Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 27742

 1                           Tuesday, 4 November 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Good morning.  Madam Registrar, could you call the

 7     case, please.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case number

 9     IT-05-88-T, The Prosecutor versus Vujadin Popovic, et al.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, ma'am.  For the record, all the accused

11     are present.  Prosecution is Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Vanderpuye.  Absent

12     amongst the Defence teams, I notice Mr. Ostojic, Mr. Krgovic,

13     Mr. Lazarevic, and Mr. Haynes.

14             All right.  Good morning to you, sir.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  Welcome back.  I hope you've had a good rest.

17     Mr. Vanderpuye will finish his cross-examination.  Then we will see if

18     there is a re-examination, which I think there will be, and we can call

19     it a day as far as you are concerned.

20             Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Good morning, Mr. President.  Good morning, Your

22     Honours.

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  Good morning.

24             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Good morning to my colleagues.

25                           WITNESS:  JOVO MARKOVIC [Resumed]

Page 27743

 1                           [Witness answered through interpretation]

 2                           Cross-examination by Mr. Vanderpuye: [Continued]

 3        Q.   And good morning you to, Mr. Markovic.  I wanted to pick up a

 4     little bit from where we left off on Friday.  I had shown you a videotape

 5     that had been slowed down, and I understand that that was actually shown

 6     to you in a smaller resolution than could have been shown, and so I would

 7     like show you it again in order to assist you in identifying the object

 8     depicted on the bottom right-hand side of the screen.

 9             Again, this is a video clip wherein the action that you see on

10     the tape immediately precedes a conversation wherein Mr. Borovcanin says:

11     "Oficir, or" and there is a response and he directs that person to stop

12     traffic.  So I want to focus your attention on that, and if I could play

13     the once again.

14                           [Videotape played]

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:

16        Q.   If I could just focus you on the right-hand bottom corner of the

17     screen.  Are you able to recognise that object as a microphone commonly

18     attached to a mobile radio?

19                           [Videotape played]

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:

21        Q.   Are you able to make that recognition, sir?

22        A.   All I can make out on this video, which has a very bad

23     resolution, I must repeat, is the radio device behind the wind screen of

24     the automobile; and the object in the lower right corner, I really can't

25     recognise because the resolution is very poor.  And I really cannot see

Page 27744

 1     any difference as compared to last time I saw it.

 2        Q.   All right.  Thank you for that.

 3             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Could I show you 65 ter 3892, please.  I'm

 4     sorry, do we -- is it not in -- 3892.  Yeah.  Okay.  Thank you very much.

 5             And if we could go to page 2 of this document.  All right.  If we

 6     are able to below up the picture a little bit, that would be helpful.

 7     Just for the record, this is a photograph of Mr. Borovcanin taken from an

 8     article from Nin magazine, and it's dated 11 April 2002.

 9        Q.   Now, from this photograph, sir, and if you want we can zoom in a

10     little bit, can you make out what radio that is Mr. Borovcanin is holding

11     in his hand, his right hand?

12        A.   The person in the photograph is holding a handheld radio station

13     based on the outlines of the antenna, although this is a black and white

14     photograph with a poor resolution.  So based on the outlines of the

15     antenna, I suppose that this is a device operating at a wavelength of 0.7

16     metres, or to put it simply, that operates on the frequency between 460

17     and 500 megahertz.  But it could also be a device operating on the

18     wavelength of 2 metres.  It is difficult to tell based on the outlines of

19     the antenna.

20        Q.   All right.  So you're not able to determine based just upon the

21     antenna what device this is, whether it's 0.7 metres or 2 metres device.

22     Is that right?

23        A.   I have already said before that based on the outlines of the

24     antenna, I suppose that this is a device operating on the wavelength of

25     0.7 metres.

Page 27745

 1        Q.   And you've not seen this particular photograph before, have you?

 2        A.   No, this is the first time I see it.

 3        Q.   And that same goes for the photographs I showed you on Friday

 4     wherein Mr. Borovcanin had two radios on him -- or you were able to

 5     determine at least two antennas, those photographs?

 6        A.   Yes, I have said as much last time.

 7        Q.   All right.

 8             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If I could show 65 ter 3889, please.  Just for

 9     the record, on the previous exhibit, that photograph, it is the

10     Prosecution's position it depicts Mr. Borovcanin at Potocari, and if we

11     get it up a little bit just after this, I can show you that it also

12     depicts Vujadin Popovic in the photograph, and I just want to make the

13     record clear with respect to that.

14        Q.   Now, this particular device, I hope, is a better photograph of

15     the GM300, which is what I showed you on Friday.  Do you recognise it as

16     such?

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.

18             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Sorry, but we didn't see this, the Popovic on the

19     file.

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I am going to put it back up on the screen.  I

21     just want to finish this question, and then I'll put it back up.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Zivanovic.

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:

24        Q.   Do you recognise this particular device as the GM300?

25        A.   That's not the GP 300.  This is the GM300, and this looks like a

Page 27746

 1     compact unit, but I must explain that it is composed of two parts.  The

 2     upper part is the radio device, and the lower part is the speaker, which

 3     comes with the radio device.  There is a third component, and that is the

 4     microphone combination with a spiral cable, which is compatible with the

 5     GP 300 and the GM300.

 6        Q.   And those particular microphones are typically used with these

 7     types of devices; is that right?

 8        A.   Yes, they come with this type of device.  This is the basic

 9     combination for this device, but this microphone combination is

10     compatible with the GM300 and the GP 300.  It can be used with the

11     handheld radio device as well as with this device shown here, which can

12     be mounted into vehicles.

13        Q.   All right.  Thank you for that.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Now, for my friend, if I could have 3892 back in

15     e-court.  If we could just blow that up a little bit, maybe a little bit

16     bigger.  If you look just behind Mr. Borovcanin's right hand, slightly to

17     the left, there's a gentleman there you can see with a dark hair and a

18     mustache.

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Is it identification by the counsel or by the

21     witness?

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, you are right.

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:  No, it's simply -- it's simply -- it's simply

24     our position.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  It's a submission you are making.

Page 27747

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's correct.  And the reason why I want to be

 2     clear is so that my colleague has a chance to obviously see it fully.  It

 3     is not a definitive identification.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, of course not.  Yes, Mr. Gosnell.

 5             MR. GOSNELL:  Perhaps we can be told what this question has to do

 6     with this witness's expertise.

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  I don't know.  We still have to hear the question

 8     properly, actually.

 9             MR. VANDERPUYE:  The issue was only raised to accommodate my

10     friend.  The question was --

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  Let's proceed, Mr. Vanderpuye.

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  -- in relation to the radio.

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  Provided you don't tell the witness who that person

14     according to you is, we can safely proceed with the question.

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

16        Q.   Let me show you another document, sir.  I'd asked you some

17     questions concerning the responsibility of a communications unit to set

18     up communications with respect to combat operations.  Let me show you 65

19     ter 3893.

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I don't believe we have a translation in

21     e-court, but I have one that we can put up on the ELMO, which I think

22     will assist the parties.  I don't know if we can show the translation on

23     the ELMO.  Can we do that?  Okay, great.  Thank you.

24        Q.   As you can see, this is a document that is directed to the

25     command of the special police brigade.  It is dated 11 July 1995.  And

Page 27748

 1     what it purports to do is to provide that command with a copy of a coded

 2     map that is entitled "Grmec," a code book which is entitled "Krivaja 95,"

 3     and a work plan for Krivaja 95 together with the identification signals,

 4     etc., signed by Nedo Jovicic.  If you look at the second page of this

 5     document, you can see the call signs that are attributed to various

 6     units.  In addition to that, you can see a call signs attributed to the

 7     MUP, together with frequencies, frequency table, and a signals table, you

 8     can see at the lower part of the page.

 9             Now, you're familiar with these types of documents, are you not?

10        A.   I first have to say that the first document I saw - not this one,

11     the previous one - is a handwritten document as far as I know, although

12     at the time I wasn't there.  But based on my experience, no officer would

13     have drafted such a document, especially in this type of handwriting.  We

14     can see from the heading that it's a Drina Corps, and it's obviously the

15     command of the corps.  I don't believe that any officer would agree to

16     send out a document of that type, but it wasn't there at the time.  I

17     must repeat, therefore, I don't know what the practice was.  And about

18     this document, I must say that this wasn't made by a telecommunications

19     officer if it is such a document as you say it is.  I can see call signs

20     here and unclear frequencies.

21        Q.   When you say "unclear frequencies," what do you mean by that?

22        A.   Well, to be specific, in the fourth column, the first frequency

23     is 250.  Is it -- 250 watt, or possibly it's 1250, or possibly this one

24     is the item number.  And I would have to know what this 250 refers to,

25     kilohertz or megahertz, and I cannot recognise any device.  From the

Page 27749

 1     moment I joined the VRS, I haven't met a device operating on this

 2     frequency of 250 megahertz.  And in the next column, it says 352.  This

 3     is, again, a frequency and not a channel because the heading reads

 4     "frequency," and I don't know that frequency.  And then this is followed

 5     by a grid of numbers and letters.  This is probably for encoding, but

 6     this certainly was not made by a telecommunications officer.  But I must

 7     add that I wasn't present at the time; therefore, I don't know what the

 8     practice was then.

 9        Q.   Well, what about frequency 171?  Do you recognise that frequency?

10     Item number 9, where it says MUP, OBLAK, 9.171.  Do you recognise that

11     frequency?

12        A.   I can only say what I see at the moment.  I see 9.171.  Whether

13     this figure 9 is part of the frequency or the item number, I don't know.

14     And if it's just 171, there is no unit of measure.  It could be kilohertz

15     or megahertz.  That's an open question.  The heading reads only "Freq."

16     And then in this particular field, it has a 9.71, and to the right it's

17     20.403, but this is not a common plan of work of the type I know.  This

18     may be an innovation, but I don't know the practice at the time.  And

19     again, there is no unit of measure, megahertz or kilohertz.

20        Q.   All right.  So you don't recognise that 1 through 22 actually

21     constitute the number of frequencies you can see in that plan, right?

22     You don't see that 1 down through 11 is numbered is sequence, and 12 down

23     through 22 is numbered in sequence?  You don't recognise that in your

24     experience and expertise as a communications officer?

25        A.   I don't want to make conjectures, and this is not a standard kind

Page 27750

 1     of work as it was used in the JNA and later in the VRS.  But I repeat, I

 2     wasn't present at that time, so I don't know what kind of plans of work

 3     they used.  The standard type is a printed template, which is then filled

 4     in, and if you make one by hand, then it will have -- well, it will have

 5     to be of the same dimensions and of the same shape.  This is not a

 6     standard layout.  And these are the frequencies.  For the frequencies, no

 7     unit of measure is given, so I don't want to guess what this is.

 8        Q.   Thank you for that.  For the record, it is the Prosecution's

 9     position that the preceding document, which is page 1 of this document,

10     was prepared by Nedo Jovicic who the Prosecution believes was

11     Mr. Borovcanin's driver on the 13th of July, 1995.

12             Just page back --

13             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Is the document in your possession an original one

16     or a copy of one?

17             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I will determine whether or not we have the

18     original.  I believe we do.

19             JUDGE KWON:  I wonder whether the stamp, Drina Corps command

20     stamp, which appears on page 2, the -- is stamped on your -- at page 2,

21     not on page 1.  And the --

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I believe it is stamped only on page 2.  That's

23     correct.  And this was part -- and it's a series -- it's within a range

24     of documents that also bear similar stamps.

25             JUDGE KWON:  So if you could check it later on and tell me

Page 27751

 1     whether you have an original or not.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I most certainly will, Your Honour.  If I could

 3     just have a look at page 1, the translation for a moment.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, before you do so.  Madam Fauveau.

 5             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I am very sorry to

 6     interrupt, but I am not quite sure I understood the position of the

 7     Prosecution.  Is the position of the Prosecution that this document comes

 8     from the command of the Drina Corps, has been drafted by a member of the

 9     special police?

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If I could just look --

11             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Is that the position?

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If I could just look at the translation, I'll be

13     happy to answer the question.  I don't have a copy in front of me.  I do

14     now.  I can see that it's received by Nedo Jovicic, and that's our

15     position, is as depicted in the document itself.

16             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] It is clear that it's been received

17     by that person, what the Prosecutor has just said.  He said it was a

18     document prepared by that person, and that's why I was not understanding

19     what he -- was being said --

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, if you -- thank you, Madam Fauveau.  If you

21     look at page 9, lines 6 and -- 5 to 7, it says precisely what Ms. Fauveau

22     has just stated; namely, that you are put on record as saying that it's

23     your position that the preceding document, which is page 1 of this

24     document, is prepared by Nedo Jovicic who the Prosecution believes was

25     Mr. Borovcanin's driver on the 13th of July, 1995.

Page 27752

 1             MR. VANDERPUYE:  That's correct.  I said that.  But I said it

 2     looking at an untranslated version of the document.  It was a

 3     misstatement that I wish to clarify, which is why I asked to see the

 4     translation.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  I think it's clear enough now, no?

 6     Yes, Mr. Gosnell.

 7             MR. GOSNELL:  Mr. President, my understanding is that the purpose

 8     of stating a position is to state it for the witness so the witness can

 9     then respond in some intelligible way to a position that relates to the

10     witness's knowledge.  That's not what actually's going on now.  Now

11     what's going on is a series of submissions about the nature of a

12     document.  I would also have many submissions on that, but I don't think

13     it's appropriate to do it, nor do I think it's appropriate for my learned

14     friends to be doing so, either.

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  You're partly right, but it's also a statement made

16     for your information, as well, so -- because you still have a chance of a

17     redirect.  So at that point in time, I don't criticize Mr. -- let's

18     proceed, anyway.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thanks, Mr. President.

20        Q.   With respect to this document that was received by Nedo Jovicic

21     --

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  And it is the Prosecution's position that he was

23     Mr.  Borovcanin's driver on 13 July, 1995 --

24        Q.   In your experience as a communications officer, it is indeed

25     likely, is it not, that Mr. Borovcanin was provided with precisely the

Page 27753

 1     information that's contained in this document?

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Gosnell.

 3             MR. GOSNELL:  I think that crosses the line.  I think we're now

 4     into speculation and outside of the witness's expertise.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  Your comment, Mr. Vanderpuye?

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I think this witness is fully familiar with the

 7     procedures with respect to relaying a communications plan to a commander

 8     in respect of the deployment of a combat operations --

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Stop, stop, stop, because it's now that you

10     are overstepping, perhaps.

11             Witness, I will repeat to you the question:  "In your experience

12     as a communications officer, isn't it likely, isn't it, that

13     Mr. Borovcanin was provided with precisely the information that's

14     contained in this document?"  If based on your experience you are in a

15     position to give an answer and an answer based either on certainty or on

16     a basis of probability, balance of probability, then yes, please go

17     ahead.  If it was a question you need to speculate, you don't know, then

18     please don't answer the question at all.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this particular case, may I just

20     see the Serbian version of the document, please, because I'm just looking

21     at the English translation now.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.

23             JUDGE KWON:  He's looking at ELMO.

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  It's okay.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of what I can see, all

Page 27754

 1     I can do is comment and say that if this is indeed a document, then there

 2     are several things lacking here.  First of all, the degree of secrecy and

 3     confidently particularly when it comes to documents sent out from the

 4     corps, you have state secrets, strictly confidential, confidential, and

 5     so on.  And that's something that I don't see on this document,

 6     especially if it's a document that's strictly confidential.

 7             Now, the second point here is this:  All it says, from the corps

 8     command, but it doesn't say who handed the document over, which, for a

 9     strictly confidential document of this kind, is compulsory.  Now, whether

10     it could have reached the command or not, I really can't say.  However, I

11     would never send the commander a document like this.

12             JUDGE AGIUS:  We need to know whether the witness is talking of

13     the first page or of the second page; in other words, what we see on

14     e-court now or whether it's the other document with the stamp, in other

15     words.

16             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

17        Q.   Did you understand Mr. President's question, sir?  If you could

18     answer it.

19        A.   This is just a handwritten document.  That's the one I'm looking

20     at.

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  And that's the one you are referring to?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, and I've already said what I

23     think about it.  That is to say, I don't know whether this could have

24     been sent out or not.  I can't say with any certainty.  So I just

25     repeated what I saw, my visual observations.  If this is the document

Page 27755

 1     that was indeed sent out, then I told you what the floors were, what was

 2     lacking.

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

 4             MR. VANDERPUYE:

 5        Q.   All right.  Thank you for that, Mr. Markovic.  If I could take

 6     you just briefly to a different area.  I showed you a photograph on

 7     Friday with respect to a vehicle, that it's the Prosecution's position

 8     Mr. Borovcanin was riding in on 13 July 1995, up and down the Konjevic

 9     Polje-Bratunac road.  What I would like to do is follow that up and show

10     you another photograph of the same antenna.

11             MR. VANDERPUYE:  And I believe that is 65 ter 3859.  If I -- on

12     the left-hand side of the screen, maybe we could make that a little bit

13     bigger.  All right.

14        Q.   Sir, are you able to identify this type of antenna?

15        A.   On the basis of the contours, the outlines, and as I say the

16     resolution is a bad one on this photograph, all I can say is that this is

17     a magnetic antenna which is placed on vehicles; that is to say, one

18     that's used for this type of device, the 0.7- and 2-metre frequency type

19     or wavelength type.

20        Q.   That type of antenna isn't normally or -- hooked up to a portable

21     radio device, is it?

22        A.   Once again, I can't see it very well, and I can't see the

23     dimensions of the antenna from a 2-dimensional picture, but every

24     frequency range in both wavelengths had different lengths of antenna; and

25     here, you can't see the length of the antenna at all.  But this type of

Page 27756

 1     antenna can go with a radio device, but usually there are standard ones

 2     which are fixed to the vehicle with the frequency range for that

 3     particular device.

 4        Q.   All right.  But this particular antenna that you see here is not

 5     a type of antenna that's hooked up to a Motorola GP 300 or a Motorola

 6     0 -- or OP 030, right?  It's hooked up to different type of radio device?

 7        A.   Yes, that's right.  It's not placed on the GP 300 or OP 030.  It

 8     is hooked up to a radio device which is built into a vehicle or the call

 9     stations.

10        Q.   All right.  Let me show you 65 ter 3891.  This is a page from the

11     Motorola GM300 service manual.  All right.  What I want to show you is --

12     well, as you can see for yourself, it says accessories, and I apologise.

13     I don't have a B/C/S translation of this document.  But specifically what

14     I'm referring to are the types of antennas that are listed here for this

15     particular device, and you can see VHF antennas from 146 to 150.8

16     megahertz.  It says quarter-wave roof mount, and the same for another

17     antenna from 158 to 162 megahertz, and so on and so forth.

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Gosnell.

19             MR. GOSNELL:  I'm sorry to interrupt, but this may be helpful.

20     Apparently, the translation to the witness of line 2 of page 15 actually

21     gave GP 300.  Of course, that's -- that's not what counsel said.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  But we could see the model number on the

23     screen in any case.  So --

24             MR. GOSNELL:  Well, it's just that it's not on the actual

25     document shown to the witness, so I thought --

Page 27757

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.  But we're talking of GM300.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you.

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  Could you repeat your question, please.

 4             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes.  Thank you, Mr. President.

 5        Q.   What this document depicts are the specifications -- well, no,

 6     I'm sorry.  They depict the accessories for the GM300.  That's the mobile

 7     radio, and you can see various antennas that can be used with this

 8     device.  Among them are several roof mount antennas.

 9             Now, the photograph a that I just showed you, that would be

10     consistent with a roof mount antenna such as the ones described in this

11     particular document; is that right?

12        A.   On the basis of what you've just shown me, the accessories for

13     the GM300, these are models of the various antennae and the type of

14     antennas, depending on the manufacture and the different names given.

15     And on the right we have the technical data, which I am able to comment

16     on.

17             So the first one here is 146 to 150.8 megahertz, and it's

18     characteristic is 1/4, if that's what it says.  I think so.  It's the

19     wave roof mount, mounted on the roof.  So the 1/4 is a wavelength over 4,

20     and it is the exact wavelength, and the wavelength is calculated on the

21     basis of the frequency spectrum or the operator being posed.  In this

22     case, it is 146 to 150.8 megahertz.  And so on the basis of that, once

23     you obtain the wavelength/4, you have the length of the antenna for that

24     range.

25             The first from the -- the fourth from the top, where it says 146

Page 27758

 1     to 172 megahertz, for example, you have three decibels, which means that

 2     the length -- it's not the length of the antenna that is calculated

 3     there.  It's just the amplification of the antenna with -- at the

 4     receptor --

 5        Q.   All right.  Well, what I want to know is --

 6        A.   -- or the gain roof mount.  So we have different frequency ranges

 7     and different possibilities.

 8        Q.   All right.  Well, you can see from this document that there is an

 9     antenna roof mount available for every frequency to which the GM300 can

10     transmit and receive.  What I want to know from you is, based upon your

11     knowledge and experience with these types of things, in particular with

12     antennas and radio communications type devices, whether or not you have

13     -- you can tell us whether or not these types of antennas are consistent

14     with the appearance -- appearance-wise with the ones that you -- the one

15     you just saw in the photograph?

16        A.   What I can tell you in answer to your question is this:  First of

17     all, the document that we see here are types of antennas for those

18     particular ranges, and from the technical point of view, I can say that

19     the one I saw, the outlines I saw, I can say it is a magnetic antenna

20     which is mounted on the roof of a vehicle, and I can also tell you that

21     it is used in one of these frequency ranges.  On the basis of the

22     2-dimensional picture, we can't see the length of the antenna itself; and

23     therefore, I cannot confirm which frequency range this specific antenna

24     that I saw on the photograph is used for.

25        Q.   All right.  You know that the GM300 does transmit and receive

Page 27759

 1     within the frequency range of 146 to 172 megahertz.  We went over that on

 2     Friday, and according to this work plan in the document I showed you

 3     before that was received by Nedo Jovicic, that the MUP was assigned a

 4     frequency of 171.  That would fall within that frequency band, wouldn't

 5     it?

 6        A.   All I can tell you, if it is indeed 171 megahertz as you claim,

 7     is that it would come within that frequency band.  However, on the basis

 8     of the document I was shown, I have to repeat that I cannot recognise

 9     this because it's the not the standard type of document that was used.

10     And at the time I wasn't there.  I wasn't present, so I don't know what

11     they used.  But 171 megahertz does fall within the 2-metres wavelength or

12     146 to 170 megahertz or 174, actually, megahertz.

13        Q.   All right.  Thank you for that.  Now, in your report you made

14     certain assessments as to the quality -- I'm sorry, as to the quality of

15     the communications that could be achieved between the points that you've

16     indicated.  And what you described was the quality between Sandici and

17     Kravica warehouse of 5 over 5, or 5 by 5; and then you described the

18     quality of the sound between Sandici and Hrncici as 2/1.  Now, with

19     respect to those particular descriptions, those are essentially

20     subjective measures of sound quality, aren't they?

21        A.   Well, yes.  That is correct.  They are subjective measures of

22     sound quality, and they have to be subjective because I used the device

23     on that occasion, so it's what I heard and necessarily subjective.  If

24     it's subjective, then it doesn't hold water.

25        Q.   There are ways, of course, of measuring the sound quality through

Page 27760

 1     instrumentation or objective means, aren't there?

 2        A.   Of course.  Of course, there are.  You can measure sound quality

 3     through instrumentation and objective means.  But on the basis of the

 4     procedure we used in the armed forces, it was the subjective type that

 5     was used, a subjective assessment, because the operator using the radio

 6     device is the person who received and sent out information.  So he is the

 7     person who assessed the quality of the communication.

 8        Q.   All right.  So with respect to this particular analysis that you

 9     did, you didn't use anything like an S metre or a power metre or

10     signalling tester or any of those kinds of technical devices, transmitter

11     testers, et cetera, right?

12        A.   That is right.  But let me just mention that during the testing I

13     conducted, I had very limited resources and equipment because all these

14     devices that you mentioned would require much more time, far more money,

15     for the purchase of such equipment or for renting it out, and these are

16     resources which I simply did not have.

17        Q.   Well, one resource you did have was your partner's field notes,

18     which you indicated on Friday that you hadn't completely reviewed in

19     respect of preparing this report, right?

20        A.   Let me repeat what I said --

21        Q.   I just want you to answer the question, if I may.

22        A.   Well, of course, I've already answered that question.  That's why

23     I said I'll repeat it.  We compiled the report together, and of course,

24     he used his field notes to compile that report, and that's how the report

25     was written.

Page 27761

 1        Q.   But you didn't review his field notes, right?

 2        A.   No, not 100 per cent.  Just the portion that was -- that I was

 3     interested in, the geographic location where the communication testing

 4     was performed.

 5        Q.   You could have, for example, requested or obtained the

 6     specifications of the devices that you tested.  You didn't do that, did

 7     you?

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Gosnell.

 9             MR. GOSNELL:  This exact question was asked on Friday.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  Do you remember yourself asking the question,

11     Mr. Vanderpuye?

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I don't remember exactly asking the question.  I

13     do remember that the witness said he hadn't relied on it.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  So let's move.

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  But that's a different question of whether or

16     not he tried to obtain it.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Let's move ahead.

18             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Okay.  Thank you, Mr. President.

19        Q.   Now, with respect to your specific assignment in performing the

20     tests - and correct me if I'm wrong - did you get any specific

21     instructions from the Defence as to which specific locations to test

22     from?

23        A.   Well, based on my conversation with the Defence and the

24     assignment given me - not by them, I mean, but my superiors in the

25     Ministry of the Interior - I was told point 1 and point 2.  I knew where

Page 27762

 1     that was, but not the exact geographic coordinates; but roughly speaking,

 2     I and my colleague in the communications department set these coordinates

 3     in that location, Sandici "livida," and the Kravica warehouse in this

 4     particular case.  And in both those cases, they were along the road

 5     several metres away, one way or another, but there are -- with the GPS,

 6     we had exact location points.

 7        Q.   And how did you come to measure your locations at Nova Kasaba, at

 8     Konjevic Polje and at Hrncici in particular if you weren't instructed to

 9     do that?

10        A.   I went along the road, along the communication line from Kravica

11     towards Zvornik, moving towards Zvornik; and then I chose some of those

12     locations randomly and performed the testing.

13        Q.   So all of the locations besides Kravica and Sandici, you arrived

14     at in your report for testing purposes completely randomly; is that

15     right?

16        A.   Yes.  Hrncici too.  We didn't know that location, but with our

17     tests and checking out the radio communication, we were able to establish

18     where the lines had been interrupted, and the others were at random, the

19     other two.  We tested radio communication along the road from a vehicle,

20     which was not possible, and then at one point I decided to stop the

21     vehicle and test the communication there outside the vehicle, and it was

22     a main road.  So we tested it there outside the vehicle, and

23     communication there was not possible.  So those are the GPS points that

24     were taken.

25        Q.   Is there any particular reason why you didn't test for any

Page 27763

 1     communication possibilities from Kravica in the direction of Bratunac

 2     randomly?

 3        A.   No, no particular reason.  We just tested that portion.

 4        Q.   Thank you for that, Mr. Markovic.

 5             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President, for your indulgence.

 6     I have no further questions.

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Vanderpuye.  Mr. Gosnell, redirect

 8     if you still wish to have one.  Incidentally, today's sitting will be as

 9     follows.  We'll have a first session until 10.30; then a second session

10     from 11 to 12.30; then we are going to stop until 3.00; and then we start

11     at 3.00 and finish at 4.30.

12             MR. GOSNELL:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I'll do my best to be

13     done by 10.30, but I'm not sure.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  I wanted to make sure it wasn't taken as a

15     suggestion to take up until 4.30.

16             MR. GOSNELL:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I'll do my best to avoid

17     that result, certainly.

18                           Re-examination by Mr. Gosnell:

19        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Markovic.  You were asked a series of questions

20     about Annex 1 of your report, which is a representation of the terrain

21     between Sandici and Kravica warehouse and beyond.  Now, first of all I

22     would like to ask you, does the accuracy or inaccuracy of this graph have

23     any bearing on the field test that you conducted between Kravica

24     warehouse and Sandici meadow?

25        A.   Well, it does, yes.  The soil profile does correspond, but there

Page 27764

 1     was optical visibility.  And as you can see on the soil profile in Annex

 2     1, that would be it.  And, of course, we have here the altitudes, but I'd

 3     also like to say that the soil profile was a little longer -- a longer

 4     soil profile was taken because the profile allows for a soil profile of

 5     over 2 kilometres.  And in this case, it is 1.2 kilometres where optical

 6     visibility does exist.

 7        Q.   I understand there may have been a portion of your answer that

 8     was not translated, so let me ask the question in a slightly different

 9     way.  Did you rely on this graph in conducting your field test?

10        A.   We worked exclusively with physical testing in the field, from

11     point 1 to point 2.

12        Q.   So does that -- does that mean that you're telling us and the

13     Court that you did not rely on this graph in conducting that field test?

14        A.   No.  We relied directly on the physical testing and radio

15     communication between those two points.  This is just to show -- the

16     graph is just to show that there was visibility, optical visibility

17     between the two points.

18        Q.   All right.  And did that fact, the fact that you were not relying

19     on this graph and that you were conducting a field test, did that have an

20     impact on how much time, money, resources that you spent in preparing

21     this particular annex?

22        A.   I have to say that our resources were quite limited.  We received

23     no funds for the testing.  We relied exclusively on the physical testing

24     of the radio communication.

25             MR. GOSNELL:  Can we call up 4D607, please, page 7.

Page 27765

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I just wanted to notify the Court

 3     and my colleagues that we do have the originals of the document that was

 4     received by Nedo Jovicic in Court for inspection if anybody wants to see

 5     it.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

 7             MR. GOSNELL:

 8        Q.   Now, sir, you've testified that the horizontal -- in concerning

 9     the horizontal axis of this graph, that the left-hand point is Sandici;

10     is that correct?

11        A.   Yes, it is.

12        Q.   Now, can you just point out or explain for us where Kravica

13     warehouse is on the horizontal axis of this graph?

14        A.   I can't be precise, but in the text it says 1.2 kilometres, and I

15     will try to mark that distance on the graph.  It would be approximately

16     around here.

17        Q.   All right.  And does that accurately reflect the altitude of

18     Kravica warehouse?

19             I'm sorry.  There's a translation error.  I understood that the

20     word "altitude" was translated as "distance," so perhaps I could just

21     repeat the question.

22             Does this line graph accurately indicate the altitude of Kravica

23     warehouse?

24        A.   Based on this, we can see the altitude; however, it is very

25     difficult to measure it based on this.  In any case, the altitude would

Page 27766

 1     be around here.  This was also shown by our GPS measurements.  The

 2     distance in terms of altitude between Kravica and Sandici existed --

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  The difference, interpreter's correction.

 4             MR. GOSNELL:

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Sir, could you please mark the red dot in the middle

 6     of the graph with a 1.

 7        A.   [Marks]

 8        Q.   And sir, you've described that that represents the location in

 9     respect of the horizontal graph -- or the horizontal axis, the location

10     of Kravica warehouse; is that correct?

11        A.   Yes, it is 1.2 kilometres.  However, as I've said, I cannot be

12     precise using this pen.

13        Q.   Would you please sign this document and put today's date.

14        A.   [Marks]

15             MR. GOSNELL:  And could this be saved, please.

16             All right.  We are done with this page.  Can we now move to page

17     15 of, again, the same document, 4D607.

18        Q.   Now, sir, you've testified that a field test is more accurate

19     than a HerTZ Mapper projection, and you've also testified that you based

20     your results in your report on your field tests and not on the HerTZ

21     Mapper projection.  What I'd like you to explain to the Court, if you

22     can, is, in general terms, if a researcher is going to conduct a field

23     test, why would they bother with a HerTZ Mapper projection?

24        A.   It is correct we relied exclusively on the physical measurements

25     of communication between the points.  As I said, we wanted to put it in

Page 27767

 1     graphic terms in order to explain what it looks like in the field.  In

 2     the crime police administration, in the department I work for, this tool

 3     is used so that we would be able to know what there is in the field, more

 4     or less.

 5        Q.   When you say "to know what there is in the field," what do you

 6     mean by that in general terms?

 7        A.   In general terms, we merely look at what we can expect to find in

 8     the field.  We try to assess where we will have good communication and

 9     where the points are where that needs to be checked.  However, we can

10     never fully rely on this software to indicate that.  We always have to

11     check irrespective of the colour indicated on the mapper.

12        Q.   Now, sir, the Prosecutor asked you during his cross-examination

13     why you didn't repeat your field tests on subsequent days.  Do you

14     remember those series of questions?

15        A.   Yes, I do remember.

16        Q.   Now, I just want to ask you a few questions about that.  You

17     testified that the conditions on the day of your test were between 8 and

18     9 out of 10 on a scale of ideal atmospheric conditions.  Did that play a

19     role in any way in deciding whether or not subsequent tests on subsequent

20     days were necessary in order to validate your results?

21        A.   I have to state again that we were limited by the weather

22     conditions.  Given the fact that the conditions were between 8 and 9 on

23     that day, it means that the weather conditions could only have been worse

24     than that, making radio communication at that point more difficult.  In

25     any case, in order to check that, we have to test in different weather

Page 27768

 1     conditions in the field.  We were limited in terms of time, and given

 2     that we were working under good conditions, although they were not ideal,

 3     we did not find it necessary to double-check that the next day.  And I

 4     also have to say that the weather conditions did not change the

 5     subsequent -- the next day, so nothing would have changed due do that.

 6        Q.   All right.

 7             MR. GOSNELL:  Can we zoom in on the document that's on the screen

 8     right now a little bit.  All right.  That's great.  Thank you.

 9        Q.   Now, you describe during your testimony that you established

10     contact with your test partner at Sandici meadow as you drove towards

11     Konjevic Polje every 20 or 30 seconds.  Do you remember saying that?

12        A.   Yes, I do.

13        Q.   Now, based on your best recollection, how many times would you

14     say that you established contact with your partner as you drove towards

15     Hrncici when you lost contact?

16        A.   I can't say precisely.  I think between 10 and 15 times,

17     approximately every 20 to 30 seconds.  Those were the intervals at which

18     we checked radio communication.  All I can say that we check

19     communication frequently before arriving at the point in Hrncici.

20        Q.   And was there any pattern that you were observing as you were

21     checking these 10 to 15 times?  Was there an observable pattern in terms

22     of the quality of your contact with your test partner?

23        A.   No, there was no pattern.  It was not a linear pattern.

24        Q.   Well, let me put it a different way.  Were you finding that you

25     were gradually losing --

Page 27769

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Vanderpuye.  One moment.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  It's a leading question, Mr. President.

 3             MR. GOSNELL:  Mr. President, I was planning on putting it in a

 4     non-leading fashion.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  Let's hear it in its entirety, and then we decide.

 6             MR. GOSNELL:

 7        Q.   Did you find, if the course of these 10 to 15 occasions, that you

 8     were gradually -- that the quality was gradually decreasing, or rather,

 9     did you find that when you reached Hrncici there was a sudden drop-off

10     from full quality contact to no contact?

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  It's still leading.  If my colleague wants to

13     know, he can simply ask the witness what he observed.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  I think so.  I mean, you did add something to it,

15     but it -- you only made it worse, I think.  So you could ask him what he

16     found, I mean, but I know it will not get you anywhere.

17             MR. GOSNELL:  Well, perhaps I can put it this way.

18        Q.   When you did lose contact at Hrncici, was it a surprise to you

19     based upon your previous 10 to 15 contacts with your colleague?

20        A.   Yes.  Communication ceased all of a sudden at a certain point in

21     the course of those 20- to 30-second intervals.  All of a sudden, there

22     was simply no communication.

23        Q.   Well, did you observe any degradation between the first point of

24     contact, the first time that you contacted your colleague, and let's say

25     the penultimate time that you contacted your colleague before Hrncici?

Page 27770

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  Before you answer.  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

 2             MR. VANDERPUYE:  It's the same objection.  It is still leading.

 3     My colleague can simply ask the witness what he observed in relation to

 4     his testing between those two points.  I don't know why he won't do that.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Do you wish to comment, Mr. Gosnell?

 7             MR. GOSNELL:  Well, I think any degradation is wide open.  The

 8     witness can answer any way that he wants.  It doesn't lead him to an

 9     answer.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Go ahead.  Go ahead.  We are not

11     underestimating your objection, but we think it's on the margin here.  So

12     please proceed with your answer.

13             MR. GOSNELL:

14        Q.   Do you understand the question?

15        A.   Yes, I understand it fully.  All I can say is that there were

16     changes; but as I said, there was no linear or clear pattern because of

17     the lie of land.  At a certain point when we were checking communication,

18     we arrived at the conclusion that at that point there was no

19     communication.  It was interrupted at a certain point.  Then we turned

20     back, and we used shorter intervals to check radio communication, and at

21     a certain point we managed to re-establish communication again.  Then we

22     turned the vehicle again and lost communication again.  We stopped at

23     that point, and then I tried to establish communication outside of the

24     vehicle on the other side of the road, and this is where I established

25     that the radio communication was 2/1.

Page 27771

 1        Q.   So do I understand from what you're saying that you turned around

 2     in order to try to test or make contact with your colleague again in

 3     order to specifically and precisely determine the exact spot where you

 4     would lose contact with him?

 5        A.   Yes.  We did that twice in order to pinpoint the location at

 6     which there is no radio communication.

 7        Q.   All right.  And once you stepped out of the vehicle, as you've

 8     testified, in order to test in the open air whether you could contact

 9     your colleague, how long would you say you stood outside of the car

10     trying to make that contact?

11        A.   I can tell you that I spent up to five minutes outside of the

12     vehicle, maybe a few more minutes than that because I was also taking GPS

13     coordinates and noting them down.  In the course of that period, we tried

14     to check radio communication on several occasions in order to establish

15     what the audibility was.  Moving up and down, I covered the distance of

16     between 5 and 10 metres to all sides.

17        Q.   So are you saying you moved around in order to see whether that

18     would change your ability to speak with your colleague at Sandici meadow?

19        A.   Yes, it is standard procedure.  We change our position in all

20     directions trying to establish the best possible communication.

21        Q.   All right.  Thank you for that answer.  The Prosecutor asked you

22     a number of questions about your alleged failure to give a detailed

23     description of -- well, the moving about that you've just described in

24     order to try to establish contact with your colleague.  And during your

25     testimony in response to one of your -- one of my learned friend's

Page 27772

 1     questions, you gave the following answer.  You said: "And in the end,

 2     when operating at such distances, and when using such radio devices, the

 3     Motorola GP300 or some other kind of device, well, the results would not

 4     have been significantly different."

 5             Can you please explain to the Court why you said that?

 6        A.   I said that because irrespective of the type of radio device you

 7     use that works based on the similar characteristics, would not have

 8     resulted in any significant changes in terms of radio communication

 9     because the characteristics are the same or similar.  The only possible

10     difference could be if strong-output power devices were used.  However,

11     all handheld devices, depending on the make, have their maximum output of

12     up to 5 watts, or better yet, around 5 watts.  Some makes may have the

13     power of 4 or 6, but that doesn't change anything.

14             During tactical movements out in the field, what is

15     characteristic for such devices is the maximum range of 2 to 5 kilometres

16     depending on the terrain, or rather, the altitude to be more precise.

17        Q.   I'd like to come back --

18             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

19             MR. GOSNELL:

20        Q.   Now, I'd like to come back to the process of driving towards

21     Konjevic Polje from Sandici --

22             MR. GOSNELL:  And just for my learned friend, this is relevant to

23     something that was asked on cross-examination, but I'm going to reveal

24     that at the end of a series of questions.

25        Q.   As you -- after you immediately left Sandici meadow, do you

Page 27773

 1     remember what the quality was of your contact with your colleague on the

 2     very first test?  The very first time that you tried to establish contact

 3     with him, how good was the quality?

 4        A.   I have to tell you that communication is first established at

 5     close range in order to test the devices.  But if we are talking about

 6     the first occasion on which communication was established from the

 7     vehicle driving towards Sandici, that was at 5.5.

 8        Q.   All right.  And in general terms, there is no need to be

 9     absolutely precise, but in general terms can you estimate for us how far

10     in metres you were from Sandici meadow when you made that first contact

11     and reached a result of 5/5?

12        A.   I cannot be precise because it is downhill from Sandici, and I

13     think it's between 150 and 200 metres that the distance is over there.

14     In any case, I think it was around 100 metres.

15        Q.   All right.  Well, let me then just cut to the chase for what I

16     really want to get to.  If you can recall and to the best of your

17     recollection, when you were 400 metres from Sandici meadow, what was the

18     quality of your contact with your colleague?

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I object to the question for two reasons, Your

21     Honour.  If my colleague is eliciting this witness's recollection of

22     precisely what he did as concerns these tests, it is clear in the record

23     that this witness took notes with which we were not been provided, not

24     had the opportunity to look at those notes to verify whether or not his

25     recollection now that he's testifying here is accurate.  We've had no

Page 27774

 1     ability to challenge that.  And so to the extent that we haven't been

 2     provided with that information, I would argue that it's improper for my

 3     colleague to elicit that information because those notes exist.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Your comment, Mr. Gosnell.

 5             MR. GOSNELL:  Well, actually, to be quite honest with the Court,

 6     I don't know if there's any note that concerns the subject matter of my

 7     question, and I don't believe that that's been established yet.  So the

 8     notion that there may be a note that hasn't been handed over, I don't

 9     think that's been established.  I can't tell you positively that no such

10     note exists, to be quite frank with the Court.

11             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, what I'm referring to is this

12     witness's testimony with respect to his taking of field notes with --

13     concerning his -- concerning the tests that he conducted.  And he's

14     indicated that he did in fact take notes both on cross-examination and

15     now also on redirect examination, and I think to the extent that those

16     notes exist as he's testified to and that we've never been provided with

17     a copy of those notes or had an opportunity to review them that it places

18     at an unfair disadvantage with respect to his now-present recollections

19     about what he did.

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Thank you.

21             Witness, if you were to answer the question put to you by

22     Mr. Gosnell, on what would you base it?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would base my response on my own

24     observations.  I cannot recall what the precise distance was in terms of

25     metres.  All I can recall is that after the Sandici meadow, immediately

Page 27775

 1     close by, there is a bend in the road.  There were changes in terms of

 2     radio communication there.

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  I think we can safely proceed from

 4     here.  Thank you.

 5             MR. GOSNELL:

 6        Q.   Well, let me just ask you this question.  You were shown a

 7     videotape by the Prosecutor, on which there was audio, and you were asked

 8     to comment on the quality of that audio, to give a rating of what was

 9     presented to you as a transmission through a radio.  Do you remember

10     that?

11        A.   Yes, I do.

12        Q.   Now, the question I am -- wish to put to you is, was the sound

13     that you heard on that audio consistent with what you would have observed

14     at a position 400 metres from Sandici meadow when contacting your

15     colleague?  Are the two -- would the two types of quality be consistent

16     in your mind?

17        A.   Not completely.  At close range from Sandici, I had 100 per cent

18     audibility.  What I could hear on the recording is what I received

19     through the amplification in my headset, and that is what I could

20     subjectively hear at that point.

21        Q.   So you're saying you're not sure whether that would or would not

22     be consistent with the transmission from Sandici?

23        A.   I am not certain.  I cannot say that with any degree of

24     certainty.  It was subjective, what I could hear in my headset.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  We'll have the break now, resuming at 11.00.  Thank

Page 27776

 1     you.

 2                           --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

 3                           --- On resuming at 11.08 a.m.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  I notice that the witness is not present and

 5     Mr. Josse standing.  Is there a problem, Mr. Josse?

 6             MR. JOSSE:  Yes, a double apology.  The first apology is for

 7     interrupting the re-examination.  Secondly, frankly, I should have

 8     realised that the issue I am about to raise might be an issue because we

 9     did have advanced notice of it.  But I am aware now that there is a

10     two-and-a-half-hour break today, and I have some concerns for my client

11     where he's going to spend that two and a half hours.  I wrote about an

12     hour or so ago to the court officer expressing my concerns.  Bearing in

13     mind that that break is in just over an hour's time, I felt this was my

14     opportunity and only opportunity to raise it with the Trial Chamber, but

15     it's simply not acceptable in my submission for him to the spend the two

16     and a half hours in an extremely small holding room immediately behind

17     where I sit.

18             He, in fact, has proposed what I will call a sort of compromise,

19     which is that some doors be left open and a guard stationed more or less

20     where I am at the moment so that he could at least walk around the

21     corridor behind where I am at the moment.  But whether that's acceptable,

22     of course, is not a matter, I understand, for the Trial Chamber nor

23     indeed for the person of the guards who are presently in Court at the

24     moment.  But, Your Honour, two and a half hours in that room with the

25     door shut with no air at all is simply not acceptable, I submit.

Page 27777

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, and I would understand that your

 2     colleagues would associate themselves with this.  Yes, let's do it this

 3     way, and it needs to be resolved very quickly.  If a modus vivendi is

 4     found which is acceptable to the accused, then we'll do that.  If not,

 5     the accused are to be transported at the end of the sitting to the

 6     detention unit and returned as soon as practicable before we start the --

 7     re-start the sitting at 3.00.  If it's not possible to bring them back

 8     before 3.00, we'll even start later.  But the important thing is that

 9     they are not allowed to stay in these small cells that we have here for

10     two and a half hours.

11             So, Madam Registrar, you are to communicate our instructions to

12     the Registrar forthwith, and if Mr. Josse's suggestion is acceptable to

13     the Registrar in security --

14             MR. JOSSE:  I can see some dissension from some of the defendants

15     in this case.

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, I wasn't looking at Mr. Borovcanin.  Yes,

17     Mr. Borovcanin.

18             THE ACCUSED BOROVCANIN: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would

19     sooner stop breathing for an hour and a half than being brought back to

20     the detention unit.

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  In other words, Mr. Borovcanin seems to prefer to

22     stay here.  Yes --

23             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] I think he prefers to stay here.

24                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

25             MR. JOSSE:  I think some of the rooms on the other side may a be

Page 27778

 1     a little bit bigger.

 2             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. Josse is perfectly right.  I

 3     just want to correct the transcript.  I was talking about Mr. Miletic, my

 4     own client, because the transcript is not very clear on this point.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  I took you to be doing precisely that.  Yes,

 6     Mr. Gvero.

 7             THE ACCUSED GVERO: [Interpretation] Please accept my apologies,

 8     but I must say that the rooms where Mr. Borovcanin and Mr. Miletic are

 9     dwelling are different.  They have a toilet and water and a hallway, but

10     my room is extremely small.  Thank you for attention.

11                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

12             JUDGE AGIUS:  If I may ask, are there more rooms like the one in

13     which Miletic and Borovcanin are that -- in which Gvero could be

14     accommodated?  No.  How many rooms?  Just seven here, or what?

15                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, but this courtroom was, I think, even planned

17     to take 8.

18             MR. JOSSE:  It's the small rooms immediately behind where I am

19     sitting.  The two accused who are detained there, my client and General

20     Pandurevic, and the rooms there are small.  There are some other rooms

21     amongst that suite of rooms if I can grandly call it that.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Perhaps one could inquire if

23     Mr. Borovcanin is prepared to swap with Mr. Gvero.

24             MR. GOSNELL:  Mr. President, precisely so.  That's why I'm on my

25     feet.  I am informed that my client does -- is willing to swap with

Page 27779

 1     Mr. Gvero.

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  And I see Mr. Borovcanin nodding, so that

 3     could provide a solution, if that is acceptable, of course, with the

 4     security people.  The problem is that after 12.30 we will not be

 5     available to -- we are unapproachable because we have a plenary

 6     immediately after, so a solution has to be found now.

 7             MR. JOSSE:  I repeat my apology.  I am sure it can be found.  I

 8     also invite the supervisor of these guards to consider the compromise

 9     that I suggested to them earlier and to the Trial Chamber; namely, that a

10     couple of doors be kept open with proper and adequate supervision.

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  But obviously, they have to refer to their

12     superiors.  I mean, they can't --

13             MR. JOSSE:  I really do understand that.

14                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  All right.  We are proceeding with our

16     investigations on this and will come back to you.  In any case, you are

17     also to communicate that Mr. Borovcanin is prepared to swap rooms with

18     Mr. Gvero, if that is okay with the security people, of course.  Thank

19     you.

20             For the record, Mr. Mitchell for the Prosecution is also present

21     today, now.  He wasn't before.

22                           [The witness takes the stand]

23             MR. GOSNELL:

24        Q.   Hello, Mr. Markovic.

25        A.   Good morning.

Page 27780

 1        Q.   Just one last question on what I was asking you about just before

 2     the break, namely, the audio that you heard that was played to you.  Just

 3     to be clear with you, the Prosecution position in this case is that that

 4     audio that you heard was at a point 400 metres from Sandici meadow along

 5     the road.  Now, my question for you is, can you exclude the possibility,

 6     based your observations, that that transmission was from Sandici meadow?

 7        A.   Based on the recording, I cannot say where the vehicle was at

 8     that moment, but I can say that it must have been very close, that there

 9     must have been optical visibility given the good quality of the

10     communication.  But I cannot draw any other conclusion from the video

11     recording.  I can make the subjective conclusion based on what I heard in

12     my headset that the quality of communication between the two radio

13     devices was very good.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I am not sure where

16     my colleague got the impression that it was the Prosecution's position

17     that that particular audio was 400 metres from Sandici.  I don't think

18     that's in the record, and I don't think that I stated that.

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Gosnell.

20             MR. GOSNELL:  That is based on our consultation of the road book

21     and what appears to be a relevant still from the piece of video that was

22     shown which corresponds to the still that is in the road book, which

23     indicates it is 400 metres from Sandici meadow.

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

25             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'll look into that because I think I'm looking

Page 27781

 1     at the still now, and the caption is that it's --

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  If we need to --

 3             MR. VANDERPUYE:  -- over a thousand metres from Sandici

 4     meadow but --

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  If we need to return to this, we will.

 6             MR. VANDERPUYE:  -- we'll look at that another time.  Thank you,

 7     Mr. President.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Mr. Gosnell.

 9             MR. GOSNELL:  Well, perhaps I can just resolve this ambiguity

10     right now with another question.

11        Q.   Would you make the same -- would you give the same answer if I

12     were to tell you that rather than 400 metres from Sandici meadow, you

13     were 12 -- the audiotape was 1.200 metres from Sandici meadow?  Could you

14     exclude the possibility that that transmission was from Sandici meadow?

15        A.   To establish that precisely, you would have to conduct

16     measurements in the field; that is clear.  But based on everything I have

17     said so far, the quality of communication that I heard from the audio

18     recording must have -- would indicate toward a short distance.  And if I

19     understood you well, the 1.200 metres from Sandici toward Konjevic Polje

20     would not -- would not affect the communication significantly.  The

21     communication would still be understandable.

22        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Mr. Markovic, you were asked a number of

23     questions based on the video still of the corner of an object.  You were

24     shown that video still on Friday and again today in a larger format.  And

25     the Prosecution suggested to you that this was a handheld microphone that

Page 27782

 1     was attached to a car-mounted radio.

 2             Now, sir, to your knowledge, can handheld microphones be attached

 3     to handheld portable radio devices?

 4        A.   Yes, of course.  The microphone combination is compatible with

 5     most devices manufactured by Motorola, so they can be attached to both

 6     handheld radio devices as well as car-mounted radios.

 7        Q.   I'd now like to play a short video clip and see whether you can

 8     recognise anything on this video clip; or rather, I will then direct your

 9     attention to specific items and see if you can recognise them.

10                           [Videotape played]

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  Do you require sound or not?

12             MR. GOSNELL:  No, Mr. President.

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Okay.

14             Perhaps we could play this two more times, and then freeze it at

15     the end of the excerpt.

16                           [Videotape played]

17             MR. GOSNELL:

18        Q.   Now, sir, first of all I'd like to direct your attention to the

19     left of centre of the screen at the bottom.  Is there anything that you

20     can recognise there?

21        A.   Based on this video still that I have on the screen in front of

22     me, I can recognise the outlines of an antenna, probably for a wavelength

23     of 2 metres.  The image is somewhat blurred, but I can recognise the

24     outlines of an antenna.

25        Q.   All right.  And just to the right of the centre of the screen, do

Page 27783

 1     you recognise an oval-shaped dark object, and can you offer an opinion as

 2     to what that might be?

 3        A.   On the right-hand side, I repeat the image is a little blurred,

 4     but I can make out the outlines of a microphone that can be used -- or

 5     rather, connected to a handheld radio device.  I can only make out the

 6     outlines.  I cannot see the details because the image is blurred.

 7             MR. GOSNELL:  Can we see the video played one more time, please.

 8                           [Videotape played]

 9             MR. GOSNELL:

10        Q.   Sir, do you see any car-mounted radios in this video such as a

11     GM300 or an FT2400 Yaesu?

12        A.   No.  I can only see the outlines of a handheld radio device, and

13     I can draw the conclusions that it operates on the wavelength of 2

14     metres.

15        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Now, sir, you remember you were shown a video

16     clip surrounding --

17             MR. GOSNELL:  We can now take down the video clip on the screen.

18        Q.   You were shown by the Prosecutor a video clip surrounding the

19     video clip that you saw earlier today, and do you remember that you saw

20     an object on the dashboard?

21        A.   Yes.  I saw a handheld radio device on the dashboard.

22        Q.   Now, how many did you see?

23        A.   Only one.

24        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Markovic.  Now, I want to ask you some questions

25     about car-mounted radios that were discussed at length during your

Page 27784

 1     cross-examination.  Now, did you test the GM300 or the FT2400 Yaesu

 2     car-mounted radio as part of your field testing?

 3        A.   No, we didn't test those devices.

 4        Q.   Were you ever asked by the Defence to test those devices?

 5        A.   No, we never received such requests.

 6        Q.   All right.  In the absence of such tests, can you state with any

 7     specificity the precise spot where communication would be lost as between

 8     a car-mounted radio and a handheld radio as you move from Sandici towards

 9     Konjevic Polje?

10        A.   If there were ongoing communication, let's say that a handheld

11     radio is emitting on a certain frequency, and a car-mounted radio with a

12     roof-mounted antenna because otherwise it can't operate.  It could

13     operate within the car, but that is not practical.  In such a case,

14     communication would not differ significantly from the point of view of

15     reception.  If the --

16        Q.   Sir, perhaps I could just pinpoint my question because maybe it

17     was very poorly phrased.  My question was, if you had the transmitting

18     device - being the handheld radio - at Sandici and the receiving device

19     is a car-mounted radio, and then -- now, here is my question:  Can you

20     state with any specificity at what point reception would be lost as you

21     moved up the road towards Konjevic Polje?

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

23             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, the question calls for

24     speculation as concerns the reception of a radio signal.  This witness

25     has testified that its dependent upon the sensitivity of the receiving

Page 27785

 1     device; and so this calls for speculation to the extent that the witness

 2     hasn't tested the device.

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  Do you wish to comment, Mr. Gosnell?

 4             MR. GOSNELL:  I am precisely attempting to determine the line

 5     between what he can comment upon and what would be speculation.  That's

 6     precisely what I am attempting to do with my question.

 7                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  I don't consider it calling for speculation.

 9     Actually, it's calling for a professional opinion.  So go ahead and

10     answer the question, please.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my opinion, the results wouldn't

12     change greatly, the results that we obtained in the field, because it

13     depends on the strength of the transmitter, the handheld radio; whereas

14     reception depends on the sensitivity of the antenna.  But due to the

15     configuration of the land, there wouldn't be any significant changes in

16     the field.  Of course, in order to bear that out you would have to

17     conduct physical testing of that premise.

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, I raise the objection again.  My

20     colleague here hasn't put to the witness what specific radio he's talking

21     about; and to the extent that they differ, depending on their

22     characteristics, depending on their specifications, the answer is not

23     responsive, and it is -- it is fundamentally speculative.

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Gosnell.

25             MR. GOSNELL:  Well, I strongly disagree.  The parameters of these

Page 27786

 1     radios are generally similar.  The witness said that he didn't field test

 2     it.  That wasn't basis for my question, so I think his opinion is

 3     perfectly legitimate.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  Can you offer your own comments on what you've just

 5     heard?  Would it make a difference to you if you are specifically

 6     referred to a particular radio rather than another?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to say that the transmitting

 8     radio devices and those mounted in vehicles are completely compatible

 9     with respect to frequency depending on the type and manufacturer.  They

10     can be compatible; and what I said, my assertions require field testing,

11     as well, but what I think on the basis of my experience is that if we use

12     a radio -- a handheld radio device and a radio device in a car, mounted

13     in a car, this would not change the results significantly, the results

14     that we arrived at by testing.  But what I want to say is that on the

15     basis of my experience, the results would probably be truthful ones, but

16     they would have to be tested by other measurements.

17             MR. GOSNELL:

18        Q.   Incidentally, sir, in your experience have you ever seen cars

19     driving around or vehicles of any type with antennae on the roof without

20     a working car-mounted radio?

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

22             MR. VANDERPUYE:  If my colleague wants to put that to the

23     witness, I would ask for him to state whether or not that is the position

24     of the Defence in this case; otherwise, I don't think it has any

25     relevance.

Page 27787

 1             MR. GOSNELL:  Mr. President, we don't have to take a position in

 2     this case because we're the Defence.  It's up to the Prosecution to state

 3     its position.  We don't need to take any position whatsoever.  So it's

 4     perfectly fair to me to explore alternatives.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  Anyway, let's proceed.  Let's proceed with the --

 6     with your answer, witness, please.

 7             MR. GOSNELL:  I understand that the question may not have been

 8     properly translated to the witness.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  Let's try and get this over and done with, please.

10     What hasn't been properly translated, Mr. Gosnell?

11             MR. GOSNELL:  The word "working" apparently was not translated to

12     the witness.

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, I will repeat the question.  "In your

14     experience have you ever seen cars driving around or vehicles of any type

15     with antennae on the roof without a working car-mounted radio?"

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, based on my experience I have

17     not seen anything like that happening, nor is there any reason for

18     anything like that to happen.  Let me just make it clearer:  The

19     connectors that are mounted to the antennas of handheld radio devices are

20     different to the car ones.  So the antennas on the roof are used for

21     vehicles and radios in vehicles, and if there's no radio device, I don't

22     see why there should be an antenna on the roof just as an obstacle.

23             MR. GOSNELL:

24        Q.   Well, sir, again, perhaps the question wasn't -- at least a

25     portion of the question wasn't translated to you, and it may be rather

Page 27788

 1     obvious, but I'll pose the question anyway.  Does the presence of a

 2     rooftop antenna necessarily mean that there is a working car-mounted

 3     radio inside?

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye.

 5             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, it's been asked and answered; and

 6     moreover, this is practically a rhetorical question.

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  I think even everyone can give a proper answer to

 8     that, so let's move.

 9             MR. GOSNELL:  Thank you, Mr. President.

10        Q.   Mr. Markovic, I have just one last area to ask you about.  On the

11     very first occasion that you were contacted about preparing this report,

12     who were you contacted by, specifically?  Was it the Defence, or was it

13     somebody else?

14        A.   It wasn't the Defence.  I was contacted by my superior in the

15     Ministry of the Interior.

16        Q.   To your knowledge, were you specifically designated or requested

17     by the Defence to prepare this report?

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Vanderpuye.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Mr. President, if he was contacted by somebody

20     other than the Defence, then it's without -- he wouldn't know whether or

21     not he was specifically requested to do this work unless he was requested

22     by the person that was contacted.

23             MR. GOSNELL:  I can rephrase, Mr. President.

24        Q.   Do you know whether the Defence asked specifically for you as

25     opposed to anybody else to conduct this report?

Page 27789

 1        A.   No.  The Defence contacted the Ministry of the Interior, and my

 2     superior officer in the ministry chose me to carry out the assignment

 3     with the specifications given.

 4        Q.   And prior to preparing this report, had you ever worked or had

 5     any contact with anyone on the Defence team?

 6        A.   No, I didn't know anybody from the Defence team before that.

 7        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Markovic.

 8             MR. GOSNELL:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I have no further

 9     questions.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Gosnell.

11             So, Mr. Markovic, we're finished with your testimony.  It took

12     longer than we expected, but it's all for a good cause.  Before you leave

13     this courtroom, I wish to thank you on behalf of my colleagues for having

14     come over to the give testimony in this case, and we also wish you a safe

15     journey back home.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17                           [The witness withdrew]

18             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Gosnell, documents or exhibits?

19             MR. GOSNELL:  Mr. President, we have four documents.  4D607, 617,

20     618, and 635.

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  Any objections, Mr. Vanderpuye?

22             MR. GOSNELL:  I'm sorry, Mr. President.  Just one addition to

23     that.  There is also the marked version of Annex A, which apparently

24     has -- Annex 1, which apparently has been assigned a number by the

25     Registry.

Page 27790

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.

 2             MR. GOSNELL:  4DIC00234.

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Any objections?

 4             MR. VANDERPUYE:  There is no objection, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  I take it there are no objections from any of the

 6     other Defence teams, so these documents are admitted.  Anybody else

 7     wishes to tender documents?  Ms. Nikolic?

 8             MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Yes.  Thank you, Your Honour.  I've

 9     distributed the list.  We have three documents, 3D513, 3DIC 233, and 3DIC

10     232.  They were documents which the witness was shown in the courtroom.

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Ms. Nikolic.  Any objections,

12     Mr. Vanderpuye?

13             MR. VANDERPUYE:  No, Mr. President.  There is no objection.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  No objections from the Borovcanin team or anyone

15     else?

16             MR. GOSNELL:  No objections, Mr. President.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Thank you.  So these three documents are so

18     admitted.  Then we come to the Prosecution.

19             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I think we've sent

20     around a list of the documents to tender.  There are several of them.

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.  Any objections, Mr. Gosnell?  You are in

22     possession of the list, I suppose.  It's a 2-page list.  Yes,

23     Mr. Zivanovic.

24             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Thank you.  I have objections as regard the

25     document 3893.

Page 27791

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  Let me find it.

 2             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Precisely, I have --

 3             JUDGE AGIUS:  The last one, yes.

 4             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Yes.  Precisely, my objection is related just to

 5     the second page of this document; namely, neither document from the

 6     second page is denoted on the first page of the document.  So I don't

 7     believe that the second page of this document is the -- really the

 8     document -- it is really entire document.  But the second page is just

 9     added to the first page of the document.  I would -- I could explain it,

10     Your Honours.

11             Namely, there is working plan, for example; and it is on the

12     second page.  But on the first page, it was denoted that there is a

13     copy -- a number 15, and on the second page there is copy number 1, and

14     the second document was not denoted on the first page at all.  It is a

15     table of identifications or something else.

16             JUDGE AGIUS:  But rather than a question of admissibility, isn't

17     that a submission?

18                           [Trial Chamber confers]

19             JUDGE KWON:  If I can see the original of 3893.

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes, Judge Kwon.  I can hand that up to the

21     Court.  All right, Your Honours.  I'm sorry.  I just want to -- I just

22     want to tell you what I've given you, if I may.

23             What I've given you is the copy of the first page, which is the

24     letter from the -- to the command of the special police brigade that is

25     signed for as received by Nedo Jovicic.  You have the original of that.

Page 27792

 1     As well, you have a copy of the work plan Krivaja 95.  You have a

 2     document that is indicated copy number 1, and you have also two copies of

 3     a document indicated copy number 1, and then you have another copy,

 4     number 12.  My friend's objection is that the letter doesn't indicate

 5     that it's copy number 1 or 12.  It indicates it's copy number 15.

 6             I'll address further matters as soon as you've had an opportunity

 7     to look at it.

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Do you have several copies of copy number 1?

10             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I'm sorry, Judge Kwon?

11             JUDGE KWON:  I see --

12             MR. VANDERPUYE:  We have two.

13             JUDGE KWON:  -- two originals of copy 1.

14             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Yes.  Actually, three originals.  One is copy

15     number 1, the second copy number 1, and a third copy number 12.  That's

16     correct.  And they are all identical documents designated as the work

17     plan related to Krivaja 95 as is indicated in the receipt signed by Nedo

18     Jovicic.  They are derived from the Drina Corps collection.

19             JUDGE PROST:  And do you have any comments, Mr. Vanderpuye, on

20     the issue of the reference to number 15?

21             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I do.  I just wanted to give you an opportunity

22     to look at the document.

23             JUDGE PROST:  I would benefit from your comments at this stage.

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.  But let's --

25             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  Sorry.

Page 27793

 1             JUDGE AGIUS:  Let's let Mr. Zivanovic finish what he has to say.

 2             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  I would just like to add that all these documents

 3     are from Drina Corps collection from the EDS, and they are confiscated

 4     when Drina Corps archive.  But what is my point, I do not believe that

 5     these three specific pages are attached -- generally --

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  No, no --

 7             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  -- attached to the first page.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  You don't need to repeat the point because we got

 9     it when you first said it.  I will soon give you the floor, Mr. Gosnell,

10     but in the meantime let's hear what Mr. Vanderpuye has to say.

11             MR. VANDERPUYE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

12             JUDGE AGIUS:  Possibly, you could also address the aspect of

13     whether these were recovered together, attached as one document or

14     whether they have been made up to exist together.

15             MR. VANDERPUYE:  With respect to the latter point first, I can't

16     tell you specifically in what order they were actually seised.  That, I

17     don't know, and I can find that out for you at this moment.  But they are

18     designated and they are numbered in sequence as they are stamped, as they

19     are date-stamped, the ERN numbers.  I will also point out that there are

20     two aspects that I think merit attention.  Once is that the letter --

21     sorry, the receipt that is signed for by Nedo Jovicic designates the

22     copies that he received of the relevant plans; that is, throughout the

23     code book, the work plan, identification signals, and so on.

24             What I want to bring to the Court's attention is that that

25     document is a receipt, which necessarily implies that the document that

Page 27794

 1     is described in it went with the receiver, and that's the reason why it

 2     is not located in the Drina Corps collection.  I would also point out

 3     that the receipt itself designates the work plan by name, Krivaja 95, and

 4     in that Drina Corps collection you find a work plan, Krivaja 95, and you

 5     can see multiple copies of it.  We certainly suggest that there multiple

 6     copies, one of which went to the recipient that signed for it in the

 7     receipt.

 8             The other basis of admissibility with respect to this document,

 9     even separately, independently from the receipt, is that it is a document

10     that sets forth a plan of communication that is directly relevant to the

11     events that occurred in this case, directly relevant to the Defence in

12     this case as concerns Mr. Borovcanin's ability to communicate with his

13     subordinate units and other units in the area, and is directly relevant

14     to this witness's testimony as a communications officer who is certainly

15     capable of recognizing, deciphering, and interpreting this document as a

16     separate issue.  So for all of these bases, we would submit that it is

17     admissible, and I think it is sufficiently identified in the record,

18     also, to establish its -- its relevance.

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.

20             MR. VANDERPUYE:  You should also bear in mind that Mr. Borovcanin

21     has stated that, in fact, he reported to the Drina Corps on 11 July, and

22     that's at the forward command post in Pribicevac.  He also has stated

23     that he went there to receive orders.  This is dated the same day, and it

24     is from the same corps command.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  I could see while you were addressing the

Page 27795

 1     Chamber that Mr. McCloskey wished to tell you something.

 2                           [Prosecution Counsel Confer]

 3             MR. VANDERPUYE:  I have been informed that I heard him, so I

 4     think we've covered everything.  Thank you, Mr. President.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Mr. Gosnell.

 6             MR. GOSNELL:  My friend made a lot of remarks that I obviously

 7     strongly disagree with, characterizations.  I won't take an issue with

 8     them now.  In fact, I'm happy to tell you that we have no objection to

 9     P3893 coming into evidence.  I would, however, like to reserve my

10     position in respect of the other documents so I can have a chance to

11     review them and ensure whether they're -- that they're admissible.

12                           [Trial Chamber confers]

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  We are pretty much fine-tuned here.  It

14     was really whether they are admitted as one document or whether they are

15     admitted separately as two documents, is beside the point.  To us, what

16     is important is that we have heard the submission because ultimately it's

17     a question of weight that we would attach to the witness's testimony, the

18     Prosecution's position, and the documents that we have seen, and also the

19     submission made by Mr. Zivanovic.  So we'll weigh everything at the end

20     of the day.  So they will be admitted separately at this point in time to

21     make things easier.

22             The rest we will hear from you when, Mr. Gosnell?

23             MR. GOSNELL:  If I could have the Chamber's indulgence until

24     tomorrow morning, I would be very grateful.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  You are going to have a long break, as well,

Page 27796

 1     between now and this afternoon.

 2             MR. GOSNELL:  Thank you for reminding me of that, Mr. President;

 3     and in light of that, yes, I'll get back to you at the beginning of the

 4     session.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  You can use one of these small rooms at the back of

 6     Mr. Josse.

 7             MR. GOSNELL:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Where you will have fresh air and all the rest.

 9             This goes back to the Prosecution.  Thank you.

10             Perhaps any one of the Defence teams wishes to have a look at

11     these three documents or not?  Yes, Mr. Zivanovic?

12             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  No, no.

13             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  One moment, I know what you are saying, but

15     my colleagues are not receiving interpretation.

16             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Let's try once again.  I just

17     wanted to know whether we can continue now.  I have a -- I have

18     procedural material at hand.  Last Friday, we received some documents

19     containing intercepts.  I'm not asking for the hearing to be interrupted;

20     rather, I wanted to say something different.  This concerns intercepts

21     from 1992 and up to 1994.  Those intercepts were in the possession of the

22     Prosecutor's Office since 2003.  What I am worried about is the

23     following:  Why are we only receiving those documents now this late in

24     the proceedings?  They do not relate directly to the period of the

25     indictment.  These documents have been in the possession of the

Page 27797

 1     Prosecution for six years or so.  I did see some of those documents when

 2     we had witnesses discussing them, and it was rather difficult to locate

 3     them in the EDS.  Our resources are not limitless, and we cannot spend

 4     much time analysing those thousands upon thousands of pages.  I don't

 5     know what the aim of the Prosecution is concerning those intercepts.

 6     That's why I would like to ask the Chamber to issue an order to the

 7     Prosecution to see whether this has anything to do with rule 68 or

 8     whether this can be dealt with during cross-examination.  Perhaps these

 9     documents will be used by the Prosecution after the Defence has replied.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  I don't know what documents you are

11     referring to.  Mr. McCloskey perhaps can enlighten us on this and also

12     explain your position trying to answer Ms. Fauveau's query.

13             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes.  These are documents from periods not

14     directly related to indictment that she said, 92 through 94.  We just

15     identified them in a -- and they were given to us in a hard copy format,

16     and they were not filed in the intercept section.  So we stumbled across

17     them within the last week or two and decided to put them on the EDS so

18     they could be looked at for whatever value they might have by anyone if

19     any, given the time-frame that they're from, and I would think counsel

20     would want us to alert them to potentially relevant documents.  I don't

21     see anything overtly incriminating or exculpatory about that time-period,

22     but there was one interesting intercept we had seen, and we alerted the

23     counsel -- one counsel to that, and if we find any more, we will alert

24     them to them.  And we have hard copies available in some 12 binders if

25     they want to come look at them, if they want to do a little historical

Page 27798

 1     research into those years.  But I think it's a storm in a teacup.  It's

 2     unfortunate that we find material like this late, but it happens, and

 3     it's not in 1995.  So I don't really see that it's a major issue.  If we

 4     find something, we'll let people know about it, but I think it's

 5     important they have it to look themselves.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Ms. Fauveau.

 7             MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't want to

 8     create a problem concerning these intercepts.  In ten days, I have to

 9     begin with my case.  I have now received over 11.000 pages.  When one is

10     faced with such a disclosure, you can guess that there are relevant

11     materials among those.  Of course, I believe the Prosecutor does not

12     disclose all of the material they have; otherwise, it would be impossible

13     to go through.  I just want to know whether there is any material from

14     the collection that they intend to use and with what aim, and perhaps

15     they can indicate what the year is or the collection is.  They should

16     find a way to indicate to us what they are going to look into since we

17     cannot study 11.000 pages.  I agree with my learned friend that these

18     documents are -- do not relate to the period of the indictment.

19             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Thank you.

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  We fully understand, of course, the problem

22     raised by Madam Fauveau as well as the explanation given by Mr. McCloskey

23     for the Prosecution.  At the moment, I think there is very little, if

24     anything at all, that we can do.  I suppose we will intervene if asked at

25     a later stage.  If, indeed, this becomes a problem to you, Madam Fauveau,

Page 27799

 1     if you realise that you need to add witnesses, whatever.  I mean, we have

 2     been very receptive in the past on similar issues, and we won't change

 3     when it comes to your case.

 4             So let's leave it for the time being.  In the meantime, if there

 5     is someone from the Prosecution that has got a bird's eye view of the

 6     contents of these documents and can at least give an indication of what

 7     they are about, that, of course, would help.  Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

 8             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, Mr. President.  Just -- they are much like

 9     the 95 documents.  They cover a huge range of materials, most of which

10     don't have any relevancy.  Like even the '95 documents don't really have

11     much -- most of them don't have much relevancy to these events.  So

12     that's the same true of '92, '93, and '94.  We are going through a

13     process of indexing them, so we will get a better picture of who's

14     speaking to who and who's mentioned.  And as we get that material, as we

15     always do, we get it over to the Defence so they can help make some sense

16     out of it.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  That's fair enough, and we'll come to it

18     later on if it's the case.

19             Yes.

20                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Gosnell.

22             MR. GOSNELL:  Mr. President, now I'm in the possession of the

23     original version of P3893.  We still have no objection to it being

24     admitted, but there are some strange physical characteristics of this

25     document, such as there seem to be two different pages that have been cut

Page 27800

 1     from another document and then taped; and then subsequent to that, there

 2     was photocopying.  Now, I know nothing about how any of this happened.  I

 3     merely want to make sure that anything that is admitted, that somehow

 4     there is a record of what the physical condition of this apparent

 5     original is, unless there's some explanation from the Prosecution.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Having heard you say that, perhaps it

 7     will be better if the Prosecution in tendering this document, apart from

 8     the two pages that we saw before, will have the full -- the entire four

 9     pages, that is, the handwritten page plus the two versions number 1 and

10     number 12, have them photocopied and -- yes, Mr. McCloskey.

11             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Yes, Mr. President.  We will do that.  We're

12     always open to go down to the vault and pick out the original materials

13     as they were collected and stamped if any of these little mysteries can

14     be resolved, though I think someone does have Milenko Jevdjevic, the

15     Drina Corps comms person, on their witness list who was at Pribicevac at

16     the time, so perhaps some of the mysteries will be resolved.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Okay.  So you'll come back to us on the

18     rest in the afternoon?  Good.  Any other objections from any of the other

19     Defence teams?  None.  So that chapter is closed.

20             We were reminded a minute ago that there is still an outstanding

21     list that the Borovcanin Defence team intends to tender in relation to

22     the previous witness 4DPW002 -- oh, sorry, 4DW020, or 4DPW002.  You know

23     who the guy is.

24             MR. GOSNELL:  Mr. President, we have distributed a tender list.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes.

Page 27801

 1             MR. GOSNELL:  I'm not sure that I need to say more.

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Any objections, Mr. Vanderpuye?  If you also

 3     want to take your time and respond in the afternoon session when we

 4     start, that's okay with us.

 5             MR. McCLOSKEY:  That's a good idea.  Thank you, Mr. President.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

 7                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Yes.  We have a communication from the

 9     chief of security in relation to what you raised earlier on.  The idea of

10     having doors left open and free circulation possible is not acceptable;

11     and as I was telling Judge Prost, having thought in my career not to

12     argue with the Defence because they may have reasons of their own -- with

13     security because they have their own reasons, so I am not prepared -- my

14     colleagues are not prepared to argue with them.

15             The other one is there is a slight mistake here.  It seems to me

16     that they do agree for Mr. Borovcanin to swap cell with Mr. Gvero.  Here

17     it's written the other way around, Mr. Gvero to go in the smaller cell

18     and Mr. Borovcanin to go to the larger cell.  But of course, it's a

19     misunderstanding, and so that's how it will be.  There will be the

20     arrangements later on.  I am sure the security officers who will be on

21     duty with the accused at the time when we go to the break will have

22     instructions.

23             MR. JOSSE:  Thank you for that, although why in principle

24     Mr. Borovcanin should have to spend his time in that room rather than my

25     client, I don't know, but I don't represent him; and he's very kindly

Page 27802

 1     made that offer.

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  All right.  Next witness.

 3             MR. GOSNELL:  Our next witness is Professor Dunjic.

 4             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, I know.

 5                           [The witness entered court]

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Good afternoon to you, Professor Dunjic.  Welcome

 7     back.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  You know the procedure, so let's proceed with the

10     solemn declaration.  Thank you.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

12     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

13                           WITNESS:  DUSAN DUNJIC

14                           [Witness answered through interpretation]

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  I thank you, Professor.  Please take your seat.

16     Mr. Gosnell.

17             MR. GOSNELL:  Thank you, Mr. President.

18                           Examination by Mr. Gosnell:

19        Q.   Welcome back, Professor Dunjic.  Now, sir, you've previously

20     testified before this Chamber, so I'd like to start by simply asking you

21     to give a bird's eye view or an overview of the subject matter of the

22     report that you have now prepared and given to the Court.

23        A.   Thank you.  The subject matter of the research for which I am

24     present here was to analyse the locations in Potocari; to also analyse

25     the autopsy reports of the exhumations, including the Sandici location.

Page 27803

 1        Q.   All right.  Just so that we understand what it is precisely that

 2     you reviewed --

 3             MR. GOSNELL:  -- can we please look at -- can we please have

 4     4D540 on the screen, please.  It's 4D540, and if we could have page 57 of

 5     the English and page 31 in e-court of the B/C/S.

 6        Q.   Now, sir, making reference to this part of your report, can you

 7     explain to the Chamber the autopsy and exhumation records that you

 8     reviewed in respect of Potocari?

 9        A.   Yes.  I reviewed the material that has to do with the Potocari

10     location.  I found out that the exhumations were done in 2006 when most

11     of the bodies were exhumed as well as in 2005 when three corpses were

12     exhumed and assigned their respective numbers and in 2004 when one person

13     was exhumed with its own identification number.  One concludes from that

14     that at the location there were several, and we can see here that there

15     were three, exhumations.  I had occasion to review the autopsy reports,

16     which have to do with the location at which bodies were exhumed in 2006

17     when seven bodies were extracted as well as additional bones.  I will

18     explain that in detail later.

19             I also studied the autopsy reports pertaining to the location

20     from 2004, and that includes that single case I mentioned; and I

21     subsequently received the autopsy report, which I reviewed.  That is as

22     far as the number of cases goes that I could locate in the reports as

23     well as the number of exhumations.

24        Q.   So it in grand total --

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

Page 27804

 1             MR. GOSNELL:

 2        Q.   So in grand total, how many cases did you review in respect of

 3     Potocari?

 4        A.   There was a total of 11 cases across the three locations, 7 cases

 5     from 2006, 3 from 2005, and 1 from 2004.

 6        Q.   Thank you, sir.  Now, I want to ask you about two specific

 7     categories of findings that were contained in the autopsy reports that

 8     you reviewed - and we'll get into this in more detail - but at first, I

 9     would like you to just focus on these two specific sets of findings.  In

10     respect of the cause of death and the evidence of injury, can you tell

11     the Court what the findings were in those autopsy reports of bodies

12     exhumed from these graves at Potocari?

13        A.   The autopsies and exhumations concerning Potocari dating from

14     2006 concerning these cases have one basic characteristic, and that is

15     the cause of death that is missing with all of the cases.  As for any

16     evidence of injury, as stated in the autopsy reports, it is insufficient.

17     There is no proof that can be viewed as relevant in order to establish

18     the type of injury.  That is the basic characteristic of these exhumed

19     cases from Potocari.

20        Q.   All right, sir.  Before we continue, let me just return to your

21     first answer about the number of bodies at Potocari because when I look

22     at your report, I notice that there is a series of numbers there that

23     appear to refer to cases, and it says "POT 01 SRE 001 to POT 01 SRE 10."

24             So were there ten cases, or were there seven cases, or could you

25     perhaps clarify my confusion?

Page 27805

 1        A.   Yes.  The numbers you see concern all of the bones and bodies

 2     found at the location ranging from 1 to 10; however, these were not ten

 3     individuals.  As a matter of fact, there were six males that can be

 4     identified through the use of autopsy reports, and there is an additional

 5     skull that belonged to a female.  There were seven persons in total at

 6     that location.  The designation Potocari 7 and 8, those two numbers were

 7     actually used for two sets of bones, which were later matched to form a

 8     single person through various means of identification.  That is why we

 9     are talking about seven bodies.  Number 9 and number 10 are parts of

10     bones of an arm.  In one case, these are bones from two arms; and in the

11     other case, we have bones of a single arm.

12             There is no DNA identification report of those bones.  Therefore,

13     we don't know whether these bones, marked with 9 and 10, belong to any of

14     the persons previously marked with the numbers 1 through to 9 or these

15     were completely separate bones of different people.  In any case, we have

16     six male and one female corpse.

17        Q.   Thank you for that clarification.  Now, the translation that I

18     received of your answer when I asked you about the findings in respect of

19     these two categories, cause of death and evidence of injury, it came

20     through to me that you said that it was not present.

21             Now, were findings actually reached in these reports which

22     indicated something about these two categories, or were they just left

23     blank?

24        A.   If I understand you correctly, evidence of injury -- well, there

25     is a chapter in the autopsy report template.  When one looks at it, you

Page 27806

 1     realise that there is a form with its individual chapters.  There is a

 2     chapter reading proof of injury or evidence of injury.  In that chapter,

 3     there should be findings.  As regards the Srebrenica cases, there is only

 4     one case under number 7, which mentions any evidence of injury.  In all

 5     the other six cases, it is stated that there is no evidence of injury.

 6     This was written that there is no evidence under that chapter, evidence

 7     of injury.  It says "none" or "not established."  It is for that reason

 8     that I said that as regards the cause of death, for that particular case

 9     it is correctly stated that there was no cause of death, or rather, to

10     put it in other words, that the cause of death could not be ascertained.

11             Perhaps I can translate into your legal language.  The finding as

12     stated in the autopsy report corresponds to -- corresponds with the

13     conclusion arrived at.  There is a consistency between the conclusion

14     stating that the cause of death was not ascertained because, in the

15     report, no injuries are entered.  This corresponds between the two

16     documents, and that is something that is characteristic for the Potocari

17     location.

18        Q.   Was cause of death ascertained in any of the ten autopsy reports

19     that you reviewed in respect of Potocari?

20        A.   No.  It was not ascertained.

21        Q.   All right.  Let's go directly now to the cases that you reviewed

22     at Sandici meadow.

23             MR. GOSNELL:  If we could scroll to page 62 in e-court in the

24     B/C/S version and page 116 in the English vision, and I hope that's

25     correct, but there is a real problem with the pagination of the English

Page 27807

 1     translation.

 2        Q.   Now, sir, can you tell us how many cases you reviewed of grave

 3     sites at Sandici?  I'm sorry.  Perhaps I can assist you.  It will be page

 4     61 in your -- in the copy of your report.

 5        A.   I have to admit that the Sandici location posed some problems in

 6     that I had reports and various documents that I referred to.  These

 7     stated that there were exhumations in the area of Sandici in 2000, 2001,

 8     2002, 2005, and 2004.  In 2004, at the location there were 17 bodies that

 9     were exhumed; in 2000, there were three; in 2001, there was one case; in

10     2002, there was one case; and in 2005, another single case, a total of

11     23.  These were basically five different locations, and I had the autopsy

12     reports pertaining to the location concerning 2004 mentioning 17 cases.

13             I did note my remarks concerning the marking of bodies, which can

14     cause a lot of confusion subsequently in the process of identification

15     and comparing the findings, since these cases were simply marked in

16     different ways.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  We have to stop here.

18             Professor Dunjic, we will continue at 3.00 or thereabouts in the

19     afternoon.  Thank you.

20                           --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

21                           --- On resuming at 3.04 p.m.

22             JUDGE AGIUS:  Good afternoon.  For the record, now the

23     Prosecution is Mr. McCloskey and Mr. Mitchell; and in addition to the

24     absentees from the Defence teams, there is now Mr. Bourgon absent too.

25     Yes.  Let's continue.

Page 27808

 1             Mr. Gosnell -- sorry, Mr. McCloskey.  I didn't see you.

 2             MR. McCLOSKEY:  Excuse me, Mr. President.  So we don't forget, we

 3     don't have any -- any objections to the exhibits of Stojcinovic Defence

 4     witness.  We've had a chance to look at those now.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.

 6             MR. GOSNELL:  Just a footnote to that, there are two exhibits on

 7     the tender list that apparently have already been admitted.  Those are

 8     4D253 and 4D260.

 9             JUDGE AGIUS:  4D --

10             MR. GOSNELL:  -- 253 and 4D260.

11             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Okay.  And I need to -- Madam

12     Registrar.

13                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Any objections from anyone in relation

15     to this list?  None.  So all these documents are admitted, and 260 and

16     253 are not to be included in the list because they have already been

17     admitted.  And you also had to give us feedback, Mr. Gosnell, on the

18     Prosecution's list of exhibits in relation to your previous witness.

19             MR. GOSNELL:  Mr. President, we will be objecting to four of the

20     documents.

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  But let's proceed with the witness

22     first.

23             MR. GOSNELL:  All right.

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  And then we will take that up later.

25             MR. GOSNELL:

Page 27809

 1        Q.   Good afternoon, Professor Dunjic.  Now, we left off -- just

 2     before we left off, you indicated that you had reviewed autopsy reports

 3     related to Sandici in respect of 17 sets of remains; is that correct?

 4        A.   Yes, it is.

 5        Q.   And that's what is described at page 61 -- or summarised, I

 6     should say, at page 61 in the B/C/S version of your report and on page 50

 7     of the English version of your report?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   All right.  Now, I would like to ask you the same question about

10     these 17 autopsy reports that I asked you in relation to the ten autopsy

11     reports that you reviewed in respect of Potocari.  In particular, can you

12     please describe for us the findings that were reached in respect of cause

13     of death and in respect of evidence of injury?

14        A.   Very well.  As opposed to the Potocari location, the one at

15     Sandici concerning the 17 cases that I analysed is characteristic of the

16     fact that in all those 17 cases there was a conclusion on the cause of

17     death, and that in all of the 17 cases, there was evidence of injury.

18     However, I should add the following:  The conclusion about the cause of

19     death at the Sandici location is inconsistent with the finding from the

20     autopsy reports because we have injuries described there on the bones,

21     which are inconsistent with gunshot wounds, and the conclusion is

22     formulated for all the 17 cases stating that with a certain degree of

23     probability these people were injured by firearms, hence the

24     inconsistency.

25             As for evidence of injury, in that particular chapter of the

Page 27810

 1     autopsy report - and I will remind you again that the form used was

 2     identical to the one in Potocari - in any case, in that chapter, evidence

 3     of injury, the injuries were described in the same identical fashion as

 4     they were in the Potocari case, but now it is put in a separate chapter

 5     as "proof of injury," in quotation marks.  Concerning these -- this

 6     "proof of injury," out of all the cases, there are only three with

 7     registered changes to the bones, which indicate that there had been

 8     gunshot injuries.  For example, there are five or six injuries described

 9     in five or six different parts of bodies in the 17 cases.  There are only

10     three bones out of the total number -- there are only three cases of

11     three bones exhibiting evidence that can be related to gunshot injuries.

12     That amounts to the inconsistency between the finding and the conclusion

13     on the cause of death.  That would be put in the briefest possible terms

14     concerning Sandici.

15        Q.   So I understand you to be saying, then, that with the exception

16     of those three cases at Sandici that you just mentioned, the remaining 14

17     cases, in terms of the nature of the descriptions in the autopsy reports,

18     is the nature of those descriptions different or the same or similar to

19     what you observed when you read the autopsy reports from Potocari?

20        A.   I must say that the description of injuries at Sandici, since the

21     same team worked on both Potocari and Sandici, their description of

22     injuries at Sandici, they say that this is proof of injury or evidence of

23     injury; and they used the identical terms they did with certain findings

24     from Potocari.  However, as for the Potocari cases, there were no

25     conclusions on the cause of death because it was unascertainable as

Page 27811

 1     stated by the expert.  However, in the Sandici cases they decidedly

 2     stated that there were gunshot wounds amounting to the cause of death.

 3     These were two different things that we need to establish, the manner of

 4     injuries and the cause of death; and I believe that in the state the

 5     bones were, it was impossible to ascertain, even in the three cases where

 6     there were changes to the bones allegedly caused by gunshot injuries.

 7     The degree of damage to the bones is of such a high level that in my view

 8     it is not possible to prove that these resulted from gunshot injuries.

 9        Q.   You say in your report that the inability to find cause of death

10     or the indication that cause of death was indetermined -- or

11     indeterminate at Potocari, you say in your report that such a formulate

12     cause of death is acceptable.  Would you say that the formulate cause of

13     death indicated in the Sandici autopsy reports was acceptable?

14        A.   No, absolutely not.  From the forensic point of view, the

15     professional point of view, the doctrine point of view of forensic

16     pathology, the conclusions, as they are with the Sandici location, for

17     all the 17 cases are not acceptable.  I can go into detail about how they

18     were formulated later.  This was a categorical statement saying that,

19     yes, this was the cause of death, ranging from that down to a very low

20     probability.

21        Q.   Professor, can you enlighten the Chamber or all of us as to why

22     it is that the Potocari autopsy reports are more cautious or reluctant or

23     skeptical in reaching or indicating a cause of death versus the Sandici

24     autopsy reports which do, based on the same descriptions that are in the

25     autopsy reports, they do reach a cause of death, and they do reach a

Page 27812

 1     cause of injury.  Can you explain why there is this apparent divergence

 2     in approach?

 3        A.   Your Honours, I had occasion to analyse the two locations in

 4     parallel.  The summary of my conclusions would be this:  Potocari, the

 5     location of Potocari, was treated in 2006, meaning the seven bodies, six

 6     males and one female.  The Sandici location was examined in 2004.  I was

 7     trying to come to a certain conclusion as to why the conclusions from

 8     2004 were written the same identical way they were for Potocari, whereas

 9     in one case we have cause of death and the other case we don't.  It is my

10     presumption, and I believe it to be realistic, that the same autopsy team

11     in 2004 working at Sandici was under a degree of influence of people from

12     international organisations who were of the opinion that the cause of

13     death could be ascertained, as can be seen from my previous finding for

14     the other -- for certain other locations.

15             In the meantime, there was criticism by the professionals in the

16     field, and I testified in the meantime; and that is why I presume that --

17     why the same autopsy experts were more cautious in the case of Potocari

18     when drawing conclusions on the cause of death.  The professional public

19     that was closely following the research and the testimonies here had a

20     degree of influence; and they, hence, became more cautious in Potocari in

21     the chapter concerning cause of death.

22        Q.   You used an expression -- well, at least in the translation it

23     came across as "the professional public."  What are you referring to when

24     you refer to the professional public, if that expression makes any sense

25     to you?

Page 27813

 1        A.   When I use that term, I mean colleagues, forensic pathologists

 2     working nowadays in the area of the former Yugoslavia.  I was the last

 3     secretary of the Forensic Pathologist Association of Yugoslavia, which

 4     fell apart when this country did.  We all know each other.  There are

 5     many new colleagues, whereas some senior ones retired.  However, we all

 6     come from the same educational background.  When I say "professional

 7     public," I don't mean only the professionals from Yugoslavia but also

 8     from other domains.  I receive information from my colleagues working in

 9     the United Kingdom, in the US, in Canada.  We discuss things among

10     ourselves, and people talk about that.  They were wondering how can the

11     cause of death of a fully skeletonized body be ascertained, claiming that

12     the cause of death was a gunshot injury, precisely described in the

13     report.

14             Why am I saying this?  I can repeat what I said last time:  The

15     cause of death has to do exclusively with the pathological changes or

16     traumas ante-mortem.  Once the vital functions cease, that means that the

17     cause of death was the event which caused the functions to cease.  John

18     Clark also confirms that.  It can be done with a fresh body, if I may use

19     that term.  If that is missing, if there is no soft tissue but only

20     bones, then there is only a possibility or a probability that the gunshot

21     injury, which is very well described, then with a certain lower degree of

22     probability can be associated with the cause of death.  That's it.

23     Nothing more.

24        Q.   Aside from your own, I believe you said that you testified

25     sometime in the interval between 2004 and 2006.  Did I understand that

Page 27814

 1     correctly?

 2        A.   I don't understand.  Testified where?

 3        Q.   I'm sorry.  I thought I understood you to say that you had

 4     testified here between 2004 and --

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   -- and 2006.

 7        A.   Yes.  I testified in this same case previously, explaining the

 8     notion of cause of death.  However, it had to do with different

 9     locations.

10        Q.   No, I understand that.  But you've described to the Chamber that

11     there was a shift - and if I can use the expression - in the climate of

12     professional opinion, as you've described it, that there was criticism;

13     and I'm just wondering if you can provide some further specificity as to

14     where that criticism came from.  Or was it just criticism between or

15     amongst -- in discussions between colleagues?  I am just asking for more

16     specificity as to what you're referring to.

17        A.   What I said was that there was discussion among us forensic

18     experts.  We discussed those things at our meetings, not questioning the

19     people working on those cases.  People were merely talking about things

20     not being done fully professional or not according to the rules of the

21     profession.  Such were conversations between the people in that field.  I

22     know colleagues in Zagreb, Sarajevo, Belgrade, Montenegro, et cetera.

23     When we see each other privately, we also discuss our work, our

24     profession and its components.

25             It is, therefore, my presumption that it was for that reason that

Page 27815

 1     in 2006 the same people who worked on both locations were more cautious

 2     when drafting their conclusions.  This is, however, only my presumption.

 3        Q.   Thank you, Professor.

 4             MR. GOSNELL:  I'd now like to look at a different finding in your

 5     report, and this is at page 132 in e-court in the English and page 69 of

 6     the B/C/S version, which I believe is page 70 in e-court.

 7        Q.   Now, here at the bottom of the page, you state: "It is impossible

 8     to establish the exact cause of death... to establish the time of

 9     death... the time of burial... or the injury mechanism."

10             Now, I'd like to focus your attention on the second and third of

11     those conclusions, the time of death and time of burial.  Can you please

12     describe what forensic observations positively indicated to you from

13     these autopsy reports that these remains, that these sets of remains were

14     not all buried at the same time or that they were not all deceased at the

15     same time?

16        A.   The only thing I was able to notice and to assess forensically

17     were the three cases from Potocari and two cases from Sandici.  The three

18     from Potocari in the description of the remains found -- state that these

19     were mummified.  As for the two Sandici cases, it is stated that they

20     were saponified.  That is what I had in mind in brief.  Mummification and

21     saponification are putrefaction changes which occur on skeletal remains

22     or parts of the soft tissue post-mortem.  Mummification is such a process

23     in which the tissue becomes dry as in a mummy, hence the word.  As for

24     saponification as a process in which the soft tissue reminds of soap;

25     that is the degree of putrefaction.  It is soapy in terms of consistency.

Page 27816

 1     For a layperson, it means nothing; for us, it means the following:  If a

 2     body is in a saponified state or if there is traces of saponification, it

 3     means that that body spent a certain period of time in a humid

 4     environment.  If there is mummification, that proves that the body was

 5     supposed to warm and dry air.  What does it have to do with this?  Well,

 6     I've been saying that all along, that is that the time death and the time

 7     of burial cannot be ascertained precisely because in terms of doctrine,

 8     those changes were not described properly.

 9             For example, in Potocari there are seven bodies, and according to

10     the reports there were three of those that were mummified.  And in

11     Sandici, out of the 17 there were two bodies that were saponified.  That

12     is evidence.  And all the other bodies were skeletonized without any soft

13     tissue whatsoever.  This means that the two bodies that were saponified

14     and the three in Potocari that were mummified were subsequently brought

15     to those locations.  They were probably exposed to humid or dry air and

16     then subsequently buried.  The other bodies simply became skeletonized

17     after burying, whereas these cases exhibited different characteristics.

18     The degree of putrefaction in terms of saponification and mummification

19     as opposed to the other cases shows that the time of burial or death was

20     different.  However, that cannot be ascertained at this point.

21        Q.   Did you notice any other observations in the autopsy reports that

22     would support the suggestion that not all -- the bodies were not all

23     buried at the same time?

24        A.   In addition to the fact that in the same locality, in Potocari

25     and in Sandici, that exhumations took place at different time intervals,

Page 27817

 1     and that after certain identification procedures were put in place, we

 2     saw that some bodies were buried in the broader area -- or rather, they

 3     were listed as missing at different time-periods, either in 1995 or other

 4     years.  And I found some cases dating back to 1993, that they were killed

 5     then and found later and exhumed later.  That means that the very fact

 6     that there is a different degree of putrefaction and different times of

 7     exhumation go to show that the way in which they were buried was

 8     different.  There were different times and so on.

 9        Q.   Professor, I was thinking of positive indications in the autopsy

10     reports other than what you've mentioned about the saponification and the

11     mummification of certain of the remains, and I'm thinking perhaps whether

12     there were any observations under the category of clothing that might be

13     relevant here.

14        A.   One of the elements which can support this claim about the

15     different time interval of when the bodies were found, for example, is

16     that both in Potocari and Sandici, on the bodily remains, on the skeletal

17     remains, in actual fact, we also found winter clothing, which -- the

18     clothing found was winter clothing.  So if the event occurred in July,

19     the event we're discussing, then we can raise the question of why the

20     clothing would have been the type of clothing worn in winter.  I just

21     made the observation.

22             Now, the second point that I'd like to make in respect of

23     clothing, well, the clothing was just enumerated; a list of what was

24     found was compiled, and there were no descriptions as to any defects on

25     the clothing, for example, which would be consistent with, for example,

Page 27818

 1     damage done when a gunshot wound is administered.  So no descriptions of

 2     the clothing were made, damages to the clothing caused by projectiles, by

 3     gunshot wounds; whereas in Sandici, the conclusion was that everybody was

 4     killed as a result of gunshot wounds, whereas we see no evidence of that

 5     on the clothing.  I don't see it in the autopsies, either, except in the

 6     three cases of those three bones that I mentioned earlier on.

 7             But as an -- as indirect evidence, with respect to the time of

 8     death and time of burial, we can explain that in one way or another, for

 9     example, if you find winter clothing in summer time.

10        Q.   In respect of the Sandici autopsy reports, and we recall that in

11     many of those cases gunshot wounds are considered -- or listed as the

12     cause of death, is there something that you would have expected to find

13     in those autopsy reports that you didn't find that would have supported

14     that cause of death?  And perhaps I should direct you to the section

15     "Traces" in the autopsy reports.

16        A.   In all these autopsy reports from Sandici, for example, in the

17     set forms for the autopsy reports, it says the following:  Under chapter

18     F, for example, samples -- accepted samples, and then it says

19     "projectiles" and then colon, dash.  So I don't understand this, and I

20     wrote that.  Does that mean that these were projectiles which were found

21     and taken as samples, or should it have described where they were taken

22     from and described?  On the one hand, we have clothing which doesn't have

23     any damages from projectiles; on the other hand, the autopsy findings on

24     the bones, they are just three bones in actual fact - I would like to

25     underline that - just three bones, for which we can state that they have

Page 27819

 1     injuries which could correspond to projectiles fired from firearms.

 2             And now the question arises as to what we mean by "projectiles,"

 3     and projectiles is in the plural, which means more than one.  Were they

 4     taken as samples or where they -- should they have been described,

 5     descriptions of them given, or is this just a form -- an observation?

 6     Does it mean -- does the dash mean that there were no projectiles, or

 7     does it mean that a description should follow; whereas, there are no

 8     description this these reports.  And moreover, in Sandici, for example,

 9     during the process of exhumation, that is to say, when the exhumation is

10     conducted -- just let me take a moment to find this, please.  What was

11     found was one casing, one bullet casing, and that was the sole evidence

12     in that -- in one case, I think it was, that the cartridge of a

13     projectile was found.  That is to say that that is the casing -- was the

14     casing of a bullet fired from a firearm.  That would be my answer.

15             So those traces, the traces which should go to prove or at least

16     be described there in that part, were not.  They were not described in

17     the autopsy report.  No descriptions exist.

18        Q.   Perhaps you can tell us what kind of a description you would have

19     expected to find in light of the cause of death under the category of

20     Traces.

21        A.   Well, where it is claimed that the cause of death was a gunshot

22     wound, which is something that it says for all the cases in Sandici, you

23     would have to have the following:  A precise description on the bones

24     showing that it was a gunshot wound, damages to the clothing -- on the

25     remains of the clothing, and that in the body and in the bones or next to

Page 27820

 1     the body in the ground, a projectile might have been found.  Whereas

 2     there is none of that, and yet it is claimed that the cause of death was

 3     a gunshot wound.  We have injuries to the bones that are described - in

 4     Sandici, that is - but those descriptions do not correspond to gunshot

 5     injuries, gunshot wounds.

 6        Q.   Thank you, Professor.

 7             Now, I'd like to move from material that is strictly forensic and

 8     ask you some questions about what you might, and I believe you do, refer

 9     to in your report as external information.  And at pages 76 to 77 of the

10     English version of your report and page 74 of the B/C/S version - we

11     don't need to bring it up on e-court - you refer to certain individuals

12     who are listed as having disappeared at dates that are incompatible with

13     having been killed as victims in Srebrenica.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Mitchell.

15             MR. MITCHELL:  I apologise for interrupting, Your Honour.  Can we

16     just double check those English pages, please?

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Gosnell.  You said 76 to 77.

18             MR. GOSNELL:  The difficulty is that there are two sets of

19     pagination in the English version.  I am going to quickly try to find it.

20     Thank you.  If I could just have a moment.

21             MR. MITCHELL:  I think it's page 142, 143.

22             MR. GOSNELL:  That's what I have listed as well.

23     Unfortunately -- well, maybe we can just bring that up on e-court, then.

24             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  It would be easier.

25             MR. GOSNELL:

Page 27821

 1        Q.   Professor, this should be at page 74 of your version of the

 2     report.

 3        A.   I think it's on the following page, 75 of my text.

 4             MR. GOSNELL:  Do we have the page coming up in e-court?  Perhaps

 5     I can just proceed with the question, Mr. President, and then the section

 6     will come up.  It's more the principle that I'm aiming at here.

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  Go ahead, Mr. Gosnell.

 8             MR. GOSNELL:

 9        Q.   If you were to find --

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  Is it okay with you, Mr. Mitchell?

11             MR. MITCHELL:  Yes, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE AGIUS:  I just wanted to make sure.

13             MR. GOSNELL:  I thank my colleague.

14             JUDGE AGIUS:  Go ahead.

15             MR. GOSNELL:

16        Q.   Professor, do I understand or -- you were suggesting that if you

17     were to find such individuals who are listed as having disappeared widely

18     or at time-periods that are not inconsistent with having been killed or

19     buried at the same time, that that would support the forensic indicators

20     that you've just been discussing?

21        A.   Yes.  That is precisely the reason for which I've been insisting

22     on the proper type of forensic findings and descriptions and the proper

23     identification, and that is precisely the reason I did that, because

24     looking at this list of missing persons it would follow that the persons

25     went missing at different time-periods in the course of 1995 and some

Page 27822

 1     even in 1993.  They were killed in 1993 and then put on the list of

 2     missing persons linked to the Srebrenica case, and from that, we have a

 3     great probability of manipulation with a number of persons.  Now, for me

 4     as a forensic expert to be absolutely certain or at least to be able to

 5     say this person died earlier on, this person died later on, I would need

 6     the forensic findings, the autopsy findings with all the relevant data in

 7     them, which would indicate that being the case, and that is why we always

 8     insist upon the fact that for Potocari and Sandici, we don't have enough

 9     elements to be able to establish the time of death precisely enough.

10             So what the descriptions that should be found in the autopsy

11     findings were not done in the best forensic manner, which makes it

12     impossible to have a precise forensic identification of the individuals,

13     or rather, when the individual was killed, when they were buried, and

14     when they were found.  This -- all these factors must correspond to the

15     autopsy findings.

16             Now, what I said for Potocari and Sandici, that we had three

17     cases of mummification, and in Sandici I believe two cases of

18     saponification, goes to confirm the different time intervals at which the

19     bodies were buried and found in that particular area.

20             MR. GOSNELL:  Can I ask for page 67 of 4D540 to be put up on the

21     left-hand side of the screen in English, and I do believe that it is page

22     67 in e-court.  This is the Professor's report in English.

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  Yes, Mr. Mitchell.

24             MR. MITCHELL:  I don't think this page should be broadcast, Your

25     Honour.  Is that correct?

Page 27823

 1             MR. GOSNELL:  That's quite correct.  Thank you for the reminder.

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.

 3             MR. GOSNELL:  And on the right-hand side of the page, could we

 4     have P3159A [Realtime transcript read in error, "P3195A"], which also

 5     should not be broadcast, page 80.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  This document doesn't seem to operate in e-court.

 7     I don't know if counsel has a hard copy, maybe?

 8             JUDGE AGIUS:  Are we sure of the number, of the reference number?

 9     Because that should be the case --

10             MR. GOSNELL:  It's showing up incorrectly on the transcript.  It

11     should be 3159A, and we're looking for page 80.  Could we briefly go into

12     private session.

13             JUDGE AGIUS:  Let's go into private session for a short while,

14     please.

15                           [Private session]

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 27824











11 Pages 27824-27829 redacted. Private session.















Page 27830

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7                           [Open session]

 8             MR. GOSNELL:

 9        Q.   Professor Dunjic, there is also external evidence, again,

10     non-forensic evidence in this case that a certain number of individuals,

11     perhaps as many as six, may have died or been killed while inside the

12     DutchBat compound whose remains are unaccounted for.  Now, is there

13     anything in the forensic materials that you have reviewed in relation to

14     the Potocari site that would exclude the possibility that these six are

15     among the dead who are buried there?

16        A.   If I understand you well, six persons died on the premises of the

17     base at Potocari in different ways.

18        Q.   That's correct.

19        A.   In the autopsy reports, there are no elements based on which I

20     can either confirm or deny that based on the description of the corpses I

21     see here.

22        Q.   Thank you, Professor.  Sir, are there any other items or

23     anomalies that you observed in the reports that you reviewed that you

24     would like to tell the Chamber about?

25        A.   Generally speaking, for both sites, Sandici and Potocari, a

Page 27831

 1     general conclusion drawn from these autopsy reports that were presented

 2     and that I analysed would be that there is a total lack of transparency

 3     and an impossibility of verifying the data.  In the anthropological part,

 4     they state that the individual is male, the estimated age is stated, and

 5     the estimated height, to mention but these examples.  But there is not a

 6     single numerical parameter that would enable me to check that, whether

 7     that was really a man aged 60, 1 metre 70 tall, and whether it was a man

 8     at all.  That's what I call intransparency.  Only ready-made conclusions

 9     were presented, conclusions that are stated in this report.  So it's for

10     you to believe or disbelieve.  I as an expert do not believe until I can

11     verify whether it's really true, and this applies to all of it.  And it's

12     not only about lack of transparency; it also applies to injuries,

13     especially to injuries.  In one case, an injury is described as a

14     fracture, as a defect, as a general "concept," in inverted commas, of

15     something that was seen.  But in Potocari, the cause of death cannot be

16     established.  At Sandici, for the same finding the conclusion is gunshot

17     as cause of death, which is nonsense.  That's inconsistency between what

18     was found and the conclusion drown from it.

19        Q.   Thank you very much, Professor.

20             MR. GOSNELL:  Mr. President, I have no further questions.

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.  Mr. Zivanovic.

22             MR. ZIVANOVIC:  No questions for the witness.

23             JUDGE AGIUS:  Mr. Nikolic.  Mr. Nikolic?

24             MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] No questions, Your Honour.

25             JUDGE AGIUS:  All right.  Ms. Nikolic.

Page 27832

 1             MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.

 2     Thank you.

 3                           Cross-examination by Ms. Nikolic:

 4        Q.   Good afternoon, Professor Dunjic.

 5        A.   Good afternoon.

 6        Q.   I would like to follow-up on my colleague, Mr. Gosnell, about

 7     your report 4D540 and the early report 1D1070 about one of the tasks you

 8     had when drafting your forensic finding.  One of your tasks was to check

 9     the methodology of the identification of the remains in accordance with

10     accepted -- generally accepted forensical practice and anthropological

11     research.

12             THE INTERPRETER:  Could all other microphones be put out, please.

13     There is too much background noise.

14             MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   And you based both of your reports on that?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   During the proofing for your testimony, did you get a document

18     which is nearly disclosed and the Prosecution disclosed the material to

19     the Defence in accordance with Rule 68 concerning the exhumations done on

20     October 21st this year, that is, about ten days ago?

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Could counsel please adjust her microphone and

22     speak into the microphone.  Thank you.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

24             MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Mr. Dunjic, did you review that material?

Page 27833

 1        A.   Yes.

 2             MS. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since this is the

 3     statement of a witness, I suggest that we move into closed session for

 4     the witness to be able to comment this evidence, and I would ask for

 5     Exhibit 3D516 to be put on e-court, please.

 6        Q.   Before the document is displayed --

 7             JUDGE AGIUS:  I think we need to do that.  Yes.

 8                           [Private session]

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 27834











11 Pages 27834-27838 redacted. Private session.















Page 27839

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19                           [Open session]

20             JUDGE AGIUS:  We are therefore concluding the sitting now.  We'll

21     resume tomorrow at 9.00.  Thank you.

22                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.34 p.m.,

23                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 5th day of

24                           November, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.