1 Monday, 30 June 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, please call
7 the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
9 number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Jadranko Prlic et al.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Today, is Monday, the 30th of June, 2008. My greetings to the
12 witness first, who's going to start testifying in a few minutes.
13 Good afternoon to the Defence counsel, the accused, the OTP
14 representatives, and all the people helping us out.
15 Witness, can you please state your first name, surname, and date
16 of birth.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am Slobodan Jankovic. I was born
18 on the 10th of August, 1932.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness. Well, I
20 can hear you speak French. Thank you for that.
21 Can you please tell me what is your current occupation.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am a retired university
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Have you had an opportunity to
25 testify before a court; if so, in which case?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was a witness here as an expert
2 witness on two occasions, in the Blaskic case first and then in the
3 Kordic case.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Have you testified before a
5 domestic court?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, throughout my career I
7 was an expert on many occasions.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please read out the solemn
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will tell
11 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Please be seated.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, sir, some explanation on
15 the way the hearing is going to take place. As you have been a witness
16 on two occasions in the Blaskic and Kordic cases, I'm not going to
17 surprise you in saying what I'm about to say. You will first have to
18 answer questions by the Defence of General Praljak. I suppose you've met
19 his counsel, Mr. Kovacic, prior to this hearing. The overall time
20 scheduled is one hour for those questions. Following this part of the
21 proceedings, the other Defence counsel sitting on your left-hand side can
22 also ask questions of you. We have decided to grant them 50 per cent of
23 their time, that is 30 minutes, if they have questions to put as part of
24 their own cross-examination.
25 Thereafter, the Office of the Prosecutor, represented by the two
1 people sitting on your right-hand side will ask questions as part of
2 their cross-examination and they will have one hour and 30 minutes to do
4 You have four Judges in front of you. I'm sure they're bound to
5 ask questions themselves based on the evidence submitted through your
6 answers, following questions by all the parties. You're a professor, as
7 such you know very well that you have to be very concise in your answers.
8 If you fail to understand the meaning of a question, do not hesitate, ask
9 the person asking you the question to rephrase it.
10 We usually break every 90 minutes for 30 -- for 20 minutes; but
11 if you do not feel well, if you wish to have a short break, just raise
12 your right hand and we'll have a break straight away. That can happen.
13 We've known instances such as that. Of course the Trial Chamber is
14 available to you should you have questions for the Judges.
15 You have just made a solemn declaration; that means that from now
16 on you are a witness of justice of the Court. You're no longer a witness
17 of General Praljak's Defence, since your oath commits yourself to tell
18 the truth and you are a witness of justice. In other words, if we fail
19 to finish today, if we have to carry on your testimony tomorrow, you're
20 not supposed to have any contact with General Praljak's Defence.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's very clear. Thank you.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is what I wanted to convey
23 to you before I give the floor to Mr. Kovacic. But before I do so I
24 forgot that our registrar has two IC numbers to give us. Can you give
25 them to us?
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, there are two lists of documents
2 tendered through Witness Zarko Primorac. Prlic Defence list will become
3 Exhibit IC 818, and Prosecution list will become Exhibit IC 819. Thank
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam Registrar.
6 Mr. Kovacic, you may proceed.
7 MR. KOVACIC: [Microphone not activated]
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
9 MR. KOVACIC: Sorry.
10 WITNESS: SLOBODAN JANKOVIC
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 Examination by Mr. Kovacic:
13 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. I
14 thank you for allowing me to start. Good afternoon to everyone in the
16 A very good afternoon to Mr. Jankovic, Professor Jankovic. I
17 thank you for coming here.
18 Q. Professor, I will be addressing you as Professor Jankovic, I
19 think that is appropriate, in view of your status.
20 A. That's the thing that is usually done.
21 Q. Thank you very much. Professor, just for your own comfort, I'm
22 not sure if you've been told, you could use channel 5 to listen to the
23 French and channel 6 to listen to the Croatian, so whichever you like
24 best. Secondly, you're apparently willing to testify in French. We're
25 only too glad to have you go ahead with that, especially for the benefit
1 of the Trial Chamber. This will be much better in terms of us being able
2 to avoid technical difficulties and misunderstandings. So you want to go
3 on and testify in French, right?
4 A. [Previous translation continues] ...
5 Q. During the introduction by the Presiding Judge you mentioned that
6 you have already testified before domestic courts, national courts, as an
7 expert. A question about that, because our system is different, just to
8 make sure the Chamber understands. Where we come from, experts are given
9 permanent status with a certain Tribunal or court, right?
10 A. Yes, I did.
11 Q. That's what I wanted to hear. Thank you. And you testified at
12 several trials, right?
13 A. Exactly so.
14 Q. I would like to ask you several questions about your CV, since
15 you appear here as an expert, just to try to demonstrate your
16 professional qualifications. With the approval of the Chamber and with
17 the agreement of my learned friends I would try to lead the witness here
18 because this might prove to be very time-saving.
19 Professor, based on your CV you were born in Brussels, you went
20 to the Polytechnic in Brussels and then the applied school of artillery,
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. As far as I understand, a degree in civilian -- in civil
24 engineering to do with weapons would be a civilian equivalent of this?
25 A. Yes.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, Witness, you have
2 to wait before answering because the interpreters work from two booths
3 and they have to wait. So when Mr. Kovacic is finished, you have to
4 count until five and then you can answer.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] My apologies. This is my mistake.
7 I was hurrying along in a bid to save time.
8 Q. This is civil engineering with a specialty in weaponry, that
9 would be the civilian equivalent, right?
10 A. Yes, that's right.
11 Q. And then your graduate studies in Belgrade in 1964, the
12 engineering faculty in Belgrade, right?
13 A. No, I graduated from the school of mathematics.
14 Q. Thank you very much. And then in 1968 you took your Ph.D. in
15 Belgrade, right?
16 A. In the school of mechanics, civil engineering -- mechanical
18 Q. What about your work after that, was it flight mechanics and aero
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. After that, sir, Professor Jankovic - and I'll try to save time
22 here - you worked with the army, with the institute for development
23 specifically, other sectors of the army too, but you spent most of your
24 time there. You worked in the country's industry and you worked at both
25 civilian and military faculties as a professor, right?
1 A. It is exact.
2 Q. Professor, you published a lot of articles, works of research. I
3 think over 40 if my count is correct, in addition to which you published
4 six books from your own field of research, right?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. Your last important work was published at an important
7 international ballistics conference in San Antonio in the USA in 2000,
9 A. That is so.
10 Q. From the early 1990s on, you have been working with the
11 ship-building institute in Zagreb?
12 A. I would add that that year I retired, but the Croatian army
13 recalled me because they needed me and I worked then in that institute.
14 Q. Some people may not know Zagreb or its institutions. Can you
15 please explain in a couple of words what this institute is because the
16 name itself does not really tell us what it is. Can you please so kind
17 as to explain in no more than a couple of words the nature of this
19 A. Until 1990, the institute was mainly working on boat-building,
20 but then when there was a change in states, when there was a new Croatia,
21 that institute became a technical institute, taking in -- taking charge
22 of all complicated projects and that's why they called me.
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Excuse me.
24 Before it disappears, I believe that I heard that the San Antonio
25 conference was in 2004, whilst I see on lines 7 and 8 2000, not 2004.
1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] What's reflected in the record is
2 correct, Your Honour, 2000.
3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Professor, in addition to all of this you are also a consultant
6 with a recently established state agency, which in a way promotes
7 scientific projects, particularly those of a multi-disciplinary nature
8 and it promotes the work of young scientists. Can you tell us briefly
9 what the work of this institution is about?
10 A. Yes, it is a parliament agency whose purpose is to help new
11 companies when they develop intricate projects through funding. I am a
12 consultant inasmuch as a project will first arrive in my office and then
13 I'll give an opinion on it.
14 Q. Thank you very much. I think this is quite sufficient as far as
15 your scientific background is concerned.
16 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] If no one has a problem and if
17 Your Honours have no further questions to ask, I'd like to move on to my
18 next subject.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Since we're looking into your
20 professional achievements, it seems that you were a JNA officer. Is that
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I was an
23 officer, an active JNA officer. Once I finished my studies in Brussels
24 at the Polytechnical School and in the applied school until 1972. Then I
25 left the active service, but I remained as a scientist as part of the
1 army but as a civilian scientist.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What was your rank when you
3 left the JNA?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A lieutenant-colonel.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, just to put a question.
7 What was your service, what was your specialty in the JNA?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Technical service, but mainly for
9 artillery questions.
10 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
11 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
12 Q. Let us now move on to our next subject. Professor, you were
13 working with a number of people, we will get to that later who exactly,
14 and you drew up an opinion at the request of General Praljak, it's
15 called: "The analysis of the destruction of the Old Bridge based on
16 available video footage." January 2006 is the date of this document.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Just for the record, we submitted this document on the 9th of
19 May. The number is 3D 03208. Professor, bearing in mind the nature of
20 this type of research, is this a job that requires a multi-disciplinary
22 A. Whenever we have to examine a technical event that took place
23 somewhere, it is a complicated process. Many disciplines are involved in
24 the event. That's quite normal. Because of that, more often than not,
25 we'll work as a team, not as individuals.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The video 3D 03208, do you plan
2 to show it or not?
3 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we'll soon be getting to that.
4 It has two parts.
5 Q. Professor, just to make sure my understanding is correct does
6 this mean that in addition to your general experience as an engineer in
7 various fields you needed to use your specialist knowledge as well in a
8 variety of different fields in order to deal with the task you were
10 A. Indeed, it is always the case whenever we examine past technical
11 events we need to have very advanced knowledge.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, try and avoid
13 putting leading questions. This one was a tiny bit leading.
14 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I do agree that this is a leading
15 question, Your Honour, but this is still part of my introduction and
16 that's why I took the liberty. I will now be coming to a section of my
17 examination where I will no longer be asking leading questions. Thank
18 you very much for the caution anyway.
19 Q. Professor, we have established that the analysis was written up
20 by an entire team of people working on it. Can you tell us about the
21 other members of this team, their names and their fields of research?
22 A. Yes, these are two colleagues I used to work with at the
23 institute, at the boat-building institute, they are Aleksandar Sikanic,
24 he is a projectile builder, that's the reason why I invited him on to the
25 team; and the other is Suceska, he's an explosive specialist, since this
1 was also an event concerned with explosives, so I invited him too. And
2 we worked as a team.
3 Q. Professor, you've broached the topic in reply to one of my
4 previous questions, but let's try to be more specific about it. Is there
5 any other reason, aside from purely specialised knowledge, why a project
6 like this would be tackled by an entire team of people? Does this
7 broaden or deepen our understanding of any particular technical issue
9 A. It's always a good thing to have a team because you can exchange
10 views; you know, the more there are, the more we know.
11 Q. Let's try to be even more specific. You work on this project and
12 then a question arises, for example, someone comes up with a theory.
13 Does group work yield better results in these terms? Does it make it
14 easier to study a given theory just because there are several different
15 points of view involved in this research? Does that corroborate any
16 conclusions that are reached even more than individual work might?
17 A. Absolutely. If a problem crops up, we'll discuss it, we'll
18 thrash it out --
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Professor.
20 The Prosecution is on its feet.
21 MS. WEST: Thank you, Your Honours. My name again is Kim West.
22 I just recently joined the OTP and I'll be handling the cross-examination
23 of this witness. I would just point out for the Chamber that I think
24 counsel is now again getting into a leading question, and I would just
25 ask that the questions be open-ended.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Kovacic, do endeavour
2 not to lead.
3 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Your Honours. I do
4 admit that this was a leading question to some extent. I didn't feel
5 that the topic was particularly sensitive, though.
6 Q. Perhaps to save a minute or two, Professor, as for
7 Dr. Muhamed Suceska and Dr. Aco Sikanic, they were your partners on this
8 project. Just for the benefit of the transcript, let me say this: The
9 documents were distributed to the parties, 3D 03220, and
10 Professor Sikanic, 3D 03221.
11 Professor, these documents were attached to your analysis, as you
12 know. Do you agree that the curricula of your fellow researchers are
13 accurate? You can go back to that folder that you've got. I believe you
14 leafed through it already. These are the third and fourth documents in
15 your folder.
16 A. Yes, I know. No need to look at the documents. I know these
17 people. They are professors as well. They are doctors in sciences.
18 They are very competent people, very knowledgeable in their fields.
19 Q. Thank you very much. Now I would like to move on to the next
20 topic, unless the Trial Chamber has any questions. I would now like to
21 move on to the analysis itself.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] With regard to the curricula,
23 just one question. Professor, I haven't had time - please forgive me for
24 that - to read all your publications and those by your excellent
25 colleague Mr. Suceska, but I'm under the impression - and please correct
1 me if I'm wrong - my impression is that you -- you are a specialist in
2 projectiles, missiles, and any other means of carrying explosives, that
3 is your main expertise; whilst Professor Suceska, from a very cursory
4 examination of his articles, seems to be a specialist in what is in the
5 missile or about the core of the explosive charge. So he seemed to be
6 more of a specialist in explosives, and you together -- well, you are
7 sort of complementary, him and you. Am I wrong? Please correct me if I
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, you're not wrong, but I could
10 also add something. I studied at Ecole Polytechnique, so my knowledge
11 encompasses all these issues. Since we were dealing with explosives, I
12 thought it was better to have a specialist on board for very detailed
13 problems because when you sort of have a broad approach you may forget
14 details. And third thing, we invited Sikanic onto the team because he
15 builds projectiles, so he's aware of details -- well, I know that matter
16 as well very well, but you have to know the weaponry and all the details
17 pertaining to them. You need to have all the information. So as a team
18 we could encompass everything and we also knew right into the details,
19 which we needed when it came to this analysis.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
22 Q. So the analysis itself, for the record, was assigned number
23 3D 03208. You have it in front of you, Professor. My first question to
24 you was: What was the task? What was this expert opinion all about?
25 A. At the very beginning, we received the recordings and we were
1 asked to deliver an opinion. Indeed, until then the only accepted truth
2 was that the bridge had been destroyed by a tank, and we were asked to
3 see whether we could confirm that or not through our analysis. That was
4 our starting point.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Professor, prior to the hearing
6 I was thinking of this -- well, the tank. We may see some video
7 recordings of a tank firing at the bridge. Of course Judges cannot sort
8 of master all the evidence because we depend on evidence adduced by the
9 parties, but from memory I seem to remember that the crew of the tank
10 were subject to disciplinary proceedings following the firing. Could you
11 have access to the files arising from the disciplinary proceedings
12 against the tank crew or could you not?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, we don't know anything about
14 it. We couldn't access them. The only thing we had were the recordings
15 and our conclusions, our findings, are based solely on the recordings.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic.
17 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.
18 Q. So having done this analysis - and we see the results here in the
19 form of this report - what was the main conclusion of your analysis?
20 A. Shall I go straight to the conclusion then?
21 Q. Well, I propose that we go back and deal with the details later,
22 but now I would --
23 MR. KOVACIC: It's me, Your Honour, I was -- I was checking
24 something shortly before the trial and I forget. I'm sorry.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, I hope that you're
1 not going to get the conclusion through your telephone.
2 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, but I have
3 problems switching it off completely to be quite honest with you. [In
4 English] I didn't do that much before the trial, but this time I was
5 checking whether the witness was here, et cetera. [Interpretation] Once
6 again, my apologies to the Trial Chamber.
7 Q. So bearing in mind the task that was given to you, let us now go
8 into conclusions as a whole but could you please give us the key, the
9 main conclusion that answers the question that was defined in the task.
10 So what was the conclusion of your analysis?
11 A. Without explaining how we arrived at the conclusion, here was the
12 conclusion. It is highly probable that the bridge was destroyed by an
13 explosive charge, that was our final conclusion; but I would like to
14 explain how we got there.
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Mr. Kovacic, but I'd
16 like to ask a question about terminology of the witness.
17 Now, you speak about destruction, but there is another term that
18 is "ecroulement," collapse, are they synonymous in your mind or do you
19 think there's a difference ?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a rather tricky question, a
21 tough one. I'd like to answer your question with the video recordings.
22 When I mention collapse, I think that the bridge would fall into the
23 water; and if I speak of destruction, well, the bridge is destroyed, it
24 no longer exists. That would be my thought. That's what I meant.
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's remain with semantics.
3 Must there be first destruction and then collapse, or can both happen
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I would say that the bridge
6 is destroyed after it has collapsed. There is first collapse and then
7 destruction. It collapsed, therefore it is destroyed. But it may be
8 that my French is not good enough but that's how --
9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] I don't know whether
10 Judge Mindua wants to ask the same question. I'll give him the right of
12 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] No, let's talk about the process.
13 Destruction is the final result, and collapse, that's the event.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. That's exactly
15 that. Thank you for your help.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Well, it may be that my question
17 is a little thornier. Now, does your answer imply that if there's no
18 collapse there's no destruction? Does your answer mean that if there's
19 no collapse there's no destruction? Is that what you mean? Is that so?
20 Is that right?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if there is collapse there is
22 destruction, but there can be other destruction also.
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 MR. KOVACIC: [Microphone not activated]
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Thank you very much. I hope that this has been helpful.
3 Bearing in mind that you have explained in your answers that your
4 analysis was based on the available video materials, that's noted in the
5 title itself of the paper that you wrote, I would like to ask you to
6 describe what video materials were available and what materials you used
7 to do this analysis.
8 A. We were given several recordings, amongst which there were two in
9 relation to those events. The first recording came from the Austrian TV,
10 TV ORF2; as for the second recording, it came from TV Mostar. So those
11 were the two recordings that we analysed.
12 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to ask my associate to play the ORF2
13 recording and then the other one so that you could confirm that those
14 were the two video recordings that you were dealing with in your
16 [Videotape played]
17 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Well, fine.
18 Q. We saw two short segments. Could you identify and confirm that
19 the first one is the ORF2 material, as we call it?
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. And could you please confirm that the second one is the so-called
22 Mostar video?
23 A. That's right.
24 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have IC numbers for
25 the two clips that we saw, the first and the second video-clip, for
1 technical reasons?
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the first video will become
4 Exhibit IC 820, and the second video will become Exhibit IC 821. Thank
6 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
7 Q. So your analysis is based on these materials, as we learned from
8 your answers. There is reference to a third video recording in your
9 analysis. Could you please explain to us what is the third video-clip,
10 why and how it was done.
11 A. The third video-clip was a recording of our experiment, an
12 experiment which we made in order, first of all, to confirm our
13 assumption; and secondly, to confirm certain elements for your purposes.
14 In our opinion as specialists we didn't need that experiment, but we
15 wanted to show to other people that a comparison could be made which
16 would allow us to understand better what happened.
17 Q. Fine. Now I would like to ask my associate to play the third
18 video-clip so that you could identify it.
19 [Videotape played]
20 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Could we play it again.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.
22 [Videotape played]
23 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have an IC number
24 for this video recording too.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, could you give
1 an exhibit number to the third video-clip.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Exhibit IC 822.
3 Thank you.
4 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
5 And this brings us to the very essence --
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] I have a small question. As for
7 the third video-clip, we saw the same event twice -- one event twice.
8 Was it the same video that we saw twice or was that a video with two
10 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you saw the same
11 footage twice because the clip lasts for only a couple of seconds and the
12 professor would come back to it later. The only reason why we played it
13 now was to identify the clips because it says in the title of the paper
14 that it -- the analysis was done on the basis of available video material
15 so we just wanted to identify them.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, you just mentioned
18 three video recordings, the first one is IC 820. Was that recording shot
19 by the Austrian TV ORF2? The second video, IC 821, was made by
20 TV Mostar. As for the third video, IC 822, this one was a recording for
21 our purposes. But it seems to me that during the testimony of one
22 witness we saw a video, and on that shooting we saw balls, the bridge
23 collapsed, and there was a water gush rising above the water. In the
24 first two video-clips I didn't quite clearly see that. What can you tell
25 us about that?
1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there are other
2 recordings, but if I'm not mistaken, we've seen in this courtroom
3 sections of 821 and of 820, the Mostar video and ORF respectively; and
4 now we've played just a critical portion, the destruction, the collapse
5 of the bridge that is at the core of what the Professor analysed. So
6 they are not interested in what happened before and what happened later,
7 they only analysed the critical moments. But yes, at least one of those
8 recordings have been seen in this courtroom.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] If you allow me I would like to
11 ask a follow-up question.
12 Professor, we saw three video-clips which lasted a few seconds
13 each. Besides those clips, have you seen other footage?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have. I have seen many, in
15 fact, but we did not need them. They were not useful for our purposes.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, maybe we will view
18 those recordings later, but personally, I would like very much to see the
19 footage with tracer bullets. On that video we can hear the tanks firing,
20 we can see the bridge collapsing, but what is particularly important is
21 that we see a water pillar vertically to the direction of the bridge.
22 And I think this should be asked -- this should be put to the witness.
23 Maybe we will have time enough to see that video, but in any case I would
24 very much like to see that video again, a video which we have already
25 seen on a couple of occasions.
1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. President --
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Sorry, Mr. Kovacic, I see that the
3 translation - and it's not an accident that I'm turning to English - the
4 translation speaks of a pillar, a water pillar. The President has said a
5 "mur d'eau" which would be a wall of water rather than a pillar.
6 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge Trechsel. Yes, I
7 understand that it is in reference to the same phenomenon, so there is no
8 confusion here.
9 But to answer, Mr. President, if you allow me with regard to what
10 you said about water plume or the water wall, you will see this part soon
11 because this is the very essence of the expert analysis and we will see
12 this several times so that everybody has a good chance to see it. We
13 will come to it soon enough.
14 But as regards your second request, indicating that you would
15 like to see what we have seen in this courtroom before again, the
16 shelling of the bridge, the artillery shells, as we have been told; but
17 with all due respect - and my associates may correct me if I'm wrong - we
18 don't have it here with us but we will be able to produce it, I'm sure,
19 after the break. But for the time being, I propose that we do it this
20 way. You will be able to see it later, and I'm sure that the Professor
21 will be able to explain to us why the video starts at a certain point.
22 If you allow me, I would like to continue.
23 Q. Professor, I think this would be the most efficient way to
24 proceed. Could you please explain in broad-brush strokes how you did
25 your analysis, the methodology that you used, and the most important
1 thing how and why you reached the conclusion that we have already
2 mentioned here today. So I'm not going to be asking you questions, but
3 I'm going to let you use your own words.
4 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] My associates --
5 Q. I'm sorry, Professor, just a moment.
6 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] My associates tell me that the
7 registry does have copies of all the videos that were mentioned and that
8 we saw earlier, but at any rate we can make a short break and then we
9 will retrieve one of those but I don't think it will be necessary. But
10 we'll see how -- we'll see that as we go along.
11 Q. But, Professor Jankovic, at any rate, please do continue.
12 A. First of all, as far as the technique goes, I remember that the
13 three of us worked together all the time. Whenever we drew a conclusion,
14 this conclusion was the result of our exchanges.
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, could you please
16 switch off your microphone.
17 THE INTERPRETER: Switch the microphone off, please.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With respect to the subject I will
19 drop all the technical details which are included in our report. I will
20 try and explain to you how we drew our conclusions. First of all, we try
21 and figured out how the tank could have destroyed the bridge because
22 there was a 100-millimetre gun on this gun and we knew that every
23 projectile was half a kilo, and that was not sufficient to destroy a
24 stone bridge. Several shots would have been necessary to destroy this
25 bridge because all the shells cannot fall, impact, on the same place. So
1 the distance would have been a circle of 1 metre -- the diameter would
2 have been 1 metre.
3 I think we have a problem with the translation. I need to stop
4 now and -- the distance was 1.400 metres. If the gun fires always at the
5 same point, if the aim is always the same, the tank cannot hit always the
6 same point; but if the fire elements are not modified, the radius would
7 be 1 metre. So you would have to fire several shells in order to make a
8 dent in the bridge so that it collapses. That's what we were looking
9 for, and we could not find it anywhere in the recordings. We could see
10 that the tank was firing, that there was damage, but sometimes the tank
11 would fire in one corner and then in another corner. So the firing did
12 not aim always at the same point, not to the point where it could create
13 a dent in the bridge. In such a case, five or six shots within a radius
14 of 1 metre would have been necessary, but we have not seen that;
15 therefore, we could not conclude that the bridge had been destroyed by
16 the tank.
17 Furthermore, if you consider the speed of the projectiles, about
18 700 metres per second, and in view of the number of shots per second by
19 the TV cameras, every time that there is firing it can be seen and
20 recorded. Therefore, the camera which recorded the collapsing of the
21 bridge probably had the projectile in the previous frames, but we were
22 not able to see that. We haven't found it. In view of those two
23 elements we concluded that even though we do not know the reason for the
24 collapse for sure, we could conclude that the bridge didn't collapse
25 because of the projectiles.
1 The bridge was damaged, nobody questions that; but as you
2 mentioned, Your Honour, we saw a water gush or a water pillar, you call
3 it a water wall. We were able to explain what was the reason for that.
4 We see it on two recordings, the recordings made by TV Mostar and the
5 recordings made by ORF2. The only explanation to us was that there was a
6 detonating cord underneath the water. This cord was ignited, and the gas
7 liberated by the explosion were such that the water rose.
8 We needed to verify the situation, even though it was clear to
9 us, but we wanted to show that there was a detonating cord. That's the
10 reason why we did that experiment on a lake. We positioned a cord
11 underneath the water, we ignited it, and we saw that there was this same
12 water wall which I call a water pillar.
13 In slow motion -- you should see in slow motion the recordings
14 made by ORF2 and then the recordings of our experiment, both should be
15 seen in slow motion.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Before we move to
17 another subject, as you can imagine I was listening to you very
18 carefully. The destruction of the Old Bridge is very important in the
19 indictment. Furthermore, it has a symbolical importance. It is
20 therefore very important that the Bench doesn't make mistakes as to what
21 really happened. I was listening to you very carefully, and I have
22 noticed that you just stated that the tank gun had 100-millimetre
23 calibre. This tank could only fire shells weighing one and a half kilo.
24 Therefore, a shell which hits the bridge weighs 1500 grams. Is that so?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will repeat what I said. It was
1 a T-55 tank. This T-55 tank had a 100-millimetre calibre gun. This gun
2 can use several types of projectiles, piercing shells, all the types of
3 shells, I cannot remember how they're called, I don't use them, and there
4 are also explosive shells. Those explosive shells weigh some 15 kilos,
5 200 grams. That is the weight of the projectile. Within the projectile
6 you have an explosive charge which weighs one and a half kilos
7 approximately, 1.46 kilogrammes. That is the explosive charge which
8 destroys the aim, the target.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This explosive charge weighs
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, 1.46 kilo.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You said that the explosive
13 charge can only hit the bridge within a diameter of one metre.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, let me explain. I have to
15 enter into details. That explosive shell is not designed to destroy or
16 pierce the bridge; its aim is to kill people, kill the enemy. It was
17 used in that case, but I do not know why. That projectile was not meant
18 to pierce, it was not the right kind of ammunition to destroy the bridge.
19 If we want to be precise, that gun was designed at fighting against other
20 tanks. That's why you have those piercing shells. And explosive shells
21 can be used as well if there are enemy forces around the tank. That's
22 the first thing.
23 This explosive shell which was used in that case, I have seen
24 those too, I have seen those recordings. That projectile could not have
25 pierced the stonewall. It could damage it and then explode. There could
1 have been a dent in the wall, but in order to pierce the whole wall you
2 need several shells. So there is a dispersion of the impacts on the
3 wall. But if the elements remain the same for the projectiles,
4 dispersion occurs in a diameter of approximately 1 metre.
5 If you hit that stonewall, you have the bridge and you have the
6 wall, if you hit that wall with a few projectiles, let's say five or six,
7 you can pierce the wall or you can make a dent in the wall, a breach in
8 the wall, and then the bridge will collapse; that's possible. But I
9 haven't seen those projectiles. I haven't seen the projectiles being
10 shot with the same elements in such a way that could have make the bridge
11 to collapse.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but we have heard
13 witnesses explaining that the tank fired for a protracted period of time.
14 So mathematically speaking, in view of the accumulation of explosive
15 charges fired at the bridge, wasn't there a breach at some point that
16 could have triggered the collapsing of the bridge?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is probable, it is possible. If
18 several shells were shot and if some of the shells were shot in a grouped
19 way, yes, it's possible.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] My question about tracer
21 bullets had a purpose. On that video recording I mentioned earlier we
22 can see traces of bullets hitting the bridge. You're a former JNA
23 lieutenant-colonel, you're an expert in artillery matters; therefore, you
24 should know that when there are fires, somebody establishes coordinates
25 and those tracer bullets can show the people who fire where to shoot. So
1 if there's an accumulation of explosives over time, there could be a
2 breach that caused the bridge to collapse at one point.
3 When I asked you whether you had access to material relating to
4 the proceedings against the tank crew, I wanted to know whether the time
5 element and the number were taken into account. Unfortunately, we did
6 not have access to the material in those proceedings, but we would like
7 to know what instructions were given to the tank crew and how they
8 directed their fires, how they aimed. Was it haphazard or was it
9 well-directed? Was there somebody for each and every fire? Was there
10 someone directing it to make sure that the shell would hit the bridge?
11 We do not have that element because the Prosecution did not adduce it,
12 therefore we do not know it. That is the reason why I wanted to know
13 whether you had access to the material in those proceedings. Don't you
14 think it was the accumulation of shells that made the -- that eventually
15 made the bridge to collapse?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I mentioned, I had no contact
17 with those documents, I did not have access to them. Fire correction is
18 made for artillery -- field artillery. Tanks fire directly and correct
19 automatically. That is the practice. So you have to take that into
20 account when you view our analysis. I suppose, however, that those who
21 were firing - I don't know why, I haven't thought about it - all I can
22 say is that upon viewing those recordings when I saw those projectiles
23 hitting several points I was not under the impression that they were
24 aiming at the same point.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] T-55 is a tank of Soviet make?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Was it computerized or was it
3 an old model?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot really tell you, but I
5 work on computerized artillery systems and I believe that this particular
6 tank was a mechanical one, it did not have computerized elements in
7 itself, it was not composed of anything that was computerized inside.
8 I'm not certain of this. As far as I remember, while I was working for
9 the army of the former JNA I can tell you this.
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Professor, you've told us that
11 the projectiles were not piercing bullets but explosive bullets. Just to
12 be absolutely clear on this, could you please explain to the
13 Trial Chamber where do you get this information? Why can you affirm with
14 certainty that no projectile, no piercing projectiles, were used?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is not an information that I
16 have; it's my conclusion, it's the conclusion that I get when I look at
17 the video-clip, when I see the explosion, when I see the little pieces of
18 rock fall in the water. This is the conclusion I draw. If it had been a
19 piercing shell, it would have just lodged itself inside the bridge
20 construction. That's the effect it would create.
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Just to conclude this particular discussion, I think we're
24 getting ahead of ourselves but then of course it helps, doesn't it?
25 Professor, when you say "I didn't see that projectile," because
1 that's what you were being asked, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean
2 over a certain time just before the bridge collapsed? What is the time
3 over which this occurs? That's my question.
4 MS. WEST: Objection, Your Honour.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said it and I repeat it.
6 MS. WEST: Your Honour, the question here on line 22 is: What
7 exactly do you mean? Had it ended there, that would have been an
8 appropriate open-ended question, but the further comments make it a
9 leading question.
10 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I merely summed up
11 what the witness had said before and in no uncertain terms I'm just
12 trying to draw everyone's attention to the time interval that is at
13 stake. I think the witness should be allowed to go ahead and answer the
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So let me repeat. If the
16 projectile had destroyed the bridge, if it had caused the collapse of the
17 bridge, in the same video sequence the frame just before the collapse, in
18 that frame we should have seen that projectile, just like we have seen
19 the projectiles on the other frames. Because from one frame to the next
20 the projectile runs approximately 30 metres. So if one frame shows the
21 collapse of the bridge when the projectile hit it, the previous frame
22 should have shown the projectile. That's it. And we looked for it but
23 we have not found that.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand what you're
25 saying, but did you yourself, as well as your colleagues, were you able
1 to view image by image, second by second, footage by footage all the
2 images to check if in the interval before the collapse, a projectile was
3 actually hitting the bridge? Did you do that kind of work? Did you do
4 that frame by frame?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, we've proceeded exactly the
6 way you mentioned.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And you have not noticed any
8 shells, any projectile?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, none. No, none in the footage
10 that we have, that we viewed.
11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] How many images per second are
12 in a frame?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 24 seconds -- 24 images per second.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, General Praljak wishes to
15 take the floor.
16 Yes, General.
17 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you
18 very much. Can you please ask Mr. Jankovic not second by second, but the
19 TV image where you have a split screen, 25 frames a second as opposed to
20 the clip with 24 frames per second. Can you please ask the witness if
21 they were actually using 25 frames per second when they were drawing up
22 this analysis. Thank you.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I answer?
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is exactly what we said. We
1 talked about 25 frames per second, and we analysed frame by frame.
2 That's what we did.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you have not seen any
4 projectiles, any shells?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, absolutely none on the frames
6 that we've analysed.
7 MR. KOVACIC: [Microphone not activated]
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
9 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I think maybe I shouldn't be asking
10 any additional questions, but even so.
11 Q. Your last reply to the President you say you did not see any
12 shells in the frames that you studied. Is this answer just about a
13 certain time interval from the time of the destruction and then before
14 that moment? Is that what your answer is actually in reference to?
15 A. I will repeat once again. What is really important to understand
16 and to see is the frame before the collapse occurs, that's what's
17 important to analyse. So once again, the frame that precedes the
18 collapse. This is where that projectile should have been visible. So
19 the most important frame is the frame that just precedes the collapse of
20 the bridge.
21 Q. Thank you very much. That is now perfectly clear.
22 Professor, let us try to pick up where we left off -- or perhaps
23 I should try and remind you. As soon as you ascertained that there was
24 no impact by a shell in the period preceding the destruction of the
25 bridge, what were the next steps you took from there and what were your
2 A. Well, let's see in slow motion the collapse of the bridge, ORF2,
3 and we could also view in slow motion the video-clip of our trial, of our
4 experiment, in order to see the analogy between the water gush, pillar,
5 wall, that is created in this exercise by detonating the cord and to
6 compare this to what we see the water gush that is visible on the ORF2
7 footage, please.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before we deal with that
9 question, though, I would like to go back to the bridge which collapses
10 following an impact by a shell. While I looked at your CV I was able to
11 notice that you are a specialist in missiles. Hypothetically, let's say
12 that if today we wanted to destroy the Old Bridge which was reconstructed
13 and we actually walked on it, this Bench was able to walk on that bridge,
14 we went there. If one wanted to destroy this bridge today would a MILAN
15 missile or other type of missiles, would that be a thing that could make
16 the bridge collapse immediately?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A missile such as a MILAN missile
18 would not be sufficient because it does not contain a sufficient amount
19 of explosive, but there are missiles that were specially made for
20 destroying these bridges. The former Yugoslavia had a missile called the
21 Grom and it contained 50 kilogrammes of explosive and that one was
22 actually made to destroy bridges of any type of construction.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you had Grom at the time and
24 that Grom missile would have been able to be destroy such a construction
25 but it was not used, to your knowledge, for this particular case?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, to my knowledge, no.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So according to your
3 calculations which are very well done, one needs approximately 50
4 kilogrammes in order to destroy a bridge made in this way?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but I must tell -- correct --
6 make a small correction. A charge of 50 kilometres [as interpreted], not
7 at least 50 kilometres but 50 kilometres.
8 JUDGE PRANDLER: [Interpretation] I would like to ask the
9 Presiding Judge as well as the witness to slow down, please.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, my fellow Judge just
11 reminded me to slow down. Indeed, I shall.
12 So one would need a detonation or a charge of 50 kilogrammes
13 minimum. Is that correct?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As to what is the minimum, that's
15 difficult to answer. 50 kilogrammes would be sufficient.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] The angle and the impact is also
17 important, right, on the bridge?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course. It depends on many
19 things, not only the angle but also the way the bridge is made, what the
20 bridge is made of. There are also various sides of the bridge. Not
21 every side of the bridge is vulnerable the same way and so on and so
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I see that it is a quarter to
24 4.00. It is probably the right time to take a break. We did not see
25 time go by, it just flew. Do you have any -- do you mind if we take the
1 break now?
2 MR. KOVACIC: [Previous translation continues]...
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's take a
4 20-minute break and we'll resume in 20 minutes' time.
5 --- Break taken at 3.43 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 4.07 p.m.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing's resumed.
8 Mr. Kovacic, please proceed.
9 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Professor, I think we've covered most of your explanations and
11 analysis in the questions and answers that we've done. Could you please
12 move on now to the explanation of the elements in the comparison of what
13 we see in the experiment, the test video in relation to one or both
14 video-clips that were recorded live, the Mostar video and the ORF2 video.
15 So what elements support the conclusion that you made and that you
16 presented to us at the beginning?
17 A. Let me draw your attention to three factors. First, there's this
18 water gush or this wall of water, as the Presiding Judge named it; second
19 factor --
20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not understand.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is a brusque movement and
22 third factor, there is black smoke. We're going to see the three factors
23 very clearly in the ORF2 recording. The light spot is not to be seen on
24 the Mostar, TV Mostar, recording because it's over-lighted.
25 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Professor Jankovic, you don't have the earphones, but the
2 interpreters have indicated they have not understood the second factor.
3 A. The light spot or point. I shall repeat. First, you have this
4 water gush or wall; secondly, this light spot, point, that appears
5 suddenly and then disappears; third factor, the black smoke. One very
6 relevant thing also is to notice this. When we see these facts, what is
7 the order among themselves? Let's look at the recording. In slow motion
8 we're going to watch ORF2, that footage, and we'll see that the water
9 gush and the water gush we had in the test are basically the same, so the
10 cause could be the same, if you agree to us viewing it. Can we show it
11 in slow motion?
12 [Videotape played]
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can see this water gush, please
14 be watchful and look at it carefully.
15 [Videotape played]
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Next to the water line, at the
17 bottom of the bridge, on the eastern pillar, you can see a light spot for
18 a very brief moment. Then, following the light spot, you can see black
19 smoke. It is important to note that we first see the light spot, that's
20 the very first thing, and then the water gushing, and then together with
21 the water the black smoke.
22 Can we now view in slow motion the experiment recording?
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] I just want to make sure of one
24 thing. That black smoke is on the right and the light spot on the left?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. There where the light was you
1 see the black smoke.
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] That was left, right?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe can we see this footage again
4 to make sure?
5 [Videotape played]
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In slow motion, please.
7 [Videotape played]
8 MR. KOVACIC: [Microphone not activated]
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
10 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my assistant is
11 trying to pin-point the location with the cursor.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please note exactly where in the
13 bridge the light spot can be seen. I do ask you to be careful because
14 this is precisely where the breach is going to form and this is precisely
15 there where the bridge is going to collapse. On the right-hand side, you
16 can see that the right-hand side remained standing, whilst the left part
17 of the bridge is going to collapse.
18 I shall repeat for the interpreters. On the right of the light
19 spot, the part of the bridge on the right of the light spot remains
20 standing, whilst the left part collapses. So it is that spot of light
21 that is the border, the limit. Let's just wait until the smoke
22 disappears and you'll see what is left of the bridge and then you'll see
23 the right-hand side of the bridge.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Expert, we see this light spot,
25 it was shown with the cursor, the pointer. What does it correspond to?
1 Is that the explosive exploding then?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let us see what we found during the
3 experiment and then we'll have an answer to your question. Please show
4 us the test recording in slow motion.
5 [Videotape played]
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So we've positioned the cord under
7 the water, 50 centimetres below the surface of the water. On the
8 right-hand side we activated, we ignited, the explosion of the detonating
9 cord; on the left we positioned an explosive charge. Can you see the
10 analogy? Have you found the answer to your question? It is relevant to
11 see that the dot or spot of light is before the water wall, because the
12 detonation occurs along the cord at a very high speed, 6.000 metres per
13 second. Before the water rises, the explosive charge is ignited, is
14 initiated. And then, after the spot of light, you can see the black
15 smoke. What you can see here during the test is exactly what you can see
16 on the -- in the ORF2 footage.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you reconstructed the event.
18 What was your explosive charge? What was the power of it?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very small, 200 grams of TNT.
20 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Professor --
22 JUDGE PRANDLER: Yes, I'm sorry, Mr. Kovacic, for taking the
23 floor. Now I simply would like to ask the witness about the following,
24 that what we have seen just now several times, the -- it was, of course,
25 the very last phase of the collapse of the bridge. I wonder if the
1 same -- in the same picture if you have something to show when the bridge
2 was still standing. What struck me was that now we do not see any
3 remnants of the bridge on the two sides, I mean on the left and the
4 right, only what we see, of course, the position and the -- what is being
5 caused by the explosives there. So I wonder if the very picture could be
6 shown again including what happened beforehand, what happened prior to
7 the -- to the collapse of the bridge, and then that picture which you
8 kindly showed to us. Thank you.
9 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that would, in fact,
10 be the ORF2 tape and the Mostar videotape but not in slow motion, the
11 ones that we identified at the beginning. So we can perhaps show it now,
12 first the ORF2 --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We cannot hear the
15 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] And then again the Mostar video,
16 the quality is less there because it's been overexposed.
17 [Videotape played]
18 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Professor, there is a question that comes to my mind when we're
20 looking at this footage, the ORF2 footage, because it's apparent that it
21 is much better quality. In your work as you did this frame-by-frame
22 analysis, this methodology that you applied, what was the key material
23 that you used, that you relied on, as you did your analysis?
24 A. The ORF2 footage showed us much more because the TV Mostar is
25 overexposed and the camera is shaking a lot, so it was difficult to
1 analyse the footage. Still, it is possible to see all these elements but
2 for the light of spot, and we therefore think that it's important
4 JUDGE PRANDLER: Thank you very much.
5 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. And I have a follow-up question. As regards the continuity on
7 both recordings, is there a correlation between the Mostar video and the
8 ORF2 recording? Did this increase the value of the material for the
9 purposes of your analysis? So is there a correlation for purposes of
10 triangulation, for instance?
11 A. When you move from a frame to the next, we know what movements
12 could have been done in that interval. And if you look at the ORF2
13 footage, the impression is that two pieces of footage have been glued or
14 pasted next to one another as if there was a camera filming up to the
15 moment of collapse and the other one would have filmed the collapse
16 itself. The impression is that the first part was filmed while somebody
17 was handling the camera because you see the moves by the cameraman, and
18 the second footage seems to be a fixed camera. That's all I can say.
19 However, because of that, the second part, the second footage, is very
20 important because that one was done in one go.
21 Q. I heard in the interpretation the third video. Are you referring
22 to the Mostar video, so that would mean the second one. Okay. Thank you
23 very much.
24 Well, in light of these explanations and given that our time is
25 limited, I believe that I have about ten minutes left. I would now like
1 to go back to the conclusions of your analysis. You outlined your
2 conclusion already, but could you please give us a very specific answer
3 to the question that is mentioned in your conclusion. What caused the
4 bridge to collapse in light of everything that we saw, was it a tank
5 shell? Was it an explosion? A charge that was set inside the bridge?
6 Or was there a third reason? Could you please give us your conclusion
7 very specifically.
8 A. I'm now speaking on behalf of three members of the team, and we
9 agreed that I would state here that it is highly probable that the bridge
10 was destroyed by an explosive charge. It is highly probable that it was
11 destroyed by an explosive charge and not by a tank shell based on the
12 recordings we viewed.
13 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm trying to keep
14 track of the time. I think I have some ten minutes left, but I would now
15 leave it up to you. Do you want to see the third video-clip, the
16 experiment, once again so that you could do the comparison? I think that
17 we've seen it enough times, but if you want you can ask for it to be
18 played again. I don't want to --
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's not necessary to view the
20 experiment recording because we could see the light caused by the
21 explosive charge, there's smoke, and then the water fountain, so there's
22 no need for that.
23 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I also want to draw
24 your attention to the fact that the parallel analysis of the video
25 recordings, the ORF2 and Mostar video, that they were compared
1 exhaustively in the analysis. So whoever wants to compare them even more
2 can do that.
3 Q. So now after we've heard your conclusion I have another question.
4 You were given a set of documents at the beginning of your testimony, so
5 could you please look at document 3D 03154, it's the last document in
6 this binder. Have you found it?
7 Professor, have you seen this letter?
8 A. Yes, I did. You showed it to me.
9 Q. Professor, you've read this letter?
10 A. Yes, I did.
11 Q. And you've also read the CV of the author of the letter; is that
13 A. Yes, I have.
14 Q. Professor, would you agree that Professor Hartmann, the author of
15 this letter, he wrote this letter to me on the 30th of August. Is he a
16 person who is qualified to speak about reasons for the destruction of
17 buildings and constructions?
18 A. As far as I can see -- or with regard to building destruction by
19 explosive, Professor Hartmann is certainly a highly qualified person.
20 However, with regard to destruction of objects with projectiles, of
21 course he is not a specialist.
22 Q. Very well. But is my understanding of your answer correct, you
23 are suggesting that he is particularly qualified to study consequences of
24 destruction, to judge any consequences or results of destruction?
25 A. I suppose so.
1 Q. Professor, did you at any point express a desire for a third
2 party who you believed was sufficiently qualified to look at your study
3 and perhaps offer up some criticism or advice, purely as a scientist?
4 Was that instinctively your idea?
5 A. Indeed, even more than that we asked anybody who would be able to
6 show us whatever that would be useful to better understand the issue
7 would be welcome. That's what we said.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Professor, Mr. Praljak --
9 MR. KOVACIC: [Previous translation continues]... Thank you.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] -- had given us this booklet
11 that he published on the destruction of the Old Mostar Bridge. And based
12 on the reconstruction frame by frame and based on the experiment that you
13 carried out, among scholars and scientists and experts in explosives or
14 others, when the result of your research was published did scholars
15 challenge the findings in other articles or was there no answer at all?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When it comes to our colleagues, I
17 think that they all basically agreed. There was more noise, as it were,
18 among politicians and journalists.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But no scientist ever
20 challenged your findings, did they?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] One of our colleagues, and he's an
22 old man, but he's -- still he's my student and he had a debate with me
23 trying to contradict and challenge me. We discussed it, but he didn't
24 manage to change my point of view. I can give you his name if you so
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There's no need. Now, this
2 water fountain or wall that we can see, does that respond to the cord
3 that was, say, 50 centimetres or 1 metre under water and why this cord?
4 Was it for the person activating the cord to be some distance away? Is
5 that why we have the cord?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We can see this water fountain
8 rising over a certain distance. Could it be caused by a shell falling
9 into the water and causing some splash, basically by sliding on the water
10 it would cause the water to splash and cause this water fountain? I'm
11 trying to thinks of all possibilities.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the beginning of my career I
13 often carried out firing sessions on the Adriatic coast. I had several
14 shells sliding, gliding, on the water. It was not the case here. It
15 doesn't look anything like it.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Judge Prandler first.
17 JUDGE PRANDLER: Thank you, Judge Trechsel.
18 Actually, Mr. Kovacic has already submitted a document here to
19 you and to us under 3D 03154, 3D 03154. And it -- that one was a letter
20 addressed to Mr. Bozidar Kovacic, and in that Professor Dietrich Hartmann
21 from the Ruhr Universitaet Bochum has written an opinion about the issue
22 and my question will be the following. According to the third paragraph
23 in that letter, Professor Hartmann, about him you said that you were sure
24 he was an expert and I quote the third paragraph: "According to the
25 material available to me, the actual reasons for the collapse of the
1 bridge are extremely uncertain. However, it is obvious to me that the
2 tank shelling caused enormous destructions to the Old Bridge in Mostar.
3 Insofar, for me it seems irrelevant whether a blasting has led to the
4 final collapse of the bridge or not."
5 And then in the very last sentence of his letter or opinion he
6 says, and I quote again: "A definite statement on the reasons that
7 caused the collapse at the end remains open."
8 Now, my question is that in view of his expert opinion, let us
9 say this, would you agree with his conclusions here which contained -- of
10 course not only in the third paragraph and in the very last sentence
11 which I -- which I quoted, but in his other parts of his own letter. So
12 I would like to ask you if you would kindly comment on his views about
13 the major causes of the collapse of the bridge.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My colleague Professor Hartmann
15 does not know about the effects of projectiles. All he says is that they
16 have caused major damage to the bridge, that's true. He also added that
17 as far as he was concerned it was irrelevant to know what destroyed the
18 bridge. We wanted to be more exact, more precise, and we concluded - I
19 repeat with a high degree of probability - that the bridge was destroyed
20 by an explosive. So it doesn't run counter to his opinion; it goes
21 together, as far as I can see.
22 JUDGE PRANDLER: Thank you very much for this view. If it goes
23 together, that is your opinion and his opinion, then it is then -- may --
24 may remain open, the question may remain open, what he explained here in
25 his very last sentence that is: "A definite statement on the reason that
1 caused the collapse at the end remains open," and, of course, you
2 formulated your own view, that that is a high probability that finally
3 the explosive charge was the reason. But I believe that you do not
4 refuse his - I mean Professor Hartmann's - proposal and submission that
5 the, and I quote again: " ... that the tank shelling caused enormous
6 destructions to the Old Bridge in Mostar." And then he continued to say
7 that it seemed to him irrelevant that a blasting has led to the final
8 collapse of the bridge or not.
9 So as far as I understood your conclusions, then you are both of
10 the same view.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With respect to the effects of
12 projectiles, the effects on the bridge, I can say that the shelling
13 damaged the bridge. Professor Hartmann I think, that's my opinion after
14 viewing the recordings, the damages were -- occurred on the constructions
15 added to the bridge, and those constructions were totally destroyed. The
16 bridge itself was damaged. I do not know which term to use. It is
17 better not to be too precise. I believe that Professor Hartmann is not
18 qualified to talk about the destruction of the bridge caused by
20 With respect to the destruction of the bridge by projectiles, we
21 both agree.
22 JUDGE PRANDLER: Thank you, Professor Jankovic, for your views
23 and your explanation. Thank you.
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Professor, I would like to ask
25 you what could seem like a strange question. Most probably you won't
1 have an answer to my question. I think it's necessary, however, to put
2 that question to be complete. It seems that behind the assumption in
3 question there is a theory that it was the Bosniaks which positioned a
4 detonator and an explosive charge there. Have you ever discussed the
5 matter? Was that matter ever raised during exchanges during your career?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm very happy that you asked me
7 that question. I can provide you with an answer, but this would not be a
8 scientific answer. I can tell you what I know as a former military man.
9 The Yugoslav tactic was such that all bridges were designed to be
10 destroyed. I know that as a former officer.
11 According to my opinion, it is highly probable that this
12 explosive was a remnant of what was positioned there by the
13 Yugoslav Army, but I refuse to say who activated the explosive. I refuse
14 to say that, and my colleagues also said on several occasions that they
15 can provide a technical point of view but they don't know who activated
16 the charge.
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Thank you. I think it is very
18 right of you to say that. I didn't expect any other answer from you.
19 The second part of your answer is interesting and it doesn't
20 surprise me, because in my country it was just the same, all the bridges
21 were designed to be destroyed if necessary. Does that include the
22 detonating cord or was it only the explosive charge in the bridge, do you
23 know that?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I do not know that, I'm not
25 certain about it.
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is a very important issue,
3 so we have to have an overview. Speaking of that detonating cord which
4 could have been positioned under water and which was activated, in
5 response to a question put by my fellow Judge you said that you'd rather
6 not provide an opinion as to who activated the ignition. But as an
7 expert, I will use the example of the bridge on the Kwai River, maybe you
8 know about it. In that particular case we know that the bridge was under
9 ABiH control. Was it possible for the HVO to send a diver with oxygen
10 bottles who would have positioned the explosive charge at night, the
11 detonating cord and the firing system, and then go back? Would it be
12 possible that later on through an electronic system with a radio device
13 could have activated the charge? Technically speaking, would that be
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Technically speaking, I think it is
16 possible, but that's all I will say on the subject. I do not think that
17 we had this technique at our disposal.
18 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Mr. Kovacic.
19 Witness, on page 46, line 3 and 4, you said that: "All bridges
20 were designed to be destroyed."
21 In French you said -- you used the word "prepared." So when the
22 bridge was built was everything put in place so that the bridge could be
23 easily destroyed? Is that what you meant? Or after the bridge was built
24 were explosive devices and cords positioned on the bridge, as it seems to
25 be the case? If it was done during the construction, is the
1 Old Bridge -- was the Old Bridge in such a situation? Because the bridge
2 was built long before the JNA.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to repeat once again
4 that I was in the technical services, I was mostly in charge of our
5 artillery. Officers working technical services were talking with one
6 another and we knew that bridges were prepared to be destroyed. What I
7 know is that preparation was such that we were expecting the enemy to
8 come from the west. So we were supposed to be activated from the east
9 side. That's what I know.
10 I also know that as far as recent constructions are concerned,
11 the army asked the builders to take into account the place where the
12 explosive would be positioned. As for the old bridges, I don't know.
13 How was it done, I do not know. That's all I know. The rest would be
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We know that in Mostar all the
16 bridges were destroyed, that the Old Bridge was not the only bridge in
17 Mostar. Unless I'm mistaken - and please correct me if I'm wrong - it
18 seems that bridges were destroyed during the conflict with the Serbs.
19 Therefore, certain bridges were destroyed by the Serbs. From a technical
20 point of view, is it possible that the Serbs had positioned explosive
21 charges on all the bridges so that nobody can see them, and for one
22 reason or another they didn't blow up those bridges. Maybe the explosive
23 charges remained as well as the detonating cords. Is it possible that
24 accidentally or voluntarily one device was activated, a device that would
25 have been positioned there not by the warring parties but by a third
1 party? Is that possible from a technical point of view?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This idea occurred to me as well.
3 All I can say is that it is possible from a technical point of view, but
4 I don't know.
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] I have a slightly different
6 question. I would like us to be as complete as possible. When a stone
7 construction is deconstructed by using an explosive device, it is
8 possible to find on the stones traces of explosives. Did anybody look at
9 it, according to your knowledge?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, nobody looked for it
11 from what I know.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Certain stones that fell into
13 the water are probably still there, or were all the stones taken out of
14 the river?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. The bridge was
16 reconstructed, I know that. I know that the stones were taken out of the
17 river, the bridge was not complete so more stones had to be added.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If there is a stone in the
19 water after an explosion took place, does the water wash away the traces
20 of explosives or can it stay there and is it possible that years later,
21 with all the technical means at our disposal, we can find traces of TNT,
22 syntax, or other explosive devices?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not think so. After an
24 explosion there is no more explosives; you have gas instead. Having
25 stayed in the water for a long period of time, I don't think you would
1 have found such traces. I did not look for them.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I think Mr. Praljak wanted to
3 intervene because this is a technical matter.
4 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] For the benefit of the
5 Chamber, because you asked him about reactions, I want to tell you how it
6 was for me.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, the Trial Chamber
8 reminds you that you cannot testify. Maybe your Defence counsel can
9 provide us with this information.
10 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I just wanted to tell the
11 Chamber that the book you spoke about, 10.000 copies were printed of this
12 book, I sent it to UNESCO and I sent it to everyone precisely in order to
13 cause this kind of reaction.
14 MR. KOVACIC: [Microphone not activated]
15 Q. [Interpretation] I'm done basically, but based on the Chamber's
16 questions I do have another question that I can't avoid asking. There
17 was a reference to the possibility that the JNA earlier on had, in a
18 manner of speaking, set the bridge up for destruction. What about the
19 fuse that was under the water? What would be its expected water life, in
20 a manner of speaking? Would it last a full seven days, 700 days perhaps,
21 seven years? Would that technically be feasible?
22 A. I cannot give you a precise answer, but the detonating cord can
23 remain in the water for a certain period of time. How long, I don't
24 know. Maybe my colleagues who are specialists in that field could
1 Q. Thank you very much. You can't tell us more than you know.
2 I've checked the transcript about all these questions, and can we
3 please have again the slow-motion recording of the Mostar, the Mostar TV
4 video-clip, and just tell us again, Professor, because I'm not entirely
5 certain it was faithfully reflected in the transcript. As for the
6 continuity of this recording, the Mostar recording, does it tally with
7 the continuity seen in the ORF footage and is it continuous in terms of
9 [Videotape played]
10 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. This is just the critical moment, as it were, just before the
12 destruction and the collapse itself. Does this tally with the ORF2
13 footage which we have so far been referring to as the principal footage?
14 A. I would even say that the Mostar footage is the most important
15 because it shows a continuity. There is the water gush, and right after,
16 the collapse of the bridge. I have viewed it several times, and it is
17 very important because there is continuity. The movements that we can
18 see are those of someone handling the camera. From one frame to the
19 next, the changing of the way objects are positioned tally with the
20 movements by a man. It doesn't come from two different cameras, not at
21 all. So in my view this is the most relevant document.
22 Q. Your Honours --
23 A. [Previous translation continues]... footage. If it were not for
24 that footage, I would not be here today because there is no continuity in
25 the first footage.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, Mr. Kovacic.
2 There might be a video-clip that I would like to see --
3 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] You took the words right out of my
4 mouth. I wanted to go back to your initial question. We identified the
5 exhibit, this is P 01040, 01040, for the transcript, that was witness
6 Delalic, showing the scenes that I believe you referred to, the
7 projectiles actually hitting the bridge. But I think this should be time
8 that was allowed for your questions because my time is over.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, could we view
10 video-clip P 10040 [as interpreted].
11 MS. WEST: Your Honour, if I may, just for the sake of time, the
12 Prosecution expects to play that videotape.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We might as well see it now.
14 [Videotape played]
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I believe that there is another
16 video, IC 574.
17 MR. KOVACIC: [Microphone not activated]
18 [Interpretation] Your Honours, we don't have it prepared. We
19 retrieved it, but perhaps we might make a small break for the registry to
20 do it. But I would like to draw your attention to the first part of this
21 recording where you can see the impacts of the shells. It's clearly
22 marked as the 8th of November, for -- so it is irrelevant for the
23 purposes of our discussion today because it shows the situation on the
24 8th of November, and according to the indictment the bridge was destroyed
25 on the 9th. So that's why we have those recordings that show just a
1 couple of frames, just a few frames or just a few seconds before the
2 bridge actually collapsed. So we don't have this video with this IC
3 number prepared, but I'm sure that the registry should be able to
4 retrieve it given some time.
5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar has found it,
7 so we will view it now.
8 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, while we're looking
9 for it I didn't want to interrupt the proceedings, but my colleagues have
10 told me that there is an error in the transcript. I'm not quite sure
11 whether it is an error or not, I think it is. May I ask a follow-up
12 question to the witness. It's at page 45, line 14.
13 Q. So first of all, let me say after a brief explanation that I will
14 read at line 14, Professor Jankovic said, this is discussion with
15 Professor Hartmann, and there is a sentence, the concluding sentence,
16 where Professor Jankovic says as follows: [In English] "With respect to
17 the destruction of the bridge by projectiles, we both agree."
18 [Interpretation] The question was asked by Judge Prandler about
19 this letter and this view, and then the witness replied with respect to
20 the effects of projectiles, the effects on the bridge.
21 [In English] "I can say that the shelling damaged the bridge.
22 Professor Hartmann, I think, that is my opinion after viewing the
23 recordings, the damages were -- the damages occurred on the constructions
24 added to the bridge and those constructions were totally destroyed. The
25 bridge itself was damaged. I do not know which term to use. It is
1 better not to be too precise. I believe that Professor Hartmann is not
2 qualified to talk about the destruction on the bridge caused by
4 [Interpretation] And the transcript is accurate. And then we
5 come to the sentence that I read at the beginning.
6 [In English] "With respect to destruction of the bridge by
7 projectiles, we both agree."
8 So the question is, Professor Jankovic, whether "we both agree"
9 refers to Judge Prandler and yourself or to you and Hartmann or should it
10 not read explosives rather than projectiles or does this wording "both
11 agree," does it include what Judge Prandler said or something else? So
12 could you please explain this. The introductory part is quite clear and
13 it is obvious that the final sentence follows from that.
14 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Could perhaps the registry print
15 out page 45 for the benefit of the witness so that he can look at it.
16 Well, obviously it doesn't work.
17 Q. So could you please say what you said.
18 A. I may repeat it. As far as I'm concerned with respect to the
19 destruction of buildings by explosives, Professor Hartmann is undeniably
20 extremely qualified and in that respect, our views tally, we think the
21 same. But what I'm saying is that Professor Hartmann knows nothing about
22 projectiles, the impact of projectiles, he's not qualified to talk about
23 the destruction of the bridge by projectiles. He's perfectly able to
24 watch the footage, to view the footage, and to make comments about it.
25 Of course.
1 MR. KOVACIC: [Microphone not activated]
2 [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I think that now it is
3 quite clear.
4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. The registrar was not in
6 a position to play IC 574, the Defence cannot do it either, but the
7 Prosecutor can play it.
8 [Videotape played]
9 MR. KOVACIC: [Microphone not activated]
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That's precisely the footage I
11 wanted to view.
12 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have to rewind
13 because the screen was not on.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, we have to rewind and to
15 start from the beginning.
16 Professor, please watch this footage very closely. The quality
17 is much better than what we've seen so far.
18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Let's remind you that the date
19 of this footage is the 8th of November and not the 9th of November.
20 [Videotape played]
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Professor, you viewed this
22 footage. We seem to have footage from the 8th and from the 9th. On the
23 8th, we see shells hitting the bridge and damaging the bridge, parts of
24 the bridge collapse into the water, and at the end of the footage we see
25 the collapse of the bridge. This is a video of a far better quality than
1 what we saw before. Does that change your conclusions in any way?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I believe that the second part
3 of the footage is exactly the same as what we saw before, and the
4 beginning of the footage shows the damage caused by a shelling on the
5 bridge. And we see that the constructions that were on top of the bridge
6 have been completely destroyed. You see tiny houses that had been built
7 on the bridge, and at some point you see very clearly how these small
8 houses disappear. You see part of these small houses falling into the
9 water. Maybe that was the aim of the shelling, to destroy these
10 constructions, but it's obvious when watching the footage, serious damage
11 is being caused on the bridge.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If we talk about the footage
13 from the 8th of November, we get the impression that we see tracing
14 bullets, at least we see a red light on the footage. What is it
15 according to you?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that you're right, these
17 are tracing bullets or tracer bullets. I think that we see the
18 projectile in the footage. You can't film that sort of scene without
19 seeing the projectiles, there's no doubt about it, and here we see these
20 tracer bullets. It's something I was not aware of, actually, but --
21 because if you don't have tracer bullets it's more difficult to make out
22 the projectiles on a footage.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You've laid out your theory
24 before us. You've viewed that footage frame by frame. You've looked at
25 the 25 frames preceding the collapse of the bridge, and during this
1 period of time you did not see any shell hitting the bridge. If you had
2 used that technique for the footage of the 8th of November where we see
3 that shells are hitting part of the bridge, then on each frame we would
4 have seen the projectiles, wouldn't we?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, we would have. Yes,
7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] One brief technical question.
8 Professor, had you seen this last video-clip before?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that we had seen it, but
10 we concluded that this footage did not provide any specific information.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, I don't think you
12 have much time left.
13 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just a very brief
14 question. You raised a very interesting issue and the answer we received
15 was quite interesting, so I think we should follow up on this.
16 Q. Professor, when His Honour Judge Antonetti asked you a question
17 you described in some detail the damage to the superstructure of the
18 bridge, and you say that at one point you can see the little piece, a
19 little piece of the little houses built on the bridge falls into the
20 water. Let me ask you this: As a citizen of the former Yugoslavia, not
21 as a soldier, not as an expert, but did you see this bridge at one point?
22 A. Yes, I had.
23 Q. Professor -- well, and I have to testify now because I myself saw
24 this bridge, this is a notorious fact. But at any rate, there was no
25 superstructure on this bridge?
1 A. Absolutely. I walked over that bridge several times because
2 that's -- that's the bridge on the way to the sea and we would stop in
3 Mostar just to walk on the bridge and there was nothing at the time on
4 the bridge.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, these little houses on
6 the bridge, what are they?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not know. I had never seen
8 them before.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me ask you an incidental
10 question. You were an officer in the JNA, you left the JNA with the rank
11 of lieutenant-colonel, you were trained as an officer. And as part of
12 that training, were you taught the difference between buildings or
13 constructions such as bridges that you can attack if they are military
14 constructions or were you -- and were you taught about buildings or
15 constructions that cannot be attacked because they are not military
16 objectives? Is this part of a training of any military officer, and
17 talking about tank crews, I believe that the one leading the tank
18 crew - you can confirm that for us, talking about the JNA -- although
19 here we are not talking about the JNA, but in the JNA, wasn't an officer
20 always required to lead the crew, the crew of the tank?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, I received my
22 training as a soldier in Brussels at the Polytechnic school and the
23 technical school in Brussels, so I was trained as a soldier in Belgium.
24 And based on that training I can tell you that at that time in Belgium
25 there was always an officer, an engineer, just as me, who would command
1 the tank. There was an officer, engineer, highly trained officer.
2 Unfortunately, I know that in the army of the former JNA it was not the
3 case. It's a subject, it's a topic, that I discussed time and time
4 again. Training technically speaking was not sufficient, and I'm not
5 even talking about solely technical training, but military training was
6 not sufficient when it came to tank commanders in the former JNA. I'm
7 aware of that. We had countless discussions about this at the time when
8 I was still an officer. That's one thing.
9 Secondly, my career was more of a technical career than of a
10 military career, so it -- I would find it difficult to tell you exactly
11 how you select a target. But when you have enemies in a given
12 construction, when you have military enemies in a given construction,
13 that construction becomes a target. But, yes, believe me, I'm a
14 technician. I'm not a high-ranking officer.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Mr. Kovacic, I'm being told by the registrar that you've used up
17 your time, but if you have one last question of course you may put it to
18 the witness.
19 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I just wanted to
20 formally conclude my examination.
21 Q. Professor, thank you for coming here, thank you for testifying.
22 As you know, after the break, I assume you will be cross-examined by the
23 Prosecution. Thank you very much.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
25 Let me now turn to the other Defence counsel.
1 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, 6D does not have
2 any questions.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. 6D, no questions.
5 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] We don't have any
6 questions, Your Honour. Thank you.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] 4D.
8 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we don't have any
9 questions for this witness.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] 3D we know already.
12 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, no questions.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
14 And 1D?
15 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] Dr. Prlic's Defence has no
16 questions for this witness. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
18 The best is probably to have a break before the
19 cross-examination. It's half past 5.00. We'll have a 20-minute break.
20 --- Recess taken at 5.26 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 5.50 p.m.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The hearing's
23 resumed for the cross-examination.
24 You may proceed, Madam Prosecutor.
25 MS. WEST: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
2 Cross-examination by Ms. West:
3 Q. Good afternoon, Professor. My name is Kim West, and I am an
4 attorney for the Office of the Prosecutor and I'm going to ask you some
5 follow-up questions regarding your direct testimony. And in order to
6 ensure that we're all on the same page I want to start with your written
7 opinion in Exhibit 390328 [sic], and that's the opinion that you issued
8 for this case. The English version is page 14 and the B/C/S is page 12.
9 A. I don't have the official documents before me. I have my own
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but the Prosecutor has a
12 file and you'll be able to look them up.
13 MS. WEST:
14 Q. Just to be clear, the Prosecution's binder also contains the
15 defendant's -- the accused's exhibits so this will go faster.
16 So I'll direct your attention to page 14 of your report.
17 A. [In English] Croatian? Page Croatian?
18 Q. Page 14 of the English, page 12 of the Croatian.
19 Is that the page entitled "opinion"?
20 A. [Interpretation] Indeed.
21 Q. So I'll direct your attention to -- under "Opinion," it's
22 part (a) and you wrote: "There is a high probability that the Old Bridge
23 has not been destroyed by attacks of gun tanks, but by a detonation of
24 the explosive charge (or mine-explosive means) which have been placed in
25 the bottom part of the bridge arch. The activation of the charge itself
1 has been done through a detonating cord which has been activated from the
2 close vicinity of the Old Bridge. This happened most probably from the
3 left, respectively, the east bank of the Neretva River."
4 Do you see that part of your opinion?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. And indeed, that is the conclusion that you and your colleagues
7 came to; correct?
8 A. Exactly.
9 Q. In regard to the term that you used, you said "there is a high
10 probability," on direct examination you explained that you and your
11 colleagues discussed it and you came to the conclusion that that would be
12 the term and those would be the words that you used. Why is it that you
13 didn't use stronger language? Why didn't you use the words "high
15 A. When we analysed the technical events, as a rule we have to be
16 very cautious. It could happen, and it happened to me, that you have an
17 explanation for a technical event, an explanation that is absolutely fair
18 and compatible, and I repeat, is absolutely compatible, with the effects
19 that we can observe but it is not to be ruled out that there would be
20 another explanation which is equally compatible --
21 Q. So if you --
22 A. -- so you have to be cautious.
23 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us then what factors -- can you tell us
24 which factors of the videos that you watched made you not use stronger
1 MR. KHAN: Well, Your Honour, I think that there's an area of
2 uncertainty, at least to my mind, from my learned friend's questions. Is
3 it the Prosecution's contention that high likelihood signifies a higher
4 gradation of probability than high probability which is the witness's
5 evidence. If a scale is being put forward, perhaps that can be
6 articulated by my learned friend and put to the witness whether or not he
7 agrees with that gradation from high probability to low probability,
8 otherwise we're mixing oranges and apples it seems.
9 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, could I supplement that by saying that
10 my reaction was very much the same as Mr. Khan's. I didn't see the
11 difference in English, but more importantly because I checked with my
12 colleague Mr. Lazic and Ms. Alaburic and they tell me that the
13 translation into the witness's language produces the same meaning for
14 either phrase. So clearly we English speakers only are puzzled, but
15 what's very important is that the witness understands. If there is some
16 gradation that means anything to him, then we've got a basis for the
17 question; otherwise, we simply don't have any basis for this line of
18 questioning at all.
19 MS. WEST: Indeed, Your Honours --
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: If I may just complement, I've just looked it up
21 in the dictionary. In German it's the same, the translation is the same
22 for both terms.
23 MS. WEST: Your Honour, if I look at the witness's testimony,
24 from line - we're about to lose it - it's line 9 through 14. There may
25 have been confusion among people in the courtroom, but he was not
1 confused because he concluded that probability was less than likelihood
2 if you read his answer in context, but I'll go ahead and ask the question
4 Q. Professor, do you understand when I say high likelihood to be
5 stronger language than high probability?
6 A. Well, let's speak in mathematical terms then. The three of us
7 did not mention that, but I personally, I would say that this probability
8 for this explanation is over 80 per cent, 0.8, that's what I would say.
9 Q. And what did the other two [indiscernible]?
10 A. Well, they're not here to give their opinions.
11 Q. Well, let me ask you this question --
12 A. However, I believe that we shared the same opinion, we agreed.
13 There was no problem, there was no difference, no difference in opinion
14 among ourselves.
15 Q. Professor, if you move on to 3(b) of your opinion, there you note
16 what you reviewed in order to come to that opinion and I'm going to read
17 that. It says: "A detailed study of the recordings of the TV ORF2 and
18 TV Mostar, which have recorded the aforementioned events immediately
19 before and during the destruction of the Old Bridge itself, point to this
20 conclusion ..."
21 Do you see that language?
22 A. That's the item (b), isn't it?
23 Q. That's correct.
24 A. [In English] Okay.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Professor, expert
1 witness, I understood that when you say that it is highly probable you
2 referred to mathematics, and that's the reason why you used this word
3 which is not by chance because if you used it there must be a reason for
4 using it. In other words, there must be a slight doubt prevailing in
5 your opinion, otherwise you would have said it is certain that the
6 Old Bridge was not destroyed by gun or tank guns or it is nearly certain
7 that it was not destroyed by the tank gun. If you say that it is highly
8 probable, that means that you do not rule out another reason or cause
9 other than the tank shell.
10 So what would have destroyed the Old Bridge is the explosive
11 charge, as you indicated, but then why don't you write, We are 100 per
12 cent sure that the explosive charge is the cause on account of the three
13 factors, the light, the smoke, and the water fountain, which establish in
14 a scientific manner that the Old Bridge was destroyed by this explosive
15 charge. Why do you not reach 100 per cent conclusion, since you said 80
16 per cent?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I'm going to tell you why.
18 We said this in this very text. We believe 100 per cent that it is this
19 water fountain that is caused by the explosion of the detonating cord,
20 but we also saw that this transcript -- the recording was actually cut
21 into two bits. If you did not have had the other bit that showed that it
22 really happened that way, we would have said there was a water fountain
23 but we do not know why the bridge fell. But thanks to the other footage
24 we can see this continuity and we can reach our conclusion, but all this
25 drives us to be cautious and this is absolutely normal in our practice.
1 We call that reverse engineering. We must be cautious at all times. I
2 can tell you -- I told you that we could find an explanation that fully
3 tallied with the phenomenon, but we could also find another explanation
4 that is also in agreement with the phenomenon. Therefore, prudence is
5 the word. This is the reason why we choose this terminology.
6 And we add that we are based on the recordings. We did not see
7 it with our own eyes, we did not carry out on-site research. There are a
8 lot of things that we haven't done.
9 MS. WEST: [Microphone not activated]
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
11 MS. WEST: Thank you.
12 Q. -- the videos upon which you based your opinion, there were two
13 videos. Is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The TV ORF2 video and the TV Mostar video?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Professor, is it your testimony that they are, in fact, different
18 recordings from different angles but of the same event?
19 A. Well, I've been thinking about this. Are we talking about the
20 same event filmed by the Mostar cameras and the ORF2 cameras? I don't
22 Q. So when you look at the Mostar camera and you see a water splash
23 before the bridge collapsed, my question: Is that the same water pillar
24 or water wall that you see in the TV ORF video?
25 A. This is precisely what I said earlier on. I don't know that.
1 Q. Well, let me direct you back to your opinion, and if you go to
2 the English version and go to page 5, and that's also page 5 of the
3 B/C/S. Right in the middle your -- this is the description of the TV ORF
4 video, but the last sentence of that paragraph you write: "These
5 happenings are even better visible on video recordings of TV Mostar as
6 shown in picture 4."
7 Professor, doesn't that suggest that at the time you wrote this
8 opinion you believed them to be the same event just different vantage
10 A. I do believe it is the same event, but believe and certify,
11 that's two different things.
12 Q. You've testified on direct at page 24, it was line 1, when you
13 were speaking about the two videos. You commented that you saw the
14 explosion and the water pillar in the two recordings, and you cited them
15 as TV ORF and TV Mostar, although I understand that your belief or
16 certification, those are different words. But my question is: For the
17 basis of your opinion, did you rely on them to be the same event?
18 A. Yes, we thought it was the same event and we still believe it.
19 Q. Just to be clear, you were provided these videos by the accused;
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And did Mr. Praljak also tell you they were of the same event or
23 did you come to that conclusion on your own?
24 A. I can't remember that he gave me any such instruction. I think
25 that this is a conclusion we drew ourselves, on our own.
1 Q. I'm going to ask you some questions in regard to timing, and I'm
2 going to go back to your opinion. It's page 14 of the English, page 12
3 of the B/C/S, again we're going to the area under the heading of
4 "Opinion." And in part (b), in talking about the TV ORF and TV Mostar
5 you wrote: "These two videos have recorded the aforementioned events
6 immediately before and during the destruction of the Old Bridge itself,"
7 and that they "point to this conclusion." Do you see that part?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. And so a key to -- one of the key points to your opinion was that
10 the bridge came down into the water, collapsed, after you saw the water
11 pillar and the explosion; is that right?
12 A. I said that we had the light spot that we saw on the ORF video,
13 but we could not see it on the TV Mostar video because it is overexposed
14 so you can't see any light spot. After the light spot, we saw the water
15 gush or pillar and the black smoke; that was on both videos.
16 Q. And so again my question just so we're clear, that one of the key
17 points to your opinion was that the bridge came down into the water,
18 collapsed; after you saw the water pillar, then the explosion and the
19 light part that you just point out, the key is that it then collapsed
20 into the water. Correct?
21 A. Well, you are now using the word "explosion." We saw the light
22 spot. We saw the black smoke and we saw the water pillar, and thereafter
23 the bridge collapsed. These events can be seen continuously in the
24 TV Mostar footage; and I repeat it, this is the reason why that footage
25 is the more important.
1 Q. Okay. So please go to page 3 of your opinion, in English and in
2 B/C/S. In the top paragraph, sentence in the middle it says: "We have
3 taken out two sequences from the received video documentation which show
4 that the destruction of the bridge and the happenings which immediately
5 preceded the destruction of the bridge."
6 I used the term "immediately preceded." Again, does that show
7 that a part, a key part, of your opinion had to do with timing?
8 A. Absolutely.
9 Q. Thank you. And if you go to the bottom of that page, the last
10 paragraph per sentence: "However, the recordings on picture two of
11 TV ORF 2, which immediately precede the destruction of the Old Bridge
12 itself, indicate another possible conclusion ..."
13 Go ahead.
14 A. Which was the page?
15 Q. Oh, I'm sorry, the same page. It's page -- yeah, page 3 in the
17 A. [In English] Okay.
18 Q. And at the very bottom -- you see that small paragraph at the
19 very bottom that begins with: "However ..."
20 In that sentence it says, "... the recordings on picture 2 from
21 TV ORF 2, which immediately precede the destruction of the
22 Old Bridge ..."
23 Again my question to you is: That's another indication that
24 timing was important to you, right?
25 A. [Interpretation] Absolutely, that's right.
1 Q. I'm going to now direct your attention to Exhibit P 10511. That
2 is an interview to a magazine, it's both English and B/C/S. Do you
3 remember being interviewed in February 2006 by the "Nacional" magazine
4 regarding your analysis?
5 A. Well, they called me but I did not discuss with them. I turned
6 down the offer of discussion with them. There was just a few sentences
7 exchanged, some questions that were not very polite I would say, and then
8 I just interrupted the conversation.
9 Q. So your answer is yes, you remember this?
10 A. Yes, I remember and I know that they called me, but it was not an
11 interview, not at all.
12 Q. If you could turn to page 3 of the English version and page 4 of
13 the B/C/S.
14 A. Just give me the English version.
15 Q. Okay. Page 3. Just to confirm, are you in Exhibit 10511? Is
16 that the exhibit before you? Thank you.
17 So I'll direct your attention to page 3 of the English. Do you
18 see that? If you go to the bottom of the page, the last complete
19 paragraph you see that you were asked why so many years later someone
20 finally came to the conclusion that you came to. And this was your
21 response: "'This can be explained in only one way - that no one has,
22 until now, carefully inspected the existing TV footage at the moment of
23 the destruction of the Stari Most and immediately before its collapse.
24 When you carefully examine the recorded material, it can be clearly seen
25 that before the bridge collapsed, there was a water column that elevated
1 along the length of the eastern bank, south of the bridge, and then you
2 see black smoke at the foundation of the bridge. And it can immediately
3 be explained that we are dealing with dynamite and an explosion at the
4 foundation of the bridge on the eastern shore. I think that you do not
5 require great expertise for this explanation.'"
6 Do you remember saying that to them?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. And again, you focused here on the timing. You talked in the
9 second sentence about what happened immediately before the collapse. Do
10 you remember that?
11 A. Maybe.
12 Q. Professor, had the water pillar and explosion and the smoke and
13 the light spot you spoke of, had those things happened the day before the
14 collapse, so this would be 8th November, then there would not have been a
15 high probability that those events caused the collapse on November 9th;
16 is that right?
17 A. That's logical.
18 Q. Thank you. And it was the close timing or the immediate
19 proximity -- go ahead, you can answer.
20 A. Sorry. You asked me whether there was a water pillar, whether
21 there was a water pillar the day before. That would have meant that the
22 bridge would not have been destroyed by an explosion. That was your
23 question, wasn't it?
24 Q. No, it wasn't. Let me ask you --
25 A. Would you mind repeating your question?
1 Q. I will. Had the water pillar and the explosion and the smoke and
2 the light spot that you spoke about, had those things happened the day
3 before the collapse, so this would now be November 8th, would there then
4 also be a high probability that those events that you spoke on -- of,
5 they happened the day before, would have then caused the collapse the
6 following day?
7 A. Had these events occurred one day before, they could not have
8 destroyed the bridge the next day, that would be -- that's logical.
9 However, however, the same events could have happened in the following
10 day, it could be. I mean, that's the reason why I speak of a high degree
11 of probability. I remain cautious as to the possibility of another
12 explanation, but if there was a water wall one day and a collapse of the
13 bridge the next day, there could have been a water wall the next day too.
14 Q. Sir, are you suggesting that it's possible that there was a water
15 wall, water pillar, whatever you want to call it, that happened more than
17 A. Absolutely, because I can see that in the two videos and I'm not
18 certain that the two films show one and the same event.
19 Q. Well, that is your testimony now but that was not your testimony
20 on direct; is that correct?
21 A. Well, I wasn't asked that question.
22 Q. Well, when you were asked to write this opinion, that's not what
23 your belief was, was it?
24 A. What do you want me to answer? If you ask me a question, I try
25 to answer it; that's all I can say. When we wrote our expert report we
1 did not envisage such a possibility, such a hypothesis.
2 Q. And now today as you testify, are you envisioning a different
3 possibility, that being that these two videos are actually separate
5 A. Because of that, we could find similar reasons. That's why we
6 spoke of high probability and not of a -- sort of a quasi certainty, as
7 His Honour just asked.
8 Q. So is the answer to that question yes?
9 A. Well, I said what I said.
10 Q. Let's look at the videos, Professor. The TV Mostar video is
11 quite short, it's about 16 seconds long; and the TV ORF is a little bit
12 over a minute.
13 [Microphone not activated]
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
15 MS. WEST: Thank you.
16 Q. Do you have that video in front of you on the screen? Do you
17 recognise that to be the TV ORF video?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You will agree with me it's brownish in colour, there's writing
20 on the bottom, and it appears to be taken from the west bank of the
22 A. I agree with you.
23 Q. And the vantage point is slightly to the south, you can see the
24 east bank, and on the left portion of the screen you can see trees on the
25 west bank. Do you agree with that?
1 A. No, I don't agree with you. You can see part of the west bank,
2 of the west bank, and it's more to the south -- oh, I have a map. It's
3 about the same position as for the tank, same direction as the tank's
4 direction and position.
5 Q. Okay, Professor, we're going to run it the whole way through and
6 then I'm going to ask you some questions.
7 [Videotape played]
8 MS. WEST:
9 Q. Now, sir, is this one of the videos upon which you based your
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Let's go through it piecemeal. The very beginning, we're looking
13 at the screen right now and it says November 8th on the bottom left-hand
14 corner. You'll agree with me that's footage actually from the day
15 before; correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So we'll just go forward to the following day. You agree with me
18 that this is November 9th?
19 A. I don't know. It can't be seen.
20 Q. We'll start it again, you can watch it.
21 [Videotape played]
22 MS. WEST:
23 Q. So are those the events upon which you based your opinion?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So let's look at it a little bit more closely. Right there on
1 the right-hand side of the screen, and for the record it's 1.5 on the
2 counter, there was a splash in the water. What was the importance of
3 that splash to you?
4 A. Would you mind explaining again. I fail to understand you.
5 Q. This area on the right hand of the screen, that looks to be
6 water; correct?
7 A. Yes, this is the water gush or wall we spoke about.
8 Q. Okay. And it does appear from this angle to be a straight line;
9 is that right?
10 A. I'm not certain.
11 Q. Professor, would you agree with me that seeing this video, I
12 suggest it to you that perhaps a detonating cord was under water and that
13 detonating cord caused the explosion?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And would you agree that this, what we see on the screen,
16 resembles what you later tried to replicate in your experiment?
17 A. Yes, that's right.
18 Q. So I'm just going to change to the experiment video, and this is
19 a 3D video.
20 [Videotape played]
21 MS. WEST:
22 Q. Is this the experiment that you testified in direct testimony
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And let's go back to the TV ORF video.
1 [Videotape played]
2 MS. WEST:
3 Q. Okay. So we just saw the water pillar. I'm going to play this
4 again and I'm going to ask you to focus on the period of time right after
5 the water pillar and look at the area under the bridge and tell me if you
6 notice anything. Did you notice anything falling from the bridge?
7 Professor, shall I play it again for you?
8 A. So we have it in slow motion, why don't we see it in slow motion?
9 Q. I'll do that.
10 [Videotape played]
11 MS. WEST:
12 Q. So that was the fast motion and it's about to start in the slow
13 motion, we're at 8.2. Here's the slow motion starting now. Now, there's
14 the water pillar and I'm asking you to focus on anything falling from the
15 bridge. And I'm going to stop right there, which is 29.9. Do you see
16 something falling? What is your answer?
17 A. Yes, I do. I can see something falling, indeed.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. I don't know what it is.
20 Q. I'm going to continue to play it and I'm going to ask you to tell
21 me if you can see it splashing in the water. Did you see that splash?
22 A. Yes, I've seen it.
23 Q. Okay. So if we start it again, did you just see the water pillar
24 at 2.2?
25 A. Yes, I did.
1 Q. And we continue.
2 [Videotape played]
3 MS. WEST:
4 Q. And did you just see the splash a little earlier than 3.9?
5 A. No, I can see now the bridge collapsing.
6 Q. I will start over again, it's very short. Do you see the water
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. Do you see the splash?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. Now, what -- in order to establish a reference point, do you
12 agree that the fall, whatever item that is, from the bridge and the
13 splash come in the moments before we see the collapse? Do you agree that
14 to be the case?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. And for the record, the splash is at 3.3. I'm going to continue
17 to play this so we can see the collapse.
18 [Videotape played]
19 MS. WEST:
20 Q. Do you agree with me that the collapse comes immediately after
21 the splash?
22 A. Yes, indeed, but it also occurred after the water gush. Those
23 two events occurred simultaneously.
24 Q. Okay. Well, we'll go back to that, but I want to go back to the
25 period of time where the bridge is falling into the water and ask that
1 you focus on that. Now, in direct testimony you spoke about there
2 potentially being two cameras. Do you remember that testimony?
3 A. That's possible.
4 Q. And you testified that there was no continuity in this video;
6 A. That's right.
7 Q. And you would agree with me that there appears right before where
8 it's stopped right now, at 4.4, there appears to be a cut or a splice or
9 some sort of skip in the tape; is that right?
10 A. There is a discontinuity with the segment when the bridge
11 collapses, that's where discontinuity is visible on the video recording.
12 Q. That's exactly right. And I'm just going to continue to play
13 this and you can look at the slow motion and we'll ask you another
15 [Videotape played]
16 MS. WEST:
17 Q. And right there at 34.2, we see the splash in the water. Do you
18 see that?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. And what follows is the collapse; is that correct?
21 A. Indeed.
22 Q. And at 41.1, the bridge appears almost -- almost all to be in the
23 water; would you agree with me?
24 A. Yes, I believe so. However, it is difficult to say because
25 there's a lot of water. We can't see exactly what there is.
1 Q. Professor, the period of time that you term as a discontinuity or
2 the film is discontinuous, would you agree that at that moment there were
3 events that we're not seeing on this film?
4 A. I don't know. That is the reason why I always used the other
6 Q. Okay. But you testified on direct at page 31, line 12, that the
7 most important frame is the frame that preceded the collapse. Is it now
8 your testimony that that only means the TV Mostar video and not this
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. Thank you. In the upper left-hand corner it says HRT; correct?
12 A. Just a moment, please, so that we can be complete.
13 Q. Go ahead.
14 A. I stated that we need to view the frame preceding the collapse of
15 the bridge. It is certain that there is continuity, we can see it on the
16 second footage, but here there is discontinuity. I don't know what kind
17 of discontinuity, I don't know what the reason for it is. However, in
18 the second footage -- or rather, in the first footage, I can't see any
19 projectile before the collapse of the bridge. There is none, not in the
20 first footage nor in the second one. As for the second one, I can
21 guarantee that there is continuity; as for the first one, there is
22 discontinuity. The image is not continuous, but maybe there is time
23 continuity. I don't know.
24 Q. Well, that being said, then you would agree with me that you
25 cannot on this video, on the TV ORF video, see the frame that immediately
1 preceded the collapse?
2 A. I repeat --
3 Q. Can you answer that question yes or no, sir.
4 A. I cannot answer your question with a simple yes or no.
5 Q. Okay. Then let me ask you another question --
6 A. Can I give an explanation?
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. I repeat, there is discontinuity in the frames; however, this
9 does not necessarily mean that there is no time continuity. It is
10 possible that one footage was filmed and then the second was filmed from
11 another camera, there were two cameras therefore. Those two footages
12 could have been cut at the same moment, and maybe at the beginning of one
13 footage was pasted which mean that the other one would continue. The cut
14 happened at the same time. I believe that the interpretation is not
16 I can try and explain that in English, but my English is not
17 really good.
18 Q. Professor, we'll move on from here and we'll ask more questions
19 about that so you can explain it. But I want you to look back at this
20 TV ORF video and in the upper left-hand corner it says HRT, right?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. Is that a Croatian broadcast company or Croatian television
24 A. Yes, indeed, those are the initials of Croatian TV.
25 Q. And in the right-hand corner, upper right-hand corner, you see
1 ORF2. Do you see that?
2 A. That's right.
3 Q. Is that an Austrian company?
4 A. Those are the initials of Austrian TV.
5 Q. Professor, are you aware that this is a video recording of a
6 television set playing the HRT broadcast of a TV ORF news show?
7 A. I don't know, but I suppose so --
8 Q. So in other words -- sorry, go ahead.
9 A. I was under the impression that this was a broadcast by
10 Austrian TV which was recorded by another TV. I don't know. I'm not an
11 expert in those TV broadcasts.
12 Q. Who gave you that impression?
13 A. I believe it comes from Austrian TV.
14 Q. No, who gave you the impression, was it a person who put that in
15 your mind or is it a result of watching the video?
16 A. Upon watching the recordings, I can see that this is the frame of
17 a television set. I was under the impression that a camera filmed the
18 Austrian broadcast. That is my impression.
19 Q. Professor, you would agree that the quality of this video is
21 A. Indeed.
22 Q. And it's very difficult to discern anything really specific by
23 watching this clip; is that right?
24 A. Indeed, we had problems.
25 Q. Did you make any efforts to enhance the video for a better
2 A. We used our personal computers and we did a frame-by-frame
3 analysis. We could reduce or maximise the image. Thanks to our personal
4 computers we managed to enhance the quality.
5 Q. Are you or either of your two colleagues who wrote this report
6 video experts as well?
7 A. No, we're not, but we asked a fourth colleague to come and help
8 us out.
9 Q. And is that fourth colleague's name on your report?
10 A. No, because he was not qualified in that subject matter. He only
11 helped us with computer work.
12 Q. Just for the record, the TV ORF video, it's an IC number, and
13 it's 820. I'm now going to show you Exhibit P 01040. We've looked at
14 this during your direct testimony, and this was a video that was admitted
15 into evidence on July 4th, 2007, and it's footage of the bridge that
16 played on the television. Do you see that in front of you?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. And at the beginning we have November 8th again, this is the day
19 before; correct? Professor, let me back that up and I'll repeat my
20 question. The very beginning you're going to see some footage from the
21 8th of November. Do you see that?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. Okay. And now it turns to a vantage point that may look familiar
24 to you. Does this look familiar?
25 A. It does, but this image and the previous frame, there is a
1 discontinuity between the two.
2 Q. Are you suggesting that between the November 8th and this footage
3 there's discontinuity?
4 A. That's precisely what I'm saying.
5 Q. Yes, right. I will agree with you. Now, just tell me, this is
6 in colour. The video you watched, it was not in colour; correct?
7 A. That's right.
8 Q. And -- excuse me, I'll slow down. Does this vantage point look
9 familiar to you?
10 A. I would say it is the same, the same as the one from ORF2.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 A. I think so.
13 Q. I'm going to play this for two minutes and then I will ask you
14 some questions and I would just ask that you pay attention to it.
15 [Videotape played]
16 MS. WEST: I'm going to stop it there at 6.15.
17 Q. Sir, is today the first time that you have seen this video?
18 A. Yes, this is the first time that I see that.
19 Q. Thank you. We're going to go back to the beginning. Again, this
20 is November 8th, so it will just take a second to get to the following
21 day, and I'm going to continue until you see the water pillar.
22 [Videotape played]
23 MS. WEST:
24 Q. Now, is that the same water pillar you saw on the TV ORF video?
25 A. I can't say whether it's the same water pillar, I don't know, but
1 this is a similar water pillar. Here we can also see the dot of light.
2 I've seen it.
3 Q. Okay. So we're going to play it again. I'm going to ask you to
4 look at the water pillar and then look at the area under the bridge for
5 that item that falls.
6 [Videotape played]
7 MS. WEST:
8 Q. Okay. Did you see the splash?
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. Now, in the TV ORF video -- excuse me, I'm sorry. In the TV ORF
11 video, you'll agree with me that the collapse came soon after that
12 splash; is that correct?
13 A. It occurred afterwards, indeed, but a certain period of time
14 elapsed between the two events, I don't know precisely how long.
15 Q. Okay. I'm going to play this video for another minute, to 5.26,
16 and then ask you a question.
17 [Videotape played]
18 MS. WEST:
19 Q. Now, a full minute has elapsed, we are at 5.26, and you will
20 agree with me that the bridge has still not come down?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. Thank you. And this video is different at least in that respect
23 to the TV ORF video that you watched; correct?
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. And, Professor, if you had seen this video before you wrote your
1 opinion, would your opinion have been different?
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, please let the
3 witness answer the question. You will be given the floor afterwards, but
4 please allow the witness to finish his answer.
5 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honour,
6 Mr. President --
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, you will be given
8 the floor later. At this crucial moment, however, please let the witness
9 answer the question; afterwards, I will give the floor to you.
10 Witness, please answer the question without taking into account
11 what Mr. Praljak said.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At any rate, if I'd had this video,
13 I would have compared it carefully with the ORF video in order to see
14 whether the ORF video, as I said before, is continuous in time, if
15 there's a discontinuity in image, okay, but in time whether it was
16 continuous and I would have had an answer. But for the time being look
17 at all this, I can see the water gush, I can see the bridge which is
18 intact; but let's not forget that the Mostar, TV Mostar video shows the
19 water wall and continuously the fall.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now, General Praljak, what did
21 you want to say?
22 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I wanted to tell the
23 honourable Chamber, the witness, and the Prosecution this. If we look at
24 the image the way it is, we can't determine whether it was edited,
25 whether frames or shots were taken from and --
1 MS. WEST: Your Honour, I object.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, what you say is
3 obvious. It could be put together and set up. I've thought of this too,
4 but let Madam Prosecutor finish. You and your lawyer will be able to
5 have redirect. Nothing rules out that frames may have been added without
6 looking at the counter when you see 05.26.03.
7 Please continue, Madam Prosecutor.
8 MS. WEST: [Microphone not activated]
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
10 MS. WEST: Thank you.
11 Q. I'm going to continue to play the video to 5.40, and I would ask
12 that you focus your attention shortly before 5.40 at 5.38 and I'll ask
13 you a question.
14 [Videotape played]
15 MS. WEST:
16 Q. Sir, at 5.38 did you see what you've termed another discontinuity
17 in the film?
18 A. To carry out such an analysis I would need more time. I can't
19 just do that in a minute. I can only give you bad answers. I need some
20 peace and quiet, watch the video in order to answer such a question,
21 otherwise I can't do it.
22 Q. Okay. Well, I'm going to show it to you one more time just so
23 you can view it again and make one more attempt. I'm not going to
24 forward it but we'll just let it run until 5.38.
25 [Videotape played]
1 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, Your Honour, if I may.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What do you want to say,
3 Mr. Kovacic?
4 MR. KOVACIC: I object to this line of questioning. I object to
5 the Prosecution's attempt to solicit the expert opinion by sight without
6 having the possibility to go into the analysis frame by frame. And if
7 you allow me to continue in Croatian, sorry.
8 [Interpretation] The expert clearly explained, both during his
9 evidence and in the written analysis, that the analysis was carried out
10 frame by frame. That implied a certain set of conditions for them to be
11 able to study the images that closely. Now the OTP are introducing
12 another clip or recording. They want the witness's opinion on any
13 discontinuity that may or may not be there. They're trying to compare
14 this recording to the one that we showed the witness. They are leaving
15 the witness in a situation where he's unable to say anything but simply I
16 don't know. I would need to analyse more closely. On the other hand, in
17 their indictment the OTP claimed that the HVO tore down that bridge.
18 Given the burden of proof, they should have drawn up analysis themselves,
19 brought a witness, or anything. They should have had a frame-by-frame
20 analysis done outside the courtroom, because obviously it's impossible to
21 conduct this sort of exercise in this courtroom. It's not something that
22 he can do here.
23 We ourselves had a number of plans with some further analyses and
24 that sort of thing, but this just wasn't something that was doable in a
25 courtroom setting.
1 Thirdly, if only we had an opportunity here in this courtroom,
2 equipped as it is, to play both recordings side by side, the ORF2 and the
3 one that the Prosecutor has brought up, the images side by side, so we
4 laymen could see if they're identical or not. But even so, it would
5 still be necessary to have a technical frame-by-frame analysis for anyone
6 to be able to say whether there is any continuity; whether there is a
7 continuity of time; and thirdly, these two are identical or they are not
9 The Prosecutor now wants an analysis on sight in realtime and
10 this is simply inappropriate, because the only choice that the witness
11 has is to say: I don't know, I can't draw any conclusions. The witness
12 is unable to show his expertise under these conditions. He's facing an
13 impossible task. They would be much better off asking him, off the bat
14 like that, to say what 9 might be to the power of 227.000. I think they
15 would stand a much better chance of retrieving a reasonable answer.
16 Thank you.
17 MS. WEST: Your Honour, may I be heard?
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's 7.00, we have to stop now.
19 We shall continue tomorrow with the cross-examination. I believe you
20 have some time left.
21 Witness, you are under oath. I remind you that you're no longer
22 to have any contact with Mr. Kovacic because now you're a witness of the
23 Court. You shall return to this courtroom tomorrow at 2.15.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.00 p.m.,
1 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 1st day of
2 July, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.