1 Tuesday, 27 October 2015
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, may I invite you to 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 -- we were informed that the Defence wanted to raise a
12 preliminary matter.
13 Mr. Lukic.
14 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. Good morning, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning.
16 MR. LUKIC: We have to respond to -- actually, request to explain
17 our objections to the P07527. It's Official Note composed by AID on 12th
18 of April, 2000, and in that official report, AID is addressing the
19 interview with Mr. Bilcar, Dusan, conducted on 10th of April, 2000
20 regarding the death of his wife, Ratke Bilcar. From this document, it is
21 not visible to who this official report is addressed, is not visible who
22 composed this report. There is no number, or case or number or protocol
23 under which case is recorded. And there is no this interview attached to
24 the document although it was mentioned that the interview was conducted.
25 So those are basically our objections to this document.
1 And another thing we would -- we should shortly go to the private
2 session, please.
3 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
4 [Private session]
11 Page 40342-40343 redacted. Private session.
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
7 In relation to P7527, because that's what we started with, any
8 response or any further submissions to be made on this Official Note?
9 MR. TIEGER: Not at the moment, Mr. President, although I had --
10 I mean, if obliged to do so, I would have a couple of preliminary
11 submissions. But I would prefer, if the Court doesn't mind, to give us
12 an opportunity to review the quick history of the tendering of this
13 document and then get back to the Court.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Within the next two days, would that be
15 sufficient, Mr. Tieger?
16 MR. TIEGER: Thank you very much.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll hear from you within two days.
18 Is the Defence ready to call its next witness?
19 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. We are calling Mr. Poparic.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could the witness be escorted in the
22 Mr. Lukic, perhaps I briefly ask your attention for D1211. You
23 had asked that -- that Svetlana Radovanovic's expert report, you had
24 asked certain pages to be verified as to the accuracy of its translation.
25 Now, the report was the translation on all these pages were
1 accurate. Nevertheless you agreed uploading a new -- a new translation
2 so the Chamber wonders and would like to hear from you why, if the
3 accuracy was confirmed, why there nevertheless is a new translation. So
4 if would you inform us about that rather soon.
5 [The witness entered court]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Poparic.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Poparic, you are now in a different position
9 compared to where we've seen you for a while.
10 Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you make a
11 solemn declaration that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth and
12 nothing but the truth. The text is now handed out to you. May I invite
13 you to make that solemn declaration.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
15 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
16 WITNESS: MILE POPARIC
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Poparic. Please be seated.
19 It may be clear to you now that your role now changed from
20 advising the Defence to being a witness, an expert witness, who has a
21 different role. You are aware of that, I take it?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All is clear.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then you'll first be examined by Mr. Lukic -- well,
24 I usually say you finds him to your left but you know that he's there.
25 And what Mr. Lukic is, that is, that he's counsel for Mr. Mladic may not
1 come as a surprise to you either.
2 Mr. Lukic, please proceed.
3 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Examination by Mr. Lukic:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Poparic.
6 A. Good morning.
7 Q. For the record, kindly state your first and last name.
8 A. I am Mile Poparic.
9 Q. Did you draft an expert report for of the purposes of Mladic
11 A. Yes. I created several reports in co-operation with my
12 colleague, Mrs Zorica Subotic.
13 MR. LUKIC: Can we have on our screens 1D05499, please.
14 Q. [Interpretation] There's a document on the screen before you. Do
15 you recognise it?
16 A. I do.
17 Q. Did you take part in the creation of this expert report?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Does the report require any changes or amendments?
20 A. Basically, there's nothing. There's just one thing, but perhaps
21 we can deal with it later when we get to that point and then I'll specify
22 the error.
23 As for the rest, and as far as I could see, it is correct.
24 Perhaps there is the odd small mistake here and there, but nothing of
1 MR. LUKIC: Since we are not offering this at this moment
2 anyways, I will come back to those corrections, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll hear from you.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Poparic, I will continue with my questions now and then we
6 can turn to the corrections later on.
7 In 2013, did you testify in a case?
8 A. Yes, I testified in the case against Radovan Karadzic.
9 Q. Since that time, did you gain any new insights in the incidents
10 you discussed in the Karadzic case?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Because of these new insights, did you change your report with
13 regard to any incidents dealt with in the Karadzic case significantly?
14 A. No, things were not changed, but we simply tried to define a
15 particular incident more precisely. For example, incident F-8 of the 8th
16 of October, incident F-16 of the 3rd of March, 1995, as well as a couple
17 of other cases, where we were able to define it more precisely.
18 Q. Let us look, then, at F-16.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In this document, it is page 232 in
20 the B/C/S and 239 in the English version.
21 Q. As you were drafting this report and the Karadzic report, how did
22 you acquire the necessary information about the incidents?
23 A. We received most of that information from Mr. Karadzic's Defence.
24 Later on, we received some from you, and that was the bulk of the
25 information contained. However, there were cases where not everything
1 was defined or there were contradictory pieces of information in
2 existence. Hence, it was highly useful to obtain as much information as
3 possible, and we tried in different ways to acquire that information. We
4 also relied on the website of the Tribunal and various other websites
5 where we could get some information about certain events, including
6 footage and so on. We were also in contact with the people involved and
7 so on and so forth. We tried hard to acquire as much information as
8 possible, so as to be able to define the cases as precisely as possible.
9 However, I have to say that there were about two incidents where
10 we were unable to say explicitly it happened this or that way because the
11 information about the incidents is contradictory. We did not have a
12 defined threshold to screen the information and to say, This is correct
13 and that is incorrect. Perhaps we would require -- or this Bench will
14 require some additional information obtained through some other witnesses
15 in order to be able to assess it properly.
16 Q. So what were the basic problems you encountered in drafting this,
17 the fourth report, the report pertaining to small-arms?
18 A. With incidents involving small-arms, traces are always a problem
19 because the location is quickly changed. The people involved leave, and
20 they there are no significant traces left of the there may be some small
21 ones that need to be registered immediately. It frequently happened that
22 it was not the case, and the police did not register all such traces.
23 That was one thing.
24 Another thing, all these cases are frequently tied to injury and
25 it is crucial that there is forensic documentation on file, but in most
1 of the cases, it was non-existent. There were some cases where there
2 were doctors' reports, specifying the location of injury, but always
3 quite limited in terms of information.
4 That was one problem with these cases.
5 There was a problem with police information as well, because it
6 often proved unreliable particularly in terms of the place of incident.
7 For example, we had cases where there was a distance of up to 200 metres
8 between the place of incident specified and what we find in the report.
9 For example, the 1st of November, 1995 incident, that case is not
10 scheduled in the indictment. There is an incident of the 23rd of
11 November. However, the previous case was discussed in the Milosevic case
12 and it was specified that the incident took place close to the
13 Holiday Inn and the Metalka building and the judgement contains that
14 information. However, I received from you a ballistics report signed by
15 Emir Turkusic and Edin Suljic [phoen], if I were to go by the initials on
16 the document. It is specifically stated in at that document that the
17 tram was in the Zmaja od Bosne street which is always 300 metres away
18 from the place of incident indicated in the judgement. I don't know how
19 it came about that that piece of information was missing in the Milosevic
21 Also, in the same incident, the police in their reports stated
22 that the incident took place as specified in the indictment and then the
23 same police force puts a different piece of information in their other
24 report. There were other such cases. For example, there is the case of
25 Miljenka Cvitkovica Street where a boy had been wounded. All information
1 pointed to Miljenka Cvitkovica Street but the on-site investigation and
2 all evidence comes from Dzemala Bijedica Street which is a different
3 street. So that was one of the biggest problems.
4 Another problem, as I said, was the lacking forensic
5 documentation, which in some cases was crucial. And in cases such as
6 those we were unable to determine anything specifically.
7 There was also a problem with the Prosecution asserting that an
8 incident took place at a different location such as the case of the 27th
9 of February, 1995, which, beyond dispute, happened in front of the Museum
10 of the Revolution and the Prosecution asserted and Barry Hogan took
11 footage with a witness indicating that it also happened at an
12 intersection in front of the Metalka building.
13 There was a witness testifying --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: When I testified in
15 the Karadzic case, the Prosecution showed me a photograph allegedly taken
16 from the Faculty of Theology and it was very important to be specific
17 about the case. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to recognise the photograph
18 and what was depicted because it was zoomed in. Later on, after my
19 testimony, I received the photograph and I could see immediately that it
20 wasn't accurate. There was a whole set of photographs whereby I
21 established that wasn't taken from the school of theology but from a
22 building next door which was under construction at the time and the
23 photograph was taken from the scaffolding. From the school of theology
24 that place is not visible. One could not take a photograph from there
25 because of a crown of a tree.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, we've now heard for three pages an
2 overall assessment of the whole of the case, the judgements delivered,
3 comment on matters, photographs, that could not be taken from point A or
4 from point B. We understand that this witness had certain problems, and
5 we invite you to get back to the expertise of this witness, what he could
6 tell us, and this witness is not here to give his overall assessment of
7 both -- all of the evidence before us or not before us, to give his
8 overall assessment of the quality of our judgements. You know that
9 there's an Appeals Chamber who could deal with that. And let's get back
10 to what the witness is here for; that is, to tell us what his expertise
11 can bring us, and then, please, in concrete terms and not in general
12 sweeping statements.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. LUKIC: I think the gentleman gave us exactly --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I invited you to proceed, not to comment
16 on what I said.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. LUKIC: I don't understand this sweeping statements. Is it a
19 sweeping statement when he gives the exact address --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then you don't understand me. That's a pity. But I
21 think my invitation [Overlapping speakers] ...
22 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... What you don't understand
23 the witness.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
25 MR. LUKIC: How can we --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, we're not in a debate. You can put the
2 next question to the witness.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Mr. Poparic, when you refer to the particular addresses in the
5 city, are they also referred to in your reports as well as in our
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did you use newspaper reports?
9 A. Yes. I had the opportunity of seeing film footage, TV reports of
10 war reporters, and that was very useful.
11 Q. Why do you think it was useful and why did you use newspaper
13 A. Well, as regards small-arms fire, according to the indictment, it
14 is alleged that citizens were exposed to constant sniper fire, especially
15 at cross-roads in streets where they moved about, et cetera. There are
16 quite a few newspaper reports to that effect. These reports attracted my
17 attention because I noticed that in quite a few reports there is a
18 reference to cross-roads, intersections where people are running across
19 some intersection and one can see that there's some kind of danger.
20 However, in some footage I saw some illogical things, for example, people
21 lying by the intersection --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I asked you to get to concrete matters.
23 Newspaper articles, are they in evidence? Can we look at them?
24 MR. LUKIC: Yes, we can.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then please go to what you want to, that is,
1 concrete information about incidents rather than all kind of background
2 information which we do not know what it is.
3 MR. LUKIC: Can we see video that is marked as 1D05925. And
4 we'll see the time-frame from 1 hour, 51 minute, 32 seconds to 1 hour, 51
5 minute, 54 seconds.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could we also know what incident we are talking
7 about. Is it one of the Scheduled Incidents in the indictment?
8 MR. LUKIC: This is in connection with testimony of
9 Mr. Van Lynden. I don't know if I pronounce his name.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Van Lynden. Okay, what part of his testimony so
11 that we know what we are going to look at and we can have a focussed look
12 on what we see before us.
13 MR. LUKIC: We can find this in the report of Mr. Poparic and
14 Ms. Subotic. We'll first see the video and then I'll go to the report,
15 and we'll have some questions in connection with this.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could you already tell us where you will take us
17 later, so at least we can have a look at the report --
18 MR. LUKIC: Yes. It's page 37 in English version, figure 8. Of
20 Can we see the video now. Can we start, please.
21 [Video-clip played]
22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. And now if we can go to 1D05499, please.
23 Q. [Interpretation] First of all, Mr. Poparic, what was depicted in
24 the video?
25 A. Fire in a residential building in the street Zmaja od Bosne,
1 which is close Marin Dvor, so it is close to the centre. It was taken by
2 Van Lynden, a reporter from Sky News, and in his report he claimed that
3 this building had been hit with incendiary bullets --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, could all another
5 microphones be switched off. Thank you.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We see something is falling, and
7 it's incendiary ammunition.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can help us to recognise the object falling? I
9 can't see anything like that.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we could enlarge the photographs. Where do
11 we see it. Which --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe it would be useful if I were
13 to mark it using a marker, so that it would be easier for you to fall.
14 JUDGE ORIE: If you would first tell us what of the six
15 photographs we should look at.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] See here? We're looking at all the
17 photographs A through D, that is to say, A, B, C, D. These are segments
18 that follow the trajectory of this object. On slide A, in the upper
19 left-hand corner, we see this object that is alight, then --
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could we zoom in only on A, B, C and D. Thank
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you wish I can mark it. So here
23 on slide A, this object --
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... the
25 assistance of the usher.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, no markings without being invited to do so.
2 If you would start telling us what you draw our attention to. And are
3 you at --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I won't.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Slide A, you said, on slide A, the upper
6 left-hand corner, we see this object that is alight.
7 Do you mean in the upper left-hand corner of A --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: If you would wait until I finish --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Now --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, if you would wait until I finish my
12 question, because there's no way you can taken not knowing what my
13 question will be.
14 Photograph A, is the left upper photograph. What were you
15 drawing our attention to in that photograph?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm indicating this object that is
17 alight and it is underneath this window in the upper left-hand corner.
18 It's a bit below. It's a bit below the window. Can you see that?
19 JUDGE ORIE: No. Perhaps if would be good if the witness marks
20 that with the assistance of the usher. Because at this moment I do not
21 see something in the upper left-hand corner which is alight.
22 Could you mark on photograph A.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll mark it with a number 1. That
24 is position 1 of that object.
25 I drew this line a bit over that object --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could it be -- could it be rubbed out again so that
2 can you do it around it, so that we could still see it.
3 Mr. Usher, could you assist in removing the little circle so that
4 the witness can now put the circle around and perhaps again.
5 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And now, again, you put a 1 next to that.
7 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. And say that's a light object. Yes.
9 Please continue.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you say this is alight or did you say it's a
12 light object. On the record I read that you said it was alight and I
13 want to understand how you make the determination that it's alight.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Physically, it's burning. We saw
15 that in the film footage. It's burning.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't see the burning. The burning I see from
17 the window. There, I see a red dot and I don't know whether it is alight
18 or something else and I don't see whether -- I don't see whether it's
19 burning, that's why I'm asking you how you make those determinations.
20 How do you see it's burning and how do you know it's alight. I see a
21 dot, a red dot.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It can be seen very nicely in the
23 film footage, if you look at it carefully. We can play it again. As it
24 is falling, it has a kind of flame and Van Lynden is also claiming that
25 it's on fire, the man who was there. It fell in front of him. And he
1 claims that it is on fire. That it's aflame.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, maybe we should see the footage then.
3 Because as a still I just see a dot. I don't see what you are saying.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps you start with further explaining to us what
5 we see here that we look again after that to see the video to see whether
6 we can ...
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we look at slide B that object
8 has a position that's a bit different. It's further up. See? Number 2.
9 So when we look at it in relation to the window it is higher up. In
10 relation to the position in photograph A.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Next slide, C, I'll mark it with
13 number 3, this object is perhaps a bit above this, but this is where it
14 reaches its maximum in terms of height.
15 And let us move on to slide D now. Here, it is already falling.
16 It is descending. So let that be number 4.
17 So that is how it falls. Well, we can't see it anymore. Then it
18 hits the ground and then bounces off, say, 2 metres, and then falls
19 somewhere else.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you know that the Chamber would like --
21 MR. LUKIC: To see the video again, yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- To look at it again.
23 MR. LUKIC: We'll try and pause and play it in a very fast
24 sequence so, still, we'll have it a bit longer on our screens because
25 it's very fast.
1 So can we play the video again.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: First, tender this marked photograph.
3 MR. LUKIC: Oh, yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Once it is removed from the screen, it's lost.
5 MR. LUKIC: Can we tender this marked versions.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the marked version is the marked
7 version which contains only four out of the six photographs which were in
8 the original and the number would be?
9 THE REGISTRAR: D1325, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Can we start, please.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Is it any use for us first to look at the lower two
15 MR. LUKIC: No --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay --
17 MR. LUKIC: I don't think it's --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
19 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, continue.
20 [Video-clip played]
21 MR. LUKIC: Stop. Okay. Continue, continue. Stop. Continue.
22 Stop. Continue.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, in your view, how was this flame
24 created? Is it incendiary ammunition or what?
25 A. Mr. Van Lynden said that it's incendiary ammunition and that the
1 JNA had incendiary ammunition in its equipment. That is only partly
2 true. In the JNA, there was one bullet, 20-millimetre calibre. It was
3 called an incendiary bullet, armour piercing. It had a steel top and
4 then there was this mix that would be set on fire once it hits the
5 surface. I can also draw a sketch of this, if it would be useful for the
6 Trial Chamber. And if this projectile impacts - this is basically
7 anti-aircraft ammunition - then this pyrotechnical mix is set on fire
8 because of the pressure and then it sets off a spark and then that is
9 supposed to set something on fire, say, fuel. So it's a few grams, and
10 it just creates a blaze. The entire projectile cannot be set on fire.
11 So it doesn't look like this. So this is not that particular ammunition.
12 Secondly, the trajectory of this object cannot be a projectile.
13 Certainly not. Because we see here that it goes underneath one window,
14 reaches another window, say, a metre and a half, and then it falls on the
15 ground. That would mean that this projectile had ricocheted which
16 certainly could not have happened in this case. There could have been a
17 ricochet only if it hit the building at a smaller angle, less than 20
18 degrees, and then there could have been a ricochet and then it could have
19 moved along the length of the building. It certainly couldn't have
20 fallen underneath the building in this way. It is a metal object because
21 it can be heard that it bounced off. Also, a metal object where there
22 was some cloth or something, I don't know, say, you can just use crude
23 oil and throw it through the window. The trajectory we see here, matches
24 that. For example, you set this on fire, you throw it up, and then it
25 goes up about a metre and a half and then falls down. This is obviously
1 something --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, we can no longer hear the
3 witness. There are too many microphones on and there is a lot of
4 background noise. We apologise.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I put one question to the witness.
6 You told us a lot about your conclusions and -- but you didn't
7 specify where you got the details from. Was it only taken the details,
8 the factual details, from this video we have seen and the photographs,
9 the stills, or do you have any additional sources?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The facts I presented about
11 ammunition, that came from other sources. That has to do with
12 recognition of ammunition. However, the flame itself, the torch, that is
13 a conclusion on the basis of this film, and that is sufficient. So if
14 you look at it, it can be played once again. If you look at how it
15 falls. It bounces off. We see that.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This was not my question. I just wanted to know
17 the source where you draw your -- where you based your conclusions on,
18 that was so -- with respect to this object. This is only the video. Is
19 it true?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was only based on the footage
21 and my knowledge of the characteristics of the projectile. I know very
22 well when ricochet can occur --
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... this is your
24 knowledge. That's fine. But you didn't see, personally, this piece on
25 flames which was falling down? You didn't see that and you don't have
1 any additional knowledge about this artefact. Is it true -- is that
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I see in the footage was it.
4 But I think it suffices to draw the conclusion I did. It suffices. I
5 can see the picture --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... I stopped
7 you. You said it is only the video what you base your conclusion on.
8 Fine. I understood it correctly. Everything else is fine. I just
9 wanted to know that. And please answer the questions which were put to
11 Mr. Lukic.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, before we continue, I read in the report
13 that this is a comment to the testimony of Mr. Van Lynden.
14 Now I look at footnote which refers to the testimony of witness
15 Aernout van Lynden in 2010 which is, as far as I'm aware of, not in
16 evidence. So we have no idea what we're talking about. And then I find
17 in Mladic 65 ter number 1D05735 -- and apparently there is where we are
18 supposed to look, but that's not in evidence. So we have no idea what
19 Mr. Van Lynden said and what he referred to because it was in a different
20 case. I do not know whether it was -- whether there were any questions
21 put to him in this case or ... I mean, we need a basis for -- if we want
22 to follow the witness, we should know what he's talking about.
23 So if you would please organise it in such a way that we are able
24 to even evaluate the evidence of this witness, then that would be
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. LUKIC: We'll go back to the video shortly. So it's 1D05925.
3 We'll play that video just from 1 hour, 51 minutes, 35 seconds to 1 hour,
4 51 minutes, 36 seconds. So only one second.
5 [Video-clip played]
6 MR. LUKIC: Stop.
7 Q. [Interpretation] In this footage, in the one second of it,
8 Mr. Poparic, what could we see?
9 A. We could see shots being fired from the building, burst of fire
10 not only from this particular window but if you look at the footage more
11 closely it comes from several directions. You can see tracer bullets,
12 and I can explain where it comes from.
13 Q. Just one second. Let us look at the same footage, starting from
14 1:50 and ending at 1:51.
15 [Video-clip played]
16 MR. LUKIC: We should stop at 1:51. So 1:50 and stop at 1:51.
17 [Video-clip played]
18 MR. LUKIC: Bit further. Continue. Maybe it's different timing.
19 Can we see 1 hour, 51 minute, 33 seconds to 1 hour, 51 minute, 36
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just for the record, the last piece we saw was
22 not starting at 1:50, but later.
23 MR. LUKIC: It was from another video probably, and I had 1
24 minute, 50 seconds and we are working with ours here obviously.
25 So 1 hour, 51 second, 33 to 51 minute, 33 seconds.
1 [Video-clip played]
2 JUDGE ORIE: We hear sound but we have no image.
3 [Video-clip played]
4 MR. LUKIC: My colleague is trying to find it.
5 [Defence counsel confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
7 MS. EDGERTON: If there's a problem with the system, Ms. Stewart
8 is able to play it.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
10 MS. EDGERTON: Just by way of offering some kind of assistance.
11 [Video-clip played]
12 MR. LUKIC: We'll try to play it now. Can we start and stop
13 every half a second and play again.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have 1:51.34.
15 [Video-clip played]
16 MR. LUKIC: Stop.
17 Q. [Interpretation] What could we see in this particular still?
18 A. We could see a tracer bullet being fired from a window and we
19 could see the smoke the trace left by the barrel of a gun.
20 Q. In your view, was it -- was the building being shot at or was the
21 fire coming from the building itself?
22 A. The shot was fired from the building.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And could you tell us from where in the building.
24 At least what I thought I could see but, please, correct me when I'm
25 wrong, that something is going up and is then falling down. Now from
1 where would that have been fired if it was fired from within the
2 building, if you see - at least that's how I understand it - see whatever
3 the projectile may have been being outside the building going up and then
4 hitting the building?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think you are correct in
6 what you saw, when you saw something falling down. It may have been
7 something else. It was fired from the third window, actually the third
8 row of windows, the open one. It was fired from there, and we could see
9 smoke coming out of the fire-arm after the bullet had left the barrel.
10 That is precisely the footage that this shot -- the still that we can
12 This wasn't the only window where such bullets were fired from.
13 There are others.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would appreciate if we could see that part of
15 the video again and it is always better to introduce first what we have
16 to look at to understand the testimony of the witness.
17 MR. LUKIC: That's my mistake, if I didn't do so, Your Honour.
18 Thank you. We'll try to see the same sequence again. We'll start to
19 play and stop, since everything finishes in less than one second.
20 [Video-clip played]
21 MR. LUKIC: Stop. So we saw again --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could we go one --
23 MR. LUKIC: We can -- we'll see more. If we continue, we'll see
24 more. Continue.
25 [Video-clip played]
1 JUDGE ORIE: But could we go one back before we see this smoke
3 MR. LUKIC: We cannot --
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- appearing.
5 MR. LUKIC: Our technique does not allow it to play that way.
6 We'll adjust again and then try to play it.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I mean, could we rewind and play again or make a
8 still just half a second earlier.
9 MR. LUKIC: Okay. Stop. Play from there.
10 [Video-clip played]
11 MR. LUKIC: Is that the part you wanted to see, Your Honour?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And perhaps if you could go by the minimal --
13 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, click and. Play and stop. Play and stop.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. LUKIC: Yeah.
16 JUDGE ORIE: What I saw, but perhaps I'm wrong, was that a kind
17 of a flash-light coming from the right up to the left.
18 Could we play this half a second again and could we see whether
19 we see anything before that little bit of smoke appears.
20 [Video-clip played]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Shortest intervals as possible. There -- did you
22 see -- at least I thought that I saw something coming from the right up,
23 like a bit of a red stripe. No -- okay. We'll -- the Chamber will look
24 at it and see [Overlapping speakers] ...
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Put on the record at which window we are looking.
1 It's, in my view, the if I can call it like that, the third column of
2 windows. Don't move it at the moment, please. And the fourth window
3 from the top, which is now enlightened a bit. And in the previous still,
4 only part of a second before that, it was dark, this window was dark.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And perhaps --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do we agree that we are looking at the same
7 window, Mr. Poparic?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And let me then see whether I'm also fully convinced
10 that we're looking at the same.
11 I see in the right -- yes. I see in the most left column of
12 windows, I see one which out stands because it's the darkest of all of
13 them and it's the third from the top. Do you see that one? I'm just
14 identifying one window.
15 Now in that same row --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- going from left to right, we are looking at the
18 third window which seems to even be a little bit greenish, where there's
19 only one other window closer to the half-round balconies, so we're in
20 that row, and we're looking at the third window to the right of the
21 darkest one in the most left column.
22 That's what we are looking at.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's the window.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's -- and you are telling us now exactly
25 what happened at that window. Was it shot from there or ...
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Somebody fired from that window,
2 and we can see the bullet. It was fired through that window.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Through that window.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, out of that window.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Out of that window.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: That's your interpretation of this image. It
9 couldn't be a little bit off, well, say, a little bit of dust which --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes --
11 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... upon impact if
12 the bullet was fired from elsewhere? You can exclude that with certainty
13 that it's not dust, but it's smoke?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am positive. Because we could
15 see the tracing -- the trace, the line that goes from the window upwards.
16 So it means the bullet went from the window outwards. The smoke we can
17 see comes from a weapon.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And what we later see fall down has got nothing to
19 do with this?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could only see the smoke
21 dispersing. I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say that
22 something is falling down.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you earlier said that there was something
24 which then reached on the A, B, C and D photographs it was up and it was
25 at its highest point and then it went down again. I will -- I'm asking
1 you what the relation is between what you're telling us now and what we
2 saw on those four photographs.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No relation whatsoever. This is a
4 completely different case from the one on the four photographs. This is
5 a tracer bullet from a weapon. I'm sorry we couldn't play the rest. You
6 could see then that there are several other windows where shots were
7 being fired from.
8 What we could see in the four photographs depicted a rather large
9 object, say, 10 centimetres big. It was thrown upwards and then fell
10 down on fire. What we can see here is typical of a tracer bullet, and I
11 can explain where it came from.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could we -- could we -- apparently, I see something
13 which no one sees.
14 Could we once again play it very briefly or take the break first
15 and ...
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No. I just wanted to put a question with respect
17 to this still we just had in front of us.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then please proceed.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We agreed thank we are looking at the same
20 window. Can you tell me, is the window open or closed, Mr. Poparic?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think there is no glass pane.
22 You could see the footage, at times it is rather dark. But, here, as far
23 as I can see, basically no window has a pane. And some are covered in
24 plastic. But I don't think there's any glass there.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Again, I'm only asking you about this specific
1 window. Is it open or closed or when it -- if it is closed, is it
2 covered by anything?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is difficult to say. It
4 definitely does not have a glass plane but a dark shade we see could
5 depicts plastic foil, although I can't be certain. It definitely does
6 not have a glass pane.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If this window is closed by plastic, how is it
8 possible to fire out of that window without destroying this plastic
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was certainly damaged. But it
11 doesn't have to be destroyed in full. We can't see in the footage what
12 happened with the sheet, if there was any plastic sheet. I allow for
13 that possibility. But we could see a moment ago that in the same footage
14 the picture was quite darker, and this window resembles the one on the
15 far left, in this one. However, there was definitely no glass pane.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let's take a break. We are already far beyond the
18 time we should take a break.
19 Witness, you may follow the usher. We'd like to see you back in
20 20 minutes. We resume at five minutes past 11.00.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Resume at five minutes past 11.00.
23 --- Recess taken at 10.42 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.
25 [The witness takes the stand]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, please proceed.
2 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 If we can briefly have 1D5735 on our screens. It's testimony of
4 Mr. Van Lynden. It's on our list of exhibits. It's his testimony from
5 Karadzic case from 19th of May, 2010, and on the second page of this
6 document that has two pages, it corresponds to the page 2429 in Karadzic
8 JUDGE ORIE: It's 56 in e-court.
9 MR. LUKIC: Oh.
10 [Defence counsel confer]
11 MR. LUKIC: Yes. On this page, at line 10, Mr. Nicholls asked
12 Mr. Van Lynden.
13 "Q. Now first at one point -- thank you. At one point in that
14 video, we see a red object bounce down and bounce over. Can you just
15 tell us what we were seeing there?
16 "A. That's a bullet, but the Yugoslav army had bullets that
17 caused fires."
18 And then he continues that they do not have it in NATO prior to
19 1989. So that's the part that was footnoted in the work of Mr. Poparic
20 and Ms. Subotic.
21 And, just for the record, we have this transcript from that video
22 admitted as P71 in our case, and also video under that number.
23 We'll play again the same video from 1 hour, 51 minutes, 33
24 seconds. We'll stop and go. And then we'll play it until 1 minute
25 [sic] -- 1 hour, 51 minutes, 40 seconds, and then we'll again stop and
2 [Defence counsel confer]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Your microphone is open, Mr. Lukic.
4 MR. LUKIC: Can we play it now, please. We try to slow it down a
6 [Video-clip played]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could we play it again. And could we carefully look
8 at whether we see anything which looks like a bit of a red line coming
9 from right above, immediately before we see this -- what is interpreted
10 by the witness as smoke.
11 [Video-clip played]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could we stop here.
13 Do we -- do you see, Witness, that there is a kind of a -- what
14 at least close to the balcony seems to be a red or reddish line which --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes --
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- points exactly at the point where later some
17 smoke is seen and goes into the direction of the window we identified
19 Could you explain to us what that line which can be seen, I
20 think, also a little bit further up, close to where the smoke is. Could
21 you tell us what that line depicts?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] An incendiary bullet.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's at 1:51:34-02:06:56.
24 That is an incendiary bullet, you say?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No it's a tracer bullet.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And from where is that fired?
2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We cannot understand the
3 witness properly.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat your answer.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Fired from the building, but I
6 wouldn't say that it's the window up there but it's one storey down,
8 JUDGE ORIE: One storey down of what?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From that window that we discussed.
10 Roughly. That's the way it looked.
11 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... could you tell
12 us if that's a bullet, in which direction it travels? Does it travel up
13 or does it travel down?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Travelled up.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Travelled up.
16 Now, then I would have the following question. If this travels
17 up, I don't know -- perhaps if we look at the video carefully whether we
18 see how that lines develops, whether it develops in upright direction or
19 in downwards direction.
20 Do you have an explanation if that bullet apparently is already
21 travelling up quite a bit, that we see no smoke developing, which you
22 said would be there as a result of firing the weapon?
23 Do you have any explanation for that?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do. As you said, it goes up,
25 considerably so, and --
1 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... you did say it
2 goes up. I -- I asked you whether it went down or up. So you say it
3 goes up. Yes?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But we can see that its angle is
5 pretty big in relation to the building. So maybe we can agree on that.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I don't have to agree on anything, but that's your
7 interpretation, yes. Please proceed.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right, you don't have to agree.
9 That's how I interpret it. It is a big angle in relation to the
11 Now, had this bullet been fired from any position of the Army of
12 Republika Srpska, Grbavica, I don't know where, it couldn't have had this
13 kind of trajectory. The angle would have been much smaller, it would it
14 would almost have a straight trajectory in relation to the building. I
15 know the positions of the VRS. It could have been from one of the
16 high-rise buildings in Grbavica or something else, but it's a small
17 distance and the bullet would move in a straight line almost. And the
18 VRS in this building are basically at the same distance. And any bullet
19 that would be fired at this building would basically hit this building at
20 a 90-degrees' angle. Well, not exactly. But, any way, we see here that
21 the angle is bigger.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you're going far beyond my question. And if
23 you say the angle is far bigger, what angle are you exactly referring to?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mean, if you draw an angle from
25 this direction, here, and then there's this vertical line of the building
1 itself, in my estimate, that's, say, 60, 65 degrees; right?
2 JUDGE ORIE: I can't see it because it is all projections so I
3 have great difficulties in even determining angle --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. But it's a pretty big angle.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So that's your -- could we now move on --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before moving on I have a question on this.
7 You said in your view, it is outgoing fire from one of the
8 windows of this building. Did you understand you correctly?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. And it's not just one.
10 There's more. You will see in the report on the next page --
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... please.
12 Please. I'm asking you, you said it is not incoming fire. It is a shot
13 fired from the building. Is that correctly understood?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now tell me, in your view, from which window was
16 that bullet fired?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, now that I look at it, I'd
18 say that it's this window here, in the second vertical line, the second
19 one viewed from the left going right. One, two, three, four. So if we
20 go underneath this window that is black we go one line down, one row
21 down, yes, that's the one, that's what -- it looks like to me, although
22 it's hard to tell.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In your view is the window open or closed.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I have the impression that
25 there is some foil on the window.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do you see any trace -- do you see any trace of a
2 weapon who could have fired this bullet from that window?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't. The weapon can be
4 withdrawn. It can be inside.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: So quickly? I'm asking you as an expert.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. He can fire even if he's a bit
7 to the back in relation to the window.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could I --
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Now, my colleague has a question.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have a question --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps before we do that, this specific still, is
12 there -- I mean, we had quite a lot of discussion about this still.
13 Mr. Lukic, it's part of what you are tendering. Would you be inclined to
14 accommodate the Chamber by tendering this still?
15 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, I think my colleague already saved.
16 She printed [Overlapping speakers] ... in front of us.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could that still be ... the screen shot could
18 that --
19 MR. LUKIC: But we cannot see it. It still has to be uploaded.
20 It's just saved.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we already reserve a number.
22 MR. LUKIC: If Madam Registrar could save it.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you assign a number, Madam Registrar.
24 THE REGISTRAR: It receives exhibit number D1326, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. And is reserved for this still.
1 Judge Moloto has a question and perhaps I may have a question as
2 well, depending on what his question is.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sir, I've got a slightly different question.
4 Looking at this line, when it comes to this building, it seems to
5 me to hit the wall rather than the window. Would you agree with me?
6 It's below the window that is the second from the right. From the right.
7 The second -- third from the left. It ...
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're right. It's very close --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We could not hear the
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could you repeat the last part of your answer.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I also have the impression that the
13 trace is very close to the edge of the window.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: And, in fact, below the window. Actually, against
15 the wall. It's -- it doesn't go to the window. It goes to the wall.
16 Would you agree with that?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's hard to say. But it's
18 possible that --
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ...
20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We cannot hear the rest.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sir, for me it is so clear that it is going onto
22 the wall. It means if it is an outgoing bullet the person must be on the
23 wall outside the window and how that happens I'm not quite sure how it
24 would happen. It is not pointing to any window. Do you agree with that?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not agree.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. It's a question of agreement or
2 disagreement. That's fine. If you don't agree, that's fine. I've just
3 made the point, I've asked the question. We'll look at it.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I have no further questions because I had the
5 same question, as a matter of fact.
6 The -- Mr. Lukic.
7 MR. LUKIC: We'll just play further the same video, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's fine. And perhaps also step by step, so
9 we see exactly what happens there.
10 MR. LUKIC: Yes, mm-hm.
11 [Video-clip played]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Now --
13 MR. LUKIC: Yeah --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could we go back a little bit there.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 [Video-clip played]
17 JUDGE ORIE: We've looked at it. And perhaps as a follow-up of
18 our questions where you say the smoke appears, isn't that below the
19 window? We could go back for a second.
20 Please look at it carefully, Witness, and see whether you could
21 tell us whether it comes from the window or just from below the window
22 where, if you continue the line, it seems that it reaches the building.
23 [Video-clip played]
24 JUDGE ORIE: That point. Is it your position that this is below
25 the -- it originates from just below the window or from the window
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my view, it is somewhere around
3 the middle of the window. And we see another trace down below, coming
4 from a balcony.
5 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I didn't ask you
6 anything about other things. But if Mr. Lukic would be interested ...
7 So, therefore -- do I understand you well that you say that close
8 analysis of what you see, that it's still your position that this clearly
9 depicts a shot fired from the window we earlier identified, or is there
10 any doubt on your mind, or is it -- could you please, after having heard
11 all the questions, whether you still take the view that this is a shot
12 fired from that window?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, please proceed.
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honours. We would ask also for this
18 still --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, even perhaps the previous one because if we --
20 this is not the first where the smoke or the dust or whatever would you
21 call it appears.
22 MR. LUKIC: But can we save this one. I don't know if we would
23 be able to stop on this point again. And then if you want, we can go
25 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any technical way of having that sequence
1 of approximately 1 or 2 seconds.
2 MR. LUKIC: 1 second.
3 JUDGE ORIE: To split it up and have a full still of every single
4 position where you can stop so that you see the line, you see the first
5 development of the smoke, perhaps even the development of the line, and
6 then how the smoke or whatever it is, then further --
7 MR. LUKIC: We do not have technical means unless going step by
8 step manually. So I don't know if the Prosecution has --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if there's -- but there's no reason to not at
10 least --
11 MR. LUKIC: Try it --
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- admit this already. And then if we could have --
13 if technical assistance could be given by the Prosecution to have every
14 single step --
15 MS. EDGERTON: With respect, Your Honours, we would have to do it
16 manually. We don't have any kind of programme or facilities to be able
17 to do it. We would be doing the same way my friend would be doing it.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Mr. Lukic you're invited to do that. But we
19 start already with this still, the first one we had already. We had a
20 number reserved for this, and now for this still.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Receives exhibit number D1327.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And we are waiting for it to be uploaded.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
25 Can we now move on in the same manner, step by step. Can we play
1 it actually until 40 seconds.
2 [Video-clip played]
3 MR. LUKIC: Stop. And, again, go step by step.
4 [Video-clip played]
5 MR. LUKIC: Yeah. Ah, too late. We saw something as well. Go
6 further. No -- let's go further and, then, we'll go back. Can we stop
7 here. There's another trace at 1 hour, 51 minutes, 41 seconds.
8 Everything is in 41 seconds.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You say that here it is going through the smoke and
10 cuts off, if I can say so, the lower right lower part -- the right lower
11 part. It goes approximately from the middle of the bottom to, I would
12 say, 70 per cent up to the right of the -- in the --
13 MR. LUKIC: This one we have saved in the report of Mr. Poparic.
14 It's figure 9 from his report.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's have a look at it.
16 MR. LUKIC: And one before that, that we just missed. We didn't
17 stop in time. So if we go to figure 9, it's page 39 of English version.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The left of the two -- the right of the two
20 MR. LUKIC: The right one that we have -- had on our screens in
21 that video. And the left one is what we saw just fragment of a second
23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, in your view, the stills you took
24 from the footage depicted in image 9, does it show outgoing or incoming
1 A. It is outgoing fire. And to repeat once again, this kind of
2 trajectory could not have been achieved from VRS positions. If it had
3 come from VRS positions, it would have been far more horizontal.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, no one has asked you yet, I think, from
5 what positions they were fired. The simple question was whether it was
6 incoming fire or outgoing fire. And incoming fire may come from whatever
7 positions. Have you considered that? Because apparently your conclusion
8 depends on your analysis of who would have fired it from where; whereas,
9 from a ballistic point of view, I think if you exclude that question,
10 could you tell us on the basis of what you see here, whether it's
11 incoming or outgoing?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is outgoing fire.
13 JUDGE ORIE: On what basis from what we see here can you tell us
14 that it's outgoing? We don't see the origin at -- for neither of the
15 two, or do we?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It cannot be seen because it is
17 covered by the screen of smoke. But you can see the trace being created,
18 just on the basis of the still itself, we cannot see it. But if you look
19 at the footage carefully you can see it, although it is very fast.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not understand the
21 last sentence.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could you repeat the last sentence of your answer.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on the photograph itself, one
24 cannot conclude the source of fire but on the footage, we can see that it
25 is outgoing fire. What I said about the trajectory it further solidifies
1 my opinion when I claim that is outgoing fire. There were no positions
2 on either the ABiH or VRS side --
3 JUDGE ORIE: We've heard that. What we're doing at this moment
4 is to focus exclusively on what we see in this footage, which you
5 commented on. Is there anything we should specifically look at apart
6 from whether we see it moving in one direction or another? Is there any
7 other aspect which we should focus on when, again, looking at this
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Only if we focus on the way the
10 trace was created, to the extent possible.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps we could --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is difficult.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest that we look at it once again.
14 Mr. Lukic, if you then have any further questions, please put
15 them to the witness.
16 MR. LUKIC: Should we look at it once again?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I would like to look at it again.
18 MR. LUKIC: Interpose this as well, Your Honour?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think that would be best.
20 MR. LUKIC: We are playing the video again.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 [Video-clip played]
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Were you able to see whether the lines went up
25 or down? Were you able to see that or ...
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I could see, the lines
2 were moving from the building upwards. And I've said that a number of
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I suggest that we move on.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just want to ask a question about this one.
6 This line, sir, at the end of the picture at the bottom, it seems
7 like it is still in the air. It hasn't reached the building. So I'm not
8 quite sure how one determines where in the building it comes from,
9 according to your argument that is an outgoing shot. Because we don't
10 see, unlike the previous one that we looked at that, we saw that it hits
11 on the wall, I don't see where it hits on the -- on this building for me
12 to -- if I go according to your argument to say that that is the source.
13 So how do you determine that?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When looking at it, we need to look
15 at the other trace which was far clearer and it came out of the building
16 to the left near the balconies.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm going to
18 stop you. I'm not going to look at this and -- I'm looking at this one.
19 I'm asking about this one. I'm saying this line goes through smoke which
20 seems to be outside the building. We can see the building further on.
21 And it ends on the photograph before it has reached the building. So I'm
22 not sure whether it is -- I -- I'm not sure where from the building, if
23 you say it comes from the building, where it comes from.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It cannot be established based on
25 the photograph because of the smoke.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... no, it's not
2 because of the smoke. It's because of the direction of the line. The
3 direction of the -- the photograph ends before this line hits the
4 building, so I don't know where it comes from. And when I say where it
5 comes from, I'm basing that question based on your argument that this is
6 an outgoing bullet and not incoming. So where it comes from, I don't
7 see. Can you see?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No photograph can show us that. We
9 need to take the footage to see the continuity, if possible.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you saying if we continue this line we'll come
11 back again and go to the source? We have gone past this line. If we
12 continue, you're going to pass this line and I'm not seeing where this
13 line comes from in relation to the building.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we were to extend the line, from
15 this angle, we would definitely be able to reach the place of origin.
16 But we can't do it on the photograph.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: That -- I can agree with that. But,
18 unfortunately, this photograph doesn't take us to the origin of the
19 thing. And that's my question. That's precisely my concern, that how
20 can we accept this as saying it comes from the building when we don't
21 even see how far it goes towards the building.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The footage is the only thing
23 that's valid. This still was simply given to try and locate a position
24 in the footage itself.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: This still is a still in the footage. If you move
1 from this still, you're not going to see this still again. So it -- the
2 rest of the footage won't tell us where this line comes from, from the
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The rest of the footage could show
5 us the development of the line. That's the only thing.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just told you how impossible that is. You keep
7 repeating the same story. Anyways. That's your answer. Thank you so
9 As long as you can see that we can't see where it comes from --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I also agree with you that it is
11 impossible to do based on the photograph. But the traces.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... if you agree
13 with me, then I have no further questions thank you so much.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I have one short question, and please try to focus
15 on that one.
16 What's the sense of firing into a huge smoke area with a bullet
17 from a building which apparently has -- where you are in great danger to
18 be because of the fire? Could you tell us what your -- whether you have
19 given it any thought at all.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 As I said, it's a dangerous spot. It is; that's true. But we
22 cannot conclude here that the marksman is in smoke; right? Probably
23 somewhere on the side, as was the case before, the big question is why it
24 was fired there. It's hard to give an answer to that. Possibly fire had
25 been opened from this building and then on the other side, they
1 responded, and then the place was set on fire. That is realistic.
2 Secondly, there were TV crews there. Now, what did somebody wish
3 to film? Perhaps they wanted to see a building on fire and to film that.
4 These are just assumptions. I cannot say. What really surprised me -- I
5 mean, in my view, it is certainly that there was firing from that
6 building and it is certain that Mr. Van Lynden said --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We didn't hear what
8 Mr. Van Lynden said.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now, who did all the firing and who
10 set the building on fire, that I have no way of knowing.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my view, it is realistic that --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: One last question.
14 Sir, this is outgoing fire what would have been the target?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I mean, I've just said that
16 it's hard to say what the objective of the firing is. In my view, there
17 are two possibilities; that somebody opened fire from this building and
18 that there was a fire that came in response and that's how the building
19 was set on fire. However, the presence of TV crews, journalists, maybe
20 that created a necessity on somebody's part to have some firing filmed on
21 this building. We shouldn't forget the object that was thrown. This was
22 an effect. I mean, I'm not saying who set the building on fire. Maybe
23 the building was on fire but somebody took advantage of the presence of
24 the TV crew to create this propaganda impression with regard to this
25 building. It is a very thankless thing for me to try to say what
1 happened there, all the things that happened there. In my view, I've
2 seen this thousands of times. And firing did come from this building.
3 And I see that you have a problem also with ascertaining all of this. I
4 mean, I looked at this for days and that is why I am saying with
5 certainty that --
6 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... yes. Witness
7 you are going far beyond the field of your expertise. Listen carefully
8 to the next question that Mr. Lukic will put to you.
9 We'll continue.
10 MR. LUKIC: Only for the record, Your Honour, Mr. Van Lynden
11 testifying in this case on the transcript page 1344, line 1, until
12 transcript page 1345, line 1, claimed that this building was not used by
13 Army of B and H.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And what's --
15 MR. LUKIC: It was claimed in our trial.
16 JUDGE ORIE: What has that got to do with what we just saw?
17 MR. LUKIC: We think if it was proved that it was fired from that
18 building, that the building was --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes. I do understand that if you assume that
20 this was outgoing fire and if it was assumed that it was ABiH fire, then
21 you -- that would shed some doubt, perhaps over Mr. Van Lynden's, but
22 that's a lot of presumptions.
23 Let's move on. I invited you to put the next question to the
25 MR. LUKIC: Can we have 1D5499 on our screens again. Figure 9.
1 So we had it before. English page 39.
2 Q. [Interpretation] The left-hand picture was taken -- actually, did
3 you take both from the same video?
4 A. Yes. The one on the left, you can see clearly that it comes from
5 the building --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We could not hear the end
7 of the witness's answer. Could he please be asked to speak into the
8 microphone. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could you come a bit closer to the microphone. And
10 could you repeat the last part of your answer.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This photograph on the left, we
12 took it from the same film. And it can be seen very nicely there that
13 this is outgoing. It can be seen how it is coming into being. It is
14 quite clear.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Next question, please.
16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
17 Q. [Interpretation] I'm going to ask you something now about
18 positions around Sarajevo, Mr. Poparic.
19 So we need your paper in both versions, 1D5499. We need page 59
20 in B/C/S and page 55 in English. Figure 26. Photograph 26; that's what
21 we'll be looking at.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Previous translation continues] ... 26.
23 Q. [Interpretation] In figure 26, it says that it is from the area
24 of Spicasta Stijena?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And Grdonj?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You marked that using numbers as well. Were you in the area?
4 A. Yes, twice.
5 Q. Could you establish the separation lines?
6 A. On the basis of the remnants of trenches and communicating
7 trenches, it was easy to determine where the positions of the ABiH were
8 and where the positions of the VRS were.
9 MR. LUKIC: Can we go to the page 60 in B/C/S - it's the next
10 page - and next page in English as well, which is page 56. Now we need
11 figure 28.
12 Q. [Interpretation] You see image 27 before us. Who took these
14 A. I most probably took these photographs. Maybe it was
15 Mrs. Subotic, but I think it was me.
16 Q. So what do we see in this photograph?
17 A. In photograph 28, on the left, we see the view of Spicasta
18 Stijena from the other side. So if we were to go on looking straight
19 ahead, there's Sarajevo. So this is the approaches to Spicasta Stijena
20 and we see what these approaches are like. It's not a very good view.
21 The copy is not very good and there is this communicating
22 trenches all the way up to there. These were positions of the Army of
23 Republika Srpska and at the front side of Spicasta Stijena. On the
24 right, we see these rocks, and these were the positions of the Army of
25 Republika Srpska at Spicasta Stijena.
1 Well, cannot be seen very well, can it? Maybe it can be seen a
2 bit better here.
3 Q. We're going to move on. You explained to us what it was what you
4 photographed. Now let us move on to image 30; page 61 in B/C/S and 57 in
6 We see it very well. In the English version, we see image 29 as
7 well, photograph 29. What is depicted in these photographs?
8 A. In image 30, we see positions of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
9 This is a panoramic photograph. That is to say, several photographs were
10 taken. Because it's a very big area. And roughly in the middle, we see
11 this path than is the path that separates Grdonj on the left and
12 Spicasta Stijena on the right. However, the position of the BH army move
13 right to Spicasta Stijena. It wasn't possible to show absolutely
14 everything in this photograph. We can see that in photograph 29 on the
15 right-hand side. We can see the view. The view of Spicasta Stijena, up
16 hill. And the traces of these positions of the BH army can be seen
17 there, some of these deep trenches and also the rocks piled up for
18 communicating trenches. And also there are these shelters that were made
19 at Grdonj, to the left, and to the right, is Spicasta Stijena.
20 These positions at Spicasta Stijena went basically up to the top,
21 I think.
22 Q. How far away were the trenches and these fortified positions of
23 the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina in relation to the positions of the Army
24 of Republika Srpska?
25 A. These trenches were very close to the trenches of the Army of
1 Republika Srpska. In my own estimate it is 20, 30 metres, I think that
2 they literally could have talked to one another. There is this film that
3 shows that's the way it was, an action taken by the Black Swans. That's
4 a special unit of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. They came from Tuzla.
5 And they attacked the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska. And it
6 can be seen exactly where it was that they could have come from. That
7 matches what I saw on the ground. I think that film was shown here when
8 Witness Rasevic testified, Rasko, if I remember correctly, and it can be
9 seen very well, the position of these trenches.
10 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated] for the record -- yes, yes,
11 I forgot to turn on my microphone. Thank you.
12 For the record, in our case, that video is marked as D00553.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Let us move on.
14 Now I'd like to show you something else from this very same
15 report of yours. Image 33. In B/C/S, it's page 64; in English, it is
16 page 61.
17 MR. LUKIC: If we can, only English version in front of us and
18 only this figure with legend. Yes.
19 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, many of the incidents that are in
20 the indictment occurred in the area of Marin Dvor. Can you describe the
21 characteristics of this area for us; and can you tell us how come you
23 A. The separation lines at Marin Dvor were very complex and there
24 are some very characteristic spots. These two lines, the red line and
25 the blue line, denote the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska and
1 the Army of the BiH. They're blue. And between them is the
2 Miljacka river.
3 On the side of the Army of Republika Srpska in Grbavica there are
4 these characteristic buildings. There is number 1, Metalka and the
5 building number 4 -- sorry. Sorry. 14, it is these four white
6 sky-scrapers. The indictment, the police documentation, most often
7 mentioned these two facilities as sources of fire against civilian, trams
8 and so on.
9 The situation is so complex and that is shown by 2A and 2B that
10 was one building divided into two parts. In 2A it was the BH army,
11 whereas 2B was under the control of the VRS. That building was renovated
12 so it still seems to be divided because half of it is one colour and the
13 other half another colour.
14 As for BH army, there's this characteristic building of 8, that
15 is the BH Assembly. Then 9, BH Executive Council. And then in the back,
16 there is this tall building, the Unis building. 11 is the Holiday Inn
17 hotel. Then 12 is the technical school, where Pretis was during the war.
18 That is to say, military production. And the most important building
19 here is building number 13, that is the Marsal Tito barracks.
20 It was torn down to a certain extent. The American embassy is
21 there now. We can see the white sky-scrapers opposite the Marsal Tito
22 barracks and sniper positions were found there after the Dayton Agreement
23 when the VRS left this area, the police carried out an on-site
24 investigation and photographs were taken, and that is where there were
25 fortified sniper positions. The same is alleged for the Metalka
1 building, but there was no proof that was ever provided, that there was a
2 fortified sniper nest there. The police did not find that and nobody
3 gave any concrete evidence of the existence of a sniper position there.
4 Q. Thank you. Just one more question that has to do with Metalka.
5 In how many cases did you establish that they were caused by
6 sniper fire or other kinds of fire from the Metalka building?
7 A. In all the cases that we looked at, we ascertained that not in a
8 single case was fire from the Metalka the source or the cause. There was
9 only this one case where we could not establish whether that had been the
10 case or had not been the case. I've already told you at the beginning
11 that there were such cases, but we will get to that as well, won't we?
12 Q. It's time for our break now but I'm just going to ask you one
13 more thing.
14 These four sky-scrapers what is their link with the Marsal Tito
16 A. It's direct. As you can see, they're right opposite barracks and
17 that's where the sniper positions were. And in my view it is logical
18 that there would be sniper positions there. Any commander would put
19 sniper positions there because that is how one controls the area of the
20 barracks; right? I mean, that is only natural to take advantage of this
21 kind of building for a sniper position.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. LUKIC: It's the break time, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: It is. The witness may follow the usher. We'd like
25 to see you back in 20 minutes.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at 12.30.
3 --- Recess taken at 12.07 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 12.33 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
6 MS. EDGERTON: Just one very small thing that I wanted to put on
7 the record.
8 I'm not completely sure that the small video-clips we were
9 looking at today are all subsumed within P71 and I just wanted to note
10 we'll look at it overnight, the time codes, to make sure that everything
11 is there and if not we'll revert to you to see if we could get some extra
12 small video-clips admitted.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
15 MR. LUKIC: That's very possible, Your Honour. That's why we
16 didn't use P71, we used 65 ter -- the whole video.
17 JUDGE ORIE: But I take it that you appreciate that Ms. Edgerton
18 will check so that we don't have unnecessary --
19 MR. LUKIC: Yes, of course.
20 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Lukic.
21 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, we will now focus on the incidents
23 scheduled in the indictment. I will start with F-1. In your report,
24 which is 1D05499, we will need to see page 68 in both versions, item 18.
25 [In English] Obviously in English version, we should go one page
1 back. One more, sorry. One more. Yes, thank you. Page 65, English,
2 I'm sorry. I had wrong page noted.
3 [Interpretation] The incident happened on 13th of December, 1992
4 in Zagric Street. In the indictment it is stated that at house number
5 38, Anisa Pita a 3-year-old girl was injured to the leg.
6 Did you manage to establish where the girl was when she was shot
7 according to the documentation you had?
8 A. According to the documents, she was at the entrance of her house
9 taking off her shoes when a bullet hit her in the foot. In this image,
10 at number 39, the door cannot be seen any longer because the low --
11 actually the wall with the yellow brick was constructed subsequently. At
12 the time of incident, it wasn't there. And a door was there instead
13 where the girl was wounded.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are recorded as saying number 39. I think
15 it's number 38, sir?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The house number is 38, but the
17 image number is 39 in the report.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. My apologies.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Poparic, what is characteristic of this case, in your view?
21 A. In this case, the basic problem was to establish whether that
22 location was at all visible from Stijena Baba from which it was asserted
23 she was shot at. Stijena Baba is some 900 metres away. Between the
24 house and Stijena Baba, there are trees and buildings, as well as uneven
25 terrain, and it was necessary to establish whether there was clear
1 visibility. I also have to say that during the war the VRS positions
2 were at Stijena Baba. They never went further down below. So we wanted
3 to establish first whether the place was visible from there, whether the
4 girl could be seen.
5 Q. Very well. We'll check that analysis.
6 In your view, was the place where the girl was wounded visible
7 from Baba Stijena?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 Let us now look at page 75 in your report in B/C/S -- or perhaps
11 we can stay with the English version alone. And it is on page 72. We're
12 interested in image 47.
13 What can we see on this still from your report, image number 47,
14 what does the left-hand side one depict and the right side?
15 A. The left-hand side photograph was taken by Mr. Van der Weijden,
16 an OTP expert. The right-hand side was taken by me. The difference is
17 that Mr. Van der Weijden zoomed in by six times, as specified in his
18 report, and I did not use any zoom. Later on, I zoomed in digitally on a
19 particular piece of the photograph.
20 Q. When did you take the photograph?
21 A. In September 2010. I think on the 17th or 18th September 2010.
22 Q. Just one second. For the transcript, I wanted to say that this
23 photograph -- or which of these photographs -- well, you said the
24 right-hand side was Mr. Van der Weijden's?
25 A. The right-hand side photograph is Mr. Van der Weijden's; the
1 left-hand side is mine.
2 Q. So the right-hand side one was taken from an exhibit in this
3 case, and it is P01130, under seal, page 20 in the B/C/S and 15 in the
4 English, photograph number 2.
5 Let's look at -- well, do you want to say anything else in order
6 to compare these two photographs?
7 A. Yes. The two photographs were taken from approximately the same
8 place. Mr. Van der Weijden claimed he took his photograph from the
9 entrance but in this case, I don't see how he could have ended up with
10 this photograph since there are two wire fences in between. I don't know
11 how he managed to take the photograph without the fences being seen. I
12 took my photograph in front of the first fence at a slanted angle, if a
13 line was drawn between the point and the door which was behind me by some
14 5 or 6 metres. Apart from that, the two photographs are basically
16 Mr. Van der Weijden asserted, and he marked it on the right
17 photograph, that this outcrop of rock is Baba Stijena. As I mentioned,
18 he took his photograph somewhat later in the year, in late November, when
19 there was less vegetation.
20 On my photograph, that part is slightly visible but more covered
21 in green. It was probably grass. He asserted that it was Baba Stijena,
22 and I claim it is not because it looks quite differently and is much
23 further away from the location shown.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we next look --
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before we move to another part of the transcript
2 or an exhibit, on the left photograph, Witness, you indicate a house.
3 Where can we see a house there. Can you --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can you explain that a bit further? I don't see
6 a house.
7 Or can we enlarge the left photograph.
8 Is that a house?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are some houses there, as you
10 can see on a photograph taken from a distance. It is true that this
11 photograph was zoomed in, and I can just make out the outline of a house.
12 It has the shape of a house.
13 On the photograph that can be seen in the report, we can see that
14 there are houses in that part, in the direction of Stijena Baba.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You're indicating a house, not houses. Are you
16 telling us that the bended -- are you telling us that the bended line is
17 part of a house or the structure inside of this line, below this line?
18 What is the house?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The house is encircled. It is in
20 the red line, and I'm talking about the only house we can see in this
21 photograph. However, there are other houses in the area as can be seen
22 from another photograph, although I don't know the number exactly.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Please answer only my questions. I'm not talking
24 about other houses, only to understand this photograph. I asked you
25 about the house you indicated. And you say it was -- "the house is
2 Who did the encirclement?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes. It's so easy to answer these questions.
5 Thank you so much.
6 Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.
7 MR. LUKIC: I thought maybe Judge Orie has more questions.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, no --
9 MR. LUKIC: He's studying very thoroughly.
10 JUDGE ORIE: No, I'm carefully looking at the evidence. You put
11 the questions to the witness. I prefer that, as a matter of fact.
12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Can we have page 66 only in this English version, please. We
14 need image 41, the lower image, just to be enlarged.
15 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, can you explain what it is that we
16 see this in photograph and what would be important for us to note?
17 A. It is the -- a photograph of the area, including, Zagric Street
18 and Stijena Baba taken from the Grdonj area, which is on the other side
19 of Sarajevo.
20 The resolution of the photograph is poor, though. However, we
21 can make out Stijena Baba just to see what it looks like. We also have a
22 red -- a yellow square depicting the word "shooter" which is where a
23 trench of the VRS was. Just above that, we have a piece of rock that had
24 been cut into the mountain, and, as shown, that is the Stijena Baba. We
25 can see how big it is, and it is quite different from the outcrop marked
1 by Mr. Van der Weijden. I think the difference is obvious.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: The witness is talking about the difference. I'm
3 not what sure what this Stijena Baba, what is it being compared to. If
4 we can see the two things --
5 MR. LUKIC: Two image on -- on -- image 47 if you want to go
6 back. We saw 4. Yes. Can we have then English page 47 -- 72, excuse
7 me. English page 72.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do you mean image 42 or page 42.
9 MR. LUKIC: Image 47, page 72.
10 Q. [Interpretation] You heard what Judge Moloto was interested in.
11 A. On the right-hand picture, Mr. Van der Weijden marked with an
12 arrow this Stijena Baba in the terrain and it's much smaller and the
13 shape is different compared to Stijena Baba on the picture on the right,
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... Stijena Baba
16 on the left.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it cannot be seen. No, no,
18 no, not this one. No. The right hand part of that picture. Yes. More.
19 Now it says Stijena Baba.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Lukic. I have seen what is being
22 MR. LUKIC: I think we should go shortly into the private
24 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
25 [Private session]
11 Page 40401 redacted. Private session.
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 MR. LUKIC: Can we have 1D05499 on our screens again, please. We
10 need page 71. And we need image 45 enlarged.
11 Q. [Interpretation] So we see this. Actually what do we see in this
13 A. In this photograph, we see the position of the building or,
14 rather, the house in Zagric Street, number 38. This is Google Earth and
15 we see the position of Stijena Baba, or rather the place where the firing
16 position of the Army of Republika Srpska was.
17 In relation to what was mentioned previously, we see that road
18 depicted in that photograph. It would be this, here. Roughly --
19 JUDGE ORIE: If --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Getting to the arrow --
21 JUDGE ORIE: If the witness says "it's here," I am unable to
22 follow him because I don't know what he points at. Therefore, Mr. Lukic,
23 if you want us to understand that, then you have to either to ask the
24 witness to mark it or --
25 MR. LUKIC: Yes. That would be the fastest way, I think.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
2 MR. LUKIC: With the help of the usher.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And could you please make very clear what the
4 witness exactly is marking.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. So do tell us it is that you're marking and mark it with the
7 number 1.
8 A. I'll mark the road that I said is in the lower right-hand corner.
9 It's what we saw in the photograph of Mr. Van der Weijden's report. So
10 it would be this road here. And I'll mark it with the number 1. This
11 yellow arrow corresponds basically to the Zagric Street. And since the
12 scale is large, this is Zagric number 2, and it my view, Mr. Van der
13 Weijden marked it as being here, 3.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could I ask you, there's one part of this
15 picture where it's zoomed in. Now, wouldn't it be clearer that you --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes --
17 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... on the zoomed in
18 portion if that is possible, if it is not possible --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, the zoomed-in portion is just
20 the surroundings of the building. It cannot be seen. So it's ... I
21 mean, I think it cannot be seen there.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'm trying to understand then what exactly it
23 is that you zoomed in on.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh, I zoomed in in order to
25 determine where the house is in Zagric 38. And then on that basis, I
1 drew this line. You see this line here? It is actually the zoomed-in
2 part. The red line. In the zoomed-in part. From Stijena Baba to
3 Zagric. So it's the same part and just this part that has been enlarged,
4 so that it can be seen clearly how far it goes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And does the street you are indicating, does that
6 not appear on the zoomed-in part?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No. It's further up. That's
8 what I've been saying. What I marked with the number 3, that is roughly
9 the area that Mr. Van der Weijden identified as the location of the
10 house. It's a bit further down. Not a bit further down, but it's about
11 50 metres, in my estimate.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
13 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. Can we introduce this marked image into
14 evidence, please.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: It receives exhibit number D1328, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. It's admitted into
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. And another question related to this incident, Mr. Poparic.
21 What is your final conclusion regarding this incident?
22 A. My final conclusion is that the girl was not visible from
23 Stijena Baba and she could not have been targeted intentionally at that
24 moment, from Stijena Baba. She certainly was not targeted intentionally
25 at all. Now where the bullet had come from, that I don't know.
1 Q. Just once again. You mentioned it but I don't know whether it's
2 been recorded, all of it.
3 Were there any natural obstacles between Stijena Baba and the
4 place where she was?
5 A. When we look at these photographs, there were all sorts of
6 things. In order to be as sure as possible, but you know it's very hard
7 to say, I was there twice and I never managed to see all this. However,
8 in order to be sure I carried out analysis that is provided here. Using
9 a topographical map and a profile of the terrain from Google Earth, an
10 American map, a topographical map, that is, and a topographical map of
11 the Yugoslav People's Army. In all three cases, I got results that were
12 almost identical; the configuration of the terrain is such that the house
13 in Zagrica 38 is not visible from there. So this showed that it's not
14 visible. There's not a single -- I mean, even if there were not a single
15 house or a single tree there, again, that spot would not have been
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can you determine the visibility on the basis of
18 a topographical map?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I could establish whether
20 there are any obstacles in the terrain itself. So let us disregard what
21 is on the terrain, forest, houses, et cetera. I just looked at the
22 terrain itself on the basis of topographical maps. According to all
23 three of the sources, the terrain is such that there is this elevation of
24 2 or 3 metres in one place that conceals this house. It is very steep
25 terrain and that's how it is possible to be this way. The results are
1 very similar in all three cases, and that's why I believe they are
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
4 MR. LUKIC: Can we shortly see page 76 and we need image 50.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so --
6 MR. LUKIC: Yeah --
7 JUDGE ORIE: You said I don't know where the bullet has come
8 from, but not from Stijena Baba. I see in image 42 that you identify a
9 place of a shooter which suggests that you know where the bullet came
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: You do know it?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no. No. I identified the
14 position where the VRS was. That's where they were from the beginning to
15 the end of the war. I visited that place, and it is visible to this day.
16 Now, what is it that I'm asserting? That he could not have seen
17 this little girl and --
18 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I just want to
19 know what on image 42 the location "shooter" means. That's what I want
20 to know. Perhaps we can have a look at it. It's page 67 in e-court.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll explain. Since it is being
22 alleged that the girl was hit from Stijena Baba, I proceeded from that,
23 that the shooter who hit her was there. But then I established that he
24 could not have seen her. Now, whether he was firing along a trajectory
25 that's a parabola or something, I cannot say. But according to the
1 documentation I had available, there was some fighting going on at the
2 time. Now whether the bullet ricocheted somewhere or whatever, that I
3 cannot say, but --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, what does "shooter" indicate. It's
5 apparently not Stijena Baba. What did you depict where you said
6 "shooter"? What stands that location for?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That means that that is where the
8 presumed shooter was, the one who shot the girl. That's what we
9 proceeded from, that he was there, that he fired at the girl. We are
10 trying to ascertain whether he could have seen the girl. There's no
11 denying that the VRS was there throughout the war. I assume that that's
12 where he was. I'm not denying that. But then I ...
13 JUDGE ORIE: So, that's where you think the shooter may have been
14 because he couldn't have been on Baba Stijena because he couldn't see the
15 girl from there. And is that, then, the position from where you could
16 have seen the girl and where the shooter presumably has been? Is that --
17 I just have -- don't understand exactly what you want to tell us.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, from that spot, there was no
19 visibility and that's where the position of the VRS was and it's quite
20 visible to this day.
21 JUDGE ORIE: That's still not an answer to my question.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Do you mean by this indication "shooter" the
23 location according to the indictment?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, according to the indictment.
25 That's what they alleged, that that's where the fire came from and I
1 proceeded from that fact and I analysed everything from there. I visited
2 the spot, analysed the terrain and so on and I came to the conclusion
3 that --
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... this is not
5 a possible location of a shooter, if I understand you correctly.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mm-hmm.
7 JUDGE ORIE: But may I then ask you, where you point at
8 "shooter," is that the same as Baba Stijena or is that a different
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. It is -- I mean, it's that
11 rock, Stijena Baba. If you look at number 42, down there, it's very
12 steep and then the top of this rock, that's where the position was.
13 Where it says "shooter." That is the top of the rock, the top of
14 Stijena Baba, and it is very high up, like 20 metres high. You can see
15 it in image 42.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm looking at it, but it is --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If necessary, I can mark it so that
18 it is clearer.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The locations "shooter" and location
20 Stijena Baba, are they identical in your view or are these different
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They are identical. It's just that
23 the location where the shooter was is a micro location. The shooter was
24 at the top of Stijena Baba. Perhaps it would be useful if I marked what
25 I believe to be Stijena Baba.
1 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- I think that's clear to me now. But what
2 does you make believe that the indictment puts the shooter not on the top
3 of Stijena Baba but on a point close to that?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. There's misunderstanding about
5 the top. Perhaps you are confused by the marking. Stijena Baba is above
6 the road. The shooter was on the top of Baba Stijena, in my view.
7 What you see behind is a road and the rock was created
8 artificially. No one could have climbed up that way. There's a
9 photograph, perhaps it isn't the best, but it might assist. It is
10 photograph 40. Can you see the road and on the right-hand side
11 Stijena Baba, where the VRS position was.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I take it the two arrows from the rectangle
13 "shooter" and the rectangle Stijena Baba are pointing, if I look at it,
14 to different locations. But do I understand you correctly that you
15 wanted to show that the shooter was exactly at the same location as the
16 top of Stijena Baba? And, again, the shooter, according to the
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct. The shooter was
19 at this position. That's where he was supposed to be according to the
20 indictment. The Stijena Baba marked above the road has no access path.
21 It just a rock, sheer rock. Stijena Baba actually begins just below the
22 shooter box. It is actually an abyss, some 20 metres deep, and that is
23 Stijena Baba, as a matter of fact.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. Can we just briefly see image 50 on
1 page 76.
2 Q. [Interpretation] Briefly tell us what you wanted to show here.
3 A. It's what I discussed when I talked about the lie of the land.
4 It was done based on a topographic map created by the Military Mapping
5 Institute in Belgrade. Based on the map, this profile was created,
6 depicting the land between Zagric Street and Stijena Baba. If you draw a
7 line between Zagric Street number 38 and Stijena Baba, at 483 metres, I
8 believe, the slope actually goes over the line by some 2 metre, I think.
9 We did something similar --
10 Q. Let us look at the next photograph which is image 51.
11 MR. LUKIC: [In English] It's on the next page, 77.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did the same thing with an
13 American map here. It is the same exercise I did with the -- previously
14 with the Yugoslav military map. We see there's a slight difference
15 because the point occurs at 387 metres where the outcrop is preventing
16 the view. That is on the left-hand side.
17 On the right-hand side, it is created by using Google Earth which
18 did it automatically, and the height is 4.2, according to Google Earth.
19 It may well be a bit more correct than the other two maps. In any case,
20 it all fits well into the picture.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you: What elevation from the ground
22 level you took from exactly where the girl may have been?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to these photographs, the
24 end point is Zagric Street number 38. That is where the girl was and the
25 house --
1 JUDGE ORIE: But there is -- there's a house. You can take the
2 roof of the house. You can take the foundation of the house. You can
3 take the terrace of the house -- would you please not interrupt me. Yes.
4 So what exactly did you take there?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You saw the house on the
6 photograph. It is picture 38. The entrance -- no, it wasn't 38. It was
7 somewhere at the beginning. 39. The girl was about -- some 1 metre
8 above ground where the gate is. There are two steps in between. So I
9 suppose she was at about 1 metre from the ground.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And what did you -- at the other side, did you
11 take the level or did you add 1 metre and a half for a standing-up
12 person? How did you exactly measure where Baba Stijena is. You say it's
13 all steep. So one metre further up could make a difference of half a
14 metre or down. How did you exactly determine those positions?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We determined the positions by
16 taking -- well, I didn't take into account the possibility that the
17 shooter climbed up and took up position because all positions on the
18 ground are made so that one needs to lie down during combat. Why would
19 one stand up in combat in order to shoot? They are behind a shelter, and
20 practically at ground level or maybe 50 centimetres up. It also fits
21 within the 4 metre margin. There's a very slight difference in angle, if
22 you move it half a metre up or down. It wouldn't result in much -- well,
23 if we were to add 2 metres up and drew a line, it would also go through
24 the area where we have the 4.2 metres. It is not linear. Only the angle
25 is changed slightly. So whatever we take, it will always go below the
1 ground of 4 metres. The altitude or the difference altitude is some 300
2 metres at 300 metres 1 or 2 metres have a very small impact on the margin
3 of error. If the difference in altitude were 10 or 15 metres, then that
4 would be much.
5 JUDGE ORIE: So 10 metres could make the difference. Is that how
6 I understand you?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. If the ground was quite
8 flat and the shooter was only 10 metres away, if the shooter's at 10 and
9 the victim at zero, and then if we make the correction of 2 metres then
10 the difference is great. But when the difference in altitude is 300
11 metres, then 1 or 2 metres result in a very small percentage, having a
12 negligible impact on --
13 JUDGE ORIE: If halfway there's an obstruction of 4 metres high,
14 wouldn't it be fair to say that for the full length, it would be 8
15 metres? That's simple trigonometry, isn't it? I mean, if halfway is the
16 obstruction - if you would please let me ask first - wouldn't it be true
17 that then at full distance it would be 8 metres?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If the angle is 45 degrees. It
19 depends on the angle. But that's what I was talking about. The
20 difference in altitude of 300 metres reduces the impact of angle. How
21 should I explain that?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could I simply ask you: If you draw a line, from A
23 to B, and you draw another line, from A to a little bit above B, and if
24 halfway the distance is 4 metres, irrespective of the angle, wouldn't it
25 be true that, at the full distance, it would be 8 metres?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
2 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That depends -- well, it can be
4 calculated by using triangles.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please prepare for me a little sketch in which
6 halfway two lines have a difference of 4 metres, starting at the same
7 point, and at the end, it's not 8 metres. If you would make such a
8 sketch for me, I would appreciate that highly. If you need any
9 specific -- any specific angles, et cetera, or -- I have -- and then
10 please show it to me, I would be easily convinced if that's true.
11 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic. I'm looking at the clock. We're
12 close to --
13 MR. LUKIC: Only I have one question. Should be for this
14 distance or some other distance? Or --
15 JUDGE ORIE: I say if it's halfway 4 metres, then the full
16 stretch, then it's 8 metres. That's the only thing I'm saying and that
17 is irrespective of distance because that would be at least, in my view,
18 but if the witness would convince me otherwise it makes no difference
19 whether it's 200 metres, 500 metres or a kilometre. It's just like that.
20 MR. LUKIC: I'll move to another topic so we can go to the
21 break --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
23 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
24 JUDGE ORIE: Is that a topic which you would deal with within
25 five minutes or perhaps otherwise we would better take the break first.
1 MR. LUKIC: I have to read from some transcripts as well.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then perhaps we take the break first and
3 resume at quarter to 2.00. Yes?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just one question so it's clear to
5 me, to make sure I understand you.
6 So you had in mind the height of 4 and 8 metres irrespective of
7 the distance. So at half the distance, the difference is 4 metres, and
8 your question is: What is the difference at full length; correct?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then it's fine. I'll prepare that.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Thank you. We'll take a break and we'll --
12 you may follow the usher, and we'll resume at quarter to 2.00.
13 [The witness stands down]
14 --- Recess taken at 1.25 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 1.50 p.m.
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, were you able to make such a sketch?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Perhaps put it on the ELMO.
20 Yes, please put it on the ELMO.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Upside down.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I don't see anything at all. At this moment I see a
23 box with -- a box with tissues. I think if we ... yes, there we are.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's it.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Witness, thank you very much for doing it.
1 Would you agree that the distance between A and D and B and C
2 would also be the proportion of 1 to 2?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: So if I look carefully at your sketch, you would
5 fully agree with me, which I said before, that if halfway, it is A, then
6 the full way it's 2A. Which also means that if the obstacle halfway is 2
7 metres, then you would need, at the very end, 4 metres of difference in
8 elevation to overcome it. Would you agree with that?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. LUKIC: Does that mean I should proceed, Your Honour?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course, Mr. Lukic. I wouldn't have anyone
14 else on my mind.
15 MR. LUKIC: We'll move now to F-3 incident from the 11th of July,
16 1993. And we need 1D05499 on our screens, page 88 in B/C/S and page 85
17 in English.
18 MS. EDGERTON: Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MS. EDGERTON: Would Your Honours be inclined to receive this
21 sketch made by Mr. Poparic as a Chamber's exhibit.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I think, as a matter of fact, that as a result
23 of the sketch, Mr. Poparic agreed fully with me that if it's halfway a
24 certain distance then the full way, even if it is projected, doesn't make
25 any -- angles is irrelevant, distance is irrelevant, it's just a double.
1 And I think Mr. Poparic agreed with that so I don't need the sketch to
2 have in evidence. It was just a means by which we could establish that
3 we agreed.
4 MS. EDGERTON: And, indeed, he did. Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, in this part of your report, in
8 paragraph 45, you say that on the 11th of July, 1993 - actually you are
9 dealing with this case - Munira Zametica was shot dead while collecting
10 water from the Dobrinja river near the pedestrian bridge.
11 In your view, what is characteristic of this particular incident?
12 A. According to the available documents, it is considered that
13 Munira Zametica was shot from Dobrinja 4, an area that was under the
14 control of the VRS and the distance was roughly 1100 metres away from
15 where Munira Zametica was.
16 What is characteristic is that there was shooting in Dobrinja
17 practically all day and we don't have any precise information about the
18 gun-fire involved.
19 Further on, the time of the incident is in dispute. According to
20 the police report, it was between 1900 hours and 1930. A lady neighbour
21 who was with Munira Zametica claims that this happened earlier, and she
22 was with Munira Zametica. She said during her testimony when it was just
23 about to get dark, so this matches the police report but later on she
24 corrected what she had said. Then, there is the death certificate from
25 the hospital that refers to a different time, 1600 hours. And so on.
1 The greatest problem here is to establish whether Munira Zametica
2 was visible from the positions where she was shot from as it is claimed.
3 There is another detail. What is claimed is that she was getting water
4 from the Dobrinja river and that was shown in the film. The witness
5 explained what was happening, that she was getting water from the river
6 and that is absolutely impossible. There had to be some kind of steps so
7 that she could go down to the water. Otherwise she couldn't have gotten
8 any water and she could not have --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic. Mr. Lukic, would you please stop the
10 witness when he tells us whether there should have been steps, whether
11 there -- whether there's any difference in times given by one witness
12 according to the doctors. That's fully, but then fully, out of the scope
13 of the witness's expertise. That's one.
14 And, second, it's the task of the Chamber to do that.
15 So would you please not present the witness in such a way that he
16 tells us how we should do our job. Let him testify about what his
17 expertise is.
18 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, with all due respect, he had to
19 establish full details about every incident, and there were no traces
20 like in mortar attacks, for example.
21 JUDGE ORIE: All within his field of expertise, Mr. Lukic.
22 MR. LUKIC: His field --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Not anywhere else. His expertise, how reliable
24 hospital records are, whether one of the witnesses may have been
25 mistaken, whether it was summertime, winter time, dark, all that is not
1 within the expertise of this witness. So would you please stop him from
2 doing that and would you please take him to what we are looking forward
3 to, that is, the technical analysis in his expertise about whatever
4 information would be there. That's it.
5 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, time of the day is crucial for shooting.
6 So he had to establish it.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]
8 JUDGE ORIE: I think I gave you sufficient guidance.
9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: If you can establish that but with focussed
11 questions, what is the difference between 4 and 4.30 in term of shooting.
12 MR. LUKIC: 4 and 7.30.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Whether the bullets fly at one hour in summertime
14 different at other times. Visibility is another matter. I don't know
15 whether the witness is a expert in visibility, but I accept that as
16 perhaps relevant.
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. Can we have quickly P01905 on our
18 screens, please.
19 Before we get it, I'll ask Mr. Poparic.
20 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, do you know, you said that one
21 woman was there with the late Munira Zametica? Do you know what his name
23 A. I think her name is Sadija Sahinovic or something like that.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please
25 speak into the microphone. Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, would you come closer to the microphone and
2 speak into it.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And slow down.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. We have the testimony of Sadija Sahinovic before us now.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... interpreters
8 couldn't hear the name of the person who was with the deceased and that's
9 why they're asking the witness to tell us -- come closer to the
11 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... I think that he said the
12 same name.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Would you please repeat the name? What was the
14 name of the lady?
15 A. Sadija Sahinovic was with Munira Zametica.
16 Q. [In English] Thank you.
17 [Interpretation] So what we need is page 5 in e-court. [In
18 English] And line 3 -- actually line 2 the question was: "At the time
19 that she was killed, what were you and she doing?"
20 And in line 3, there is an answer. I quote: "We were on our way
21 to get some water, and night was about to fall, and the river was exposed
22 to sniper fire."
23 MR. LUKIC: And that's all we needed from this document. And can
24 we now have P00973, please.
25 Q. [Interpretation] While we're waiting for the report, you
1 mentioned the police report. We are now going to get an Official Note of
2 the Novi Grad public security station.
3 MR. LUKIC: Can we have page 2 in both versions, please.
4 Q. [Interpretation] The penultimate paragraph, we see what is
5 written there: "The murder took place on the 11 July 1993 between 1900
6 hours and 1930 hours, under the bridge over the Dobrinja river which
7 connects the Dobrinja II and Dobrinja III."
8 [In English] And now we'll have to see P00661, please.
9 [Interpretation] We see this photograph. Mr. Poparic, can you
10 recognise this place?
11 A. Yes. This was taken from the bridge that is closer to
12 Dobrinja IV and in the background we see the bridge underneath which
13 Mrs. Munira Zametica was when she was killed.
14 Q. From where was this photograph taken? From the church or the
15 side opposite the church?
16 A. The church.
17 Q. Did you try to go down to the river-bed to see whether water can
18 be taken out of the river without having a ramp or something else to
20 A. Well, I had to be careful not to falling into the water. I
21 didn't have a reserve pair of shoes so I didn't really go down to check
22 whether this could be done. Well, one could go down here, but not with a
23 bucket and water. But I mean, there's no way you can get water out of
24 the river just with your hand.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Did you try that, with a bucket full of water?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't try. I've already told
2 you, it's so steep that I didn't dare go down without a bucket even, let
3 alone with a bucket.
4 Now, what is all of this about? What is --
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... no, no, no,
6 sorry. I just wanted to know if you did that, and you said you didn't
7 dare to do it and that's all.
8 Mr. Lukic.
9 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
10 Q. [Interpretation] Is the place of the incident visible from the
11 Orthodox church?
12 A. It is, as we can see it in -- as can be seen in the picture.
13 There are no obstacles.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just check. The bridge before which is
15 slowly bending, that's the bridge under which the -- Munira Zametica was
16 shot at?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That is the bridge. And on
18 it, you can see sandbags. Those sandbags were on both sides of the
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think you can proceed, Mr. Lukic.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. On image 64, you marked a place under the bridge over the
25 Dobrinja, and we need to go back to your report.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And it is 1D05499. Image 63 in the
2 report. In the B/C/S, we need page 95; in the English, page 92.
3 [In English] So we need lower photo from this page. Thank you.
4 Q. [Interpretation] We can see that the photograph was taken on
5 September 17th, 2010 from the centre of the bridge beneath which
6 Munira Zametica was shot. Who took the photograph?
7 A. I did.
8 Q. In front of us is the Orthodox church. We can see it. Four
9 buildings are marked with numbers 1 through 4.
10 Were there any other buildings next to the church in the
11 territory controlled by the VRS from which the place of incident would be
13 A. At that time building number 4 did not exist and the four crosses
14 also marks four new buildings that did not exist at the time in
15 Dobrinja IV controlled by the VRS. The buildings 1, 2 and 3, were in
16 ABiH-controlled territory and existed at that time.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I just ask a question for clarification.
18 The previous picture we saw, the bridge was sort of in an arc
19 form. This one seems to be straight. Are we talking -- are these the
20 same bridge or are they two different bridges?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is a different bridge. The
22 bridge we saw on the previous photograph, the curved bridge, is the one
23 that this photograph was taken from. So it's probably halfway or even
24 closer to the church. In my assessment, it is about 400 metres away.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: And between the two bridges, which one is it that
1 it is alleged that she was shot under?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Munira Zametica was hurt under the
3 bridge from which this photograph was taken. I stood on the bridge and
4 took the photograph of the church. The other photograph was taken from
5 the bridge we can see here with the red car on it.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I still don't understand. I'm not sure my
7 question is answered.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we go back to image 59, the
9 bridge where we see -- with the carpet, that is the bridge you can see in
10 image 63, with the red car on it. So this was taken from another
11 direction. I took image 63 from the curved bridge you can see in the
12 background in image 59. You can see in image 59, there is no church in
13 the background and in image 63 you can see the church. So the direction
14 is opposite.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. I'm just concerned that the --
16 I'm just wondering whether the bridge suddenly becomes straight when it
17 is taken from a different direction.
18 Carry on.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I think it's time to adjourn.
20 Witness, we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.30 in
21 this same courtroom. But before you leave the courtroom - and you may
22 have heard this before - I instruct you that you should not speak or
23 communicate with anyone about your testimony, whether already given or
24 still to be given, and we'd like to see you back tomorrow.
25 You may follow the usher.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow,
3 Wednesday, the 28th of October, 9.30 in the morning, in this same
4 courtroom, I.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.15 p.m.,
6 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 28th day of
7 October, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.