ellipsoid
12 of a length 404 metres and 68 metres wide, whereas an air bomb FAB-250
13 would --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness stop here and slow down.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Witness -- Witness, first of all, you're invited to
16 slow down. Second, my simple question was: The surface of which of the
17 two ellipsis is larger?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It would be larger with Grad at
19 6.000 metres.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Which then means that the aerial bombs would be more
21 accurate than the Grad rocket if fired separately, individually?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely. Those are the
23 results in the firing tables for Grad and the firing tables for modified
24 air bombs.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I think that was the gist of the question by
1 Mr. Weber.
2 Mr. Weber, is that right?
3 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
5 MR. WEBER:
6 Q. Your evidence that Grad rockets somehow became more accurate and
7 almost as accurate as any projectile possible by adding large
8 100-kilogram and 250-kilogram air bombs to them is not credible. Do you
9 really expect us to believe that?
10 A. For the record, I have to say this: I am talking about the Grad
11 rocket, meaning the complete Grad rocket, the whole system whose firing
12 tables were shown to me; whereas, the second thing we are talking about
13 are modified air bombs with a Grad rocket motor.
14 I don't want to leave any confusion. I don't want anyone to
15 understand me as if I had said something about the Grad rocket.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please answer the question. The question
17 is whether the -- I'll not repeat the question. You have heard it.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I heard the question. It's all
19 right. Experiments show that that is so.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please -- please proceed, Mr. Weber.
21 MR. WEBER:
22 Q. I don't know if you've looked at the tables for a 120-millimetre
23 Grad rocket, but are you aware that, according to these tables, that a
24 Grad rocket is not recommended to be fired on distances under
25 5 kilometres?
1 A. Those are safety systems with all systems, safety precautions and
2 safety recommendations for all systems of rocket artillery. I know that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, again, please answer the question. Don't
4 tell us what exists elsewhere. Just answer the question.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution would ask
7 that 65 ter 33201 be marked for identification. We do have to complete a
8 translation for this specific table that's in front of Your Honours, but
9 I see the other translations are available.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, what number would the table
12 THE REGISTRAR: P7564, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Is marked for identification. We're not there yet,
14 Mr. Weber.
15 MR. WEBER: I'm just trying to balance the rest of my time.
16 Q. Let's try to discuss a couple different incidents. In your
17 modified air bomb report, you discuss two impacts in the area of Hrasnica
18 on 7 April and 1 July 1995. These two impacts occurred on the same
19 street about 200 metres apart from one another; correct?
20 A. I'm sorry, which incident do you mean? If you would be so kind
21 as to tell me.
22 Q. I'm referring to G-10 and what you've described as the
23 1 July 1995 event.
24 A. Yes. The answer is yes.
25 Q. The trajectories on both occasions came from the direction of
1 Ilidza; correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P582 for
4 the witness. And if we could please have page 2 of the original; the
5 English version.
6 Q. This is the UNMO report related to the impact on 7 April 1995.
7 Toward the end of the report, the report reads:
8 "The UNMOs heard the weapon coming (it landed approximately 200
9 metres from the team location) but did not see it in flight."
10 Did you consider the proximity of the UNMOs' position to the
11 locations where the modified air bombs impacted on the 7th of April and
12 on the 1st of July, 1995?
13 A. I think we did.
14 Q. You agree that UNMOs being there as military observers would be
15 aware of the military locations and targets in their area of observation;
17 A. That's logical.
18 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please now go to
19 Exhibit D01268, marked for identification.
20 Q. And I want to focus just a little bit further on incident G-10.
21 You indicate that you feel that this was a FAB-100 modified air bomb.
22 MR. WEBER: If we could please go to page 15 of the B/C/S of the
23 investigative file and page 9 of the translation.
24 Q. This is the forensic report on the traces found at the scene. I
25 want to direct your attention to the second full paragraph from the top
1 of the page before you, this is the bottom paragraph in the English
2 version, where the report discusses some of the metal parts and states:
3 "According to the sign ABY-3 T, 350 written on a metal part, it
4 was established that it belonged to a part of an electro-pyrotechnical
5 fuse of a FAB-250 aircraft bomb of Russian origin."
6 The fact is is that the physical traces of this impact show that
7 there was a 250-kilogram aircraft bomb; correct?
8 A. On the basis of the traces on the ground, we estimated that it
9 could not have been a 250-kilo bomb and we described that in detail.
10 Q. All of the contemporaneous VRS documents related to this incident
11 indicate it was a 250-kilogram air bomb, and I'd refer the Chamber to
12 P591 and P1048.
13 The commander of the VRS Brigade who fired this very modified
14 aircraft bomb on 7 April testified in this case, at page 23196, that it
15 was a 250 kilogram aircraft bomb. I put it to you that you're wrong and
16 all the evidence shows that it was a 250-kilogram aircraft bomb. Do you
17 accept that?
18 A. First of all, I cannot accept the first line of this finding here
19 in the first paragraph, which refers to --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, would you please answer the question. The
21 question was whether you accept that the evidence referred to by
22 Mr. Weber, whether you accept that that evidence, which apparently
23 clearly states that it was a 250-kilogram bomb, whether you accept that
24 you be wrong in view of that evidence.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't accept it, regardless of
1 what is written in this report, because all of it contradicts the action
2 at target.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, Mr. Weber did not refer you or certainly
4 did not refer you exclusively to this report. He referred to
5 contemporaneous documents and he referred to the commander, I think,
6 whose unit had fired a bomb who had said that it was a 250-kilogram
7 aerial bomb. In light of that, and please don't change the question in
8 your answers, in light of that, do you accept that you're wrong? That
9 was Mr. Weber's question and could you please answer that.
10 MR. LUKIC: We have exhibit numbers, Your Honour, but can we have
11 more precise quotations so we can check? Really, we are not able to
12 check because --
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but, Mr. Lukic, if you think that the
15 quotations are wrong, then have you an opportunity in re-examination to
16 deal with that.
17 Could you please answer the question, Witness, whether in light
18 of the evidence as told to you came to this Chamber, whether you are
19 wrong or not?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If somebody testified that he had
21 fired that bomb on that day at that location, I have reason to believe
22 that he was not telling the truth because the effect at target and all
23 the traces speak differently. There remains the possibility if somebody
24 really accurately stated that he had done it, the probability exists, but
25 then it's -- runs completely counter to the traces on the ground.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
2 MR. WEBER: I would re-tender the investigative file right now,
3 D1268 which is currently marked for identification.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Re --
5 MR. WEBER: I tender it into evidence, if the counsel
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. WEBER: It is -- just given a couple moment -- days, I think,
9 for counsel to check the file.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
11 MR. LUKIC: Is anything -- I'm sorry, is anything added to our
12 pages or not?
13 MR. WEBER: It's the same thing that was uploaded the other day
14 under the 65 ter number, so counsel has been given an opportunity check
15 it, so --
16 MR. LUKIC: Until the end of this week. Today is not the end of
17 the week.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, it's tendered. We give the Defence
19 an opportunity to revisit the matter this week, and we'll -- yes, D1268.
20 D1268 is now admitted into evidence, and the Chamber will hear
21 any further comments made this week or any further observations made by
22 the Defence.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I was just about to start another
25 incident quickly.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if we move to another incident, we should first
2 take the break.
3 Ms. Subotic, we take a break of 20 minutes, and we'd -- you may
4 follow the usher.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I might have inadvertently spoke. I
7 meant to say "P1048," not "D1048," in terms of my reference to the VRS --
8 one of the VRS exhibits. Just if that clarifies matters.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I hope it does.
10 We take a break, and we resume at ten minutes past midday.
11 --- Recess taken at 11.50 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 12.11 p.m.
13 JUDGE ORIE: While we're waiting for the witness to be escorted
14 in the courtroom, I wanted to give the calculation to the Registrar in
15 order to be translated. There's a little bit of text on it. And could
16 that be done with urgency so that we have it before the witness leaves.
17 And then I leave it to the parties, after they've received a copy -- and
18 perhaps, Mr. Lukic, you can already look at the original so that if
19 Madam Registrar would make a copy for you already so that you are in the
20 advantageous position to be the first. And then I leave it to the
21 parties what evidentiary value they'd like to attach to it, and perhaps
22 the Chamber would put on the record what the outcome of the calculations
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Weber.
1 MR. WEBER:
2 Q. Ms. Subotic, I'd now like to direct your attention to the impact
3 in Hrasnica on 1 July, 1995. This is the modified air bomb that hit
4 Aleksa Santica Street number 50. The location of this impact was further
5 away from the Aleksa Santic school than incident G-10; correct?
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that incident G-10?
7 MR. WEBER: Correct, G-10.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
9 MR. WEBER:
10 Q. Ms. Subotic, is that correct?
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 Q. In paragraph 103 of your modified air bomb report, which is a
13 very -- well, it's a one sentence, you state that no one was killed or
14 wounded in this incident. And looking down at the footnote, 407, we see
15 that you're saying this on the basis of a BiH official report, number
16 19/10-4-116/95. This information is not true; right?
17 A. I am not saying that. If so, would you please indicate to me
18 what it is that is not right. The reference or what?
19 Q. Your statement --
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Weber, before do you that, can you just make
21 sure that you're transcribed correctly in your question. I thought you
22 said you state that no one was killed.
23 MR. WEBER: Yes. The entire paragraph reads:
24 "No one was killed or wounded in this incident."
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]
1 MR. WEBER:
2 Q. That's not an accurate statement; right?
3 A. I think it is accurate.
4 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 33140 for
5 the witness. And if we could please go to page 2 of the B/C/S and page 1
6 of the translation.
7 Q. This is the BiH official report under the same number you
8 reference in your footnote dated 4 July, 1995. The first
9 paragraph refers to the incident on 1 July and states:
10 "Two persons were seriously and 11 slightly wounded in the
11 explosion. The damage to the apartment buildings was also great."
12 And if you could -- you could probably see it in the version
13 before you, but you can see that this report goes on to individually list
14 all of these individuals by name, and this is going on in the English
15 version, and it describes whether or how their injuries were treated.
16 This file also includes medical certificates of the victims. The
17 report -- the information in your report is not accurate; right?
18 A. On this day, there were several incident, I think. Are you sure
19 that this list of wounded and injured persons pertains to Aleksa Santica
20 50 exactly?
21 Q. Yes, it --
22 A. I don't think you're right on that.
23 Q. Well, we see that in the first paragraph that it does. We also
24 see that this is the exact report that you specifically rely upon for
25 this incident.
1 A. If you look at the building in Aleksa Santica 50, there is no
2 major damage.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, it's not about damage to buildings. It is,
4 and that's what Mr. Weber put to you, you are relying on a report in
5 footnote 40 -- what is 407 or 408 which is exactly the same report that
6 this one, where Mr. Weber quotes people injured are mentioned. That's
7 the issue.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No one was injured at this address
9 and in this incident.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The issue is that you referred to this report when
11 you state that no one was injured or killed. The report says otherwise.
12 Do you agree with that?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to see the entire
14 report, and it is quite possible that -- that there's some confusion
15 there, but I do know that -- I mean, perhaps we have the wrong reference,
16 but I don't think that's the case either.
17 Could I please take some of your time now in order to read this
18 calmly? No one was killed or injured in this incident and no major
19 damage was sustained.
20 MR. LUKIC: It is third paragraph. Third paragraph you will find
21 the place where people were wounded.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then you can deal with that in re-examination. If
23 Mr. Weber is -- would -- well, I leave it.
24 Please move on, Mr. Weber.
25 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 23 of both
2 Q. This is one of the statements of one of the individuals in the
3 file who lived in one of the houses that was damaged by the explosion.
4 Towards the end of the statement, and I'll read it verbatim, this
5 individual states:
6 "There are no military facilities near my family house. The
7 Hrasnica-based UN Military Observers were quartered in the house next
8 door, and some of them were also injured."
9 UN military observers were injured as part of this incident;
11 A. That is right but that happened in Bunicki Potok, 150 metres
12 away, not at Aleksa Santica 50.
13 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution tenders 65 ter 33140 into evidence.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
15 THE REGISTRAR: 33140 receives Exhibit P7565, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
17 MR. WEBER:
18 Q. I just want to go through a couple other quick matters before I
20 MR. LUKIC: I just want to know whether the Prosecution accepts
21 that it's not Aleksa Santica - should I deal with it or not? - but
22 Bunicki Potok.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you can deal with it re-examination if you
24 wish. Mr. Weber is aware of the issue you raised. You say it's a
25 different incident. I leave it to Mr. Weber whether to address it. And
1 if he doesn't, you have an opportunity to do so.
2 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, it's one event. Just so it's clear what
3 I am referring to, it's entitled "Case 10" in the expert's report as
4 Aleksa Santic number 50 in Hrasnica, and there's a broad statement that
5 says no one was killed or wounded in the incident. So whether it's one
6 occasion or the other is -- [Overlapping speakers].
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, you can deal with it with the witness --
8 MR. WEBER: Okay.
9 JUDGE ORIE: But don't argue at this moment. Either do something
10 with it or leave it to Mr. Lukic to do it.
11 MR. WEBER: That's fine.
12 Q. Let's discuss incident G-13 quickly. Last week at transcript
13 page 39517, you stated:
14 "Evident here are traces of a small-calibre projectile coming in
15 from the top according to the traces on the facade, which indicates that
16 it could be a mortar projectile from a distance of 10 to 15 metres from
17 the building."
18 Are you saying in this event that a mortar crew set up a mortar
19 immediately below a building and fired it into the building while they
20 would still be right below it within the blast radius of the explosion?
21 Are you really saying this is what happened?
22 A. Yes, correct. That's what happened. They took the wrong
23 elements --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We could not understand
25 the rest. Could the speaker please be asked to slow down and re-start.
1 Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please slow down and start your answer
3 again. You said they took the wrong elements, and could you repeat what
4 you then said.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I said: Yes, correct. They
6 took the wrong elements for firing and they hit a building instead of
7 shooting over the building, which I assume was their intention because
8 such traces can be left on a vertical wall only by a mortar projectile
9 that has an upward trajectory.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think you may proceed, Mr. Weber.
11 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Your theory on incident G-13 is that the modified air bomb did
13 not directly hit the apartment building but it first ricochetted from a
14 roof from what you claim to be the original target, the RTV building;
16 A. Right.
17 Q. In paragraph 50, you write that the distance between the RTV
18 building and the apartment building is approximately 620 metres, and the
19 difference in height is approximately 45 metres.
20 First, the apartment building is, in fact, higher in elevation
21 than the RTV building; correct?
22 A. As far as I can remember, the building has 1, 2, 3, 4 -- 5
23 floors. I did not compare anything, but it's a five-storey building and
24 it's as being as it is. I haven't got any other estimate. But at any
25 rate, it's a five-storey building and we provided all the information
1 relevant for the analysis.
2 Q. And the building, just to we have it clearly on the record, that
3 you're referring to is the building that was impacted not the RTV
4 building; right?
5 A. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, just for me to better understand. Higher
7 in elevation, did you mean the height of the building or did you also
8 include the elevation on which the building was?
9 MR. WEBER: Both.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Both. Yes, because the witness apparently may have
11 understood the question in such a way that she only was thinking about
12 the dimensions of the building rather than the position of the building
13 in terms of elevation.
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. WEBER:
16 Q. Ms. Subotic, I don't know if that clarifies things for you, but
17 the building on Safeta Hadzica Street sits elevated and then -- than the
18 RTV building; right?
19 A. Yes, all right.
20 Q. I just want to understand what you're saying happened here
21 according to the trajectory that you're saying it was originally intended
22 to target the RTV building. Are you saying that a modified air bomb came
23 towards the RTV building, hit the RTV somewhere on its roof, and then
24 went off to the right and upward by 620 metres or so to hit the -- the
25 location Safeta Hadzica number 52? Is that -- is that what you're saying
1 happened here?
2 A. When I listen to you I would say, no, but the answer is yes.
3 This is what actually happened: On the roof of C there was a ricochet,
4 that is clear, and the traces can be seen very clearly. And after the
5 ricochet on the roof of studio C, it's 0 - I don't know what height -
6 there was this ricochet. After 600 metres this projectile that
7 ricochetted in the direction where it left a trace on the roof of studio
8 C, it hit the building in Safeta Hadzica. We carried out analysis that
9 involved the following --
10 Q. I just want to --
11 A. -- the angles of ricochet, the co-ordinates, everything, and on
12 that basis we checked things and we came to the conclusion that FAB-100
13 and FAB-250 for all angles of ricochet are over 10 degrees, can hit this
14 building where the modified air bomb fell at Safeta Hadzica 52.
15 Q. You agree with me that modified air bomb projectiles don't spin
16 or rotate in the same way as an artillery shell; right?
17 A. Of course.
18 Q. Now, just I was looking through some of the materials that you
19 cite - for example, the marines manual in footnote 4 00 - and it appears
20 to me that your theory that the modified air bomb would spin off to the
21 right in a ricochet is actually based on a theory that applies to
22 artillery and its rotation. Do I understand that correctly? That's what
23 you did?
24 A. Are you sure that you're discussing this case with me? There is
25 no turn to the right here. There is a trace here on studio C and there
1 is this direction of ricochet that is clearly indicated on the roof of
2 studio C. There is no turning to the right. I think you're talking
3 about another incident now that we can discuss, but that pertains to
4 Safeta Hadzica 50, I think, and after the modified air bomb went through
5 the ground. After that, since it remained without a motor, it
6 Bunicki Potok. I think that you've moved on to a different incident and
7 you're talking about this one. It's true that both of them were in
8 Safeta Hadzica, you see.
9 Q. I have not, ma'am. But what maybe we can agree on right now is
10 that -- that for -- it wouldn't be accurate to say that a modified air
11 bomb, because it doesn't rotate like an artillery shell, it wouldn't be
12 right to say that that could ricochet at a rather steep or a significant
13 angle to the right; right? Correct?
14 A. I don't know where you found this turn to the right in this
15 incident. That's my question. That's why I cannot give you an answer.
16 And the second answer is this rotation that you keep referring to -- I
17 mean, there are two types of rotation: Minor and major rotation;
18 stabilizing rotation and stabilisation with fins. Neither has anything
19 to do with ricochet.
20 [Prosecution counsel confer]
21 MR. WEBER:
22 Q. A modified air bomb wouldn't ricochet like an artillery shell;
24 A. Whether a projectile would ricochet or not does not depend on
25 whether it's a modified air bomb or anything else. It depends on the
1 configuration of its external shape and its angle of descent. You can
2 totally exclude a modified air bomb as a special problem for ricochet
3 because quite simply it doesn't depend on the construction of the
4 projectile. It depends on the angle of descent and also the external
5 shape of the projectile. These are the parameters that define ricochet.
6 The angle of ricochet is determined by these two parameters: The
7 angle of descent and the external shape of the projectile. So it can be
8 any projectile. It will certainly ricochet at one point in time. And in
9 a certain way.
10 Q. Are you saying that based on the shapes -- the relative shapes of
11 an artillery shell and an air bomb that they would possibly ricochet in a
12 similar manner?
13 A. Every one of them in their own way and every one will ricochet.
14 It's a process, as we all know, and this is something that is not
15 described analytically but experimentally. We mastered this very well.
16 So this is something that we can count on, and we restrict elements for
17 firing so that projectiles would not fall into angles of ricochet so that
18 they could accurately hit the target involved.
19 Q. Okay. I'm going to move on.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one question?
21 MR. WEBER: Sure.
22 JUDGE ORIE: If I understood Mr. Weber's question well, he asked
23 you whether it would be possible after ricochet to -- that the projectile
24 hits finally a structure at an altitude of 600 metres higher -- or is
25 that further? Then I misunderstood him. Thank you.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. WEBER:
3 Q. In reviewing your modified air bomb report, you describe the
4 amount of damage to many different locations. The -- this appears to be
5 based on what you found in the investigative materials related to the
6 ditch incidents; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. In looking at them, there were -- I'm just going to put it to you
9 because we're going to separately tender the actual files themselves for
10 the Chamber to review, but I want to have you have a fair opportunity to
12 I'm putting to you that you consistently understate the amount of
13 damage that -- that occurred during these different impacts.
14 A. We analysed the parameters that we had, we analysed the firing
15 power of both bombs, we analysed the experimental results that were
16 finally cited by our colleague, Mr. Zecevic, and on that basis we
17 provided the findings that we provided.
18 We didn't want to increase or decrease anything. Whenever we
19 were not sure that it was a FAB-250, we said so. Of course, on the basis
20 of the material effects on the target.
21 Q. So you'd accept that the Chamber having the ability to actually
22 review that and verify it for themselves; right?
23 A. The Chamber is going to review and verify everything that we did.
24 I believe that that goes without saying. I accept that.
25 Q. Did you have any contact or communications of any kind with
1 Mile Poparic since you started your testimony two weeks ago?
2 A. We have breakfast together every morning, but we do not
3 communicate about this work.
4 Q. And you had -- and when you say "every morning," you've had
5 breakfast with him every single day since you started your testimony?
6 A. Well, today we didn't have breakfast together and perhaps that
7 happened on another day or two, but usually we do have breakfast
9 [Prosecution counsel confer]
10 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, there -- it's -- at this time I would
11 not have further questions. However, that's with the understanding that
12 the investigative materials related to the modified air bomb incidents
13 would be admitted into evidence. If could I read those numbers on the
14 record just right now.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
16 MR. WEBER: That would be the -- I'm going to skip D1268, which
17 was already used.
18 D1270 MFI; 65 ter 33107; 65 ter 33108; 65 ter 33109;
19 65 ter 33110, which is actually the remaining investigative materials
20 from G-15; 65 ter 10208; 65 ter 33131.
21 In addition to that, Your Honours, there would be one document
22 from Ms. Subotic's report, modified air bomb report, footnote 80. It's a
23 military document. It's a VRS intelligence centre document on
24 information on ABiH units. We've uploaded that document under
25 65 ter 33130. That military document along with the military document,
1 and this is in light of your Chamber's guidance in terms of the scope of
2 the expertise, we'd ask for that document and 65 ter 24659 to be
4 24659 is a 24 May 1995 VRS Main Staff report, and the
5 specifically relevant part would be item 3B mentioning that the SRK was
6 carrying out offensive operations according to the Talas 2 operation on
7 that date. The Prosecution is just seeking to bar table this. This is a
8 date where we don't -- where we did not put this in because we've dropped
9 those incidents but we'd be seeking to tender that document at this time.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before -- Mr. Weber, the first document you
11 mentioned was D1270, MFI. Have we got up to D1270 in this case? The
12 thought the last one was D1268.
13 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I stand corrected. I stand corrected.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then do I understand that you're awaiting our
16 decisions on the admission of all the others but that in addition to that
17 that you're seeking 65 ter 24659 to be admitted into evidence at this
19 MR. WEBER: Correct.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
21 MR. LUKIC: I thought this will all be discussed when
22 Mr. Weber and I have --
23 JUDGE ORIE: If that is part of your discussions then --
24 MR. WEBER: I'd like to know now because I don't want to sit
25 down -- and if it's even disputed, then I'll just use it.
1 JUDGE ORIE: It's clear that --
2 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, we have to sit down before it's agreed.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, Mr. Weber, you have an opportunity to
4 further put questions to the witness if any of these documents would not
5 be admitted into evidence, and that includes this last one. If that
6 would be sufficient, then we'll wait until you have sat together and then
7 discussions on admission will be delivered.
8 MR. WEBER: As long as it's understood. And the reason I mention
9 it was because I'm going to end my examination, so I didn't want the
10 record to be incomplete without that understanding.
11 JUDGE ORIE: You reserve your position in terms of whether or not
12 some of the -- some of the tendered exhibits are admitted, yes or no.
13 MR. WEBER: Then there is some leftover matters from the shelling
14 examination, in particular. The video that's corresponding to
15 65 ter 33095B, as in "boy," there was some discussion about this, whether
16 this was the same as A or -- version. It's a different excerpt, so we'd
17 ask to 65 ter 33095B as it relates to shelling incident G-5.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And that's separate from the other matters.
19 Mr. Lukic, any objections against this new excerpt?
20 MR. LUKIC: We'll have some video experts definitely, so maybe it
21 will be part of ours. I don't know by heart now.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But any objection against admission of this
24 MR. LUKIC: I should check now what it is --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you have an opportunity --
1 MR. LUKIC: I don't think that we would object really, just to be
2 on the safe side.
3 JUDGE ORIE: You have an opportunity to revisit the matter but
4 not later than by the end of tomorrow's hearing.
5 Madam Registrar, 65 ter 33095B would receive what number?
6 THE REGISTRAR: Receives Exhibit P7566, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
8 Before I give you an opportunity to re-examine the witness,
9 Mr. Lukic, I would have a few questions. And perhaps I better do it
10 before you re-examine the witness.
11 Could we have on our screens 1D5498, which is the Sarajevo
12 shelling report. English page 89; B/C/S page 88. And could we zoom in?
13 And we don't need, as a matter of fact, the English, yes, we have it
14 there. Could we zoom in on the picture. Yes, it's the same so we can do
15 with one. Could we zoom in on ...
16 Witness, this is figure 43 of your report. You have plotted
17 northerly direction, and you have plotted the azimuth of Spasenije Cane
18 Babovic Street. If you would translate the compass bearing of that
19 street in more northerly direction, what would the compass bearing be?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean the upper part of the
21 street which looks like taking a turn? Is that what you mean? North of
22 the point where I worked or all the way up there?
23 JUDGE ORIE: No. I'm just asking about the -- that part of the
24 street where the yellow dot is, in southerly compass bearing is 157
25 degrees. Now in the opposite direction, what would be the compass
1 bearing of that same portion of the street?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the opposite direction, if it
3 would be measured from M -- N - sorry - up to this same line on the other
5 JUDGE ORIE: What would be the compass bearing in degrees if you
6 don't look in downwards direction of that part of the street but rather
7 look in upward direction and still the street where the yellow dot is?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That would be 360 minus 23. If I
9 can do the math quickly if my head, that would be 337.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, 337.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think so.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's 157 plus 180, so I have no comment on
14 Could we now move to another picture of the same street in the
15 same document; that is, page 97 in English and page 96 in B/C/S. That's
16 the same street, isn't it, we just discussed?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. And that's the place of the
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, you testified that the yellow line, which
20 indicates the origin -- the direction of the origin of fire would be at
21 an angle of initially you said 10 to 20 degrees, later you took it a bit
22 broader and you said 10 to 30 degrees. Could you then tell us what in
23 the minimal - that's 10 degrees - and what in the maximum - that's the 30
24 degrees - would the compass bearing of that yellow line?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that would be very close to
1 the north/south direction, regardless of whether it's 10, 20, or 30. We
2 did not restrict it that way. It's just close to north/south.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's take it step by step.
4 If it would be 10, what would be the compass bearing of the
5 yellow line?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That would be 100 -- 157 minus 200.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You earlier said that in this direction it was
8 337. Would that be 337 plus 10?
9 MR. LUKIC: I think that there is some wrong translation.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's then take it again.
11 If the curb stone is as you said earlier at 337, if the yellow
12 line would be at an angle of 10 degrees, then that line would have what
13 compass bearing?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 327.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I would expect, as a matter of fact, 347. That is,
16 337 plus 10.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: If it would be 20 degrees, what would it be, the
19 compass bearing of the yellow line, if it was at an angle of 20 degrees
20 from the compass bearing of the street itself?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 337, 360, that would be very close
22 to the north. Maybe it would cross over by 1 degree to the east. Yes,
23 it would be north. 337 plus 20, that's 357; right?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that's still west, isn't it?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very close to the north.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Still west of north?
2 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
3 JUDGE ORIE: We don't hear you.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Repeat your answer, please.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm saying yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, if it would be 30 degrees, then what
7 would be the bearing of the yellow line?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 367; right?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's what we usually call 7 degrees because
10 we start anew at north, isn't it?
11 Now you earlier said - and I asked you whether you were sure
12 about it - you said it's obviously east from north. Is it? The whole of
13 the range you gave that goes from 347, if it is 10 degrees, up to 7
14 degrees, if it would have been 30 degrees, an angle of 30 degrees. You
15 said it's east of north, and I asked you whether you were sure about it.
16 You said yes, you are.
17 I'm again asking you whether the bearing, compass bearing, of
18 this direction of origin of fire in your own analysis would always be in
19 the east of north?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because at the point where the
21 incident happened, we observe where the projectile had arrived from, then
22 in my only analysis, that's in the greatest proximity to north/south
23 direction. Looking from the point where the incident happened --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, that's not what you testified. You said it
25 was east of north and I asked whether you were sure about it. You said
1 you were. Do you want to correct yourself?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe just a little. But that is,
3 for all intents and purposes, north/south.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, I think from your previous answers, I took
5 it that the range, in a bit of a rough assessment, perhaps, the range of
6 compass bearings for this yellow line would be between 347 and 07
7 degrees. Do you agree with me?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, we analysed it a moment ago.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that in the middle of this range we'd be
10 at 352; correct?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: That's west from north; correct?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: In your report, we read that the BiH positions were
15 from strict north to -- well, quite a bit further down in easterly
16 direction; is that correct?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Now, your conclusion that it would have been fired
19 from BiH-controlled territory was based on that territory to be found
20 from north to east of north. And where you said obviously, the direction
21 of the origin of fire was east of north. Is that correctly understood?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Or the direction north/south.
23 I mean, it's closer to the south than to -- sorry. It's closer to north
24 than to north-east.
25 JUDGE ORIE: It's west of north, isn't it? Let me rephrase this
2 In the previous questions, I think you concluded that the -- most
3 of the range of the compass bearing of the yellow line was in the area
4 west of north and only a smaller portion was east of north. You agree?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Now, in paragraph 61 of your report, you say it's
7 obvious because it was fired east of north - and let me just --
8 Could we have paragraph 61, I think, is immediately following
9 this figure. It's a really -- in English, we need to go to the next
10 page. Could we go not next page in English.
11 Yes, I think -- still the beginning was on the previous page but
12 we couldn't see it. Could we go back briefly. And could we zoom in on
13 the lower part, 61.
14 You said that anything from north to 67 degrees was BiH-held
16 Could we now move to the next page in both versions and zoom in
17 on the top part. And that, by the way, is illustrated in figure 52a.
18 Your conclusion is:
19 "It is obvious" --
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: First we -- now it's okay.
21 JUDGE ORIE: "It is obvious that all the directions from the
22 north to the azimuth of 67 degrees pass through the territory that is
23 controlled by the BH army."
24 That is from 0 degrees to, as plotted, 66, but as described, 67
1 Now if you correct your conclusion that the yellow line which is
2 the origin -- the direction of the origin of fire is not east from north
3 but more prominently west from north, would that in any way affect your
4 conclusion as to where this shell may have come from?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As you can see, we did not deal
6 with detail the deviation of the strip from the curb. We just concluded
7 that it's an angle less than 90 degrees. So it's an acute angle --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, let me stop you there. You testified that
9 it was your assessment that it was between 10 and 20 degrees. If you
10 want me to go to the transcript page, we'll do that. And then later,
11 because you said it was a bit rough, you broadened it to 10 to 30
12 degrees. Your testimony was not that it was less than 90. Your
13 testimony was initially that it was 10 to 20, and then that it was 10 to
15 On the basis of this, do you also revise that it's all obvious
16 that the shell must have come from an area which was BiH-controlled area?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe I clumsily estimated these
18 angles when I gave my answer. They look very acute. But just to be
19 completely safe, we took it only as an acute angle less than 90 degrees
20 and that's how we analysed it in this paper precisely in order to avoid
21 arriving at this analysis that we made today. My estimate would be 10,
22 then 20, then 30, even 40, is it so, or isn't it so, that's we just put
23 it in as an acute angle.
24 So I still stand by what I said: That the safest estimate we
25 could give is the one we gave in the paper.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you gave your testimony in this courtroom,
2 and that's just as important, and there you limited to 10 to 30 per cent.
3 Now, you also said on the basis of that assessment that the
4 origin of fire was east from north. Do you revise that conclusion on the
5 basis of your own estimate that the angle with the compass bearing of the
6 street would be between 10 and 30 degrees? Do you revise your conclusion
7 it would be east of north?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My estimate based on this picture
9 here in the courtroom, I'm afraid it's not completely safe, and I have to
10 stand by the answer that I gave before.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, I'm not asking you whether you want to
12 revise the estimate. My question is whether you want to revise on the
13 basis of the estimate - right or wrong - that the origin of fire, the
14 direction of the origin of fire, was east of north.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In our own analysis here, now, was
16 the same relative to the north. The one we just discussed.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I have no further questions for the witness.
18 We'll take a break. We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes.
19 Could you follow the usher.
20 [The witness stands down]
21 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at 1.30.
22 --- Recess taken at 1.09 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 1.31 p.m.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
25 Mr. Lukic, the Chamber finds that the evidence of this witness
1 should be concluded this week. That means not later than tomorrow. And
2 we may need another half an hour for some procedural matters. Not to say
3 that we may have a few further questions as well. We do not know yet.
4 But both parties should be aware that in view of the length of the
5 examination-in-chief and the cross-examination and the length of the
6 reports produced and the course the taking of evidence took, that we
7 should conclude this week.
8 [The witness takes the stand]
9 JUDGE ORIE: And if you make up your mind together with
10 Mr. Weber, I don't know how much time you would still need and ...
11 MR. LUKIC: I have a lot, but I will obviously have to shorten
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And if you could urge the witness to answer
14 the questions rather than to explain all kind of things which were not
15 asked, that certainly will bring you closer to your aim.
16 Please proceed.
17 Ms. Subotic, you'll now be re-examined by Mr. Lukic. I would
18 again urge you to carefully listen to the questions and to answer them
19 rather than tell us anything which is not directly in the question
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
23 We would ask to have P7548 on our screens, please.
24 Actually, no, I would start from -- I'm sorry. It's the
25 Prosecution exhibit and it does not have all the pages we need. So we
1 need 1D01293, please.
2 Re-examination by Mr. Lukic:
3 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, we have firing tables before us for
4 a light mortar, 120-millimetres, model M74. This is the cover page.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we see the next page.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, am I right to say that whereas the
7 B/C/S says 1982, the English one says 1992 on the cover pages?
8 MR. LUKIC: I hadn't paid attention to that one, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated].
10 MR. LUKIC: Can we go back? It does. It does. It's checked.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]
13 MR. LUKIC: In B/C/S, it's 1982.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: So it's 1982 on the B/C/S and it's 1992 on the
16 MR. LUKIC: So obviously wrong translation. Probably typo. Can
17 we go back in English version one page. Yeah. Should be 1982. Thank
18 you, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: 1982 is the correct one.
20 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Can we go to the second page now, please.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic should not speak aloud.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. We see here in this firing table we have M74 shell, M62, M56 P1,
25 and M49 P1 in chapter 2 of this report, which is on page 15 in B/C/S, and
1 10 in English.
2 MR. WEBER: I'm sorry, I don't know if counsel misspoke, but I
3 don't see an M74 shell.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's mistake.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
7 MR. LUKIC: And I mentioned 49.
8 JUDGE ORIE: It has been -- you're listening not to the English
9 channel --
10 MR. LUKIC: I am listening but [Overlapping speakers] --
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- but -- yes.
12 MR. LUKIC: Correct, yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And M76 was also a mistake, I think.
16 MR. LUKIC: 56.
17 Q. [Interpretation] On this page, we see ammunition and we see N49,
18 M62, M56. Then let's look at the next page in both versions.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] 16 in B/C/S; 11 in English.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could we go back to the other page again. The
21 previous one, Mr. Lukic. In English as well.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, now I see it, yes. Could we enlarge slightly.
24 Let me just have a look. Yes, I've seen it. Thank you. Please proceed.
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm still looking for M56.
2 MR. LUKIC: It's on --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Oh, I can see it now.
4 MR. LUKIC: Yes, yes. So can we go now to page 16 in B/C/S and
5 11 in English, please.
6 Q. [Interpretation] We see the basic data for ammunition here. Also
7 we see M49, M62, M56. I just want to draw your attention to this, and
8 then I would like to move to page 24 in B/C/S and 13 in English.
9 MR. LUKIC: I don't know if I asked -- yeah.
10 JUDGE ORIE: You did ask for new pages, yes. And there they are,
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. We see under point 4, gunpowder charges. Item 55 says that the
14 propellant powder charge for 120-millimetre M74 mortar shells is
15 comprised of the primary and increment charges. Only with the primary
16 charge firing does not take place. Why is that so; do you know?
17 A. That is because it's a heavier shell, a large shell.
18 Q. In the second paragraph of item 57, which is on the next page.
19 In paragraph 2, it says:
20 "The charge comes fitted into the shell stabiliser and it does
21 not require any preparation before firing."
22 Page 26 in B/C/S and 15 in English, please. When you discuss the
23 M62 shell, specifically:
24 "M62 P3, M62 P3, M56 P1, and M62 P2, M64 light smoke shells, and
25 the M66 illumination shells, they come with charges fitted onto the shell
1 during the production and do not require any preparation before firing."
2 As opposed to this -- actually, does this correspond to what you
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. So the primary charge on this shell, is it screwed on during
6 the -- at the positions or is there such a possibility?
7 A. No, not for these shells.
8 Q. Let us look at paragraph 64 now. That is on page 26 in B/C/S and
9 page 15 in the English version.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, are we looking at this in general or in
11 relation to a certain incident?
12 MR. LUKIC: To a certain incident, Your Honour, and two artefacts
13 we saw here in the courtroom, and there was a discussion whether that
14 basic charge should be dealt with somewhere in the field or not. And it
15 was presented to Ms. Subotic actually that --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. And --
17 MR. LUKIC: -- it could be done.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If you could remind me, that was what kind of
19 a shell exactly? What number.
20 MR. LUKIC: M62.
21 JUDGE ORIE: M62. Thank you. Please proceed.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Here in paragraph 64 what is discussed are M49 shells, and it
24 says -- we see it's that shell.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In the B/C/S version, we need to move
1 onto the next page; and also in English version, we need to move onto the
2 next page. That's where the text continues.
3 Q. So for M49 at the top of the page, the first bullet point in
4 B/C/S and in English, it says:
5 "One primary charge, packed in the same box as the fuse and
6 placed in the designated slot inside the shell crate."
7 As for this shell, M49, is it necessary to mount the primary
9 A. Yes, it is put into the stabiliser.
10 Q. Does this shell look different when one looks at it compared to
12 A. Well, no. Just if we look at them at the same time, they all
13 vary, but it doesn't really matter.
14 Q. These shells that you looked at in relation to the Markale
15 incidents, it says that they're M62. Would you agree with that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. There's some variations here of M62 but we're not going to deal
18 with that any longer.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] However, we would like to tender this
20 document because it is more comprehensive. We would like to have it
21 admitted need, and we can link it up to what the Prosecution already
23 JUDGE ORIE: You can do that. Have you done it?
24 MR. LUKIC: No, we haven't because we cannot merge anything with
25 the Prosecution.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just wondering what we should do at this moment,
2 whether we should reserve a number or provisionally admit.
3 Mr. Weber.
4 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, there's some paragraphs missing, and we
5 believe that those could impact on the relevance of some of the
6 information that was presented. So as a general matter, we've no
7 objection to the admission of manuals. So if there's a provisional
8 number that can be assigned, that's no problem, but if we could please
9 discuss what portions of this should be maybe additionally translated.
10 MR. LUKIC: We are willing to have the whole manual. We have no
11 problem. If anything is missing...
12 MR. WEBER: I leave it to counsel what he wants to translate. We
13 might have a couple extra paragraphs that we would like to have
15 JUDGE ORIE: One of the problems is if you do not deal with
16 certain pages of the manual, Chambers staff will then to go through all
17 that if you have not clearly defined. At the same time, of course, we
18 should also be careful not to lose context.
19 For the time being let's reserve a number for the whole of this
20 manual, and then the parties could sit together and see what is relevant
21 or not so as to save unnecessary work for us as well.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. WEBER: And I didn't want anything to be misunderstood that
24 we think that it's been linked up to what was used by the Prosecution as
25 of now, so ...
1 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be reserved.
2 THE REGISTRAR: D1278, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: That's for the manual on this 120-millimetre mortar
4 shells. It's -- we know the 65 ter number. It's therefore not only
5 reserved but it's MFI'd, and we'll later hear what portions we really
6 will have to look at.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Subotic, it was put to that you had you
10 problems in terms of perspective because you used photographs from police
11 documents. How did you redress that? Actually, I cannot ask you
13 A. Sorry, I didn't hear a question.
14 Q. All right. Problems of perspective, because you used photographs
15 from police files.
16 A. The problem of perspective is one that we practically did not
17 have to resolve by special methods. Where it was necessary to resolve
18 it, we used programmes and we carried out many analyses on the spot, and
19 then we compiled photo documentation about that, so --
20 Q. That's what you wished to say?
21 Markale I and II were discussed, and what was mentioned was that
22 one mortar shell fell in both places. I don't know whether you can tell
23 me now, but how many mortar shells are needed in order to destroy a
24 target? I'm referring to 120-millimetres or 82-millimetres; that would
25 be the calibre?
1 A. This is tactical information. Right this minute, I wouldn't
3 Q. Very well.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could all unnecessary
5 microphones please be switched off. Thank you.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we briefly take a look at 1D1293.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it the same D1278 MFI?
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's on the screen.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's on the screen.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Which page do you need?
11 MR. LUKIC: That's right, yeah. Page 57.
12 Can we have this one enlarged, please.
13 Q. [Interpretation] You were already asked about this. Judge Orie
14 asked you about this. He asked you whether you took into account minus
15 500. That is to say, a 500 metre difference in altitude.
16 A. Yes, I said that we did not and that there was no need for that
17 because we analysed this throughout the horizontal plane.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
19 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, a couple of things. I'd just -- in
20 order for follow -- we've discussed many, many incidents, and things have
21 come up at different times. If we could please have a precise reference
22 to where things were made so that we can track what the actual testimony
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could you assist both Mr. Weber and the
1 MR. LUKIC: No, not at this moment, I'm sorry. I have cut out
2 something completely different.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll try to finds it ourselves, but ...
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. You told us that there was no need for that. On this table, can
6 minus 500 be seen?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
10 MR. WEBER: If counsel could just state for the record -- I see
11 that the type of mortar is on the page, an M74, but I'm not sure what the
12 break -- actually, what type of mortar shell this table refers to, and
13 there's no translation of it.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
15 MR. LUKIC: I only can see that it's first charge -- give me one
16 minute, please.
17 JUDGE ORIE: On the top of what we see is 120-millimetre M74, is
18 that -- apparently with a 130-millimetre per seconds initial speed.
19 That's what with he can see from it.
20 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I'm just going to leave this vague.
21 But to state my concern, I'm concerned we're possibly not looking at the
22 right type of mortar.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, do you have any better mortar for us to
24 look at?
25 MR. LUKIC: I'll move on and I'll come back, obviously. I have
1 some ... I cannot see it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
3 MR. LUKIC: I'll come back to this one.
4 Can we have 1D5756 now, please.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Who took this photograph? The one before you, Ms. Subotic.
9 A. This photograph was taken by my colleague, Mile Poparic, and
10 myself when we visited in September, the 17th of September, in
11 Vase Miskina. We did this as instructed by the Trial Chamber.
12 Q. And what was your finding? How big are these tiles?
13 A. What I've already said, that it is squares and --
14 MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
16 MR. WEBER: Could we please have some foundation? We have when,
17 where. I mean --
18 MR. LUKIC: Everything is there.
19 JUDGE ORIE: I think it was in response to --
20 MR. WEBER: Otherwise, we are just talking about a file.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I think it was in response to a request of I then
22 take it the Karadzic Trial Chamber or any other Chamber?
23 When was it?
24 MR. LUKIC: It says 17th of September. Only year is missing.
25 JUDGE ORIE: 17 September of what year?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 2010 in the street of Vase Miskina.
2 I did say that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
5 Q. [Interpretation] My colleague Mr. Weber asked you about what
6 he -- actually about what Mirza Sabljica marked during his testimony.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] 1D05544. Could we please take a look
8 at that first.
9 MR. WEBER: I'm just -- are we moving to a different incident?
10 MR. LUKIC: Yeah. Yes, we are.
11 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, just for the record the relevance of
12 this photo is unclear to the Prosecution.
13 MR. LUKIC: It will be.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Let's move on. Mr. Lukic, we're moving now to which
16 MR. LUKIC: Klare Cetkin Street.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. You used this photograph in your report.
20 A. Yes. This photograph is one that we dealt with as photo
21 documentation in terms of measuring traces on the spot in Klare Cetkin
22 Street. So we used it for verification for what we measured on the spot.
23 Q. Were you present when this photograph was marked?
24 A. Yes. I was in the courtroom when Witness Mirza Sabljica
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. LUKIC: Can we have 1D1405 on our screens now, please.
3 Q. [Interpretation] This is the transcript of Mr. Sabljica's
5 MR. LUKIC: Can we have page 22 in e-court, please. Should
6 correspond to page 7-8 ... the next one then, please. Should correspond
7 to page 7834 of the Karadzic transcript. And then from line 12, it
8 starts -- line 20, the question was:
9 "Do you see that this crater here is right next to the pavement.
10 One bit of the pavement even had to be replaced and repaired.
11 "A. That's clearly visible."
12 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I'm sorry to interrupt, but just
13 to [indiscernible] -- the -- the phrase immediately above, it's relevant
14 for the context of this photograph. If counsel wouldn't mind starting at
15 line 16.
16 JUDGE ORIE: If would you follow the suggestion, Mr. --
17 MR. LUKIC: Yes, of course.
18 JUDGE ORIE: You are free to do so. Of course, otherwise
19 Mr. Weber will revisit the matter in --
20 MR. LUKIC: Yes, because it was clear later. I will just need to
21 read more, but that's fine. Page 16:
22 "Q. Do you know this place?"
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Line 16.
24 MR. LUKIC: Line 16. What did I say?
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: "Page."
1 MR. LUKIC: Okay. Line 16. Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. "Q. Do you know this place?
3 "A. Looking at this photograph it could be anywhere in the city
4 of Sarajevo because I can't see the buildings around, so I couldn't even
5 tell you in which part of town it is based on this photograph."
6 And then after that, I already read.
7 Then Mr. Sabljica was shown several other documents in Karadzic
8 case like 1D2576, and it was -- he was informed that it's regarding G-6
9 incident. On page 7844, from lines 18 to 22, 23, 24, and then he was
10 shown this photograph which was marked in Karadzic case as 1D2440.
11 And now we need page 7846 for this transcript, so we have to go
12 12 pages ahead.
13 Line 9, Mr. Sabljica was asked, I quote:
14 "Sir, can you now recognise the heating plant at Alipasino Polje
15 and this same spot, a portion of the sidewalk that had been replaced and
16 also the pavement that was repaired?
17 "A. Yes, I do, but now it's taken from a different angle.
18 "Q. Would you agree with me that this photo was taken from
19 outside the building where -- bearing the memorial plaque?
20 "A. Yes, I do agree based on the replacement of the sidewalk I
21 could agree with that."
22 And then they were -- talked -- they talked about the photograph
23 at line 25, starts the question:
24 "Thank you. Can you now please tell us whether this measuring,"
25 end of quote, and we have to go to next page.
1 I quote:
2 "... band was placed in the way that you would place the band to
3 indicate the major axis.
4 "A. Yes, but we did mark all the traces and based on the
5 photograph it is my assumption that this could be indicating the
6 direction from which the projectile had come in."
7 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I'm going to object based on the fact
8 that he just jumped the discussion about the major axis in the preceding
9 page. I'm worried that this is being misleading.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. I'm afraid that it escapes my
11 understanding what exactly your problem is, Mr. Weber. And could you do
12 it in such a way that ...
13 MR. WEBER: I will try to do it in a general way. There was a
14 photo that's been shown that was marked with the witness that did have a
15 location, which is referred to on the previous page which Mr. Sabljica
16 was commenting on in terms of the major axis and him being able or not
17 able to determine that major axis based on that photograph that we saw
18 which counsel is relying upon. I think if counsel is going to do that,
19 we should have the full discussion about the reference points that
20 Mr. Sabljica is being able to comment or not comment upon.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I leave it at this moment in the hands of Mr. Lukic,
22 and if there's any error made there, then have you an opportunity --
23 because I'm just a bit lost. You're referring to a lot of things which
24 we haven't read, so therefore I'm unable to follow it.
25 Mr. Lukic, you may proceed but for not more than one or two
2 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. That's why I have to go back now in the
3 transcript as well because the picture was first marked and then he was
4 explained where this whole picture was taken. And so we have to go back
5 to page 7834 in the transcript, which is 13 pages back.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Will you able to do this exercise in one or two
7 minutes or -- if not, then we should stop. I take it we go back and I --
8 from what I saw a minute ago was it that Mr. Sabljica initially said, "I
9 don't know where it is," and then later that was apparently in one way or
10 another was resolved.
11 I'd like the parties to sit together and to see how they divide
12 their time tomorrow. We need at least half an hour, if not a little bit
13 more, for other matters.
14 Ms. Subotic, this is the last time I'm going to instruct you that
15 you should not speak with anyone or communicate because the Chamber
16 considers it -- that your testimony should be concluded by tomorrow.
17 Therefore, also if you want to serve the interests of justice best, then
18 it would also be best to immediately answer to the questions, because
19 otherwise some questions may not be able to be put, which would be a
21 You may follow the usher, and you should not discuss your
22 evidence with anyone or communicate about it.
23 [The witness stands down]
24 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day, and we resume tomorrow,
25 Thursday, the 8th of October, 9.30 in the morning in this same courtroom,
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.15 p.m.,
3 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 8th day of
4 October, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.