1 Wednesday, 28 October 2015
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 The Chamber was informed that the Prosecution wished to raise a
12 few preliminary matters.
13 MS. EDGERTON: Just incredibly briefly, Your Honour, if I can.
14 The first one publicly and it's with respect to the video-clips
15 that we all viewed yesterday from 1D05925. Now what we've done overnight
16 is we've watched P71 beside parts of those video-clips, and there is
17 actually material in what we saw yesterday and, for the record, my friend
18 had indicated we were watching time code 1:51:32, so 1 hour, 51 minutes,
19 and 32 second, to 1 hour, 51 minutes, and 54 seconds. And in fact we
20 watched, as I can see from the transcript, from 1:51:36 to 1:51:55. But
21 in any case, there's about two-tenths of a second missing from P71, and
22 those are -- those two-tenths of a second contain material which was
23 discussed in court yesterday.
24 So now, rather than to try and make clips of tenths of a second
25 of video material, I would propose or ask if my friend would consider
1 tendering the time codes he indicated yesterday, as I said, 1 hour, 51
2 minutes, 32 seconds, to 1 hour, 51 minutes, 54 or 55 seconds, so that we
3 just have one clip made; and then it can be, of course, cross-referenced
4 somehow with P71.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The somehow cross-referencing is always of
6 some concern to us, so if you have a good suggestion how to organise that
7 so that we're not missing anything.
8 Mr. Lukic, any objections or any -- are you willing to follow the
9 suggestions by Ms. Edgerton?
10 MR. LUKIC: We will have to sit and go through all the exhibits
11 anyways and -- as I'm doing with Mr. Weber for Ms. Subotic. We will sit
12 and discuss it, and in general I do not object to this proposal.
13 MS. EDGERTON: With respect, I would like to deal with the
14 exhibits that are discussed in court, that are used in court, in court,
15 rather than lengthen this --
16 MR. LUKIC: -- okay, okay, then we'll have to discuss how those
17 two -- this part is missing from their exhibit.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, yes.
19 MR. LUKIC: We can discuss that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I think what you discuss is to how technically to
21 resolve the missing parts to be on the record, which we looked at and
22 which we discussed, I think; and who uploads it and whether we add it to
23 one or to another and what cross-references are there, that's exactly
24 what you could then discuss.
25 If that's clear, could you say -- it's two-tenths of a second and
1 we discussed them, could you refresh -- of course, I wouldn't know that
2 from the top of my head, what approximately was it so that we know how
3 vital it is? Was it the lines or was it the --
4 MS. EDGERTON: I can. It's the first trace bullet fired at the
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, yes. Whether it was fired at the building or
7 from the building is still to be discussed.
8 MS. EDGERTON: Oh, of course. The first trace bullet that was
9 discussed in court.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The first trace bullet, yes. Okay, that was
11 extensively discussed, I would say; so therefore, it really makes sense
12 that we have it.
13 MR. LUKIC: Then we really have a question: Who cut out this
14 part from the original, from P71? Can we know it and get it from the
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps also nice subject for discussion so as
17 to -- I mean, I don't know --
18 MR. LUKIC: Ms. Edgerton wants us to discuss it in the open
19 court --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
21 MR. LUKIC: So I'm willing to do so.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Fine. If there's any -- you said there's something
23 in -- is it -- well, please explain what's missing and -- so apparently a
24 little portion of something with a tracer bullet in the first one, and
25 was that -- P71 is a selection of that video?
1 MS. EDGERTON: Without looking at the evidence of Mr. Van Lynden
2 and going on the basis of my memory from yesterday, 1D05925 is a very
3 long video that contains many excerpts, and the time code referred to by
4 my friend may be a rush that was -- parts of which were then taken for
5 the broadcast piece which is what Mr. Van Lynden, being the broadcaster,
6 discussed in court. That would be the best information that I can give
7 at this moment to Your Honours without, as I said, having gone back to
8 look in detail at the evidence of Mr. Van Lynden, because we were just
9 looking at the videos last night.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
11 Mr. Lukic, if I hear also the tone of your voice, you have some
12 concerns apparently about manipulation. That seems to be --
13 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then I think then it's good to sit together
15 and see to exactly what happened and see whether that concern remains or
16 not. I would leave it to that at this moment. It's clear what your
17 concern is.
18 Next item, Ms. Edgerton.
19 MS. EDGERTON: The next item is with respect to the two expert
20 reports that were discussed yesterday: Mr. Van der Weijden's report,
21 which is tendered under seal; and Mr. Poparic's report, which as far as I
22 can see, Your Honours, was filed as one of a number of
23 Confidential Annexes to my friend's 94 bis notification on 13 April 2015.
24 Now, it's our intention just to try and speed up proceedings somewhat to,
25 sometime today, prepare a public, redacted version of Mr. Van der
1 Weijden's report so that we don't have to spend time going in and out of
2 private session, as we did yesterday. And I understand now from last
3 week that the approach in this Chamber is where material is otherwise
4 confidential and the references don't indicate the underlying reason for
5 the confidentiality, that may be discussed in public session and that
6 is - no doubt - what we were doing with Mr. Poparic's report yesterday;
7 but that does mean without a public, redacted version of Mr. Poparic's
8 report, there is going to be times where we'll have to go into private
9 session to discuss material in detail or even to view certain pages of
10 that report. So I just wanted to note that on the record.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's on the record.
12 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And that was it?
14 MS. EDGERTON: That's everything.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could the witness be escorted in the
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Poparic.
20 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to remind that you you're still bound by
22 the solemn declaration that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and
23 nothing but the truth, and Mr. Lukic will now continue his
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 WITNESS: MILE POPARIC [Resumed]
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 Examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
4 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Poparic.
5 A. Good morning.
6 Q. Yesterday I abandoned a topic that I was supposed to complete and
7 it had to do with corrections in your report, 1D05906.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have that on our
9 screens now. That's a separate document. We're going to see it on our
10 screens now. [In English] And I need second-last page in both versions.
11 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, do you remember that you made
12 corrections in all four papers?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Here we see -- actually, take a look at the corrections.
15 Page 349, first paragraph, B/C/S version, page 330 in B/C/S - I beg your
16 pardon - and page 349 in English. It's the first paragraph and it says:
17 "13 metres," whereas it's supposed to say "10 metres."
18 A. Yes, all right.
19 Q. Please take a look at the other corrections, so page 192 in B/C/S
20 and page 198 in English. At the end it says: "Image, 33," and in
21 parentheses "(2A)," and it says here that it's supposed to say
22 "(building 2A)"?
23 A. Yes, yes. Yes, building 2A; it's the building we showed
25 Q. The next one on page 205 in B/C/S, 211 in the English version.
1 A. Yes. Again, it's the same statement. It's all right,
2 footnote 393, 394.
3 MR. LUKIC: Can we have the next page in B/C/S version only.
4 Q. [Interpretation] There was something here without numbers, and
5 you said that in accordance with the English version, the numbers should
6 be inserted.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We cannot hear or
8 understand the witness. Could all other microphones please be switched
9 off. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could you clearly speak into the
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. The interpreters did not hear your answer at all.
14 A. Well, this image, I mean, certain numbers disappeared and then we
15 added some so that the image would be clearer.
16 Q. The next one is 260, that's the next correction.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But please -- the last item it's unclear what was
18 added since this --
19 MR. LUKIC: Just numbers in B/C/S version. In English version --
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, the correction -- the square where the
21 correction should be is empty, it's blank. I see on the left side in
22 B/C/S number 6 and 7 is added, but this is not a correction. I really
23 don't understand what the correction is.
24 MR. LUKIC: It says in note:
25 "Was not marked by numbers in the image; corrected and provided
1 along with the list of corrigenda."
2 So we uploaded that page, I think, separately with numbers and
3 it's in part of the -- this expertise now.
4 JUDGE ORIE: So the markings at -- numbers were added to the
5 markings, is that --
6 MR. LUKIC: Can we -- to be easier to follow, maybe we should go
7 to 1D05499, please.
8 We need pages 228 in English and 221 in B/C/S. And in B/C/S,
9 221, please. So previously in B/C/S version, we did not have numbers in
10 front of these words where it says: "Tram 263."
11 And now we insert --
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we enlarge the upper part of the page, only
13 the image, including -- yes, that's fine.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may ask a question. Do the figures on the
15 picture itself correlate to that legend? In other words, is what is
16 marked 1 on the picture, is it the technical school?
17 I'm asking you, Mr. Witness.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. May I?
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, no, no. You've answered my question.
20 Now my next question is: On the picture, we don't see 6 and 7.
21 Where are they? Are they able to be shown?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These numbers are here, in this
23 image, here, it's the Executive Council and the white sky-scrapers in
24 Grbavica. It's --
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Microphone.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm just asking you to show us 6 and 7 on the
3 picture. That's all I'm asking for.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They are missing in this picture.
5 That's why the correction was made, so that it could be seen where they
6 are, actually.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I thought when the correction was made then they
8 would be shown, that's -- because now this legend here is a corrected
9 version. It goes up to number 7; it doesn't go up to number 5. So at
10 that time when you added 6 and 7 on the legend, I think we should have
11 added 6 and 7 on the picture so that we know what you are talking about.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was put there -- I don't know
13 how it was displayed here, I don't know which document this is, but this
14 was done, this correction --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... is this not
16 part of your report?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Why do you say you don't know it? You don't know
19 your own report?
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I assist? The legend is --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh I do, I do know it. On the
22 basis of the this, we made the correction. Now I don't know where the
23 correction is. That's what I've been trying to say.
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I assist?
25 JUDGE ORIE: That's the reason there is --
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- the legend --
2 JUDGE ORIE: I apologise. I looked at what it originally said,
3 so we then know -- and perhaps before we continue. On the image 164, as
4 it was originally presented, gives -- as a matter of fact, gives five
5 numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; and in the legend we see seven items, and -- so,
6 therefore, comparing what originally was there it's not entirely clear.
7 But if Judge Fluegge has any further questions in relation to that.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is it correct that in the report you drafted, in
9 the legend, you have seven items; but the items 6 and 7 are missing in
10 the photograph? And therefore, the correction should be to locate
11 numbers 6 and 7 on the photograph itself. The legend is correct. But
12 the problem is now we don't know where the -- these spots should be
13 marked, 6 and 7, on the photograph.
14 And that is the real correction you should present to the court,
15 Mr. Lukic. Can you do that?
16 MR. LUKIC: My impression was that it was done and so --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you --
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It is not, and therefore I would suggest that
19 now --
20 MR. LUKIC: -- now maybe the witness --
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- to make the --
22 MR. LUKIC: -- the witness could mark it --
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- to make matters short, that the witness marks
24 it on --
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- one of the two versions, better on the English
2 version --
3 MR. LUKIC: -- on the English version, yes.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- so that we exactly know what he means.
5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: With the assistance of the usher.
7 Please mark with a 5 -- with a 6 and with a 7 the two locations.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is 6 and this is 7. That's
10 JUDGE ORIE: And 7 is in Grbavica? Are you sure about that?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could 7 be erased. It is now -- would you please
13 think carefully before you mark, and let's first erase 7. And then you
14 can -- yes, the whole of 7, yes.
15 Would you now please mark the wide high-rises in Grbavica again.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here. They're marked with this
17 circle, this dotted line.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see that.
19 Mr. Lukic, would you like to tender this correction to the
21 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, this screen view as marked by the
23 witness receives number?
24 THE REGISTRAR: D1329, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Is admitted into evidence.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. LUKIC: Then we should have page 260 in English version, and
3 it's 253 in B/C/S.
4 Q. [Interpretation] It says here in the table that the background is
5 from 189 and it can be better seen on 190; but actually, what is supposed
6 to be written is that it's from 194 and that it can be seen better in
7 image 195?
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Where are you reading, Mr. Lukic?
9 MR. LUKIC: From the corrigendum.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm looking at the screen. What are we supposed
11 to look at on the screen?
12 MR. LUKIC: First paragraph on this --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: 259?
14 MR. LUKIC: 260.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Isn't it true that we had the corrigendum on our
16 screens and that since we're looking now to the reports, that the
17 corrigendum has disappeared?
18 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And that we do not know yet anymore, we don't have
20 them next to each other.
21 MR. LUKIC: Different pages, so I cannot remove one from another,
22 then Mr. Poparic wouldn't be able to follow; but maybe we can go back and
23 forth first to see what we ask.
24 JUDGE ORIE: If you perhaps slowly read what was on the
25 corrigendum --
1 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: -- or get the corrigendum on our screens once, then
3 we can --
4 MR. LUKIC: First --
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- clone it in e-court, and then we always have
6 access to it ourselves, though not the public.
7 MR. LUKIC: The next item after those corrected numbers is page
8 260, first paragraph, last line.
9 "A tree trunk on the left side, image 189."
10 Corrections should read, I quote: "Image 194."
11 JUDGE ORIE: So the reference to a picture moved from --
12 MR. LUKIC: 189 --
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- 189 to 194.
14 MR. LUKIC: -- to 194, yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And we don't have to look specifically at this
16 picture at this moment any further?
17 MR. LUKIC: We do not.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.
19 MR. LUKIC: Next item, page 260; in B/C/S it is page 254, last
21 "In this video the background from image 189 is visible a bit
22 more clearly, image 190."
23 And corrections should read, I quote:
24 "In this video the background from image 194 is visible a bit
25 more clearly, image 195."
1 Q. [Interpretation] Is that the correction that you made?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And the last correction.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need pages of the report 287 in
5 English version and 254 in the B/C/S version -- oh, excuse me --
6 [In English] in B/C/S. In English it's the first paragraph, line 12; in
7 B/C/S it's the sixth paragraph, line 12. And correction is at the end of
8 that where it says: "Image 33 (2A)," the correction should be "image 33
9 (building 2A)."
10 Q. [Interpretation] Do you remember this correction?
11 A. Yes, we already corrected it, and this is the clarification.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But it is not on line 12. It's further down, I
13 think, 16 or something.
14 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, it's -- the sentence starts at line 12 with
15 "the place where passers-by came under fire."
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Let me ask you now: If there may be anything
19 else that needs to be corrected in addition to the corrections which are
20 listed in the errata sheet?
21 A. Yes. I said yesterday that I noticed one error, it's on
22 page 206, paragraph 199; and in the English version it's page 213, as far
23 as I remember, and this needs to be corrected as well.
24 Q. Can you please direct us to the exact place that needs to be
1 A. I still can't see it on the screen. It's page 206 in B/C/S and
2 213 in English.
3 Q. Which paragraph?
4 A. 199.
5 JUDGE ORIE: There's only one paragraph on this page.
6 MR. LUKIC: No, no, no. We are not on the right page yet.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's it. That's the correct
8 page, but only we just still need it in English.
9 JUDGE ORIE: It's the beginning of paragraph 199, so therefore,
10 it seems that it's the correct page --
11 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- although not completely covers paragraph 199.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. What paragraph within paragraph --
15 A. This is the one. It's the first paragraph, and this is how the
16 sentence begins:
17 "At the hospital received information that Dzenana Sokolovic had
18 sustained an entry/exit wound with entry wound on the left side of the
19 abdomen and the exit wound on the right side of the abdomen."
20 JUDGE ORIE: If you're reading, could you please slow down
21 because otherwise the interpreters could not follow you.
22 But you read the first line of the second paragraph of
23 paragraph 199, yes?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Slowly repeat and then give your correction.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "According to the official report,
2 at the hospital the police were told that Dzenana Sokolovic had sustained
3 an entry/exit wound, with the entry wound on the left side of the abdomen
4 and the exit wound on the right side of the abdomen."
5 And the correction should read that:
6 "According to the official report, at the hospital the police
7 were told that Dzenana Sokolovic had sustained an entry/exit wound, with
8 the entry wound on the right side of the abdomen and the exit wound on
9 the left side of the abdomen."
10 Likewise, in the following sentence:
11 "At the same time the doctors said that her son Nermin Divovic
12 had sustained an entry/exit wound to the head, with the entry wound on
13 the back of the head, above the left ear, and the exit wound on the face,
14 below the right eye."
15 It should read:
16 "At the same time the doctor said that her son Nermin Divovic had
17 sustained an entry/exit wound to the head, with the entry wound on the
18 back of the head, above the right ear, and the exit wound on the face,
19 below the left eye."
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Is there any else?
22 A. I haven't noticed any other things that needed to be corrected.
23 Q. After these corrections, is - in your opinion - what is contained
24 in this report correct and truthful?
25 A. Yes, that is what I think.
1 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, we would ask for this report just to be
2 MFI'd at this moment.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 Madam Registrar, the report would be MFI'd under number?
5 THE REGISTRAR: D1330.
6 MS. EDGERTON: Under seal, would it not, because the report was
7 filed confidentially?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
9 MR. LUKIC: Under seal for now until we find if there is
10 anything, this would be redacted.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Under seal.
12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could you also give it some thought, Mr. Lukic, how
14 the Chamber, when further dealing with this report, how you could resolve
15 that all your corrections - references to A should be references to B -
16 how we are supposed to do that? Or are you expecting us always to have
17 the corrigenda here and whatever we read, see whether there is a
18 corrigenda, whatever we read -- is there any way that the corrections
19 could be, in one way or another, even if informally, be included in it so
20 that we don't -- it certainly -- it would take us 20, 30 per cent more
21 time if every line we read has to be -- has to be verified against the
23 So perhaps you provide - perhaps also for the Prosecution - one
24 version wherein clearly all the corrections are indicated.
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. We will do that.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. That's highly appreciated.
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, yesterday we discussed the incident
5 of the 11th of July, 1993, in Dobrinja. We saw on two bridges that were
6 photographed from the direction looking towards the church and then from
7 the church to the other side when Munira Zametica last her life when
8 trying to get some water from the Dorinja stream.
9 The documents that you read, did they indicate that there was
10 shooting from both sides at that place and at that time?
11 A. Yes. Witness Sadija Sahinovic even stated that she and
12 Munira Zametica wondered whether they should go or not because shooting
13 was heard; and when they went to the bridge, the shooting was also
14 ongoing. Several people were there. They were hiding behind the pillar
15 of the bridge and occasionally they would go to fetch water. Also when
16 Munira Zametica got killed, then - according to the testimony of this
17 witness - two soldiers of the BiH army shot towards the church from the
18 bridge in order to make it possible for the people to get Munira Zametica
19 from the river. So that was her opinion. And, in any case, there was
20 shooting going on, on that day; but no one defined precisely who was
21 shooting and from where - this is not known, just that there was shooting
22 going on in the area. And according to the testimony of this witness,
23 she noticed that the bullets fell into the bed of the river.
24 Q. Could you now tell us what your conclusion is concerning this
1 A. Well, you see, Munira Zametica was shot by two bullets, two
2 projectiles; one hit her in the chest. She then straightened out and put
3 her hands on her chest and then she was hit by another bullet. It --
4 there was a very short interval between these two instances. And if we
5 take into account that Munira Zametica was trying to reach for water, so
6 she was not standing straight up ...
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could you again -- the witness is
9 including the evaluation of the totality of the evidence; that's not for
10 the witness to do. I told that yesterday to you. This witness can
11 comment on any matter that pertains to his expertise, not on whether
12 there was time between this and that, unless it has a direct bearing on
13 his expertise, in which case he can explain to us what that is. But the
14 witness is, as a matter of fact, writing our judgement -- at least
15 suggesting at what we should conclude, whereas the witness should be
16 limited to his field of expertise.
17 Would you please - I told this to you yesterday - I again remind
18 you of that.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, my question was: What was the
21 conclusion of this witness?
22 JUDGE ORIE: You asked him for further conclusion, yes, of course
23 you did. And the witness had explained before what he did.
24 MR. LUKIC: -- [Overlapping speakers] conclusions, right?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Hmm?
1 MR. LUKIC: As an expert, he should have conclusions.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, in his field of expertise, not in evaluating
3 what is credible evidence, whether we could believe that there was two
4 seconds between this, not whether the shooting from the other side was in
5 time in response, et cetera; that's all outside his field of expertise.
6 And the witness therefore asking whatever conclusions he draws on the
7 basis of his expertise and then explain what exactly that basis is and on
8 what facts that is based, and the basis could not be the evaluation of
9 this witness of which is -- what is more or less credible in the
11 So therefore, please keep this in mind. And this is not the
12 beginning of a debate. This is guidance for you.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
15 Q. [Interpretation] So, Mr. Poparic, you have heard both my question
16 and the concern of the Trial Chamber, concerning whether you're analysing
18 A. I think it's a misunderstanding, but let me tell you first what
19 my conclusion is. It is that this victim, if she was targeted from the
20 direction of the church in Veljena at the distance of 1100 metres,
21 considering the size of the victim and the two shots that she sustained,
22 she could only have been hit with semi-automatic sniper rifle,
23 7.9-millimetre which has the least dispersion, though it's very difficult
24 for the marksman to achieve two hits at such a short distance considering
25 the characteristics of this weapon and the usual dispersion. In my view,
1 it's much more probable that Munira Zametica was killed by a burst of
2 fire, that is to say, most probably a burst of fire spread across the bed
3 of the river and, because of the concrete bed of the river, the bullets
4 ricochetted. The characteristics of the river-bed is such that the
5 ricochet becomes directed into one and the same direction. This is how
6 she could have been hit by two bullets. So in my view, most probably it
7 was some sort of burst of fire from which she was hit by two shots on the
8 said occasion. It's very unlikely that it was an automatic rifle,
9 because if we take into account the size of the victim and the distance
10 and all the other circumstances.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Is there anywhere in the materials you read, is
12 there any witness who talked not about individual shots but about a burst
13 of fire? Did you find that anywhere supported by any of the witnesses,
14 witness statements?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No one said that these were either
16 single shots or bursts of fire. There are just statements that there
17 were bullets falling around.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. If there was a burst of fire -- or let me first ask you this.
22 Except the church which can be seen in the photographs, was there any
23 other building on the Serb side from which it could be shot at this area?
24 A. Not at this particular time.
25 Q. What is the likelihood that Munira Zametica would be hit by a
1 burst of fire coming from the church, that she would be intentionally
3 A. Well, it's very difficult to assess. It could be an accidental
4 hit, but I reached the conclusion that most probably it was a burst of
5 fire because if it was a longer burst of fire and if it hit the river-bed
6 and the wall, it is always directed in one direction. She must have been
7 exposed to a series of bullets, and that was why she was hit by two
8 shots. To be hit by two shots in such a short interval from a sniper
9 rifle or even a burst of fire if it was intentional, the likelihood would
10 be very small; it's possible but very unlikely. Because we have to take
11 into account that the sniper rifle is intended for shooting up to the
12 distance of 800 metres - that's not a problem for a good marksman to hit
13 a target - but if the dance is greater, then one needs to be both a very
14 good marksman and highly concentrated and some time is needed also for
15 all the elements to be in place for a hit. So in my view, the likelihood
16 that she was intentionally targeted and then hit by sniper fire is
17 extremely small.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to put one question for
21 To one of the previous sentences -- questions, you answered,
23 "Not at this particular time."
24 And the question was:
25 "Was there any other building on the Serb side from which it
1 could be shot at this area?"
2 Can you explain a bit further? What kind of buildings at that
3 relevant time had been there? And what changes have been made the last
4 20 years? Or how do I have to understand your answer "not at this
5 particular time," with respect to buildings?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time of the incident, there
7 was a church in the area still under construction; later on, it was
8 finished. Yesterday we have shown you photograph 63, where you could see
9 a number of other buildings that were built a few years ago, maybe five
10 or six.
11 In any case, they are new buildings and they are marked on the
12 photograph with the X's, and there is the building number 4, which is a
13 bit further away from the church; at the time, they were not there.
14 There was only a hill at the time that was rather empty. There was
15 nothing else there, save for the church.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you for this clarification.
17 Mr. Lukic.
18 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
19 Q. [Interpretation] Can we next move to page 100 in the B/C/S of --
20 in your report and 98 in the English. It is incident F-4 of the 3rd of
21 September, 1993. It is stated that Nafa Taric and her 8-year-old
22 daughter were shot and wounded by a single bullet while crossing
23 Ivana Krndelja Street in the Hrasno neighbourhood in Sarajevo."
24 In your view, how did the incident develop and what do the
25 documents say plus what were the basic concerns you had to deal with
1 first to shed light on the events?
2 A. First of all, according to the statement of this witness, she was
3 crossing Ivana Krndelja Street, where at the time there were containers
4 blocking the view from Hrasno and Ozrenska Street; they sheltered herself
5 and her daughter. When she crossed the street and passed the containers,
6 she made another step, when she was hit by a projectile which hit not
7 only her but her daughter as well.
8 The basic problem was to determine where she could have been
9 visible from and whether she could have been hit from the direction of
10 Ozrenska Street. It was established that there was a position indeed in
11 Ozrenska Street held by the VRS; it is some 800-plus metres away. The
12 closest point along the separation line was at 680 metres. We
13 established the separation line based on a map of the ABiH.
14 Also, given the specificities of the terrain, one could still
15 approximately determine where the positions had been and where the line
16 stood. Since she indicated how the event happened and which path she
17 crossed between the shelter and the place where she was hit, it was
18 possible to determine how much time the shooter needed to spot her and
19 hit her. Our conclusion was that if we take the closest point, that is
20 to say, 680 metres from which she was fired at, the shooter must have
21 fired before he could see her in order for the bullet to hit her in that
22 location. As for the distance of 800-plus metres, the time required
23 would be even greater. At the distance of 680 metres, at that spot we
24 could not determine whether there was any visibility of the place where
25 the incident happened, that is to say, from that position. As for the
1 other position where the trenches of the VRS were at 800 metres, the
2 place where she was shot was visible though.
3 The basic conclusion is that the shooter would have had to fire
4 the shot before he could see Nafa Taric.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could I ask you: Wouldn't that fully
6 depend on the speed with which she crossed the area where she was visible
7 and how large that area exactly was?
8 Would you agree with me that that would be determining for your
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course.
11 JUDGE ORIE: First, what could you tell us exactly about the time
12 it took her to go from the one sheltered area, to cross the open area,
13 and then how much time exactly did she take to do that?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] She spent 1.2 seconds out of cover,
15 according to her statement; and the projectile would have had to travel
16 that time if it was fired from the M84 machine-gun, which has the
17 shortest flight time of projectile. So the shooter would have had to
18 fire 0.2 seconds before he saw Nafa Taric without even calculating in the
19 time that one would need to acquire a target.
20 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, what time would the bullet need to
21 travel the 800 metres?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not 800 metres, 680.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I'm ...
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We chose the closest position at
25 the separation line, 680 metres.
1 JUDGE ORIE: How much time would it -- how much time would --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1.2 seconds.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, how long - that was my first question -
4 how long did she take to cross that open space? Was she there for half a
5 second? Was she there for 3 seconds? Was she there for -- perhaps the
6 child not?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1.2 seconds. She was on the move,
8 so let's take the time of 1.2 seconds. She was already moving, if you
9 understand me.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I'll stop you there. "Let's take the 1.2 seconds"
11 is not what I'm interested in. What I'm interested in is: How long was
12 she there, visible, between the containers? Do you have any knowledge
13 about that? No assumptions, but whether it took her 1 second, 3 seconds,
14 whether perhaps the child was not very willing to come with her? Yes, do
15 you know --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] She could not be seen while behind
17 the container. Once she cleared the container, she was hit and she
18 indicated as much.
19 JUDGE ORIE: How long was she visible, exposed, when she had
20 cleared the container?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1.02 seconds. 1 second and 200th
23 JUDGE ORIE: How do you know that?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I measured it. She indicated that.
25 She took the steps and I measured the time. There's footage, so it was a
1 kind of reconstruction of the event. She walked from the place of the
2 container to the place where she was hit. She made perhaps one step or a
3 bit more before she was hit. That is her statement.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you say the speed at the reconstruction
5 must have been exactly the same as at the time. You consider this to be
6 sufficient for such far-reaching conclusions?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Her speed was probably not -- as I
8 tried to tell you, she set out -- it wasn't the same. She started moving
9 from a stop position, and it took a bit to acquire speed. If she was
10 already on the move behind the container originally, then that time to
11 cross the distance would have been even shorter because she had this
12 initial speed.
13 JUDGE ORIE: You're not answering my question. My question was:
14 Whether the reconstruction would create such a position that by the
15 hundredths of a second, you would be able to draw conclusions? That's my
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is the time I measured. I did
18 not want to correct it. But the difference between the two would be 0.18
19 seconds, almost 2 seconds. It's not such a short time for such a short
20 distance. If she was mistaken, then that's a different thing; but I'm
21 saying that I calculated it on the basis of her statement.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But if, for example, the child was keeping her
23 slightly back, that might have taken another half a second or perhaps one
24 second. Have you considered that possibility, indeed, that the
25 reconstruction did not in detail -- is suitable for such precise timing
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It wasn't my reconstruction but the
3 reconstruction of the OTP.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What I'm saying is: You apparently found the
5 reconstruction sufficiently precise up to the one- or two-hundredths of a
6 second to draw such conclusions as far-reaching as you did? Could you
7 please answer that question, not any other one.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Given the very short distance she
9 covered --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, Witness, could you answer my question.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm trying to answer.
12 Given the very short distance, I am convinced that the time
13 measured is accurate. So the difference is not in two-hundredths parts,
14 but 0.18, almost 0.2 seconds. For such a short distance, it is quite
16 JUDGE ORIE: You've not answered my question. You're pointing at
17 the accuracy of your time measurement, and I am pointing at -- possibly
18 at a slight difference between what happened at the incident itself and
19 what happened during the reconstruction.
20 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I? Just one clarification.
22 You -- once you answered the question, saying it was 1.2 seconds;
23 and some lines further down, you said 1.02 seconds.
24 Which of the two is true?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1.02 seconds, that is the time I
1 measured that Ms. Nafa Taric needed to move from the container to the
2 place where she was hit; 1.2 seconds is the time needed by a projectile
3 to cover the distance from the closest point at the separation line to
4 the place where she was hit. So the difference between the two is
5 0.18 seconds. And in my view, given the short distance she covered, it
6 is accurate enough. She may have well covered a distance of 2 metres,
7 but she didn't say so.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I put on the record that three times you were
9 asked about the time the witness was in the open, to be seen by a
10 possible shooter; and you three times answered "1.2 seconds." I just put
11 it on the record. It's on page 24 and 25.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I've another question for you. You said --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No --
14 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... we will
15 verify --
16 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] -- this was translation issue.
17 JUDGE ORIE: There may be a translation issue. If there is a
18 translation issue, we'll resolve that and then it will be clear.
19 The timing of it -- how much time was taken to leave the cover
20 and to enter -- or at the place where she was hit, how did you measure
21 that? Did you do that by -- what kind of instrument did you use to
22 measure the time which you said was 1.02 seconds?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is a programme for film
24 editing which specifies the precise time in hundredth parts of a second;
25 that is what I used.
1 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So it is very accurate. The
3 programme measures it very accurately.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And how accurate was exactly the point where
5 she said she was hit? I mean, was that also by the one-hundredth of a
6 second precise that you could say "here she was hit" in the
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I didn't quite
9 understand the question.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if a --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do you mean the distance or time?
12 JUDGE ORIE: If in a reconstruction you move from a place to a
13 place where you say you were hit, how accurately can you determine
14 exactly by a hundredth of a second where it was, where you were when you
15 were hit?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] She indicated it. I did not
17 establish the place where she was hit. She covered the distance --
18 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ...
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and I measured the time. I was
20 not the one to determine where she was.
21 JUDGE ORIE: How did she indicate the place where she was hit?
22 Did she say that? I know that it's in in evidence before us, but I'm
23 asking you. Did she say that or was it where she stopped or -- do you
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] She stopped at that place and then
1 Mr. Barry Hogan marked it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And you say it took her 1.02 seconds exactly to
3 reach that point?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is what I measured, on the
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then, again, when you stop, if I stop a
7 movement, that takes in itself one-tenth or two-tenths of a second. If I
8 say -- If I take something and I stop, that in itself is a -- there's
9 already quite some discussion possible as to whether it was here or here.
10 How did you determine exactly where she stopped?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I measured the time when she
12 stopped, when she was no longer moving, that is. So the time that you
13 referred to is included in this time. But as I've already said, as she
14 set out she lost a bit of time, because she did not have any initial
15 velocity, she was moving in reality. So the distance was shorter. I
16 thought that that should not be corrected at all because I took into
17 account that perhaps she had set out so this would be compensated in some
18 way. So her time was approximately what was measured. Actually, the
19 time of her movement is the time that I measured, taking into account
20 everything that you said.
21 JUDGE ORIE: It's clear what you're -- how you reached your
23 Please proceed, Mr. -- no, I'm looking at the clock. We should
24 not proceed at all. We take a break, and we will resume at five minutes
25 past 11.00.
1 Mr. Poparic, you may now follow the usher.
2 [The witness stands down]
3 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at five minutes past 11.00.
4 --- Recess taken at 10.42 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 11.14 a.m.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Welcome back, Witness.
9 Judge Fluegge has one or more questions for you.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to take you back to page 25,
11 lines 15 to 18 of today's transcript and I read it to you.
12 "I measured it." And it was in relation to a question of
13 Judge Orie, how do you know the time, 1.02 seconds. You said:
14 "I measured it. She indicated that. She took the steps and I
15 measured the time. There's footage, so it was a kind of reconstruction
16 of the event. She walked from the place of the container to the place
17 where she was hit."
18 I'm not quite sure. It could be understood that you personally
19 have been at the spot of the event together with the witness. Have you?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, the reconstruction took place,
21 I think, in 2001 in the presence of the Prosecutor, Barry Hogan. It's a
22 Prosecution film.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Did you take from that footage that the witness
24 was asked to walk the same speed as -- during the situation where she was
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No, she was not given any kind
2 of instructions. She walked from the place where the end of the
3 container was to the place where she was hit, and then she naturally
4 walked up to there. She did not get any instructions to reconstruct the
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And this is the only basis for your conclusion
7 that she walked 1.02 seconds; correct?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And was the container still there so you could
11 determine very precisely where exactly the open spot was and where the
12 container was?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, the container wasn't there.
14 She indicated where the container had been and how many steps she had
15 taken from the container. So my understanding was that she indicated
16 that on the basis of her recollection as to how many steps she had taken.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that.
18 Mr. Lukic, I'm just wondering whether that reconstruction -- we
19 know that there are a few in evidence. Do you know whether this
20 one falls -- it's not a D --
21 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, it's my next question and it's not
22 in evidence yet.
23 JUDGE ORIE: It's not in evidence. So we listening to a lot of
24 comments on matters which are not yet in evidence. Well, then the most
25 appropriate thing to do is to first -- because I was searching where it
1 was so that we could better understand the testimony of the witness.
2 MR. LUKIC: It's 65 ter 22311E.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour --
5 JUDGE ORIE: May I give you as guidance for the next time to
6 first introduce that and say: Witness, is this the basis on which you
7 made your calculations? And then so that -- because I desperately tried
8 to find it because we -- I know it, we have it from the football match,
9 we have that Barry Hogan video, that's, I think, D382; we have another
10 one, I think, D381; D385. But I was desperately trying to better
11 understand the testimony of the witness. It's better that we have seen
12 the basis on which he drew his conclusions and not the other way around.
13 MR. LUKIC: I was afraid that it might be leading. That's why I
14 was first -- I first asked the witness and then my intention is to show
15 this video.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you could explain that, but there are ways to
17 make it not leading, but please proceed.
18 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. We will she now 65 ter
19 22311E which is ERN number V000-6006-1. We will see this video from time
20 3:35 until -- or sorry, 3 minutes, 38 seconds, up to 5 minutes,
21 09 seconds.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could you please give the 65 ter number again.
23 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. It's 65 ter number 22311E.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
25 MR. LUKIC: This is 15-minute clip from the larger video, but now
1 we will see only two minutes, minute and a half. And we will have
2 Barry Hogan speaking in English, and there is a translation, B/C/S
3 translation. There will be some traffic, so maybe -- I think it -- still
4 it would be audible.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Otherwise we would have to stop that traffic,
6 isn't it, Mr. Lukic?
7 Have the transcripts been provided to the booths? And is it the
8 first time we play it or is it -- has it been played before? I see the
9 booths are --
10 MR. LUKIC: No, we did not provide the transcript to the booth.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then it should be played -- no even playing twice
13 because the first round is always to check whether the transcript
14 corresponds with -- but if there's no transcript then --
15 MR. LUKIC: There is no transcript.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest that the disadvantages for the public and
17 for the Defence, because Mr. Mladic will not be able to hear it --
18 MR. LUKIC: There is translation on the video.
19 JUDGE ORIE: On the video.
20 MR. LUKIC: B/C/S translation as well.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, yes. Yes, because Mr. Hogan is speaking English
22 and then perhaps that would resolve the problem. Apologies for being too
23 eager on that.
24 Let's play the video and let's have a look at it.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But we start at 3:38 not 3:35, as you said.
1 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, I was corrected by my colleague.
2 Can we play it, please.
3 [Video-clip played]
4 "THE INVESTIGATOR: Could you please stand at the place where, to
5 the best of your recollection, the edge of the barricade was located on
6 the day that you were shot.
7 "NAFA TARIC: [Indicates]
8 "THE INVESTIGATOR: I will mark this location with yellow spray
10 Can you please indicate with your hand which area from this
11 location was open.
12 "NAFA TARIC: [Indicates]
13 "THE INVESTIGATOR: Could you please now stand at the spot where,
14 to the best of your recollection, you were when you were wounded.
15 "NAFA TARIC: [Indicates]
16 "THE INVESTIGATOR: I will now mark the spot, with yellow spray
17 paint, the figure 'X,' with the number '1' beside it.
18 "Would you please show me, to the best of your recollection,
19 where your daughter was located when she was shot.
20 "NAFA TARIC: [Indicates]
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Sir, Mr. Poparic, you were asked whether this is the only basis
23 for your conclusions?
24 A. This is footage on the basis of which I measured that
25 Ms. Nafa Taric walked from the container to the place where she was hit
1 and it was 1 second, point --
2 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not hear the rest.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic --
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. The interpreters did not hear you, so could you please finish.
6 A. This the footage on the basis of which I reached my conclusion
7 that Ms. Nafa Taric walked from the place where the containers were to
8 the place where she was hit, it was 1.02 seconds.
9 Q. You said that in reality she was moving, whereas here she was
10 standing and then she set out?
11 A. Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you: How did you know that she was
13 moving already when she left the coverage of the containers? Whether she
14 would not have been hesitant, stop, then even try to see whether anything
15 happened, and then start moving. How do you know what happened at the
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's what she said. She was
18 walking behind the container and as soon as she got out, she was hit.
19 She did not point out that she had stopped for a moment or something like
20 that. She was just walking normally with her daughter.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. She also -- did she say or did she not say
22 that she was continuing walking without stopping? Or is it just that she
23 didn't say anything about it?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] She did not say anything. I assume
25 that she would have said "I had stopped" if she had stopped. So as she
1 passed the container, my interpretation is that she was walking
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 Mr. Lukic, this is exactly the kind of things I earlier pointed
5 at, that what this witness assumes of how testimony of witnesses should
6 be understood is not for this witness, especially if it comes to
7 one-hundredth of seconds.
8 Another question is: Did she make that step from the point which
9 was marked as where the containers were or was she perhaps 10, 20, 30,
10 40 centimetres before that point?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not understand. Before ...
12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it was marked where the containers were, then
13 a while later she indicated where she was when she was hit; and you
14 apparently measured the time she needed for that one step. Have you
15 noticed whether or not this witness took that step from the place where
16 the container was marked, or was it perhaps 10, 20, 30, 40 centimetres
17 away from that spot?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it seems to me that she
19 wasn't exactly at the place where the marking was. I mean, I wouldn't
20 say that it's that much, 40 centimetres, say 15, 20 centimetres maybe
21 that she moved towards this spot. You're right on that.
22 JUDGE ORIE: But you measured her step and not anything else? In
23 time, I mean. You measured the time for that?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I mean, there's nothing else I
25 could have measured; right? Just that, that movement.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now let's just assume it's 20 centimetres
2 wrong. What would be the whole distance approximately she moved with
3 this one step?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if we see what the distance
5 is, these 20 centimetres, well that would be maybe an error, say less
6 than 0.1 seconds.
7 JUDGE ORIE: That was not what I asked. I asked what would be
8 the total distance with this one step.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, maybe 80 centimetres. That
10 would be my rough estimate.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, if she's 20 centimetres away from the
12 original point covered by the container, that would then be 25 percent of
13 the total distance, or 20 per cent, depending on where you start. Would
14 you agree with that?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Why do you think it's one-hundredth of a second if
17 for the whole of the distance you need one second, why would 25 percent
18 take only 1 per cent extra time? Any explanation for that?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't say that. No.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I think you said would -- I think you would have --
21 you said that it makes one-hundredth of a -- or one-tenth -- let me check
22 what the transcript exactly says. One second, please. One second,
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 0.1.
25 JUDGE ORIE: 0.1, that's one one-tenth.
1 Yes, it says less than 0.01 seconds, which is one-hundredth.
2 We'll check at the audio what you said.
3 Now my last question is: Have you considered that if the
4 distance is slightly longer than during the reconstruction, that it may
5 have taken two steps rather than one?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then the time would be more,
7 considerably. I mean, if she took one more step, then it's roughly
8 another second.
9 JUDGE ORIE: So if, for example, you take two steps of
10 60 centimetres, which is not abnormal, you end up at the same point, at
11 1 metre, 20 approximately - a little bit over 1 metre - and that would
12 have considerably changed the time needed, you say. Does this give you
13 any reason to reconsider your conclusions what must have happened, if
14 only your conclusions being less certain or less firm than you have
15 expressed them until now?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, and I can also explain why.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I was reaching my conclusion,
19 I compared the time that I had measured with the time that is needed for
20 the projectile to arrive to the spot where she was hit, from some assumed
21 position at 680 metres where the separation line was. So this is just
22 the time covered by the projectile; however, in a realistic situation a
23 marksman needs some time to see the target and to fire. It is well-known
24 and that is in the rules, 30 bullets per second, that is the speed -- the
25 firing speed. So well-trained shooter would achieve that. So he would
1 need -- no, not seconds, minutes. Sorry. Sorry, was I saying "seconds"?
2 A well-trained shooter needs, say, 2 seconds for every bullet. Let us
3 assume that we have a super-trained shooter and that he needs much less
4 time, say, 1 second. In my view, I accept all of this thinking and
5 that's what I bore in mind when I was working on this. Again, it covers
6 this time that the bullet had to be fired before the shooter saw the
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you say 30 bullets a minute. Would that
9 be true also for -- if you are prepared to shoot, knowing where you
10 expect your target? That's different from 30 shots in a minute, because
11 most of the initial time might have been spent already by --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I reduced the time to
13 1 second. I suppose that it was a well-trained marksman and that he
14 would more or less expect that. But regardless of what he expected
15 there, it's -- there is some time that he would need. There is a
16 situation --
17 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... need for what?
18 To pull the trigger? That's the only thing he needs to do, isn't it?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no, it's not so. He needs
20 to see the target and to aim regardless of it, because he couldn't have
21 known where the target would be. There are some situations where a
22 sniper shooter expects that someone would come out of a door or a window
23 and then he aims, but this is a wide space after all. Even if he wanted
24 to, he couldn't have aimed precisely at that spot. He had to --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, it would come from the right or from the
1 left? Two options, he could prepare for one of them, not shoot if it
2 comes from the other side; shoot if it comes from the side he was
3 prepared for. Would you agree with that?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, that may have been his
5 choice, so it could have been so.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: One -- I'm very sorry.
9 MR. LUKIC: That's fine.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: One follow-up question.
11 Have you considered the possibility that the witness, before
12 entering the open space, has cleared the terrain by looking around the
13 corner of the container - if there is any indication of danger for her -
14 and that the shooter might have seen her head? Have you considered that
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't consider that as a
17 possibility because that wasn't what she said. She never stated that she
18 checked anything but that she was just walking innocently. She even
19 claimed that there had been no sniper victims there and that she and her
20 daughter were the first ones. So she did not expect any kind of danger,
21 in my view and judging by her statement. This is how I interpreted it:
22 She did not expect danger.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You are saying she was just walking innocently
24 during this time-period? Are you really saying that people who are
25 covered by a container from possible sniper fire are walking innocently
1 without being aware of any danger? Are you saying that?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no, not like that. But she
3 stated that she went with her daughter to buy books. They walked at a
4 normal pace, not expecting anything. She said that according to the
5 knowledge she had, no one had been hit by a sniper in that area. This is
6 from which I draw the conclusion that she did not expect any particular
7 danger, especially as she was protected by the container. And you can
8 see that this was a short distance between the container and the
9 building, which would be the next shelter.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If there was no fighting going on,
12 she had no reason to ...
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. I state -- and I understand your
14 position that you drew a conclusion. Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
17 Q. [Interpretation] We dealt with some hypotheses now. Obviously
18 the Judges start from a -- assumption that Barry Hogan didn't do his job
19 properly, that it may have been two or three steps --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, would you refrain from putting in our
21 mouth any suggestions which we did not make and even you could not
22 reasonably draw any such conclusion.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, you said if there are --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please --
1 MR. LUKIC: -- two steps, there are two steps, what then?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, let me be very clear. From what we saw
3 now --
4 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- I would have preferred to see it earlier - the
6 only thing Barry Hogan said is: Could you move to the place where you
7 were hit.
8 He didn't say: Do it exactly with as many steps you did at the
9 time. He didn't say: Do it exactly as quickly as you did it at the
10 time. He wanted to determine the place where the witness was hit, and
11 there's no suggestion on our side, and it's even a waste of time that I
12 have to explain to you why it was inappropriate what you said a minute
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let us look at 1D5744.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: While this comes up I would like to put on the
17 record that the last video we saw stopped at 5:09, 5 minutes, 09 seconds.
18 That is not on the record.
19 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Ms. Edgerton.
21 MS. EDGERTON: And if it was used in court, is it not going to be
22 tendered as a Defence exhibit?
23 JUDGE ORIE: It's not tendered yet.
24 MR. LUKIC: We would tender this video, yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: The video 22311E receives Exhibit Number D1331,
2 Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
4 MR. LUKIC: We need -- this is testimony of Nafa Taric in
5 Stanislav Galic case, and can we see page 16 in e-court. That should
6 correspond to transcript page number 3138, line 19. Actually, on this
7 page she was explaining how she was warned by investigator what to do,
8 how to walk, and then she marked one photograph --
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, I'm looking at line 19. I'm not seeing any
10 instruction on how to walk.
11 MR. LUKIC: It's up.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Where do we start [Overlapping speakers] --
13 MR. LUKIC: First it is 8, line 8:
14 "Do you recognise yourself in that video?"
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers] --
16 MR. LUKIC: "I did.
17 "Did you comply with those instructions?"
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah, take us from line 8, not 19 then.
19 MR. LUKIC: "Did you comply with the instructions of the
20 investigator the best of your knowledge?
21 "I did.
22 "And you complied with those directions truthfully?
23 "I did."
24 And then Mr. Mundis asked one document to be put in front of the
25 witness. And then he asked her whether -- at line 23 whether this
1 photograph was shown to her by an investigator at the Tribunal. She
2 confirmed that.
3 So can we go to the next page, please.
4 And then she made a markings on the photograph before.
5 "And did you make some markings on this photograph?
6 "Yes, I did."
7 And she was asked whether she can tell the Chamber what this
8 photograph depicts.
9 And she asked -- answered:
10 "Exactly this open space which was protected by containers."
11 And we have that markings on 1D00526.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Are those the same markings as in P00003, where we
13 have the photographs with the markings, exhibits from Galic; or are they
14 any different?
15 MR. LUKIC: I thought that P0003 is the Sarajevo court binder.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, with pictures of this event, including exhibits
17 from the Galic case --
18 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- and markings on it.
20 MR. LUKIC: I haven't checked that.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then please proceed. Perhaps you check that
22 and then if you need -- if these are different --
23 MR. LUKIC: Only that -- we have markings on this photo made by
24 this witness, so we see where the containers were, that it was larger
25 space. So --
1 JUDGE ORIE: You mean by which witness, by --
2 MR. LUKIC: By Ms. Nafa Taric --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
4 MR. LUKIC: -- who was --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's what we find in P00003 as well, isn't
7 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
8 JUDGE ORIE: We see even the -- her name on it. There are two
9 pictures, hard copy page 12, apparently P3268 in Galic.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Then I missed that. I'm
13 JUDGE ORIE: No problem.
14 MR. LUKIC: Then can we go three pages back in this document, in
15 this transcript. Yeah, it should correspond to the transcript page
16 number 3136, and we have it on our screens from line 22. And the next
17 page she was explaining how she was moving across the street. And
18 actually it's -- it was the transcript from this video we have in this
19 document, the video that was recorded by -- what Mr. Hogan said and what
20 we hear in the translation. So to be -- we can use this transcript
21 together with the video, where -- because here we have that transcript.
22 So we would offer this transcript into evidence as well.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And this page only?
24 MR. LUKIC: It is 36 in e-court, so it's 3136 and all the way up
25 to 3139, so it's four pages.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections? No.
2 Madam Registrar, the ...
3 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit Number D1332, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
6 Now I would like to be shown one document but not to be
7 broadcast, it's P01130, and the document is under seal. We need B/C/S
8 page 33 and English page 25. Same image we can find in the report as
9 image 77, the report of Mr. Poparic. It's on page 109 of B/C/S version.
10 Q. So maybe, Mr. Poparic, you should open that page and maybe the
11 picture is better in the printed version than on the screen.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Are you familiar with this photograph?
14 A. Yes, I am familiar with it.
15 Q. What does it depict, in your view?
16 A. This photograph was made at the incident side where
17 Ms. Nafa Taric was hit in the direction of Hrasno Brdo and
18 Ozrenska Street. It depicts a house which Mr. Weijden determined was
19 829 metres away, which would mean that it is somewhere in
20 Ozrenska Street.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't understand that. Are you saying simply
22 because it is 829 metres away, therefore it must be in Ozrenska Street?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. If the distance of the house
24 from the incident site is 829 metres, as indicated, then it must be
25 located in Ozrenska Street because Ozrenska Street is at approximately
1 that distance.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And that would mean that from that
4 position, from that building, this incident site is visible and it was
5 possible to fire from that building.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. And how about the distance of 680 metres, did you check in the
8 incident site is visible?
9 A. No, it's not visible from the distance of 680 metres. As far as
10 I could establish, judging by the situation in 2010, it is absolutely
11 impossible. The only place from which she was visible is the location
12 that is discussed in the report where the position of the Army of
13 Republika Srpska was, because of the specific configuration of the
14 terrain, it's possible to see the incident site from that place.
15 Q. You were talking about positions at a distance of 680 metres.
16 Did you try to determine the disposition of the warring parties at that
17 time and in relation to the incident site where Nafa Taric was hit?
18 A. Yes, I said that I determined the position on the basis of a map
19 of the separation lines made by the BH Army and also by touring the area.
20 It's a natural border, so to speak, in view of the configuration of the
21 terrain. It couldn't have been different. Any closer position of the
22 Army of Republika Srpska would be very disadvantageous. Even if they
23 could have taken possession of it, they wouldn't have done it because
24 there's a steep inclination. And I think what is drawn on the map and
25 what I saw at the spot is correct.
1 Q. You said "what is drawn on the map." What map are we talking
3 A. It's a map of the BH Army. It's the map of the Chief of Staff of
4 the 12th Division, which was often used.
5 Q. What do you depict in image 81? Is it from Google Earth?
6 A. 81 ...
7 Q. Page 12.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Previous translation continues] ... on the
10 MR. LUKIC: Can we have --
11 Q. [Interpretation] Does it relate to the same incident?
12 A. You're right, it does. And it's the place where the trenches of
13 the Army of Republika Srpska were that is a well-known fact - and it is
14 indisputable that they were there. But it's at a distance of around
15 800 metres or, to be more precise, 770 metres from the incident site
16 according to my measurements.
17 MR. LUKIC: Can we have page 112 from this document in B/C/S.
18 Judge Fluegge asked to see the picture.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Your question was whether it was taken from
20 Google Earth. I heard a lot, but not an answer to your question.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The basis is an image from
22 Google Earth and the positions -- the characteristic positions were drawn
23 in, that is to say, the positions of the trenches and the positions of
24 some houses that can be seen in photographs that were presented as
25 evidence in photographs 79 and --
1 Q. Just a moment.
2 MR. LUKIC: My instructions were not clear enough. We need
3 1D05499. We need page 112 from that document.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
6 MS. EDGERTON: If we're going to deal with anything that's on
7 that page, we need to move into private session.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then we --
9 MS. EDGERTON: -- if we're dealing with English page 112.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Then first it should not be broadcast.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And private session would --
13 MR. LUKIC: 112 of the report of Mr. Poparic?
14 MS. EDGERTON: Yes.
15 MR. LUKIC: Can we go into private session.
16 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
17 [Private session]
11 Page 40476 redacted. Private session.
15 [Open session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. I think we're at ...
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Witness, you mentioned a house that's under a
19 street light on the left. The street light I see is on the right, and
20 did you mean to say the right?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is one on the left. Do you
22 see the three pillars? And then immediately right to them, there is one
23 with ...
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. I can see it. Thank you so much. Thank
2 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's time for a break anyhow. That's ...
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, we'll take a break. We'd like to see you
5 back in 20 minutes. You may follow the usher.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at 25 minutes past 12.00.
8 --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 12.26 p.m.
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, I'd like to move to incident F-5 of
14 2 November 1993.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In the B/C/S, it is page 120; in the
16 English, 122.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, were we done with this picture, the
18 exhibit that was on the screen?
19 MR. LUKIC: We are done with this one. We are still to get the
20 correct pages on our screens, Your Honour.
21 Yeah, it starts from point 80, only the title is on the previous
22 page in English version.
23 Q. [Interpretation] So in this incident, which happened on
24 2 November 1993, in Bulbulistan Street, Ramiza Kundo was wounded by a
25 bullet to the leg.
1 First we'll look at some footage, so we will reverse the order
2 compared to the previous incident. Hence, could we please have the same
3 footage from earlier on, 65 ter 22311E?
4 [In English] Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, to the extent you have expressed any
6 concerns about leading, if the witness in his report comments on videos,
7 then of course to present the video, ask first: Have you seen this video
8 and is this what you are commenting on? Is not in any way leading but
9 assists the Chamber very much.
10 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
13 [Interpretation] We want to look at 6 minutes, 19 seconds, to
14 6 minutes, 50 seconds.
15 Could we play the video, please.
16 [Video-clip played]
17 MR. LUKIC: There is no sound.
18 [Video-clip played]
19 "THE INVESTIGATOR: Can you please indicate from which direction
20 you heard the gun-shot as closely as you can recall at the time that you
21 were shot?"
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. You have seen this footage previously?
24 A. Yes.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic, we didn't hear the English translation
1 of the words spoken by the witness.
2 MR. LUKIC: The lady -- the translator warned her that she
3 shouldn't -- was not supposed to speak at all, so I couldn't distinguish
4 what she said because she was speaking in the other direction. So if you
5 want, we can play it again and if the translators can pick it up.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, that is sufficient for me. Thank you.
7 MS. EDGERTON: And could we just -- could I just ask if we could
8 double-check the 65 ter number, because what we saw was - as far as we
9 can see - not 22311E at those time codes. It might be 65 ter number
11 MR. LUKIC: I was just informed actually that this one -- this
12 video an Exhibit D00381 also. And --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, 381 is one of the three which is already in
14 evidence, one of the three, that's 381, 382, and 385, which are already
15 in evidence as Mr. Barry Hogan videos.
16 MR. LUKIC: -- [Overlapping speakers] ... yes, I just checked.
17 My learned friend is right. That was 65 ter number 22311F --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. LUKIC: -- and it's the same as D381.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And what we didn't hear, I think, if the
21 parties would agree that the witness pointed to her left when asked from
22 where she heard a shot fired. If there's agreement on that and she was
23 pointing not to the left direction of the white car, but left, the road
24 winding slowly down.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
2 Q. [Interpretation] You viewed the entire footage. What is
3 Ms. Kundo indicating here?
4 A. She is indicating the direction from which she heard the shot,
5 standing at the place where she was hit in the leg.
6 Q. What was she indicating? What was her direction of movement?
7 A. According to the footage, she was moving from her house, which is
8 behind her back, crossing the street. She claims that she was on her way
9 to fetch water from a well.
10 Q. We can see that in the video she said she was hit in the leg.
11 Did someone else say that she was hit in the leg?
12 A. Yes. There is a police report stating that she had been hit in
13 the leg, as well as her husband's statement, and a statement of
14 Ms. Mimzilovic, who is a neighbour. There are several sources indicating
15 that she was hit in the leg, and that is not something that is in
17 JUDGE ORIE: What is in dispute and not in dispute, Witness, is
18 to be determined in this courtroom, nowhere else.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. LUKIC: Can we briefly see --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was speaking from my point of
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
24 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. Can we see 65 ter 10039, please.
25 Maybe we should see the next page in English. No? Oh.
1 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
2 MR. LUKIC: So there is only this one, I was informed, so there
3 is no translation. Although I can -- I can read in English what --
4 somehow I do have translation. I read the first part of the first
5 paragraph of the first page, so I'll read that part in English so we know
6 what's here; and Mr. Poparic can follow in B/C/S.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But of course, you as our new interpreter,
8 Mr. Lukic, is not what we're seeking. Where does your translation come
9 from? Is that an official --
10 MR. LUKIC: From 65 ter 10039.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And that is the -- is that a CLSS-prepared
13 MR. LUKIC: This is the Prosecution 65 ter number, so --
14 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest the following. I suggest that you read
15 then from that translation -- because our interpreters are not supposed
16 to prepare translations here, so you read it. You later upload the
17 English, the other pages. If you read it literally, then both
18 Prosecution, Chamber, and Defence have an opportunity to later check
19 whether you were reading from what is then uploaded as the official
21 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I would do that.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
23 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And we -- of course, it will be transcribed anyhow.
25 Ms. Edgerton.
1 MS. EDGERTON: Well, I can help because there is a translation.
2 We've got the translation. It's part of the complete investigative file
3 for this incident, and the -- I think what's happened is that the wrong
4 page was uploaded as the translation in e-court. We could print some
5 things out and distribute them to the courtroom.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any way that we can show it? We have now
7 looked at the 65 ter number and we see that there is -- and apparently
8 with the same date and with what seems to be a signature under it by
9 that -- at least by someone with a -- what looks to be the same family
10 name. And perhaps if we could have the English version on our screens,
11 then you read from there, Mr. Lukic.
12 MS. EDGERTON: We could show it on Sanction.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
14 Mr. Lukic.
15 MR. LUKIC: That's the same text I have.
16 JUDGE ORIE: The same text you have.
17 MR. LUKIC: Yes. So it's statement on 2nd November 1994 at
18 around 10.00.
19 JUDGE ORIE: 2nd September or the 30th of September?
20 MR. LUKIC: On 2nd November.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, 2nd November, yes. Yes, I'm a bit confused. I
22 thought you would start reading --
23 MR. LUKIC: On the understatement.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
1 Q. "On 2nd November 1994 at around 10.00 hours Ramiza Kundo, my
2 wife, took some pans and went to get some water from a spring which is
3 50 metres away from our house. She was standing at the doorway and
4 looking in the direction of enemy positions in Rajlovac when she was shot
5 from the direction of the depot. Ramiza was hit in the lower leg of her
6 left leg."
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: "Lower region."
8 MR. LUKIC: "Lower region of her left leg."
9 Yes, Your Honour. Semi-blind, as you know, I am. So -- and
10 that's the end of the quotation I want to draw Your Honours' attention
12 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, were you able to establish in which
13 direction Ms. Kundo was moving and in which leg she was hit?
14 A. No. I do accept that she was wounded to the left leg, but there
15 are conflicting reports of her direction. In one, it is stated that she
16 was moving from the house to get water; in another that she was returning
17 from the spring, carrying water back. The biggest problem, however, is
18 that we don't know where the spring is. There are claims that the spring
19 was just across the street. I personally visited the entire slope
20 because the witness Mimzilovic stated that the spring was no longer
21 there, it wasn't used. I checked the slope, supposing that due to
22 erosion the spring may have been moved, but nothing indicated that there
23 ever had been any spring there. However, when I went further down the
24 street, the one we could see in the still, some 50 metres away, I did
25 find a pipe for water with a heavy concrete lid. I provided a photograph
1 of it in my report. It is photograph 89. Around it, there was lush
2 vegetation, indicating the presence of water. I can't say that is the
3 source, but the distance more or less fits with what is claimed by
4 Ms. Mimzilovic, the neighbour, and Ms. Kundo herself. I cannot say
5 anything else about the location of the source.
6 In this case, we were unable to determine what Ms. Kundo's
7 direction of movement was and, therefore, we were unable to establish
8 where she was hit from.
9 Q. All right. We see what could not have been established. Now
10 what --
11 JUDGE ORIE: What the witness -- on the basis of what he
12 considers to be contradicting evidence, we do not know exactly what he
13 looked at, what the witness says he was unable to establish.
14 If only on the basis of the evidence we received five minutes
15 ago, the Chamber might be able to do that, Mr. Lukic, and that's, again,
16 the same problem here, whether this witness, for apparently -- he was
17 unable to do something in evaluating and assessing the probative value of
18 the evidence he reviewed.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. What did you conclude?
22 A. What I could establish with certainty is that positions of the
23 Army of Republika Srpska were visible from this place that was shown by
24 Rasema -- no, Ramiza Kundo. However, on the right-hand side there was
25 territory under the control of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina; that is
1 what is certain. I could not establish where the well was. So I could
2 not be sure of the direction in which Ramiza Kundo was moving. Was she
3 walking down the street? Or was she crossing the street? Was she
4 walking towards the house? From the house? We see here she says that
5 she was walking from the house - and that's what her husband said. And
6 later on it was stated that she was walking towards the house, so I could
7 not tell what it was that had actually happened. Had I known where the
8 well was, then something could have been done. However, this way, from
9 the point of view of my profession, on the basis of this information, I
10 could not conclude where she was at the moment when she was hit and where
11 it was that she was hit from.
12 There is no dispute, as far as I'm concerned, that she was hit.
13 And she showed the direction where the positions of the Army of
14 Republika Srpska were and where the positions of the Army of BH were.
15 JUDGE ORIE: We haven't seen that last one, did we? And she
16 showed the direction where the positions of the Army of Republika Srpska
17 were. I don't know whether she did that. We saw that she said, I heard
18 the fire coming from this direction. I think she, at that moment, didn't
19 say anything about the presence of troops. And I also have no
20 recollection that she said where in her view the units of the Army of the
21 BH were.
22 So, Witness, you're telling us all kind of things which I, at
23 least, was unable to hear or see on that video.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No we're not understanding each
25 other. She showed a certain [Realtime transcript read in error
1 "concern"] direction, and I'm saying that it was in that direction that
2 there were positions of the VRS and the ABiH; and we found that out from
3 other sources.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
6 Q. [Interpretation] Do you remember now what the sources were where
7 you found out --
8 A. Well, it's the same map of the Chief of Staff of the
9 12th Division of the 1st Corps of the ABiH.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
12 MS. EDGERTON: Are we going to do anything with the statement
13 that we looked at in Sanction?
14 MR. LUKIC: We would offer, but probably the whole --
15 [overlapping speakers] --
16 JUDGE ORIE: We reserve a number for it and you like to have the
17 whole investigative file which this is part of --
18 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- in evidence?
20 No objection, even if not all of it was dealt with, Ms. Edgerton?
21 MS. EDGERTON: No, no objection. And just -- I could just try to
22 be -- to try and be a little more helpful, the English translation is
23 uploaded at this moment under doc ID 0300-04212-ET. And perhaps then we
24 could ask the Court Officer to replace the existing translation with this
25 correct one that's just been uploaded.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And that's of the whole of the investigative report
2 or just the statement?
3 MS. EDGERTON: At the moment it's the whole -- pardon me. At the
4 moment, it's the statement, and so that deals with the immediate issue.
5 And we can let everyone know when we get the whole of the investigative
6 report uploaded; I'm sure it would only be a matter of minutes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and that's Mr. Lukic sought to tender.
8 MR. LUKIC: Maybe we should wait until the whole thing is
10 JUDGE ORIE: We could reserve a number.
11 MR. LUKIC: We could reserve the number.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number reserved for the whole
13 of the investigative file related to sniping incident F-5 would be?
14 THE REGISTRAR: D1333, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And that number is reserved.
16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
17 I would move now to the incidents F-9 from 26th of June, 1994.
18 It's page 165 in English and 163 in B/C/S version of 1D05499.
19 Q. [Microphone not activated] --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, microphone.
21 MR. LUKIC: Sorry.
22 Q. [Interpretation] So this is the incident that took place on the
23 26th of June, 1994, when Sanela Muratovic was shot and wounded as she was
24 walking along Djuro Jaksica Street. What did you find in this case?
25 What was characteristic? How should we start?
1 A. In this case, there were two girls in the street Djuro Jaksica.
2 We see in this image, 119, that that is a street where these containers
3 are, so it's perpendicular to the street from where the photograph was
4 taken. So the photograph doesn't go as far as the spot where they were.
5 They were warned by ABiH army soldiers that there was sniper fire and
6 that they should seek shelter. They ran. At that moment, fire started.
7 They ran up to a spot opposite this building that we see in the
8 background of image 119, and there it was established that the girl,
9 Sanela Muratovic, was wounded in the shoulder. We concluded on the basis
10 of the indictment that they were hit by a shot that came from the
11 Institute for the Blind. However, through our analysis, we established
12 that she could not have been wounded from that institute. She only could
13 have been wounded from a ricochetted bullet, a bullet that ricochetted
14 from this building that we see in image 119. And in this photograph, we
15 see many traces of bullets that had hit that building.
16 Q. Thank you. We're going to watch a video now, P01934.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We should take a look at 8 minutes,
18 50 seconds, to 9 minutes, 21 seconds. That's the interval. Sorry, 8:56
19 is the beginning.
20 [In English] Can we start, please.
21 [Video-clip played]
22 "THE INVESTIGATOR: I'm not going to ask you to say anything on
23 camera but I am going to give you some instructions. Could you please
24 show me, as closely as you can recall, where the edges of the trench were
25 at around the time when your friend Sanela Muratovic was shot?
1 "MEDINA OMEROVIC: [Indicates]
2 "THE INVESTIGATOR: I'll mark this plane with yellow paint.
3 "MEDINA OMEROVIC: [Indicates]
4 "THE INVESTIGATOR: I'll mark this plane with yellow paint.
5 "Could you please point in the direction where -- in which you
6 and Sanela were travelling that day at the time when Sanela was shot, to
7 the best of your recollection?
8 "MEDINA OMEROVIC: [Indicates]
9 "THE INVESTIGATOR: Would you please show me approximately, to
10 the best of your recollection, where you were at the time that Sanela was
12 "MEDINA OMEROVIC: [Indicates]
13 "THE INVESTIGATOR: And in relation to yourself, can you
14 indicate, please, approximately where, to the best of your recollection,
15 Sanela was standing.
16 "MEDINA OMEROVIC: [Indicates]."
17 MR. LUKIC: Only because of the context, I let the whole video to
18 play until the end - it's 11:26 - instead of, as I said, 9:21.
19 I would -- in connection with this video, we should see again
20 1D05499. It's the report of Mr. Poparic. And we need one figure,
21 picture, from it. We need page 172 in B/C/S and 176 in English version.
22 We need image 128, yes.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, can you explain to us on the basis
24 of this photograph where Sanela Muratovic was and also the girl from this
25 film, Medina Omerovic, at the time when Sanela Muratovic was hit?
1 A. Medina Omerovic and Sanela Muratovic were in the street
2 Djuro Jaksica roughly at the spot marked number 5 in this image. They
3 were warned of danger. That's what a BH Army soldier said to them and
4 they ran to that trench that she showed that is in front of this
5 building, between buildings 3 and 2, that is, that's where the trench is.
6 You heard what you said in the film, she said that
7 Sanela Muratovic was hit when they reached the edge of the trench;
8 however, during her testimony she said that they ran and that that's when
9 Sanela Muratovic was hit.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Testimony where and when?
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Yes, where and when, do you know?
13 MR. LUKIC: Let's go to 1D5746. This is testimony of
14 Medina Omerovic in Galic case on 15th of February, 2002. We need page 3
15 in e-court, line 17. I will read --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Which corresponds to transcript page in Galic page
17 3844. Please proceed.
18 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
19 Q. "Q. And had there been some measures taken by this date, the
20 date that your friend was shot, to make the area safer for civilians such
21 as yourselves to cross the street?
22 "A. Well, we were warned by soldiers who were on the other side
23 that sniper fire had started and to hurry up. And so we started running,
24 and then it happened at that very moment.
25 "Q. All right. Now, as you ran across the road, whereabouts was
1 the confrontation line? Was it to your left or to your right or straight
2 ahead or behind you?"
3 And then we have to go to the next page:
4 "A. Well, it was in front and to the right.
5 "Q. As the two of you ran across the road, where was Sanela in
6 relation to you, in particular, at the instant she was shot? Was she to
7 your left, or to your right, or somewhere else; behind, in front.
8 "A. To my right.
9 "Q. Can you tell us what happened as you and she ran across the
11 "A. We heard a shot. We started running, and I saw that Sanela
12 had been hit because there was blood on her T-shirt.
13 "Q. Go on. What happened after that?
14 "A. Then we went down into a trench and soldiers ran up to us
15 and took her to a hospital."
16 [Interpretation] So, Mr. Poparic, did you deal with that, whether
17 Sanela Muratovic could have been hit from VRS positions.
18 A. As I've already said, there is this claim that she was hit from
19 the building of the Institute for the Blind. Maybe it would be useful if
20 we would go back to that image. Perhaps it would be easier to follow if
21 we had the image before us.
22 MR. LUKIC: So we have to go back to 1D --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 128, page 174 of the report.
24 MR. LUKIC: Yes. 1D5499, please.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could it be in e-court, 176?
1 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, it's in English version 176. The
2 previous one. I have 176. It's -- B/C/S is 172 in B/C/S, and can we
3 have --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Can we zoom in.
5 MR. LUKIC: Yeah. Just zoom in in English version, this image
6 128. Okay.
7 Q. [Interpretation] We can see this in front of us now.
8 A. Yes, I have to say that while the girls were at the incident site
9 which is marked by number 5 in Djuro Jaksica Street, they were not
10 visible from the Institute for the Blind which is marked with number 1.
11 When they moved a little, here to the side street between the buildings
12 marked by numbers 3 and 2, they became partly visible which can be seen
13 in the video when Medina stands in front of the trench. Then in the
14 corner one can see a part of one window of the Institute for the Blind.
15 And I think that this was the basis for the claim that they were hit from
16 there. However, we got photographs that were made in 1996 in a video,
17 and one can see that that part of the Institute for the Blind was
18 devastated and no sniper or sharpshooter could have been there; it was
19 too dangerous. You can see that it was less than 100 metres the distance
20 from the building marked with number 2 and the Institute for the Blind
21 and probably it would have been very dangerous.
22 The evidence -- or rather, the photographs from the relevant
23 period from the territory under the control of the VRS show that the old
24 people's home marked with number 4 here was also riddled with bullets and
25 projectiles just like the building marked with number 2. The photograph
1 is provided in this report. That indicates that the fire between the two
2 warring parties was actually exchanged in the direction which I marked
3 here with the line A. That's the most probable direction of the exchange
4 of fire because the Institute for the Blind was too dangerous a place for
5 anyone to be there. According to the photograph, there could have been
6 some troops below the Institute for the Blind, but up there I don't think
8 Then further, the incident was analysed because in the photograph
9 that we got from the video, at the frontal side of the Institute for the
10 Blind there are traces of some breaks of something like shape-charged
11 projectiles. Could anyone shoot through these openings? All the
12 analysis shows that in such a case the place would have had to be
13 rearranged, a part of the wall had to be demolished, and so on, because
14 the angle to the incident site in relation to the frontal wall of the
15 Institute for the Blind is about 25 degrees. So for a marksman to be
16 able to place a rifle there, a part of the wall had to be demolished and
17 the firing position rearranged accordingly.
18 No one ever presented evidence that there was a firing position
19 there, though the place was inspected after the Dayton Accords. I never
20 received anything that would indicate to me that that was an arranged
21 firing position. So in my view, the exchange of fire was along the axis
22 A and the ricochetting of a bullet against the building number 2 is what
23 hit Sanela Muratovic. So in my view, this is the most probable chain of
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, approximately 80 per cent of the answers
1 of the witness are really beyond the scope of his expertise. Whether
2 it's too dangerous do be somewhere, whether someone dares to go either
3 down to a river or in a building, is really not something -- ask the
4 witness whether he has any factual knowledge such as - and I ask you this
5 now, Witness - do you have any photographs of the Institute of the Blind
6 taken during the war approximately at the time when this incident
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We only have photographs that were
9 taken immediately after ...
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes -- after -- after the war? Is that what you ...
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I see you're
13 nodding yes.
14 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, in 1996.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would now move on to the incident
18 F-11 of the 8th of October, 1994.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton.
20 MS. EDGERTON: Just before we get into another incident, I could
21 let everyone know that the whole investigative file of F-5, the incident
22 we discussed earlier, has now been uploaded under 65 ter number 33351,
23 and that's the exhibit -- the reserved Exhibit Number D1333.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MS. EDGERTON: Original and translation, of course.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Original and translation.
2 Mr. Lukic, would it be good to admit D1333 and you can revisit
3 the matter --
4 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then D1333 is admitted and it corresponds with
6 65 ter number 33351.
7 And it's a public exhibit, Mr. Lukic? There's no reason to have
8 it under seal. Please proceed.
9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
10 [Interpretation] So F-11, we need page 188 in English and 183 in
11 the B/C/S version.
12 Q. According to the indictment, one person was wounded when fire was
13 opened on the tram in which this person was in Zmaja od Bosne Street --
14 THE INTERPRETER: And could the counsel please repeat the date.
15 MR. LUKIC: It's 8th of October, 1994.
16 And can we have the next page in both versions, please. We need
17 image 137.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Let me first ask you if could you tell us what,
19 in your view, is characteristic of this incident and if you could explain
20 to us what happened in the incident by referring to this photograph.
21 A. This is an incident in which a tram number 206 was hit and then
22 236 as well, and then passengers from a third tram which stopped a while
23 before these two trams were also hit. According to the police report, it
24 all took place at the location number 1. There are claims that shots
25 were fired from the Metalka building; however, the evidence indicates
1 that the incident took place between the faculty of philosophy and the
2 Executive Council of Bosnia-Herzegovina. All this happened in view of
3 UNPROFOR members and everything was also filmed by a crew of the BiH TV.
4 On the basis of the videos and UNPROFOR's report, the statements of
5 witnesses and so on - in other words, there was quite a lot of data - it
6 was possible with some certainty to reconstruct the incident and it was
7 established that tram 206 was hit at some place close to the
8 Executive Council building, and it's marked with the dotted elliptical
10 Tram 236 was hit as soon as it reached the Executive Council
11 building, and the passengers from the third tram were hit at the
12 intersection between the faculty of philosophy and the Executive Council
13 building. All the evidence indicates that the origin of fire in all
14 three incidents was the Executive Council building, the Executive Council
15 of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
16 Q. Under whose control was that building at the time?
17 A. The building was under the control of the BH Army.
18 Q. Now we shall look at a video.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] It's 65 ter 22533. And we need to
20 look at 3 minutes and 30 seconds to 3 minutes and 34 seconds. That's the
22 [Video-clip played]
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. What could we see in this video?
25 A. We see the passengers from the third tram being shot at. This
1 tram stopped 50 or 100 metres before.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could we see that again.
3 [Video-clip played]
4 MR. LUKIC: Is it necessary to play it longer, Your Honour?
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, I was looking where I can see the tram.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps the witness could ...
7 MR. LUKIC: Yeah.
8 Q. [Interpretation] So, Mr. Poparic, you have seen a Judge said he
9 couldn't see the tram.
10 A. Yes, I said these were the passengers from the third tram which
11 is further away in this image. And the two trams that were hit
12 previously are somewhere behind the person who is filming this. The
13 first one that was hit was close to the old tobacco factory, and the
14 other two closer to the Executive Council building. So when the two were
15 hit, then these passengers were walking and then the fire we just saw was
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And where can we see one of the three trams in
18 the still we have on the screen now, at 3:37?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here we can't see it, but there are
20 some videos or shots where they can be seen too. For example, 141, image
21 140, in the report you can see the position of these trams. Tram 236,
22 one can see that it stopped in front of the Executive Council building.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: How do you know that the people in the street
24 then falling down came from one of the trams? How do you know that?
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And what makes you certain that those people we
4 just saw in the video are the same referred to by the tram driver?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, ultimately it's not so
6 important whether they came from the tram or not. They may just have
7 happened to walk there. They were walking along the street, and then
8 fire was opened. That's essential in my view, but I think that they did
9 walk out of the tram -- or at least most of them did.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If it's not important, why did you say that these
11 are passengers from the tram?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because I read the statement of the
13 tram driver, that the tram stopped there, and it's logical that people
14 continued to move on. When there are people in the street -- because
15 there is not a residential area. There is a faculty building and the
16 museum and so on. So this number of people, I suppose, that they
17 originated from the tram.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Okay. You suppose that, and in your view this is
19 logical. Thank you.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I have a further clarification, please.
21 We see these people are shot not inside the tram but they're
22 outside. What had made the tram driver to stop the tram to allow these
23 people to come out in the first place?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He may have seen that the other two
25 trams in front of him were standing, and that's why he may have stopped;
1 or perhaps somebody may have signalised this to him, but this I don't
2 know. From the place where he was he could see that two other trams were
3 standing still at a distance of around 100 metres between the other two.
4 So he saw that there was some sort of a standstill, so that may have been
5 a reason for him to stop, to allow the passengers to continue on foot.
6 But maybe somebody had told him to stop.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
8 MS. EDGERTON: Could we go into private session for one moment,
9 please, Your Honours?
10 JUDGE ORIE: We turn into private session.
11 [Private session]
14 [Open session]
15 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
17 But it's also time for a break. Yes. We take a break and resume
18 at quarter to 2.00.
19 Witness, you may follow the usher.
20 [The witness stands down]
21 --- Recess taken at 1.26 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 1.46 p.m.
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could I seek briefly clarification on one
25 or two matters.
1 Witness, when you were talking about sniping incident F-5, that
2 was Ramiza Kundo going or to or coming from the well, on page 58,
3 line 24, you said:
4 "However, on the right-hand side there was territory under the
5 control of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina."
6 Now, approximately a page later, that's page 59, lines 24, 25,
7 you said:
8 "We're not understanding each other. She showed a concern
9 direction and I say that informs that direction that there was positions
10 of the VRS and the ABiH and we found that out from other sources."
11 Now if I understood you well, first you said it was one side she
12 showed that, that's Republika Srpska, and on the right-hand side there
13 was territory under the control of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina - that
14 would be opposite directions - whereas your later testimony, at least if
15 I understood it well, suggests that there were positions of the VRS and
16 the ABiH on the same side. Could you clarify the issue for me?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think there was some
18 misunderstanding in the first translation or I wasn't clear.
19 The positions of the ABiH and the VRS were on the same side in
20 that meadow, in the direction indicated by the witness on the footage, it
21 was down the street. If we are looking from the direction of the hill,
22 on the right-hand side there were VRS positions; on the left-hand side,
23 ABiH positions. Perhaps the misunderstanding was there.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
25 Then I have one other matter. I think you said all the evidence
1 hinted - and I am now talking about the trams - all the evidence hints at
2 shots being fired from the BH Executive Council building. Could you tell
3 me what evidence you had specifically on your mind when you said that?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I said that, I had in mind the
5 footage that exists about the events - of which there are many; there are
6 also many witness statements given to TV crews; then there are witness
7 statements provided to the Prosecution or to the police; there are police
8 reports, UNPROFOR reports containing much information which unambiguously
9 indicates that ...
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, could you perhaps make a short list of what
11 sources make you say that all the evidence - you didn't say most of the
12 evidence but all the evidence - so that we can check whether it is in
13 evidence before us, yes or no. Because if you are, in general terms,
14 referring to TV interviews, then I've got no idea whether that's in
15 evidence before us.
16 And my next question would be: Have you ever read any suggestion
17 that the fire would have come from the Holiday Inn?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
20 MR. LUKIC: We should see one video now first, it's 1D5931.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. If I may. I
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said I did not know about it, but
25 on a second thought I did. Perhaps a day or two later, there was a
1 meeting between General Rose and General Mladic. At that meeting,
2 General Mladic denied any responsibility on the VRS side, saying that the
3 shots were fired from another side, from the Holiday Inn. So I apologise
4 for not having mentioned that immediately. So I do know about that.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So not all the evidence suggested the
6 Executive Council building --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are correct. I wasn't precise
9 JUDGE ORIE: Is there also evidence suggesting that it may have
10 come from close to the Jewish cemetery?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are right, because I mentioned
12 all evidence, but I should have said a lot of the evidence. I'm not a
13 lawyer and I may be imprecise. There is an UNPROFOR report stating that
14 the fire could have come from that direction, but we will probably come
15 to that later; it is in my report. There are some elements which would
16 confirm otherwise in the same report.
17 The police report, of course, is also different. It does not
18 contribute to my thesis.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And is there any evidence that points at the Metalka
20 building, for example?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are some such assertions, but
22 no evidence, no proof. The police claim that it was fired from the
23 Metalka building. An OTP expert also claimed that the shots came from
24 the Metalka building. It's Mr. Van der Weijden.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you say it's no evidence. Whatever is
1 presented before this Chamber is in evidence. Therefore, since you said
2 "all suggest that it came from," whereas I now pointed at three or four
3 other sources mentioned - I'm not saying which one is right or which one
4 is wrong - I'd like to know exactly what is at the basis of your
5 assertion that all the evidence, or at least the evidence you referred
6 to, hints at the building you mentioned. If you could please write it
7 briefly down so that we are sure that we are not overlooking any
8 important source of evidence which is before us.
9 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
10 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I do have a follow-up question.
12 You've just said here at page 76, lines 23 to 24 that: "The
13 police report does not contribute to my thesis."
14 As a result of it not contracting to your thesis, did you then
15 consider that report or didn't you consider it as a possible explanation
16 of where the firing could have come from?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course. Of course, I considered
18 it and I quoted it in several places.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
21 MR. LUKIC: Okay. So we'll see now video 1D05931. We'll see it
22 from 1 hour, 35 minutes, 21 seconds, up to 1 hour, 35 minutes, 51
23 seconds. After that immediately we will see the same video from 1 hour,
24 41 minutes, and 49 seconds, up to 1 hour, 43 minutes.
25 So let's start from the first part.
1 [Video-clip played]
2 MR. LUKIC: Stop. We stopped at 1 hour, 35 minutes, 32 seconds.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: 35 minutes.
4 MR. LUKIC: I see 32 -- 35 minutes, yes, 32 seconds.
5 Q. [Interpretation] What could we see in this part of the footage,
6 Mr. Poparic? Is this the tram? Is this the incident? Did you view
7 there footage?
8 A. Yes, I did, it is tram number 236. Next to the door, closer to
9 the window, we can see the shards of glass which was shattered on the
10 tram. It is undisputable evidence that the tram was hit at that place.
11 Several witnesses stated that when the tram was hit the driver stopped
12 immediately, although they were telling him to keep going. It is very
13 logical that the driver stopped because a bullet flew close to his head,
14 hitting a pole close by. He was probably scared and stopped because of
15 his instinct. So the tram was hit there, and the glass that shattered
16 fell on the ground.
17 Q. Thank you. Do all reports indicate that the tram was stopped
18 here or that it stopped -- or actually that it was hit at a different
20 A. The police report states that it was hit at the Metalka building.
21 The OTP experts claim the same. In an UNPROFOR report, it is stated that
22 it was hit around that location. They were not very precise.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Can I ask you one thing. Do I understand that you
25 say the glass on the ground indicates that that's where the tram was hit?
1 Is that your position?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Not only the glass but also
3 witness statements.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, if a tram drives at a speed of - well,
5 what could it be? - 20, 30 kilometres an hour, how much would it take to
6 come to a full stop?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it is, first of all,
8 questionable whether the speed was 20 or 30 kilometres per hour. It
9 would require high-quality rails. If it was 20 or 30, it could be
10 calculated, although I can't do it off the top of my head. I would say
11 10 metres.
12 JUDGE ORIE: 10 metres. Now if a bullet hits a window, would the
13 glass particles also travel another 10 metres?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, they would not, but there's a
15 different situation here. The tram was hit with a burst of fire, several
16 bullets. As I said, one of the bullets flew close to the driver, hitting
17 a pole nearby. It was probably because of that bullet that he began
18 braking, so it was already in the process of stopping.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You said:
20 "Next to the door, closer to the window, we can see the shards of
21 glass which was shattered on the tram. It is undisputable evidence that
22 the tram was hit at that place."
23 So as a matter of fact, you're saying that the tram was hit when
24 it had already come to a full stop?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. It was probably in the process
1 of stopping. It was being fired at and the driver probably stopped out
2 of fear, by instinct. One doesn't need to be surprised to find the glass
3 particles there. Had this glass pane been hit first, the particles would
4 have probably been somewhere closer to the end of the tram, but in any
5 case, it was around here.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, is the -- you say the conclusion is because
7 that's how it was. That sounds not very scientific.
8 "Had this glass been hit first, the particles would have probably
9 been somewhere closer to the end of the the tram, but in any case, it was
10 around here."
11 That is whatever you say, this is how it was, without further
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The far end of the tram.
14 JUDGE ORIE: What's -- okay. Let's move on.
15 Mr. Lukic, please proceed.
16 Ms. Edgerton.
17 MS. EDGERTON: Your Honour, before we go further with any videos
18 today, I'm just going back to 65 ter number 22533, that we watched a
19 short fragment of before the break, at 3:30 to 3:37. And there was
20 discussion about that and the witness testified he clearly relied on it.
21 That's not been tendered. And if we're going on to other bits of videos
22 after this one as well, I would suggest or recommend that this tiny clip
23 should be tendered as well.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, are you intending to tender this clip?
25 MR. LUKIC: Not yet. As I said, we'll play another part --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you'll finally tender it?
2 MR. LUKIC: I will finally tender it.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. That's fine.
4 MR. LUKIC: So can we proceed with this part, please.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, would you mind to replay it from the beginning
6 so that I have a better -- a more vivid recollection of what we saw.
7 MR. LUKIC: Give us one second.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And Ms. Edgerton asked you if you are going to
9 tender 65 ter 22533.
10 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I do. I will tender that video. We played four
11 seconds, I think, only.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. LUKIC: Please --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, I thought you would take them all together.
15 Madam Registrar, could you please assign number to the
16 four-seconds video.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Document video 22533 receives Exhibit
18 Number D1334, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
20 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
21 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. And we'll play this part of
22 the next video, which is 1D5931, from 1:35:21 to 1:35:51.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I think I asked it to be --
24 MR. LUKIC: Yes, from the beginning.
25 JUDGE ORIE: -- yes, from the beginning. Okay, that's fine.
1 Please proceed.
2 [Video-clip played]
3 MR. LUKIC: After this, we have General Rose walking around, so
4 we need now to play from 1:41 minutes -- 1 hour, 41 minutes, 49 seconds,
5 up to 1 hour, 43 minutes.
6 [Video-clip played]
7 MR. LUKIC: We don't see the time but we can stop here, I think.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It seems to be 1 hour, 42 minutes, 27 seconds.
9 MR. LUKIC: Then let's proceed another half minute.
10 [Video-clip played]
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Which tram is this one?
13 A. It is number 206, the first one that was hit but kept going and
14 stopped near the Sarajevo tobacco factory.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We stopped at 1 hour, 43 minutes, and 0 seconds.
16 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. That was my intention. Thank you.
17 Q. [Interpretation] In your report, we have photograph 140 of tram
18 number 236, the previous one; and photographs 145 and 146 of tram 206.
19 Do you want to see the photographs or can you say something based on the
21 A. We can stay with the video.
22 Q. What is your conclusion now that you have reviewed the video, the
23 reports by the police and UNPROFOR, et cetera?
24 A. The conclusion is that all three events - the shooting at
25 trams 206 and 236 and the shooting at civilians - were involving someone
1 shooting from the Executive Council building.
2 Q. What is the basis of your conclusion?
3 A. This is it specifically tram 206, one civilian was hit there and
4 he had the kind of wound that could be inflicted only if the angle of
5 descent is bigger. The maximum angle that we could establish, in terms
6 of the building by the Jewish cemetery, is 5.71 degrees - that's the
7 building that UNPROFOR mentions - and this angle was a lot bigger. So
8 this man was hit in the lip and it ended in the shoulder, and the angle
9 is much bigger; all of this is contained in the report. The top of the
10 tram was hit and then also that corresponds to the wound that he
12 Then tram 236, it was also hit under an angle that is bigger than
13 the one possible if fire comes from positions of the VRS. UNPROFOR
14 established that on the basis of the traces on the seats and the tram
15 itself, and they determined an angle of 8.41, I think. We've already
16 said that the maximum angle would be 5.70-something, so it's a 3-degree
18 As for the passers-by on the sidewalk between the museum and the
19 Executive Council building, it is obvious on the basis of the traces that
20 dust that goes up to the height of the APC, that fire came from a
21 relatively small distance and the angle was quite big - and that's the
22 only way in which this column of dust could be there. This is confirmed
23 by UNPROFOR reports after the incident. In the grass there they found
24 six craters and they managed to put antenna of radio equipment there, and
25 that shows that the angle was also much bigger than the one that was
1 possible if the fire had come from positions of the VRS. If that had
2 been the case, there only would have been a shallow furrow; an antenna
3 could not stick into it. Practically it would fall on the ground. It
4 would just show a certain direction.
5 Q. Thank you. We've come to the end of our working hours today.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we're coming to -- yes, we are at the end.
7 Yes, Mr. Lukic. That's --
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Are you tendering this video-clip?
9 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I am tendering this video-clip, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So we're now not at the end yet.
11 Madam Registrar, the number would be?
12 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D5931 receives Exhibit Number D1335,
13 Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
15 Is there now any clip which was not yet tendered or have we
16 everything in evidence now?
17 MS. EDGERTON: So, if I understand things correctly, D1335
18 subsumes all these --
19 MR. LUKIC: Both, yes --
20 MS. EDGERTON: -- small clips that we've looked at. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we'll adjourn for the day.
22 Witness, we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.30.
23 You're again instructed not to speak or communicate with whomever about
24 your testimony, whether that is already given or is still to be given.
25 We'd like to see you back tomorrow, Thursday, the 29th of October, 9.30
1 in the morning.
2 You may follow the usher.
3 [The witness stands down]
4 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn until the point in time I just mentioned.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.15 p.m.,
6 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 29th day of
7 October, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.