Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 4874

 1                          Wednesday, 6 March 2002

 2                          [Open session]

 3                          [The accused entered court]

 4                          --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.

 5            JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 6            THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Case Number

 7    IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus Stanislav Galic.

 8            JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

 9            First of all, I hope, General Galic, that you were properly

10    informed about what happened yesterday, because I can imagine that if you

11    are in detention, that the information takes more time to get to you.  And

12    on the other hand, I also can understand that especially under these

13    circumstances, even -- especially if you would not know exactly what would

14    happen, that it's an even more unpleasant experience than it is for

15    everyone else in this building.

16            THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.  I was informed

17    sufficiently about what happened yesterday.  I have to tell you that the

18    information actually circulated very quickly in detention.  That's what

19    they say.  I don't know whether that's true.  This is my first

20    imprisonment, and thank you very much.  And I will follow.  Thank you.

21            JUDGE ORIE:  Then before we proceed to examine the witness, I'd

22    like to bring a few issues to the attention of the parties.  I notice,

23    Mr. Stamp, that Mr. Ierace is not there, but I assume that you can --

24    because these are not issues specific for the witness to be examined at

25    this moment.  First of all -- and I am addressing now especially the

Page 4875


 1    Prosecution -- there is some confusion as to some protective witnesses,

 2    and that is also the reason, Madam Registrar, why I would ask you to see

 3    whether it would be possible to be in private session just for two or

 4    three minutes.

 5                          [Private session]

 6   [redacted]

 7   [redacted]

 8   [redacted]

 9   [redacted]

10   [redacted]

11   [redacted]

12   [redacted]

13   [redacted]

14   [redacted]

15   [redacted]

16   [redacted]

17   [redacted]

18   [redacted]

19   [redacted]

20   [redacted]

21   [redacted]

22   [redacted]

23   [redacted]

24   [redacted]

25   [redacted]

Page 4876












12   Page 4876 redacted, private session.














Page 4877












12   Page 4877 redacted, private session.














Page 4878




 2   [redacted]

 3   [redacted]

 4   [redacted]

 5   [redacted]

 6   [redacted]

 7   [redacted]

 8   [redacted]

 9   [redacted]

10   [redacted]

11   [redacted]

12   [redacted]

13   [redacted]

14   [redacted]

15   [redacted]

16   [redacted]

17   [redacted]

18   [redacted]

19   [redacted]

20   [redacted]

21   [redacted]

22   [redacted]

23                            [Open session]

24                          JUDGE ORIE:  We are not in private

25            session any more.  We are in

Page 4879

 1    open session now.  I have not been attentive enough to immediately

 2    change to open session once we dealt with the protection of witnesses.  I

 3    raised that the Chamber would like to pay attention to a request of the

 4    Defence for Trial Chamber's order in relation to material evidence filed

 5    on the 5th of March, 2002.  And I immediately went to the requests made by

 6    the Defence.  It's clear to the Chamber now that as far as the tail-fin is

 7    concerned, the expert can inspect it as soon as the expert is in

 8    The Hague.  There still remains the problem of the shrapnel being

 9    available.  That relates, among other things, to paragraph 6 of the

10    motion, which reads:  "The attempts of a witness, Sead Besic, on hearing

11    out the 4th of March 2002 tried to explain that some pieces of mines and

12    grenades are lost or through is unacceptable."  Let's

13    try to put the question in objective terms.

14            Mr. Ierace, is the Prosecution at this moment, is shrapnel or any

15    other part of the projectile in the custody or under the control of the

16    Prosecution?

17            MR. IERACE:  No, Mr. President.

18            JUDGE ORIE:  That means, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that it might be

19    difficult at this very moment to give an order to the Prosecution to allow

20    your expert to inspect part of this projectile.

21            Mr. Ierace, is the Prosecution seeking to get control -- to get in

22    its custody or under its control any other elements of this projectile?

23            MR. IERACE:  We are, Mr. President, and have been for some time.

24    And if we are ultimately successful, then of course we will notify the

25    Defence.  But so far, we have been unable to obtain any pieces of shrapnel

Page 4880

 1    that relate to that incident.

 2            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Do you think that the -- does the Prosecution

 3    need the assistance of the Chamber by any order, or is it not a matter of

 4    unwillingness as far as you're concerned?

 5                          [Prosecution counsel confer]

 6            MR. IERACE:  Mr. President, there have been requests made of the

 7    relevant authorities, and our understanding is that those authorities are

 8    cooperative, have been cooperative.  The issue is simply whether those

 9    pieces can be located.  And at this stage, it appears they cannot by those

10    authorities.

11            JUDGE ORIE:  Would you inform the Chamber immediately once they

12    have been located, and when there's any fair expectation that they could

13    become in your custody or under your control.

14            MR. IERACE:  I will, Mr. President.

15            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Piletta-Zanin, would you like to respond

16    briefly on that or...

17            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.  Thank you

18    for raising this question, first of all.  I think that we can say that the

19    interventions were made by the Prosecution towards the authorities in

20    Sarajevo, that is, that one fragment, that is the tail-fin, the

21    stabiliser, was given, was delivered, was handed over.  Now, we have to

22    know when did the Prosecution also intervene for the other fragments, to

23    ask for the other pieces of shrapnel, and also, Mr. President, what was

24    the reply of the Bosnian authorities?  That is, the authorities in

25    Sarajevo.  This is a very important point because this is a very important

Page 4881

 1    proof and very important piece of evidence.

 2            JUDGE ORIE:  Did you ever ask the Prosecution when they applied

 3    for it and what the answer was?  Because -- yes.

 4            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, when I last --

 5    last time I asked about these elements, this was the session that we had

 6    with Mr. Ierace and Mr. Mundis, and Mr. Waespi as well as the case

 7    manager, and I said exactly which elements this concerned.  I did not have

 8    a clear answer at the time.  So we did not see these fragments.  We didn't

 9    know about these fragments, when we could see them.

10            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Piletta-Zanin, after we heard the answer, which

11    is more or less in line of what has been said by the Prosecution before,

12    that is, that these smaller pieces could not be located, that also was the

13    testimony of Mr. Besic as far as my recollection goes.  Now you tell us

14    that we should know exactly when the Prosecution asked for the other parts

15    and what the answer was.  My question to you was whether these specific

16    questions have been asked by you to the Prosecution.

17            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Which specific question?

18            JUDGE ORIE:  The two questions I just mentioned on which you'd

19    like to have an answer, that is, when the Prosecution asked for these

20    smaller parts of the projectile, and what answer was given by the

21    authorities.

22            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.  I will see in a

23    moment in the file whether we did ask these questions.  But so far,

24    Mr. President, we did not know that these items were not available, all of

25    them.  So I do not believe that the question was asked in this form to

Page 4882

 1    start with.  However, I will ask my colleague to see whether there is

 2    something in the file.  Thank you very much.

 3                          [Defence counsel confer]

 4            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, what I can say

 5    is the following:  Now, to give you an element in my answer, now this is

 6    very important, Mr. President, because if we have these photographs, these

 7    pieces of shrapnel, that means that we can legitimately believe that these

 8    photographs were in the file of the Prosecution.  That means the

 9    Prosecution has them.  Not every time that there is a photograph we are

10    going to ask whether the Prosecution has or does not have these pieces.

11    Now, if these pieces were photographed and they are part of the

12    Prosecution case, then we must assume that they exist and they are

13    somewhere -- that the Prosecution does have them, that we have the right

14    to examine them.  Thank you very much.

15            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Mr. Piletta-Zanin, apart from perhaps slowing

16    down a bit for the interpreters, I have to establish at this moment that

17    the Prosecution says we have not in our custody, nor under our control,

18    those pieces of which, it seems to us now, I was not aware of that there

19    are photographs taken of those pieces.  Just from a distance it looks very

20    much as one of the laboratory photographs made in Sarajevo, because they

21    are using the same type of measuring.  You say they should be in the hands

22    of the Prosecution.  The Prosecution says they are not.  So there we have

23    a problem.  It's a bit difficult perhaps at this moment to give an order

24    to give an opportunity to inspect the smaller parts when the Prosecution

25    says that they do not have it in their custody or under their control.

Page 4883

 1            Yes.

 2            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, just to

 3    give you an indication because I believe this is important, we have here a

 4    document which was given to us by the Prosecution, and the number is

 5    0026-8383, and the following, 0026-8383, that is what I just said, and the

 6    next one, which is a document containing various photographs as well as

 7    the stabiliser fin.  The stabiliser, and immediately afterwards in the

 8    order the various bits of shrapnel.  So when we are given all these

 9    elements dated 1994, we have absolutely no reason to believe that these

10    elements do not exist or they no longer exist.  We never asked the

11    Prosecution when they will want us to ask for these pieces from the

12    Sarajevo authorities.

13            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Piletta-Zanin, let me just try to understand you

14    correctly.  It is the point of the Defence at this moment that the

15    shrapnel pieces still do exist and are kept away from the Defence.  Is

16    that, in short, your point?

17            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] In this case, I do not know

18    whether they still exist.  This could be the case; it could have been the

19    case.

20            JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  That will then have to be sorted out by either

21    party in the way I do understand the Prosecution is seeking to have it

22    located in Sarajevo.  And of course, if the Prosecution says they are not

23    able to locate it in Sarajevo, it's up to the Defence to come up with

24    convincing arguments or even evidence that it can be located and it can be

25    produced.  Of course, this Chamber at this moment cannot say whether it

Page 4884

 1    exists or not.  If I order one of the parties to bring it into this

 2    courtroom, that would be an impossible exercise.

 3            Let's then for the tail-fin, it's clear; for the shrapnel, it's

 4    not clear yet, and I cannot clarify it at this moment.  And I urge the

 5    parties to do their utmost best to clarify where the shrapnel is.

 6            Then, we come to point B.  If I understand the Defence well, the

 7    Defence seeks that the directive and orders of the ABiH main staff towards

 8    its corpses as well as the order of the 1st Corps command toward Brigades

 9    in its composition will be disclosed to the Defence.  Is that what I

10    understand you said, to submit for the defence, but you want to have it --

11            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, that is it.

12            JUDGE ORIE:  Then we have the first question to Mr. Ierace.  Are

13    the directives and orders sought by the Defence, are they in the custody

14    or under the control of the Prosecution?

15            MR. IERACE:  Mr. President, the Prosecution does not claim to have

16    all of the orders that were issued by the ABiH in the relevant period.

17    This issue has been a subject of much correspondence between the parties

18    since February of last year when the Defence first made this request.  In

19    essence, the nature of that correspondence has been to reach some argument

20    as to what was relevant.  The initial request was far too broad.  At a

21    meeting with the Defence approximately six weeks ago, the Defence told us

22    that they had reason to believe that the Office of the Prosecutor

23    possessed orders which it had not yet handed over.  In support of that --

24            JUDGE ORIE:  May I just ask you a very clear question.

25            MR. IERACE:  I'm sorry.

Page 4885

 1            JUDGE ORIE:  Any of these documents mentioned by the Defence, is

 2    there any document that is either in the custody or control of the

 3    Prosecution that has not been disclosed?

 4            MR. IERACE:  Not that we are aware of at this stage, but we are

 5    doing a check and I anticipate we will have the results of that check by

 6    the end of this week.

 7            JUDGE ORIE:  So let's then wait and see what the Prosecution will

 8    find in this check.

 9            Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

10            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, very well,

11    Mr. President.  As soon as this check is positive, and I don't doubt, then

12    I hope we shall return to this question because these elements could

13    already give us some crucial elements in the case of this important

14    witness, and I know that the Prosecution does have in its hands some of

15    the elements.  Thank you.

16            JUDGE ORIE:  So you say that you know that there is something in

17    the hands of the Prosecution that the Prosecution at this moment is not

18    aware of, and you're certain that they will come up with a positive answer

19    by the end of this week?

20            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Not even the end of this

21    week.  I do not know that.  But I know it because we had a meeting with

22    Mr. Ierace and other learned friends, and we know that there is important

23    topographic material, I'm referring to the topographic material which

24    allows us to localise certain matters that of course the Prosecution check

25    whatever they like, but the Defence simply does not have that.  And this

Page 4886

 1    is a fact which I believe the Prosecution cannot deny, cannot challenge.

 2            JUDGE ORIE:  We'll wait until the end of this week and see what

 3    the result is of the check by the Prosecution.  And if then the answer of

 4    the Prosecution is not satisfactory to the Defence, of course they will be

 5    in a position to convince the Chamber that the answer is not a correct

 6    one.

 7            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Indeed, Mr. President.  But I

 8    say these elements directly affect the cross-examination which in turn is

 9    important for some of the very important witnesses like the one we are

10    expecting today.  And I am saying that we asked for these materials some

11    weeks ago.  We still do not have it.  I am speaking it very clearly which

12    will be very important for the hypothetical and possible appeal.  Thank

13    you.

14            JUDGE ORIE:  This would mean, I would suggest, Mr. Piletta-Zanin,

15    if you think on one of the witnesses being cross-examined by the Defence

16    that you are convinced that you have not a material you could expect soon

17    from the Prosecution at the end of the final check, that you then indicate

18    so, so that we'll not finally perhaps not excuse the witness but we might

19    decide then that if your expectation turns out to be a correct one, that

20    then there might be an opportunity to recall the witness for further

21    cross-examination.  But if you'd then please indicate so, so that we

22    can -- are aware of that situation.

23            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I shall be very

24    happy to do so.  And I wish to be precise:  In order for us to be able to

25    examine these maps, we cannot do it on the spot because they are not like

Page 4887

 1    tourist maps.  They are very specialised maps, and we need a military

 2    expert --

 3            JUDGE ORIE:  Whenever they turn up, maps or whatever documents not

 4    disclosed earlier to the Defence, of course we'll take proper care that

 5    the Defence has the opportunity to prepare itself for the -- for

 6    cross-examining the witness to whom these -- to whom's testimony these

 7    material relates.

 8            Mr. Ierace.

 9            MR. IERACE:  Mr. President, my learned colleague has now twice

10    referred to the material in dispute being maps rather than orders.  The

11    document filed this morning refers only to orders.  And --

12            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I do see so.  I must be honest that I did not

13    check every single number mentioned in one of the letters attached to it.

14    So at this moment, I'm hesitant to say that among these orders or attached

15    to these orders or connected to these orders there could be no maps.  But

16    that's one of the things I would say if there's any misunderstanding about

17    that, Mr. Piletta-Zanin will be quite happy to explain why he's using the

18    word "maps" in this courtroom while he is talking about directive and

19    orders as well as orders toward brigades in its composition.  Of course,

20    orders can be accompanied by maps explaining the orders.  But I'm not

21    quite sure.  But may I invite you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, to --

22            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, you are not doing it

23    over.  You are quite right, as you have said.  We are talking about maps,

24    of course, and equally about orders.  But very often, the orders refer to

25    maps, that say such and such element, such and such line, such and such

Page 4888

 1    strategic objective, and then it refers to maps which were in the

 2    file.  There are maps of the main staff which are of utmost importance as

 3    to know what happened in their time and place.  Therefore we are talking

 4    about the maps, therefore the different maps including the orders.  I

 5    believe that the Prosecution understood it very well.

 6            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Piletta-Zanin, may I nevertheless remind you that

 7    it would be better to clarify this directly to Mr. Ierace during one of

 8    the breaks to come, because even if an order would relate to geographical

 9    positions, and if the order would be in the custody or under the control

10    of the Prosecution, this would not automatically mean that the map showing

11    such geographical positions is also in the custody or under the control of

12    the Prosecution.  So would you please sort out that during -- well,

13    yesterday we had a lot of breaks.  But to sort this out in such a way that

14    confusions and misunderstanding is avoided when the Chamber is informed by

15    the end of this week.  So I think now we dealt with Item B as well.

16            I'll now go to Item C.  Item C says to submit to the Defence all

17    audiotapes with intercepted talks of General Stanislav Galic if it is in

18    the possession of such tapes.  From the request the Defence made, I did

19    understand but let's just first verify it, that the Prosecution said that

20    they were not in possession of any audiotapes of intercepted talks of

21    General Galic.  May I just first ask, Mr. Ierace, are there any audiotapes

22    of intercepted conversations of General Galic in your custody or under

23    your control which have not been disclosed to the Defence?

24            MR. IERACE:  No, Mr. President.

25            JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps the next question:  Is the Prosecution aware

Page 4889

 1    of the existence of such audiotapes, although not in the custody or under

 2    the control of the Prosecution itself?

 3            MR. IERACE:  We have no such knowledge, Mr. President.

 4            JUDGE ORIE:  Has the Prosecution ever sought to establish the

 5    existence of such audiotapes?

 6            MR. IERACE:  The Prosecution has made inquiries as to whether

 7    there are any such tapes.

 8            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 9            MR. IERACE:  And to date has been unsuccessful in obtaining any

10    such tapes or indeed establishing if any exist.

11            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Thank you.

12            Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I first wanted to establish the factual basis

13    of your request.  You've heard the answers.  If there's any reason why you

14    say that these answers are unsatisfactory, please inform the Chamber.  But

15    then perhaps not right on the spot, but if you think you can do it in one

16    or two minutes, that's fine.

17            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Formally we are satisfied with

18    this answer regarding this particular item.  Thank you very much.

19            JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

20            Then there is another -- the Chamber is informed that you have

21    submitted the request for Visas for expert witnesses.  This would mean

22    that there's -- I hope at least that there's a fair chance that the

23    Prosecution can fulfill your request to have objects inspected by your

24    experts on as short as possible notice.  So that is not at this moment

25    something we should discuss further.

Page 4890

 1            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.  At this

 2    stage I must say that this is not so much a matter for the Prosecution

 3    because we see that, concretely speaking, the shrapnel is not here, and

 4    besides this object is no longer in the possession of the Prosecution, but

 5    the Registry.  Because it has now become -- so it has been transferred to

 6    the Registry, and I believe now it is a matter for the Registry.

 7            JUDGE ORIE:  I think not yet, as a matter of fact.  But it might

 8    be soon.

 9            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] So sorry.

10            MR. IERACE:  Mr. President, I know that you don't want to engage

11    into debate but I really must say that it has never been considered by

12    the, nor has it ever been the case, that the Prosecution, at an earlier

13    time, had the shrapnel.  Whilst I'm on my feet, might I raise one other

14    matter very briefly.

15            JUDGE ORIE:  Could we do it after I finish the whole request, then

16    I'll give you an opportunity for that.  Because the next request is that

17    the Defence suggests that the Trial Chamber should enable expert witnesses

18    of the Defence to be present during examination of expert witnesses of the

19    Prosecution.  I think there has never been any request that reached the

20    Chamber whether or not to allow an expert witness of the Defence to be

21    present during the examination of an expert witness of the Prosecution.

22    So as soon as such a request is addressed to us, we'll, of course, on

23    shortest notice inform you about our decision.

24            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you very much,

25    Mr. President.  We simply merely to inform the Chamber what we shall do

Page 4891

 1    when the technical problem arise, or rather what we would like to do.

 2            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I do understand.  And the whole issue of experts

 3    I'll spend a few minutes on that as well.

 4            Then finally, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you informed us that the evidence

 5    you presented, especially I'm referring to page 583 and a few other pages,

 6    concerning information from the UN has as its source annex 6 to the final

 7    report.  I'm quite happy that you could confirm what I thought it would

 8    be, although I would prefer that next time you come up with a source

 9    primarily and only not just confirm my feelings about it.

10            But let's -- so we have dealt with I think the major aspects of

11    the request made by the Defence on the 5th of March.

12            Mr. Ierace, there was another issue.  And I tell you that as far

13    as it concerns expert witnesses, I'll pay some attention to it also.  I

14    don't know whether it's about expert witnesses or not.  Then please

15    proceed.

16            MR. IERACE:  Mr. President, I will meet the Defence at 3.45.  I

17    assume that is our next break, pursuant to your suggestion.

18            Last week the Trial Chamber directed that the Defence provide

19    written submissions in relation to the application of Rule 90(H)(ii).

20    There was not a timetable mentioned for that.  We have not yet received

21    any submissions.  I'd be grateful if the Trial Chamber could indicate a

22    date by which the Defence and then the Prosecution is to do that.  Thank

23    you.

24            JUDGE ORIE:  Let me first ask what the intention as far as time is

25    concerned of the Defence is.  You'd make written submissions on?

Page 4892

 1            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I believe I

 2    understood that would be following the decision that you will take, your

 3    Chamber will be happy to hear what the parties have to say.  But it is not

 4    a matter of any major importance.  I believe the Defence is now trying to

 5    concentrate on the evidence and exhibits.  We are not connected to the

 6    internet, so if there is a certain delay which is very long, then yes.

 7            JUDGE ORIE:  At what time you expect to provide the Chamber with

 8    your written submissions?

 9            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I will comply

10    with your decision, as always.

11                          [Trial Chamber confers]

12            JUDGE ORIE:  Since, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you left it to us, although

13    I would have gladly perhaps accepted suggestions from your side, I would

14    say within ten days would be fair in our view.  And I keep in mind that

15    you had already a couple of days to think about it.

16            Yes, any other issue, Mr. Ierace?

17            MR. IERACE:  No, Mr. President.

18            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Ms. Pilipovic.

19            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  All I

20    want to do is ask a question which I presume will be asked during this

21    case, and that is the need to inform the Defence earlier, that is, prior

22    to the seven days' deadline, when the experts will be examined so that we

23    could communicate with our experts and so that they could arrive in

24    The Hague in time.  It could pose a technical problem, so we would simply

25    like to ask our learned friends to tell us well in advance when the

Page 4893

 1    experts will be coming so that we could contact our experts.  Thank you.

 2            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Ms. Pilipovic, as I indicated, and you seem to

 3    have similar problems as I have on this issue, I would spend some more

 4    time to the expert witnesses.  The list provided by the Prosecution to the

 5    Chamber, the list pursuant to Rule 65 ter is not always clear as to

 6    whether a witness will testify as a normal witness or as an expert

 7    witness.  It is, for example, quite clear in respect of Mirza Sabljica,

 8    because he is indicated as an Expert Witness, capital letters.  But for

 9    other witnesses are described as experts in specific fields, but then

10    usually in the body of the summary of the statement itself, there you find

11    that there's some specific expertise.

12            If you'd like to have a copy of the names, I'll be glad to provide

13    it to you later, this concerns the witness Hamel, artillery expert; Higgs

14    mortar expert; Philips, military expert; Turner, psychiatrist, an expert

15    in trauma; expert, Robert Donia, expert in Balkan history and

16    affairs.  So there we find some expertise in the summary of the

17    statement.

18            For some other witnesses, it is also unclear whether they will be

19    called as expert witnesses or not.  For example, if we look at Witness AD,

20    the witness is presented as having acquired expertise on shelling and

21    sniping, crime site investigations.  So it's not clear whether they come

22    and testify as experts or mainly as witnesses on specific investigations.

23    Although it's indicated that he'll come notably to validate his report.

24            We have similar questions as far as Witness Cekic, who is a

25    professor of political science and specialised in research and crimes

Page 4894

 1    against humanity.  This concerns Isnet Ceric, who is head of psychiatry of

 2    the university medical centre and an author.

 3            Another problem with the Rule 65 ter witness list is that it

 4    mentioned some unidentified expert witnesses, for example a sniping insert

 5    on page 1403, or a statistic expert, an artillery witness, a ballistic

 6    physicalist, another ballistic expert.  When you need the pages, the

 7    Chamber of course will be glad to provide them to you.  And the last I

 8    mentioned is an expert on command and control.  The Chamber would be very

 9    much pleased if some clarification could be made in respect of all this.

10    And also to disclose the identity of the unidentified expert witnesses.

11            I then turn, apart from these items that still have to be

12    clarified, to the procedure under Rule 94 bis.  According to Rule 94 bis,

13    the Defence shall file a notice indicating whether it accepts the expert

14    witness statement or it wishes to cross-examine the expert witness.  And

15    this should be done by the Defence within 30 days after the expert witness

16    statement is filed.  This is Rule 94 bis under (B).  Under 94 bis (A), it

17    says that the statements of -- reports of expert witnesses should be

18    disclosed to the Defence, and it always has been my understanding that

19    whatever statements or reports of expert witnesses were in the hands of

20    the Prosecution, that they were disclosed to the Defence.  Is this

21    understanding correct, Mr. Ierace?

22            MR. IERACE:  When the Prosecution intends to call the witness,

23    then of course the Prosecution must provide a copy of that report to the

24    Defence.

25            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But we have two different things.  I think we

Page 4895

 1    have first of all the disclosure under 94 bis under (A) Which talks about

 2    disclosure, and then we have filing the report under 94 bis, under (B).

 3    Am I right in assuming that for all those expert witnesses, or witnesses

 4    that could be considered to be expert witnesses, that the Prosecution

 5    intends to call, that all the statements or reports, if available, have

 6    been disclosed at least, perhaps not filed, but disclosed to the Defence?

 7            MR. IERACE:  They have not, Mr. President.  There's two categories

 8    of witnesses that you have identified.  The first are those in respect of

 9    whom there are 65 ter summaries.  And it's unclear to the Trial Chamber

10    whether they are being called as experts or not.  That is a simple matter

11    for us to respond to, and I'll do it in due course.

12            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

13            MR. IERACE:  The second category are those that are unnamed.  At

14    the time that the -- we collide with Rule 65 ter, the old 94 bis rule

15    applied, and that did not require the Prosecution to even refer to its

16    expert witnesses until a relatively short period before it intended to

17    call them.  So we provided that information although we did not have to so

18    as to better present some idea of the scope of the Prosecution case.

19    Since that time, we have identified experts in most of those categories.

20    And they are in the process of preparing their reports.  And when they are

21    completed, they will be disclosed and filed so as to comply with the new

22    rule.

23            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, because the Chamber noticed that until now, I

24    think only the report of Dr. Donia has been filed and the report of

25    Mr. Higgs has been filed.  For example, if, for example, Mr. Sabljica is

Page 4896

 1    in the -- on the list clearly identified, it was the one and only I

 2    mentioned, as an expert witness on the Rule 65 ter list, if I'm well

 3    informed, or -- because he will be called soon, isn't it?

 4            MR. IERACE:  Mr. President, it might save time if I get back to

 5    you on Sabljica.

 6            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 7            MR. IERACE:  And indeed the others that you have named.

 8            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, okay.  Let's not spend time on it at this

 9    moment.  You'll understand what our concern is, the concern of the Chamber

10    is that if reports are not yet disclosed, if they are filed just shortly

11    before the witness is called, then of course the Defence must have an

12    opportunity to discuss these reports with their experts in order to

13    prepare either for a notice saying that they would accept it or for

14    cross-examination.  And if we look at the time which should be granted and

15    the time the Defence has to file a notice of whether accepting or wishing

16    to cross-examine the witness, then we should clearly keep in mind that

17    this cannot be done just shortly before calling the expert witness.

18            MR. IERACE:  Mr. President, there is an issue that perhaps I

19    should raise at this stage.  Some of the experts who you have identified

20    will be required by the Prosecution to give evidence in relation to

21    material which has come from the Defence, in particular, orders and other

22    documents which one would assume have come from the archival material of

23    the Sarajevo Romanija Corps.  That material has come to us in batches, the

24    most recent batch approximately eight weeks ago.  And I'm told by

25    Mrs. Pilipovic that we can expect more.  It takes some time to translate

Page 4897

 1    those documents and then to incorporate them.  They will be incorporated

 2    into reports by persons who are perhaps more properly described not as

 3    experts by as analysts.  It is taking us some time to complete that

 4    process.  And it is likely that even in relation to the material we have

 5    so far received, that those reports will not be ready until the closing

 6    weeks of the Prosecution case.

 7            The Defence has had singular success in locating orders and other

 8    documents which relate to the accused, which is mystifying to the

 9    Prosecution, because we are told that the archive no longer exists.  The

10    reason I mention that is simply to make the point that it is not as if the

11    Prosecution can obtain that material from any other source and complete

12    those analytical reports at an earlier time.  I raise it at this stage,

13    and because it will impact upon our ability to present all our evidence

14    sequentially.  There is a possibility that by the time we have called all

15    of our other witnesses, our analysts, and therefore, for instance, the

16    command and control expert, who will depended to some extent upon the

17    analytical report, cannot be called without there being a break in the

18    Prosecution case.  Naturally, we are doing everything we can to avoid

19    that.

20            But the wording of the new Expert Witness Rule is not helpful to

21    us because of the addition of this 30-day period.  So Mr. President, I

22    will keep you informed about that.

23            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

24            MR. IERACE:  If you like, I can respond to all but one or two of

25    the names you have mentioned at this stage.

Page 4898

 1            JUDGE ORIE:  If you could do so, please.  Yes.

 2            MR. IERACE:  Yes.  Richard Philips is an analyst.

 3            JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just try to find something to write.

 4            MR. IERACE:  Or perhaps more accurately I should say he will be

 5    giving an analysis which is dependent in part upon the documents from the

 6    Defence and in part on documentation obtained elsewhere.

 7            JUDGE ORIE:  May I assume that what you call an analyst is someone

 8    who does not primarily testify on facts, but on his interpretation of

 9    reports or whatever other thing presented to him, and I would rather then

10    say that this is a -- I would rather call him an expert than a normal

11    witness, although there's always a mixture.

12            MR. IERACE:  Mr. President, the reason I use the two different

13    terms is simply to my mind an expert is entitled to give an opinion and

14    that opinion may be based on training or experience or both.  An analyst

15    to my mind is someone who examines documents and essentially saves the

16    Court time by distilling the material to some basic propositions.

17            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Well, whether there's not always an opinion

18    involved.  For example, what is the essence of a document, is a question

19    we'll have not to answer on -- okay.  Yes, you call him an analyst.

20    Perhaps I should have stayed away from the --

21            MR. IERACE:  It's an issue that may be revisited.  And the same

22    could be said of Rick Butler.

23            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

24            MR. IERACE:  Dr. Turner is indeed an expert on the topic of

25    terror.  Robert Donia is an historical expert.

Page 4899

 1            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we have received his report, yes.

 2            MR. IERACE:  I hesitate to go further at this stage,

 3    Mr. President.  I'll get back to you on the other names.  I could have

 4    pressed but I prefer to have some time in relation to that.

 5            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, perhaps wouldn't it be a better idea if you just

 6    write down briefly your position as far as what kind of witness or expert

 7    it is, and give perhaps a very brief explanation so that everyone knows.

 8            MR. IERACE:  I will, Mr. President.

 9            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10            Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

11            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.  First of

12    all, I would like to thank the Prosecution very much indeed to tell us

13    that we've had some singular success.  Now, what I wanted to say,

14    Mr. President, is that I believe that we have a small transcript problem,

15    is that we will have a 94 -- in the Rule 94 bis, there will be a 90-day

16    rule, and I believe that it's 14-day rule.  Is that correct?  I just

17    wanted to make sure so that we don't have a quid pro quo situation.  Could

18    you please confirm because we are talking about new dispositions.

19            JUDGE ORIE:  You indicated that there might be a misunderstanding

20    on what's in the rule.  What's in the rule we all know.

21            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.  Then it's only a

22    technical problem.  Thank you very much.

23            JUDGE ORIE:  The last one of 94 bis says that the -- within 30

24    days of the filing of the statement of the expert witness or such other

25    time as prescribed by the Trial Chamber the opposing party shall file a

Page 4900

 1 30 days or whatever other time limit set by the Chamber.

 2            I think we went through all the issues I had in mind we had to

 3    discuss.  And we'll on short notice also discuss the 92 bis.  We're almost

 4    ready in preparing our questions to the parties for a hearing previous to

 5    giving a decision.

 6            Any other issue to be raised at this very moment?  If there's not,

 7    then -- yes, Ms. Pilipovic.

 8            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you'll allow us,

 9    the Defence would like to be given information, if that is possible,

10    information from the Chamber, since our schedule was made to last until

11    the 1st of April, 2002.  Now, the situation of General Galic in detention

12    is such that he has to tell one month ahead of a visit from his family.

13    Now, we are interested to be given a schedule or a work schedule for March

14    and April so that we know whether there's going to be a break so we can

15    just have some idea about the time frame.  Is it so far we're working

16    until the 1st of April?  Is that correct?

17            JUDGE ORIE:  I think that we have -- the schedule is published

18    until the 1st of April, and, Madam Registrar, knowing that you are dealing

19    extensively with the Court calendars, is the schedule for the beginning of

20    April in such a stage that you can give any information on it?

21            THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour.  The 1st of April is, according

22    to our schedule, 1st of April is second Easter -- is Easter Monday, and

23    the 2nd of April, the Trial Chamber is sitting.

24            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

25            THE REGISTRAR:  But the schedule is available.

Page 4901



           JUDGE ORIE:  The schedule is available.  That's first of all, and

 2    I think we have a break of one week somewhere in late April, but I think

 3    we indicated that before to the parties, we would have one week off in

 4    June, and also a week -- I'm not quite sure, but I think it was the end of

 5    April.  Do you know when we stay in recess, Madam Registrar, which week

 6    the Galic case is not heard?

 7            THE REGISTRAR:  According to my schedule, in April there is no

 8    recess, but there is one week in June.  If you give me --

 9            JUDGE ORIE:  There's another week.  We'll give you the information

10    after the break.  I'm not even asking if there's any other thing to be

11    discussed and ask quickly to the usher if he could bring in the witness.

12    That will takes one or two minutes more than usual because I thought it

13    was not fair to have the witness to wait for 50 minutes on the corridor.

14            MR. IERACE:  Please excuse me, Mr. President and Your Honours.

15                          [The witness entered court]

16            JUDGE ORIE:  Good afternoon, Mr. Besic.  Another day --

17            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.

18            JUDGE ORIE:  -- that you expect to appear again in this Court, but

19    it surprised us all yesterday.  May I remind you that the fire may be

20    extinguished, but you are still bound by the solemn declaration you gave

21    the day before yesterday at the beginning of your examination.

22            Ms. Pilipovic, please proceed.

23            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

24                          WITNESS: SEAD BESIC [Resumed]

25                          [Witness answered through interpreter]

Page 4902

 1                          Cross-examined by Ms. Pilipovic:  [Continued]

 2       Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Besic, good afternoon.

 3       A.   Good afternoon.

 4       Q.   Our cross-examination of the previous day was stopped at a time

 5    when you told us that you arrived with your team at the site of the

 6    incident.  You arrived at Markale.  That was 30 minutes or 35 minutes,

 7    about quarter past 1.00 in the afternoon, you said that you arrived.

 8    Could you tell us whether the investigating judge came with you, because

 9    you said also the public prosecutor was with you at the time as well?

10       A.   The judge came about five minutes after we arrived there.

11       Q.   Did the investigating judge who is conducting the investigation,

12    did he tell you -- did he tell you personally what had to be done?

13       A.   He didn't tell me personally, but we waited for his permission to

14    start the work, and we know what that work entailed.

15       Q.   So you, as a criminal technician, you were not given a task by the

16    investigating judge what you were supposed to do?

17       A.   No, the reason is because this is just a criminal technician's

18    analysis that is supposed to be done, an examination that's supposed to be

19    done at the site of the incident.  The only thing that's important is that

20    the investigating judge gives his permission for the work to start, and

21    this permission was given and we started to work.

22       Q.   Could you tell us, what was the first thing that you did when you

23    were given the permission to start the work?

24       A.   First of all, was to photograph the site and to videorecord the

25    site as we found it.  Then to check and examine the site of the

Page 4903

 1    incident --

 2       Q.   Excuse me, just to be precise, you photographed the site?

 3       A.   Yes.

 4       Q.   You recorded with a videocamera or somebody else?

 5       A.   Somebody else.

 6       Q.   Could you tell us who and what is the name of the person who did

 7    the videorecording?

 8       A.   That person was Zlatanovic.  He worked as a photo technician in

 9    our office, and he also has the same course completed for criminal

10    technicians.

11       Q.   Thank you.

12            Apart from Mr. Zlatanovic who had the video camera, at the site of

13    the incident at the time of the investigation, were there other people who

14    were recording the site?  Do you know anything about that?

15       A.   Nobody except the police who was conducting the investigation was

16    not present with the videocamera on the site.  Perhaps from some distance

17    it was possible to make a videorecording, a filming, but at the site of

18    the incident, no.

19       Q.   So you are confirming here that Mr. Zlatanovic was the only

20    cameraman who was a member of your team and who was filming the material

21    for you?

22       A.   That's right.

23       Q.   Thank you.

24            After you told us that you photographed the site, my question is

25    did you fix the traces?

Page 4904

 1       A.   Yes, we fixed the traces in a sense that we -- we processed the

 2    site of the -- the actual impact of the projectile, where the projectile

 3    landed.  We photographed the site without marking the direction where the

 4    projectile came from and then also it is possible to see it in the

 5    documentation, the other photographs that we took.

 6       Q.   So you say that you photographed the site where, according to you,

 7    the projectile landed?

 8       A.   Yes.

 9       Q.   Did you make a sketch of the site of the incident?

10       A.   No, I did not do a sketch of the site of the incident.  As far as

11    I can remember, I believe that it was Mirza Sabljica, the ballistic

12    expert, who did the sketch.

13       Q.   So what you say is that you did not measure, you did not take any

14    measurements on the site where you located the projectile?

15       A.   Right.

16       Q.   Did you determine or do you know whether Mr. Sabljica determined

17    the standing position from which he would do the measuring, in relation to

18    the place where you located the projectile and in relation to the stalls

19    and the buildings that we saw on the video material?

20       A.   As it is possible to see in the video material and the photo file,

21    there is a map of the town as I explained already, and that we established

22    the north.  That means that it was put on the place where the projectile

23    landed.  Then the north was established, and then with an arrow, it gives

24    us the direction where the projectile came from.

25       Q.   Did anyone from your team on that sketch that you say that

Page 4905

 1    Mr. Sabljica made it, did anyone from the team put in all the elements

 2    that were on the site of the incident?

 3       A.   Well, when the sketch is made, then you normally take a starting

 4    position, a location which is immobile, you fix it.  We call it a fixed

 5    point.  So according to this point, it is a kind of parameter for the

 6    sketch.  In this case, it's probably the -- probably the corner of the

 7    rear part of the market that was taken as this fixed point, and

 8    according -- with the help of a 90-degrees angles, this is how we

 9    determined the direction where the projectile came from.

10       Q.   Could you tell us who established the fixed point?

11       A.   I cannot tell you exactly.  Probably it was Mirza Sabljica.

12       Q.   When you told us that Mr. Zlatanovic [sic] did the filming, was

13    the material that we had the opportunity to see during the

14    examination-in-chief by my learned colleague, is this the material filmed

15    by him with that one camera?

16       A.   This is the most authentic material that was recorded by

17    Mr. Zlatan.

18       Q.   Thank you.

19            You told us today that you took photographs of the site of the --

20    where the projectile landed.  Could you tell us who found the stabiliser

21    of the shell?

22       A.   I did.

23       Q.   If we look at the photographs that we saw, could you tell us how

24    did you find it?

25       A.   As I was cleaning the place, the location, where the projectile

Page 4906

 1    landed, the body tissue, the blood, the soil, I came to the centre of the

 2    location where the projectile landed, and I then tried to just see whether

 3    there was any shrapnel from the ignition fuse because there's very often

 4    that there are still some parts of the ignition left.  And then that's

 5    when I found the mortar shell tail which I then did not touch after that

 6    until the UN team came to the site of the incident.

 7       Q.   Could you tell us at the time when you arrived at the site of the

 8    incident, did you see any UNPROFOR personnel there?  Were there any

 9    nearby?

10       A.   When we arrived, there was nobody else from the UN.  They arrived

11    about quarter of an hour after we arrived.  10, 15 minutes, I cannot tell

12    you exactly.

13       Q.   Could you tell us, until the UNPROFOR personnel arrived, what did

14    you do with regard to securing the site?

15       A.   We are not in charge of securing the site.  The securing of the

16    site is done by the police station which is in that part of the

17    municipality.  In this case, this is the Stari Grad Police Station.  So

18    the site was secured by the police from the police station Stari Grad.

19       Q.   So you're telling us that when you found the stabiliser, the shell

20    stabiliser, you then did not do anything else regarding the stabiliser

21    until the UNPROFOR people came?

22       A.   That's right.

23       Q.   Could you tell us, since we had the opportunity to see it on the

24    videorecording, who is the person who positioned those sticks in form of a

25    letter T?

Page 4907

 1       A.   Mirza Sabljica positioned the sticks, and Hamdija Cavcic, that's

 2    right.

 3       Q.   At the time when these sticks were positioned, you said that they

 4    were positioned by Mr. Sabljica and Mr. Cavcic.  Could you see the

 5    stabiliser?

 6       A.   No.

 7       Q.   Are you telling us here and now that the positioning of the

 8    sticks, that there was no digging before the positioning of the sticks

 9    around the place where the stabiliser of the shell was?

10       A.   No, except for cleaning of the body tissue, blood, and any debris

11    that was there.

12       Q.   Can you tell us how did Mr. Sabljica and Mr. Cavcic, how were they

13    able to position the sticks in the form of a letter T if they did not

14    determine the angle and if they could not see the stabiliser?  On the

15    basis what have did they position the sticks?

16       A.   They were --

17            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stamp.

18            MR. STAMP:  The question asks the witness about the mental process

19    of Mr. Sabljica and Mr. Cavcic, how did they do something.  It is known

20    that Mr. Sabljica is a witness.  That is something within his limit.  The

21    witness does not have to speculate about how different specialists

22    contemplated what they should do.

23            JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Pilipovic.

24            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I understand what the

25    objection of my learned colleague is in relation to the work.  But we are

Page 4908

 1    here in a situation that we have here a witness who was present at the

 2    site during the events and who said that he found himself the place where

 3    the projectile landed, that nothing was done around this particular place,

 4    and that it was done by Mr. Sabljica and by Mr. Cavcic.  Now, we believe

 5    that by cross-examining the witness here today, we can find relevant

 6    information for this incident.

 7            The witness precisely showed us on the video material, or we were

 8    able to see these sticks in the form of a letter T.  Now my question was

 9    how were they able to position the sticks in the stabiliser could not be

10    seen, and the witness just confirmed that the stabiliser could not be

11    seen.

12            JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Pilipovic, isn't it true that whether -- how they

13    could have done it is not something to determine who has not done it.  I

14    mean, that's the -- the objection is not that he was not there and I don't

15    think that the objection is against any part of the testimony until now.

16    But how could this witness explain something what was in the mind of

17    another witness?

18            Perhaps before giving a final decision on the -- Mr. Besic, was it

19    explained to you on the basis of what the other persons carrying out the

20    investigation were able to put the sticks as they did it?  Did they

21    explain to you how they did it, on the basis of what?

22            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a team that often went to

23    sites of incidents, so we worked as a team.  And in this case --

24            JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just -- did they explain to you on the basis

25    of what exactly they positioned the sticks?  Did they explain it to you or

Page 4909

 1    did they not explain it to you?

 2            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, they did.

 3            JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Pilipovic, would it be a suggestion to ask about

 4    what was explained to the witness.

 5            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 6       Q.   Now, Mr. Witness, could you tell us, please, whether Mr. Sabljica

 7    or Mr. Cavcic, did they explain to you on the basis of what they

 8    positioned the sticks in the form of a letter T?

 9       A.   In order to determine the direction from which the projectile

10    came.

11       Q.   At that moment when they were positioning the sticks, were you

12    present there on that place where they placed these sticks?

13       A.   Yes, I was.

14       Q.   Could you confirm for us, tell us, or perhaps give us a reply,

15    whether at that time when they were placing it, whether you could see the

16    stabiliser of the shell?

17       A.   No.  No.

18       Q.   So you are telling us that the place where these sticks were in

19    the form of a letter T, that this place was covered with -- as we saw it

20    on the photograph.  Is that correct?  And that before these sticks were

21    positioned, nobody was digging that part, nobody was cleaning?

22       A.   No.

23            JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Pilipovic, if you could find a suitable moment to

24    have a break.  Would this be the moment?

25            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.

Page 4910

 1            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Besic, I did not explain to you before that we

 2    spent quite some time in the beginning on some legal issues.  Now and then

 3    we have to pay attention to legal issues as well as to the facts that

 4    you're testifying about.  I'd like to thank you for your patience, and I'd

 5    like to see you back in this courtroom at a quarter past 4.00.

 6            We adjourn until quarter past 4.00.

 7                          --- Recess taken at 3.47 p.m.

 8                          --- On resuming at 4.16 p.m.

 9            JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Pilipovic, just before I give you the opportunity

10    to resume the cross-examination, the breaks will be in Week 18, which is

11    Monday, the 29th of April until Friday, the 3rd of May; and also during

12    Week 24, which is from Monday, the 10th of June, until Friday, the 14th of

13    June.  And I'd like to make one other observation, more specifically

14    addressing at this stage of the proceedings, the Defence, may I remind you

15    that you have been instructed by the Pretrial Judge, Judge Rodrigues, on

16    the 8th of November, 2001, that if you would not accept the report of an

17    expert witness, you should give the reasons why.  And apart from that, as

18    an alternative to requesting the expert witness to be cross-examined, that

19    you also could present a report of another expert on the same issue, let's

20    say a contra expertise.

21            Having said this, please Ms. Pilipovic, proceed, unless there's

22    anything.

23            Yes, Mr. Stamp.

24            MR. STAMP:  May it please you, Mr. President, if I could ask one

25    special imposition of the Court if for perhaps about five minutes before

Page 4911

 1    we close the taking of evidence today or at any time at the convenience of

 2    the Court, I could be allowed to make some submissions to the Court or we

 3    could have a discussion in respect of the status of the witness, Mirza

 4    Sabljica.

 5            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, we'll spend the last five minutes of today's

 6    hearing to that.

 7            MR. STAMP:  I'm very grateful, Mr. President.

 8            JUDGE ORIE:  Please Ms. Pilipovic, then proceed.

 9            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

10       Q.   Mr. Besic, you've told us that you discovered the place where the

11    projectile had landed.  Can you tell us, as you were clearing the ground,

12    did you clear it enough for the stabiliser to become visible?

13       A.   We were not clearing the crater itself, but outside the crater.

14    We wanted to remove all of the debris, blood, and tissues, as I have

15    already said, in order to identify traces or marks around the crater.

16    Because it is on the basis of shrapnel marks in the asphalt one determines

17    the direction from which the projectile had come.

18       Q.   So you are telling us that these two sticks were placed on the

19    basis of the direction of the position of -- position of shrapnel, that is

20    of shrapnel markings in the asphalt?

21       A.   That's right.

22       Q.   Can you tell us this:  Who collected these pieces of shrapnel, or

23    did you at all?

24       A.   Yes.  Some of the pieces were collected on the scene, and the

25    firing pin was found in the crater.  That is, after the stabiliser was

Page 4912

 1    taken out, parts of the firing pin were also discovered there.

 2       Q.   Can you tell us, the collection of shrapnel, you said you did

 3    that?

 4       A.   Yes, I did.

 5       Q.   Did you take photographs of the collection of shrapnel, or was it

 6    videotaped?

 7       A.   It was neither photographed nor videotaped because we were in

 8    short supply of this material.  And all the collected pieces of shrapnel

 9    were photographed in black and white in the laboratory.

10            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave, the

11    Defence would like to show the witness two photographs which we received

12    from our learned friends to see if Mr. Besic could identify them and

13    confirm that these are, indeed, the photographs and the shrapnel that the

14    gentlemen collected and photographed.

15            Your Honour, we have two photographs.  I made a sufficient number

16    of copies of photograph 14.  We marked it D60, and the second photograph

17    is photograph number 15, and we marked it D61.

18            Your Honour, the Defence copied these photographs from a file

19    given us by our learned friends, photograph 14 is 0026-8397.  And

20    photograph number 15 is 0026-8398.

21            These are for the witness.

22            Your Honour, need we put D on each of these photographs, or will

23    it suffice only if we put it on the first copy, that is D numbers?

24            JUDGE ORIE:  You should mark them all so that whenever we have a

25    copy, that we know immediately that it's D.  I know that you're a bit

Page 4913

 1    spoiled, perhaps, by the Registrar who did it very often for you.  I'm

 2    only too glad to see that you're taking the effort now by yourself.

 3            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this literally

 4    is being done in Geneva.  The stamp comes from Geneva.

 5            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I do not see any stamp, but --

 6            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, I'm saying that stamp is

 7    being prepared in Geneva, and as of the next week, we shall not be having

 8    any more problems of this kind.  Thank you.

 9            JUDGE ORIE:  That's great.

10            Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.

11            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]

12       Q.   Mr. Besic, you have two photographs in front of you, number 14 and

13    number 15.  Are these the photographs of the shrapnel that you found and

14    photographed?

15       A.   Yes.  These are the pieces of shrapnel found on the site, and they

16    were photographed in our laboratory, in our criminal investigation

17    laboratory in the police.

18       Q.   Can you then tell us how many pieces of shrapnel did you collect

19    altogether?

20       A.   I can't give you the exact number.

21       Q.   Mr. Besic, I believe you said, and I stand to be corrected, but

22    when asked by my learned friend during the examination in chief, when

23    we're talking about the shrapnel which you found, can you bring them to

24    The Hague, and you said that had you been asked to do that, you would have

25    brought them.  Will you confirm that?

Page 4914

 1       A.   Yes.

 2       Q.   So you are telling us that these shrapnel in these photographs,

 3    you said that you filed them and put them in safekeeping in the police

 4    station, they are still there?

 5       A.   Well, I hope so because in 1996, in 1996, we redid this building

 6    because it had been hit by three rocket grenades.  So in 1996, we redid

 7    the building, and because we had plenty of evidence brought from different

 8    outside investigations, many things were discarded.  So that I hope -- I'm

 9    not sure, but I hope that this shrapnel is still somewhere on the premises

10    of the crime laboratory.

11       Q.   Mr. Besic, when you made your statements, did you tell the OTP

12    investigators when you turned these photographs over to them that on the

13    police premises was also the stabiliser which you had brought here, that

14    is, the grenade and these pieces of shrapnel which you had photographed?

15       A.   I said that the projectile was in existence.  We did not discuss

16    the shrapnel.

17       Q.   Were you asked to submit this shrapnel to the OTP investigators

18    for inspection?

19       A.   No.

20       Q.   So you are confirming that this is shrapnel of a mine which fell

21    on Markale, if I may put it that way?

22       A.   Yes.

23       Q.   Thank you, Mr. Besic.

24            Can you confirm and answer, how much later did UNPROFOR members

25    arrive?  I believe you said 15 minutes.

Page 4915

 1       A.   15 minutes.

 2       Q.   Did they tape, photograph the site?

 3       A.   Believe me, I don't know what they were doing.  Because what we

 4    wanted to do was to show them where the shell had landed and what was in

 5    the crater.

 6       Q.   Do you know if UNPROFOR members performed any kind of recording

 7    after arriving at the site?

 8       A.   I wouldn't be able to tell you, that is, answer this question.

 9       Q.   Can you tell us, what activities were taken by UNPROFOR members at

10    the time of their arrival?

11       A.   At the time of their arrival on the site where the shell had

12    landed, we showed them where the crater was and told them to try and clear

13    the crater, because the stabiliser was in it.  What they did, you can find

14    in the record.

15       Q.   Can you tell us if you were present all the while as the UNPROFOR

16    members were digging that part to get out the stabiliser?

17       A.   Yes, I was present there throughout, because we took that

18    stabiliser, and I took it to the laboratory.  The projectile was extracted

19    by UNPROFOR members.

20       Q.   Can you confirm if that moment when you say the stabiliser was

21    taken out, was that recorded?

22       A.   No, it was not recorded because of the material.

23       Q.   You said that you were present all of the while when the UNPROFOR

24    members were taking out this.  Can you tell us how deep were the tail-fins

25    lodged in the asphalt?

Page 4916

 1       A.   Some 10 to 15 centimetres from the upper surface, that is, I mean,

 2    the asphalt surface.

 3       Q.   Can you tell us how thick was the asphalt?

 4       A.   Three, four centimetres maybe.  I can't say exactly.

 5       Q.   During the examination-in-chief, you said that on the 6th of

 6    February, 1994, a team of experts went out to perform the expertise.  And

 7    I believe it was -- you said it was Mr. Zecevic and Mr. Sabljica.  Is that

 8    correct?

 9       A.   Yes, it is.

10       Q.   Do you have any knowledge if their measurements and preparation of

11    the expertise was done with the stabiliser?  That is, did they take the

12    stabiliser again and take it back to the site?

13       A.   Yes.

14       Q.   Can you answer, since we saw in the recording how UNPROFOR members

15    digging around the place, where you told them was the stabiliser, can you

16    answer how did you discover the existence of the stabiliser since we see

17    them digging out that part, that is, that part that they were digging was

18    discovered.  Is that correct?

19       A.   Yes, it is correct it was covered.  But when I finished the

20    activity of cleaning to identify the markings on the asphalt before the

21    two [indiscernible] for the determination of direction were placed, I

22    looked into the hole to see if there were any pieces of shrapnel in the

23    crater, the firing pin.  And then I saw that the stabiliser was wedged in

24    there and then I stopped all activity until they came.

25       Q.   So you are now confirming that you were cleaning this part where

Page 4917

 1    the stabiliser was until --

 2       A.   No, I did not clean the area where the stabiliser was.  I did not

 3    touch the crater with anything rough.  I only handled it with my hands.

 4    That is, I moved the earth a little bit just to see if there were any

 5    pieces there, and then I spotted the stabiliser, and I ceased doing

 6    anything around the crater.  In the crater, excuse me.

 7       Q.   So you confirm to us that the stabiliser was taken out by members

 8    of UNPROFOR?

 9       A.   Yes.

10       Q.   Can you tell us who did they give the stabiliser to?  You said to

11    you and that you took it away.  But whom did they give it to you?

12       A.   They gave it to me.  I took it.

13       Q.   So you tell us that you took both the stabiliser and shrapnel.

14       A.   Yes, shrapnels, that was collected on the site, I found them more

15    or less.  And another colleague who worked with me.  But the pieces of

16    shrapnel from the hole, from the crater, and the stabiliser, I was the one

17    who found them there.

18       Q.   Can you tell us, at what point in time did Mr. Sabljica and

19    Mr. Cavcic establish -- determine the direction from which allegedly the

20    mine came?  Was it after they had seen the pieces?  Are you telling us

21    that they placed the sticks when they saw the markings of the pieces?

22       A.   Precisely when this was cleaned, then they placed these two --

23    these two sticks in the specific direction.

24       Q.   So the direction was established before the stabiliser was taken

25    out?

Page 4918

 1       A.   That's right.

 2       Q.   Thank you.

 3            Can you tell us, when did Mr. Cavcic and Mr. Sabljica, when did

 4    they give their opinion as to their belief about the direction from which

 5    the mine had arrived?

 6       A.   Well, I wouldn't be able to tell you exactly but it could be two

 7    or three days.

 8       Q.   Can you answer, when did you write your report about the scene and

 9    your observations about it?  What date?

10       A.   Since I was on duty both on Friday and Saturday, I had Sunday as a

11    day off.  And I did my report on Monday, I mean the photo documentation

12    and the criminal report and the sketch.

13       Q.   So you are telling us that you did your criminal report on Monday,

14    and that was how many days after the incident?

15       A.   The incident happened on the 5th, on Friday, so it was the 5th,

16    and the 6th were the Saturday.  I believe the 7th was Sunday.

17       Q.   And did you -- when compiling your report, did you have other

18    reports, too, or did you do it only on the basis of your photographs

19    and --

20       A.   The criminal methodology presumes photo documentation, sketch, and

21    submit it all to the operations officers who performed the investigation

22    on that particular day.

23       Q.   I will go back to your record, that is your report.  Now I will

24    ask you a few questions about the incident which happened on the 4th of

25    February at Dobrinja about which you spoke during the

Page 4919












12   Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13   English transcripts.













Page 4920

 1    examination-in-chief.

 2            Can you tell us who was -- who were members of the investigation

 3    team which went out to investigate on the 4th of February in Dobrinja?

 4       A.   Judge Zdenko Eterovic, crime technicians Samir Sazman.

 5            THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter has missed the name.

 6       A.   Then Mirza Sabljica, Zlatko Mededovic.  And the operations officer

 7    from the office of the genocide department.

 8            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Stamp.

 9            MR. STAMP:  Mr. President, I think the interpreter is indicating

10    she missed a name.  So if the witness could be asked to repeat the judge,

11    I think.

12            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, could you please give the name of the judge

13    again.  Sometimes this can be done later on, but could you please repeat

14    it.

15            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Zdenko Eterovic was the judge;

16    ballistic experts Mirza Sabljica, and Zlatko Mededovic, and crime

17    technicians Sead Besic and Samir Salman, and the operations officers from

18    the office of the genocide, I can't give you the names now.

19            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]

20       Q.   So you were telling us that you were the only crime technician on

21    the team.

22       A.   I and my colleague Samir Salman.  Sorry, there was another

23    colleague, Suad Dzumisic who was doing the videorecording.

24       Q.   Can you tell us the report on the criminal investigation on this

25    site for that day, did you write that?

Page 4921

 1       A.   Yes.  The on-site investigation report at Dobrinja where two

 2    mortar shells fell killing nine persons, 20 severely wounded and 20 other

 3    casualties.

 4       Q.   On the site where you were, did you make a sketch of the site,

 5    you?

 6       A.   No, I did not do the sketch of the site.  It was Samir Salman who

 7    did it.

 8       Q.   You said that two mortar shells fell.  Did you, when investigating

 9    the site, find any pieces of shrapnel?

10       A.   Yes, a certain quantity of shrapnel was found.  Where they are

11    now, I could not say.

12       Q.   Can you tell us if in your report you noted that you had found

13    these pieces of shrapnel?

14       A.   I don't remember.

15       Q.   When you submitted your report, when you've compiled your report,

16    did you assign that report?

17       A.   I do not recall now.  I think I may have signed it, or perhaps it

18    was my colleague Samir Salman who did.

19       Q.   Could you tell us when a report like this is compiled about a

20    criminal technical investigation of the site of the incident, is that

21    report filed after all the other reports are examined, who are done by

22    other people who carried out other tasks?

23       A.   The criminal technical investigation report is accompanied by a

24    photo file. It accompanies other reports, and everything is then given --

25    added to the main report that is done by the investigating judge in this

Page 4922

 1    case, it was Judge Eterovic.

 2            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence would

 3    like to show the witness the report about investigation of the scene of

 4    the incident so that the witness could identify the document for us, and

 5    then if he does do so, then perhaps he could give us some explanation.

 6    And then I would like to ask him some questions in relation to this, and

 7    we would then tender it as evidence.  We also gave it from the

 8    Prosecution, and the number is 0026.

 9            THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter missed the ERN number.

10            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] And I can also submit copies to my

11    colleagues.

12            JUDGE ORIE:  May I presume you prenumbered it D62.

13            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

14            JUDGE ORIE:  Once a Defence or Prosecution number has presented a

15    document, we usually can see what is the ERN number.  So that's not a...

16            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, as I said, 0026-8234.

17            JUDGE ORIE:  Is that a report in the original language or with

18    the...

19            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the report is in the

20    original language, yes.

21            JUDGE ORIE:  Is there a translation available?  I mean, has there

22    ever been a translation provided to you, Ms. Pilipovic?

23            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, at this moment, I

24    cannot reply, but I cannot find it in the documents.  I cannot find the

25    translation into English of this report.

Page 4923

 1            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But if it has been provided to you.  Is the

 2    Prosecution aware whether this report has been provided, has been

 3    disclosed to the Defence also in English translation?

 4            MR. STAMP:  I am not quite sure if it has been.  I can't answer

 5    that question.  What I could say is that we would probably have an English

 6    translation and would, if given time, be able to supply the Court with an

 7    English translation.

 8            JUDGE ORIE:  What to do?  Because if -- my problem is two-fold:

 9    First of all, the translation of elements you will ask the witness to make

10    observations about, and the second one is the context of those elements in

11    relation to the report as a whole.

12            How much time, do you think, Mr. Stamp, it would take you to find

13    out whether a translation does exist?

14            MR. STAMP:  It would take about 10 minutes.

15            JUDGE ORIE:  10 minutes.

16            Ms. Pilipovic, would there be any other subject you could

17    examine -- cross-examine the witness on to start with so that we are

18    better able to...

19            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

20            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Besic, so we'll stay away from this document for

21    a while.  But as far as I understand, Ms. Pilipovic will come back to it.

22            Mr. Usher, could you please for the time being return D62 to the

23    Registrar.

24            Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.

25            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]

Page 4924

 1       Q.   Witness, you told us during the examination-in-chief, asked by my

 2    learned colleague in explaining the photographs that were given by the

 3    Prosecution to the Defence also?

 4            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I would ask the Registry if the

 5    witness could be shown the photo file for the incident of the 2nd of

 6    February, 1994.  And that is the Prosecution Number, Prosecution material

 7    that was shown during the examination-in-chief by my learned colleague,

 8    and these are photographs that go up to number 11.  Sorry, the last number

 9    is 13.

10            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But Ms. Pilipovic, you're talking about the 2nd

11    of February, 1994.  Are you referring to P2262, which is about the 5th of

12    February?  Are we talking about the Markale or the other?

13            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we're talking about Markale,

14    the 5th of February.  I don't know why it says the 2nd.  It was the 5th of

15    February.  It is the photo file.

16            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Madam Registrar, that's P2262, as far as I can

17    see.

18            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]

19       Q.   Witness, before I ask you some questions about the photographs

20    that you were giving explanations about, could you tell us, when did the

21    names of streets change in Sarajevo?

22       A.   I couldn't tell you whether that was in 1993 or 1994, or whether

23    even in 1992.  I really don't know.

24       Q.   Thank you.

25            Could you have a look at the photograph number 8.

Page 4925

 1            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] If you can please put the

 2    photograph on the ELMO so that we can all see it.

 3       Q.   Mr. Besic, could you tell us, when was this place photographed,

 4    before the UNPROFOR arrived or after?

 5       A.   This place was photographed before the UNPROFOR arrived.  The

 6    marking was done before the UNPROFOR arrived.

 7       Q.   Thank you.

 8            Now, I would like to go back to photograph number 5.  Mr. Besic,

 9    asked by my learned colleague, you said that you cannot see an arrow

10    here.

11       A.   That's right.

12       Q.   Could you tell us from which place was this photograph taken.  If

13    it's not a problem, we can go back to photograph number 4 so that you can

14    give us on that photograph, photograph number 4, the place either of the

15    building or from the direction that this photograph was taken.

16       A.   This site was photographed on the side of this building.  This

17    was -- this was done by a man who was making uniforms for the police and

18    the army, so the photograph was done from this side.

19       Q.   Thank you.

20            Could you tell us on photograph number 5, could you mark for us

21    the place and the direction of the stabiliser and the position of the

22    stabiliser and of the fins, the way that they were located?

23       A.   I cannot do it on this photograph, because it's a wide-angle

24    photograph.  But this is the place where the projectile fell.  This is

25    where the crater is.  So I cannot give you an angle, and I cannot put an

Page 4926

 1    arrow in here.

 2            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, for the transcript,

 3    the witness is indicating on the photograph number 5 under which it says a

 4    wide view of the market. Where there is an arrow showing the place where

 5    the projectile landed, the witness indicated a part which is located

 6    between the stalls a place where traces are visible, traces of clothes,

 7    that is of shoes and pieces of paper.  We cannot be quite specific.  And

 8    the witness indicated the place where the projectile landed.  And the

 9    photograph number 5 the witness tells us is shown on photograph number 4,

10    and a building of where the shop was where uniforms were made for the

11    police and the army.  This shop is called 22nd of December.

12       Q.   Witness, can you tell us, on the photograph number 4, the building

13    where you say it is from this direction that the place was photographed,

14    you said that on the ground floor, there was a shop for making -- for

15    sewing uniforms for police and army.  Could you tell us what was the rest

16    of the building used for?  Do you have any information about that?

17       A.   I don't.  I don't know what the rest was used for.  I can just

18    make a correction.  This is the building where the shop called 22nd of

19    December was located before the war, and this shop or this workshop made

20    uniforms for the police and the army for the previous army.

21       Q.   Now, thank you.

22            Could you tell us on photograph number 4, could you explain for us

23    the buildings we can see behind the stalls?  We said that this was here

24    down is a supermarket.  Is that right?

25       A.   Yes, that's right.

Page 4927

 1       Q.   Could you tell us the building on the left where it says

 2    "Boritz Travnik," [phoen] What was this building used for?  Was this a

 3    residential building, was this business premise, or something else?

 4       A.   It's a residential building.

 5       Q.   On this photograph you marked with an arrow a place where there

 6    was damage done to the building by an explosion of an indetermined

 7    projectile.  Did you establish this?

 8       A.   No.  On this occasion, nobody -- there was no casualty, so there

 9    was no investigation.  And this arrow was precisely indicated here so that

10    it would make it clear that this had nothing to do -- this damage had

11    nothing to do with this particular projectile, this incident, so that we

12    would know.

13       Q.   Do you have any idea when this projectile was fired, this one

14    here?

15       A.   No.

16       Q.   So you did not do an investigation when this damage occurred?

17       A.   No.

18       Q.   Witness, since you told us on photographs number 4 and 5, you told

19    us from which direction the photograph was taken, photograph number 5 as

20    well as number 4.  I would like to ask you to go to back to photograph

21    number 8 now.

22            Could you tell us, from which direction was this photograph taken?

23       A.   This damage, the place where the projectile landed, was

24    photographed from the direction which is the rear end of the supermarket.

25       Q.   Could you tell us, what is the distance from the rear end of the

Page 4928

 1    supermarket to this place where the sticks -- these sticks make a T?

 2       A.   I cannot quite tell you exactly, but I believe it could be 2 to 3

 3    metres.

 4       Q.   Mr. Besic, could you give us an answer as to whether the members

 5    of UNPROFOR, in relation to this incident, whether they made -- whether

 6    they filed a report, whether they made a report?

 7       A.   To tell you the truth, whatever the UNPROFOR did, we had

 8    absolutely no access to it, neither reports, no records, nothing, no

 9    material.  Whatever they did, they did it for themselves and they never,

10    ever sent anything on to us, although on several occasions we did do work

11    together where members of the UN were killed, but we never received any

12    report or record from them.

13       Q.   You said that you worked with them occasionally, so to speak, you

14    worked on investigations where UN members were killed.  Could you confirm

15    for us, these were the only situations that you worked together with

16    UNPROFOR members, when someone from the UN was killed?

17       A.   No, we worked together often.  They came, for instance, to this

18    incident when a large number of people was killed.  That's when they came

19    as well.

20       Q.   Could you tell us, how many times and how many incidents did you

21    work with UNPROFOR members before this incident?

22       A.   I couldn't tell you exactly.  I couldn't recall.

23       Q.   Could you tell us in which period did you conduct investigations

24    together with UNPROFOR members when UNPROFOR members were killed?  When

25    was that?

Page 4929

 1       A.   In 1993, 1994, 1995.

 2       Q.   Considering that you told us the years, 1993, 1994, 1995, could

 3    you perhaps situate for us the incidents as well?  Could you identify them

 4    and describe them, where they happened, where these incidents, in which

 5    part of the town?

 6       A.   Everything that was under the control of the BH army, in all these

 7    locations, we went and we did investigation tasks together.  That was from

 8    Dobrinja, Alipasino Polje, Novi Grad, Novo Sarajevo, Centar, Old Town, all

 9    those areas that were all in Sarajevo.

10       Q.   Could you give us an answer as to whether it was with UNPROFOR

11    members or without them you conducted investigations of incidents that

12    happened outside of the control of the BH army?

13       A.   Yes.  Not with UNPROFOR members; without them.

14       Q.   Could you tell us when that was and which parts of town were in

15    question that you did investigations in?

16       A.   Since the question is not in relation to these two incidents, I'm

17    not sure whether I have to answer, whether that's relevant.

18       Q.   Mr. Besic, I'm asking you about the relevant time.  Since you said

19    1992, 1993, 1994, you said that you conducted investigations in areas that

20    was under the control of the BH army.  Now, I asked you whether you

21    conducted investigations outside of this area, in the years 1992, 1993,

22    1994?

23       A.   Not in 1992 because we were surrounded.  But in 1993, we had a

24    passage through the famous tunnel.  So we occasionally we were able to

25    offer our services to police stations that were outside of Sarajevo.

Page 4930

 1       Q.   Could you answer, these police stations outside of Sarajevo?

 2       A.   Yes, I can.  Hrasnica, Tarcin, Konjic, Pazaric.

 3       Q.   Could you tell us, on these occasions that you conducted

 4    investigations at, were these investigations following sniping incidents,

 5    shelling incidents, or what was the reason and obviously what were the

 6    consequences of these incidents outside of that happened -- or outside of

 7    the town that was under the control of the BH army?

 8       A.   We only went to Hrasnica because of shelling, and to the other

 9    areas we went for completely different types of investigations.

10       Q.   Could you tell us for these other investigations, could you tell

11    us what they were about?

12       A.   To do with crimes, suicides, robberies, thefts, that kind of

13    thing.

14       Q.   Could you tell us that these areas that you told us you had these

15    types of investigations, could you tell us under whose control were these

16    areas?

17       A.   These areas were under the control of BH army.

18       Q.   Thank you.

19            When you went to these investigations, did you have any

20    information or knowledge whether, for instance, did you know that, for

21    instance, in Tarcin there was a camp?

22       A.   Yes, there was a camp in Tarcin, the so-called Silos, and we did

23    not do any investigation with regard to this camp.

24       Q.   Do you have any knowledge about this camp Silo in Tarcin?  What

25    nationality were the people who were imprisoned in the camp?

Page 4931

 1       A.   I believe that we have ventured quite far from the subject

 2    matter.  Why don't you ask me about Grbavica.

 3       Q.   Witness, I'm asking you to answer.  If you cannot answer, then say

 4    you don't know.

 5       A.   I don't know.

 6            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Besic, may I remind you that if a question is put

 7    to you and if for whatever reason you think that it would be an improper

 8    question, please do not start any debate with Defence counsel.  If there's

 9    anything that bothers you, please address me, and we'll find out what to

10    do.

11            Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.

12            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

13       Q.   Witness, could you tell us how often you conducted investigations

14    in the Dobrinja area?

15       A.   Personally, I conducted, at most, five or six investigations in

16    relation to shelling and sniping.

17       Q.   When you say "at most" in relation to Dobrinja, could you tell us

18    if you have any knowledge whether there was a command post in Dobrinja of

19    the 5th Motorised Brigade staff?

20       A.   Yes, it probably was.  Must have been.

21       Q.   When you conducted investigations in Dobrinja on the 4th of

22    February, 1994, did you know whether near the scene of the incident where

23    you established that two projectiles had landed there, did you know that

24    the main staff of the 5th Motorised Brigade was there, or of a battalion?

25    Did you know about that?

Page 4932

 1       A.   No, we did not know.  We didn't have any knowledge of that.  We

 2    did not know where the staff was, except we knew where the police

 3    administration was.

 4       Q.   Could you tell us whether you had any knowledge at what distance

 5    or how far was the front line in relation to the scene of the incident

 6    that you located and photographed when -- where Dobrinja is concerned?

 7       A.   No, we did not.  We did not know how far the front line was, but

 8    it was probably about a hundred or so metres from there.

 9       Q.   Could you tell us, that part of Dobrinja, how far is it from

10    Alipasino Polje?

11       A.   That area is at least 5 or 6 kilometres -- no, I couldn't tell you

12    for sure.

13            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, because my questions

14    would continue in relation to the report, the criminal technician's

15    report, if my colleagues are able to provide me, then I would continue.

16    But if not, then my co-counsel would take over, and then I would later

17    continue.

18            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stamp, have you been able to --

19            MR. STAMP:  Indeed I have been able to locate copies which I will

20    just distribute to my friend and the Court.

21            JUDGE ORIE:  The English translations.

22            MR. STAMP:  Yes, the English translations.

23            JUDGE ORIE:  Was it part of the file disclosed to the Defence?

24            MR. STAMP:  I can't see on the face of it whether it has been

25    disclosed.

Page 4933

 1            JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

 2            Would you then please distribute also an exhibit which would then

 3    be D62.1, I think, for the English translation.  Of course, it has not

 4    been premarked.  Perhaps everyone can assist the Defence by doing the

 5    premarking.

 6            Yes, Mr. Stamp.

 7            MR. STAMP:  It might be of some assistance to the Court if I

 8    indicate that the actual translation of the document, D62, begins from

 9    immediately below the numbers 0026-8234 and ends on the next page at the

10    area for the signatures.

11            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  You'd say there's a bit more in the translation

12    than there is in the document.

13            Yes, please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.

14            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

15       Q.   Mr. Besic, do you have before you the document where we can see

16    the file number 234/94?

17       A.   Yes.

18       Q.   Do you recognise this document?

19       A.   Yes.

20       Q.   Could you please turn the page.

21            Is this document -- was this document compiled on the 4th of

22    February, 1994?

23       A.   Yes, after arriving at the premises of the criminal technicians'

24    department, that's when it was compiled.

25       Q.   Today you told us that this incident that you conducted your

Page 4934

 1    investigation of the site of the incident, that there was a team present

 2    there headed by the investigating judge, and I will read the first two

 3    lines of this text.  And I will remind you that you told us today that on

 4    this place, the investigation was carried out regarding the landing of two

 5    projectiles.

 6            You said in your report --

 7       A.   Yes, that's correct.

 8       Q.   You said in this report at 11.25 that the aggressor from their

 9    locations in Lukavica fired two projectiles of 120 millimetres to the

10    neighbourhood of Dobrinja.

11       A.   Yes.

12            JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Pilipovic, you were reading perhaps from the

13    original text that -- no, not from the original text.  In the transcript

14    it reads in English that two projectiles of 120 millimetres, and as far as

15    I even can detect from the original language, it says three.  And in the

16    translation, at least it says three 120 millimetre mortar shells.

17            So when you -- I did not hear what you said, whether you said two

18    or not in B/C/S, but the translation says two.

19            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness has

20    confirmed that he investigated on the 4th of February, 1994, the scene in

21    Dobrinja where the incident happened and where two mortar shells fell.

22            JUDGE ORIE:  You're quoting the -- yes, the transcript.  I have

23    not, perhaps, been attentive enough.  You're quoting the transcript and

24    not the report.  Yes.

25            Please proceed.

Page 4935

 1            JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA:  Sorry, page 60, line 2, it says -- the

 2    question says:  "You said in this report, you said in this report at 11.25

 3    that the aggressor from their locations in Lukavica fired two

 4    projectiles."  But according to the translation at least, and I think the

 5    original three projectiles are mentioned.  That's what we have to

 6    clarify.

 7            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 8       Q.   Witness, can you confirm for us that you said that at the site

 9    where you conducted investigation with the Judge Eterovic's team, that you

10    answered my question that it was an incident involving two mortar shells?

11       A.   Yes, I said we investigated the case of two mortar shells having

12    landed there.

13       Q.   Thank you.  After that, I read out to you the report of the

14    criminal investigation of the site which you identified, and beneath Item

15    4 where the text begins, "On the 4th of February, 1994, at 11.25, the

16    aggressor fired three mortar shells from its position at Lukavica."

17            Did you note this?

18       A.   Yes, we noted and wrote this down.  However, the third shell fell

19    a block of buildings outside this site where we investigated these two

20    shells.  And as I said, the priority task of these investigations was the

21    site of these two projectiles because there were more casualties, more,

22    that is, fatalities and people injured.  The third projectile did not

23    cause injuries so we did not investigate it.  And the photo documentation

24    and the recording was done only with regard to these two mortar shells

25    which killed nine people.

Page 4936

 1       Q.   Witness, I will show you, from the photo documentation given us by

 2    the Prosecution relative to the incident of the 4th of February, 1994,

 3    photograph number 9.

 4            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be

 5    shown.

 6       Q.   Witness Besic, will you look at the photograph number 9.  You do

 7    not have photograph number 9 before you.

 8       A.   This is Markale.  This is Markale.

 9       Q.   The photograph for the 4th of February, 1994.

10            JUDGE ORIE:  It's P2247.

11            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]

12       Q.   Mr. Besic, you have before you photograph number 9.  Did you

13    photograph this site?

14       A.   I did.

15       Q.   Can you answer for us, in this part where you say a 120 millimetre

16    shell fell, did you find a stabiliser there?

17       A.   Yes, we did.

18       Q.   Can you tell us where was the stabiliser in this place?

19       A.   The stabiliser here was here, there is an arrow marking it.  So it

20    was here.  You can't really see the arrow properly.

21       Q.   You merely noted the point -- place of impact.  You did not say

22    that a stabiliser had been found there?

23       A.   No.

24       Q.   Can you tell us, in relation to this point where were the shrapnel

25    pieces?  Were there any?

Page 4937

 1       A.   Pieces were in this area here where you can see the damage.  You

 2    can see here the damage done to the walls, and some earth which was thrown

 3    against this wall.

 4            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, for the transcript,

 5    the witness on photograph number 9 explains or rather clarifies that in

 6    the place number 1 where the stabiliser was found, the stabiliser of a

 7    shell, and in relation to the window and the darkened part next to the

 8    window, and the part which is looking from -- to the left with certain

 9    damage to the material, is built, he is explaining that this is where the

10    pieces of the shrapnel were.

11       Q.   Can you tell us if it was recorded officially, that the stabiliser

12    and shell shrapnel were found in this part?

13       A.   Yes.

14       Q.   Can you tell us who on your team noted about this part, what was

15    there on the site?

16       A.   There is a record which the judge makes.  It is his record which

17    says that the point of impact of the shell was here, that there were

18    pieces of the shell, and the projectile itself.

19       Q.   Since you told us that in this part of Dobrinja, there were two

20    more sites which you identified as the place which had been hit by the

21    mortar shells, did you also find for these two places the shell

22    stabilisers or mines?

23       A.   This photograph shows the platform which we investigated two

24    mortar projectiles.  In this photo documentation is the documentation for

25    these two projectiles.  The investigation of the site of impact of the

Page 4938

 1    third projectile was not done.  If you look at the front of the photograph

 2    number 1, you'll be able to see it.

 3       Q.   I'd like to ask you to look at the photograph number 1 and tell us

 4    in relation to these two sites where you identified these two sites, where

 5    is it that you didn't conduct the investigation?

 6       A.   On this photograph, you can see -- this is a broad view of the

 7    area where the investigation is conducted.  There are no photographs of

 8    the impact point of the third projectile which fell -- which landed in a

 9    residential block behind.

10       Q.   Can you answer for us for which of these three incidents which we

11    have identified here, and you marked them, which of the incidents you did

12    not investigate, on this photograph or on photograph number 9?

13       A.   I do not know.  This documentation was done only for the two

14    projectiles which landed here.  The third projectile fell a block of

15    buildings beyond, that is, beyond the range of this area.  And it is not

16    in this area at all, the third projectile.

17       Q.   So, Mr. Besic, you are confirming for us that this photograph,

18    number 9, reflects the site where a mortar mine fell which is marked and

19    which can be seen on this photograph?

20       A.   We used a marker to -- yesterday -- to mark the place where the

21    second mortar projectile landed.  It is this area here.

22       Q.   Are you telling us that this is the site, the one that we see on

23    photograph number 9?

24       A.   Correct.

25       Q.   Can you tell us, this third projectile, in which street did it

Page 4939

 1    land?

 2       A.   West.  Looking from here, from this direction, to the west of it.

 3    That is, the next block of buildings over here.

 4       Q.   Isn't that part of the site sketched and who made the sketch?

 5       A.   Samir Salman did the sketch, and it shows where and on what street

 6    the third projectile landed.

 7       Q.   Can you tell us what the name of the street is?

 8       A.   I can't remember.

 9       Q.   In relation to this photograph, can you tell us where is the

10    police station?

11       A.   North of this photograph.

12       Q.   Can you tell us the name of the street?

13       A.   No.  I don't think I really could tell you the name of the street.

14    It used to be Mitsubishi Avenue in peacetime.

15       Q.   Can you tell us if this third projectile landed on the ground?

16       A.   I repeat:  We never investigated the third projectile.

17       Q.   I'm sorry.  Then on the basis of what did you write "three mortar

18    mines?"

19       A.   On the basis of statements by witnesses who were present there.

20       Q.   So at the time when you wrote this criminal report, you wrote

21    three mortar shells without checking the third site about which you tell

22    us that that is where the fall of the mine occurred?

23       A.   We thought that a priority was to investigate this place where a

24    number of people suffered and were killed so that when we completed that

25    part of our work, as the day was drawing to a close, we did not go out to

Page 4940

 1    the point of impact of the third shell because there were no injured --

 2    because there were no casualties.

 3       Q.   Mr. Besic, can you tell us if when writing the report you had any

 4    knowledge of what the ballistics report looked like?

 5       A.   I see the text.  I did not, however, know how they drew it up.  I

 6    did not participate in the drawing up of the ballistic report.  It was

 7    done by Sabljica and Cevic.

 8       Q.   Are you telling us that no sooner did you complete the

 9    investigation than the communication was issued about the incident, and

10    they also gave the opinion as to the direction from which it was fired?

11       A.   Yes.  This was done on site, as in the previous case, that is the

12    map of the city was placed there.  It was guarded.  And the direction was

13    determined from which the projectile had been fired.

14            JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Pilipovic, being it's five minutes -- 25 minutes

15    to 6.00, could you find within the next one or two minutes a suitable

16    moment to stop so that we have another break.

17            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

18       Q.   Witness, in relation to this incident, I'd like to -- I'd like you

19    to answer us:  In which part of this photograph, photograph 1, did you

20    identify the site where the largest number of casualties were?

21       A.   It is this part, this part here.  This area right here.

22            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, for the transcript,

23    the Defence wishes it to be written down that witness, on photograph

24    number 1, identifies the area marked with an arrow as the site of the

25    incident where there was the largest number of victims.

Page 4941

 1            And I believe this is a convenient time, Your Honour.

 2            JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you very much, Ms. Pilipovic.  We'll adjourn

 3    until 5 minutes to 6.00.

 4                          --- Recess taken at 5.34 p.m.

 5                          --- On resuming at 5.56 p.m.

 6            JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.

 7            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 8       Q.   Witness, on this photograph number 1, you located or you indicated

 9    two places about which you said where you conducted the investigation.

10    You said that you did not do the investigation of the third site.

11       A.   No, I didn't.

12       Q.   In relation to these two places, how far away was the site where

13    the third projectile landed in relation to these first two places, how far

14    is the third one?

15       A.   I believe it was about 50 metres, perhaps maybe 70.

16       Q.   If you tell us now that you did not go to this third site to do

17    the investigation, could you answer on the basis of what did you say three

18    mortar shells in your report?

19       A.   When we arrived to the site of the incident, we found several

20    witnesses who told us that three projectiles had landed.  So one landed

21    one block behind, and the two projectiles landed there.  So it was on the

22    basis of the witnesses, of what they said.

23       Q.   Do you know whether your colleague who you said did a sketch, did

24    he also mark on that sketch the place of the third projectile?

25       A.   Yes, he did, and he did go there, and he went and he did it.  He

Page 4942

 1    did a sketch, but I was not present there.

 2       Q.   Do you know whether Mr. Sabljica, who was a ballistic expert, and

 3    Mr. Mededovic, did they go to that third site?

 4       A.   I don't think they did.  I don't think they went there.

 5       Q.   So you confirm that in your report, you put three mortar shells,

 6    three 120-millimetre mortar shells, and you confirmed that you went to two

 7    investigations.  And for the third, for the third shell, you just wrote it

 8    in your report of basis of witness statements?

 9       A.   Yes, that's correct.

10       Q.   Is it in your job description, the job that you do -- the work

11    that you do, is it allowed for you to write something in your report, to

12    write about such incidents on the basis of witness statements without

13    checking it out, without corroborating it, saying it was a shell?

14       A.   Considering that the investigating Judge Eterovic was present, he

15    put it in his report, in his record, and I presume that investigating

16    Judge Zdenko did see the site and probably established that it was not

17    necessary to do an investigation of the third site.  But in the record it

18    was established that three projectiles had landed, three shells, three

19    grenades.

20       Q.   Thank you.

21            Mr. Besic, there's just another question I'd like to ask.  In the

22    course of making -- writing your report about the investigation, the

23    criminal technicians' report of the site of the incident regarding the

24    Markale incident, when you submitted your report, did you also have in

25    mind the ballistic experts' report done by Mrs. Sabljica and Mr. Cavcic?

Page 4943

 1       A.   Yes, I did have the opportunity to read it, but I did not

 2    participate in the making of the report because I did not take part in

 3    that part of the investigation.

 4       Q.   When did you have this opportunity to read it, after how many

 5    days?

 6       A.   I couldn't answer that precisely.

 7       Q.   If I tell you that in your report, criminal technician's report,

 8    which was shown to you by my colleagues, you stated that on that day,

 9    there was a shelling from the aggressors' position.  On the basis of what

10    did you write that report?  What data, on the basis of which data?

11       A.   This was on the basis of the arrow which indicated the direction

12    from which the mortar shell came.  This is from the area of Lukavica, area

13    which is -- area which is in the easterly direction.

14       Q.   So you wrote your report, the criminal technician's report, you

15    wrote that the shell was fired from the agressors' positions?

16            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Stamp.

17            MR. STAMP:  Just as a matter of clarification, Mr. President, I'm

18    wondering if the previous response of the witness or the question was

19    referring to the incident of the 5th of February or to the incident of the

20    4th of February, if that could just be clarified, which incident was

21    counsel referring to in --

22            JUDGE ORIE:  If I understood Ms. Pilipovic well, she was referring

23    to the report which states on that date there was shelling from the

24    aggressors' positions, I think she was still referring to the report of

25    the 4th of February.  But if I'm wrong, Ms. Pilipovic.

Page 4944

 1            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  This is the

 2    report I'm talking about, for the 5th of February, the incident I'm

 3    referring to is about Markale.

 4       A.   Then you did not ask me the question properly if we're talking

 5    about the shelling of Dobrinja, then we should have stressed that.

 6       Q.   I asked you about the incident report in Markale.

 7       A.   You did not mention the location or the date.

 8       Q.   I will now show you the report in a sufficient number of copies

 9    for you in English, and I would ask you to read -- or I could read you

10    this part of the report.

11            JUDGE ORIE:  Ms. Pilipovic, let me just try to clarify.  Is the

12    report that you are distributing now -- oh, that's P2309, which is it

13    right that it's already tendered by the Prosecution?  Even the

14    Prosecution's number is on it.  Is there any reason, do you want to have

15    any markings made on it, or is it just -- I mean, you can just ask the

16    Registrar to show the witness already --

17            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] No.

18            JUDGE ORIE:  [Previous translation continues]...So  then perhaps

19    D65 should then be returned in order to avoid whatever confusion, and the

20    witness should be shown P2309, I think.

21            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]

22       Q.   Witness, you identified this report during the

23    examination-in-chief.

24       A.   Yes.

25       Q.   On the report, the date is 5th of February, 1994.

Page 4945

 1       A.   Yes.

 2       Q.   Could you tell us when did you compile this report?

 3       A.   This report was compiled -- the report was compiled on Sunday,

 4    because I was called by the chief to finish the report.  And the photo

 5    file was then on the 7th, because the lab, the photo lab, couldn't finish

 6    their work.

 7       Q.   So you're telling us that this report was written after the

 8    photographs were finished?

 9       A.   No, before the photographs.  After arriving from the

10    investigation, the investigation is logged, and they are numbered in the

11    record number.  This is what the number is here, the book number, 240/93.

12    It's just an error.  It should be 94.  After that, we type up the criminal

13    technicians' report, and then a photo lab photos are done, and then the

14    following day we finish the photo file.

15       Q.   Thank you.

16            When you were compiling this report of yours, did you also have a

17    ballistic's report?

18       A.   No, I did not.  I was not -- I did not have the opportunity to see

19    it on the same day, but I saw it on Monday, on Tuesday.  When everything

20    was gathered together, I had an opportunity to see the ballistic's report

21    which was then made.

22       Q.   Could you tell us on the basis of which did you write that it was

23    from the agressors' positions that the shelling of the city was carried

24    out on that day?

25       A.   On the basis of the position, that is, the front lines, the

Page 4946

 1    demarcation lines were quite far away.  And the direction was established

 2    after the arrow was placed showing the direction, and the direction was

 3    Mirkovic.

 4       Q.   So you're confirming that you wrote your report on the basis of

 5    placing of the arrow, which we were able to identify on the photographs,

 6    and that is what your answer is?

 7       A.   Yes.

 8       Q.   Thank you, Witness.

 9            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Now, Your Honour, the

10    cross-examination will be continued by my co-counsel.

11            JUDGE ORIE:  Please, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, proceed.

12            You'll further be cross-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin, counsel for

13    the Defence, Mr. Besic.

14            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

15                          Cross-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:

16       Q.   [Interpretation] Witness, good afternoon.  Thank you for being in

17    this courtroom.

18            I will ask you a number of questions, and I will attempt every

19    time to be as specific as possible in relation to what we'll be talking

20    about.  The first question is -- refers to sniping.  You said that you did

21    a number of investigations that were to do with sniping, and I presume

22    that this is the principal that you can confirm for us.  Is that correct?

23       A.   Yes, that's correct.

24       Q.   Thank you, Witness.

25            So when we were doing such investigations, and when we are using

Page 4947

 1    the string or a tube technique, could you please confirm the existence of

 2    such techniques, the tube and the string?

 3       A.   Yes, there are such measures.  With a string, we can connect two

 4    or a number of -- or a number of points.  We can also connect to several

 5    other points with a tube.  And what happens, that can happen, is that the

 6    bullet or the projectile first hits a glass.  If we're talking about

 7    double glass, for instance, it goes to one glass, and then it cannot break

 8    the second layer of glass.

 9       Q.   Thank you, Witness.

10            I believe that you have a certain expertise in this.  Is that

11    correct?

12       A.   Yes.

13       Q.   Could you then tell us, what are the standards that you are using,

14    or the criteria, to take into consideration the necessary modification,

15    the alteration of the projectory of the projectile?

16            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Stamp.

17            MR. STAMP:  If it please you, Mr. President, notwithstanding that

18    the witness said that he did have - to use my friend's word as

19    translated - "a certain expertise", a certain expertise in the area of

20    using strings or tubes, the witness has clearly demarcated the area of his

21    expertise, what he is trained to do in criminal investigations and what he

22    can speak about in terms of his training.  And it might not be helpful to

23    the Court for him to be speaking about matters outside of his training and

24    expertise.

25            JUDGE ORIE:  I think the first thing we have to establish is

Page 4948

 1    whether the question was within the expertise -- the question was about a

 2    matter within the expertise or outside the expertise.

 3            Would you please, first, then, ask that to the witness,

 4    Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

 5            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes.

 6       Q.   Witness, so, in effect, during your work, your professional

 7    experiences, did you have a task to find out where a projectile could come

 8    from, one or several?

 9       A.   If we are talking about a small calibre ammunition, for instance,

10    a rifle, what we do in the investigation, in an investigation of a site,

11    we are just connecting two points that could possibly indicate the

12    direction where the projectile or the bullet came from.  So by linking up

13    these two points, one point could be inside a room, and the second point

14    could be in the glass, or the third, if there is one, so for instance, if

15    there is a cover outside or a roof outside of the building.  So this is

16    only the direction of the bullet of the trajectory, where it came from.

17    In those cases, if it is not possible to link up these two points, then we

18    do not say that we can determine where the bullet came from.

19       Q.   Thank you, Witness.

20            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I believe that

21    according to what the witness just said, I believe that I can now ask the

22    question that I wanted to ask.  Do I have your authorisation?

23            JUDGE ORIE:  I'm also looking to Mr. Stamp, because it's not quite

24    clear to me whether the question you've put to the witness really brings

25    us any further as far as his expertise is concerned.

Page 4949

 1            Let me try to do it more directly.  Mr. Besic, you've told us

 2    about a system of connecting two points in order to establish where a

 3    small projectile came from.  Did you have any knowledge and do you take

 4    into account when you're working that a bullet usually does not fly in a

 5    direct line, but makes a trajectory which is not a straight line from the

 6    point where fired to the point where it lands?  Do you take it into

 7    account?  Have you any knowledge of this phenomenon?

 8            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Normally every bullet loses some

 9    force as it is fired; and after a certain time, it does fall, so there is

10    a landing angle.  Of course, it's not a straight line.  It loses its

11    speed, its force, and the force is lower.  And of course, there is a

12    slight fall.  In this case, because we are talking about short

13    distances --

14            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Besic, my question was whether you take this into

15    account while establishing the source of the fire in general.  Do you do

16    some mathematics on that part as well?  Have you specific knowledge, apart

17    from the global knowledge that you have, and what criteria would you use?

18    What methods would you use to calculate this phenomenon in your findings?

19            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, we didn't have training like

20    that.  We didn't do any calculations.  This is only determining two points

21    and determining where the projectile came from.  That's all.

22            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I expect that this will give you

23    enough guidance to know where the expertise of the witness is and where it

24    might not be.  Yes.

25            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes.  Yes, but I have a third

Page 4950

 1    question in this field.

 2       Q.   Witness, since you conducted these investigations, is it possible

 3    to have ricochets, as they are called, when a projectile is fired?

 4       A.   Yes, of course, there is ricochet.  So a bullet or a projectile

 5    which comes to an obstacle then changes its direction, its trajectory.

 6       Q.   Thank you for your answer, Witness.

 7            So it is theoretically possible that a projectile which would go

 8    through the very first obstacle, which is more or less solid or

 9    consistent, it could deviate to the right or to the left.  Is that right?

10       A.   Yes, exactly.  In fact, if we're talking about a bullet or about

11    shrapnel, if it comes to an obstacle, it is possible that it will change

12    its course, whether to the left or to right.  But it is then possible to

13    see a deformation on it.

14       Q.   Thank you.  So the deformation could go up to it being actually

15    broken up?

16       A.   In some cases, it does happen.  It depends on the obstacle.  It

17    could burst.  But in most cases, no.  That happens quite rarely.

18       Q.   Thank you for your answer.  And I believe that I'm making myself

19    clear that we're talking about deviations to the left or to the right, so

20    any direction in space.  It is possible, to the left and to the right;

21    also, it can go up or down.

22       A.   It does depend on the obstacle that it encounters.

23       Q.   Yes, absolutely.  We agree.  Thank you, Witness.

24            Now, since we clarified these points, I would like to go back to

25    some other questions.  I would like to go back to the questions regarding

Page 4951

 1    Markale.  You told us that the photographer was with you.  I am not sure

 2    that I remember his name.  Could you give us the name of the cameraman,

 3    the man who was manning the videocamera?

 4       A.   Zlatan Sadikovic.

 5       Q.   So if I understand you correctly, Witness, he filmed the entire

 6    scene, the entire site, what we saw yesterday - I'm talking about on

 7    site - on Markale site?

 8       A.   Yes, he filmed all that.

 9       Q.   He did it with the same camera?

10       A.   Yes, with the same camera.

11       Q.   Thank you for your answer.

12            Witness, now I'm going to go back to the chronology of the events

13    and the photographs.  But first of all, I would like you to tell us

14    whether there were operations on site.  I'm talking about the Markale

15    site.

16            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stamp.

17            MR. STAMP:  The objection really is vagueness.  "Operation on

18    site", it could lead us anywhere.

19            JUDGE ORIE:  I had some difficulties because I changed channel.

20            MR. STAMP:  The question is about operations on site.  Witness

21    could take us anywhere.  The question I object to, it is too vague.

22            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, could you please be more precise,

23    Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

24            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes.  Yes.

25       Q.   The question was clearer in French.  But by "operations", what I

Page 4952

 1    meant of course, I meant surgical -- I meant surgery, surgical

 2    operations.

 3       A.   I don't know what you mean.  What do you mean "surgery"?

 4       Q.   Did you see with your own eyes that there were surgical

 5    operations, surgeries, on site trying to sewing up injuries, tending to

 6    the wounds?

 7       A.   No, that was not done on site.  The conditions were not such to do

 8    that on site.

 9       Q.   Thank you, Witness, for your answer.

10            So you are absolutely certain there were no surgical operations on

11    the Markale site?

12       A.   I cannot answer because I wasn't on site immediately.  I arrived

13    about 35, 45 minutes after it happened, to the site of the incident.  We

14    didn't find any people or corpses or the wounded.  We found the space that

15    was secured, as I explained.

16       Q.   Thank you, Witness.

17            As far as you know, was there a medical facility on site, a kind

18    of field medical facility on site?

19       A.   No, there was nothing like that on site.

20       Q.   Thank you for your answer.

21            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, at this time, I

22    would like to have a look at the video that we saw yesterday, and I've

23    already informed the technical booth.  This is the P29 -- 2278.  And if it

24    is possible, we could just stop to have a look at it, and then I can say

25    when the projection will actually start.

Page 4953

 1            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could the technical booths --

 2            MR. STAMP:  Could we just clarify the number.  Is it P2278 or

 3    P2279?

 4            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that's at least what my understanding in French

 5    is.

 6            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. Usher, could tell us

 7    because he has it in his hands.

 8            [In English] Please check the number.

 9            THE REGISTRAR:  It is 2278.

10            JUDGE ORIE:  Is my recollection correct when I say that 2278 was

11    the incomplete version, and 2279 was the complete version of the tape,

12    Mr. Stamp?

13            MR. STAMP:  I beg your pardon.  May I have a moment.

14            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15                          [Prosecution counsel confer]

16            JUDGE ORIE:  We had two versions of the tape, one more or less

17    redacted.

18            MR. STAMP:  May I express my understanding.  I think the version

19    shown earlier --

20            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21            MR. STAMP:  -- which was an extract was 2279.  What was shown

22    later we have designated 2279A, and that is a Court original or part

23    thereof.  What I think is being tendered up now is something which we

24    disclosed to the Defence but has not yet been tendered into evidence.

25            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 4954

 1            MR. STAMP:  This is a tape --

 2            JUDGE ORIE:  So that's a tape we have not seen yet in this

 3    courtroom.

 4            MR. STAMP:  It is not in evidence.

 5            JUDGE ORIE:  Is there anything else on that tape compared to the

 6    tapes we have seen?

 7            MR. STAMP:  If I may describe what the tape depicts, it really

 8    shows the scene of Markale before the police arrived.

 9            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

10            MR. STAMP:  The wounded and dead casualties being removed from the

11    scene, and it shows aspects of a hospital.  This tape was intended to be

12    tendered through a witness who was on scene before the police arrived.

13    And I think we did indicate that to the Defence.  But I think that is

14    where the confusion has arisen.  This has not yet been put in evidence.

15            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

16            Then, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, what Mr. Stamp tells us, that this is not

17    the video that we saw yesterday.  Is that correct?  And is this number

18    2278?

19            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I believe that

20    this is a tape which originates from the Prosecution, which is the summary

21    of what the Prosecution wanted to put in its case.  And I thought it would

22    be useful to see it.  But perhaps if we could go back to the witness

23    tomorrow and then have a look at the video together, if -- I don't know

24    what Mr. Stamp would like us to do.

25            JUDGE ORIE:  One moment, please.

Page 4955

 1            Mr. Piletta-Zanin, when you introduced the videotape you were

 2    about to play, is that what you said, "Mr. President, at this time I would

 3    like to have a look at the video that we saw yesterday, and I have already

 4    informed the technical booth, and that is...", and you came up with the

 5    number 2278.  But that is not the video we saw yesterday.

 6            Am I correct in my understanding?  Because that's what Mr. Stamp

 7    tells us.

 8            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.  First of all, I'm

 9    sorry about yesterday; we only saw just smoke yesterday.  But we are

10    talking about Monday.  This cassette is most probably the summary of what

11    we saw, what we saw in the course of Monday.  Is that right?

12            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Piletta-Zanin, Mr. Stamp has explained to us that

13    we have -- that there are two videotapes used on Monday, one is the

14    complete version of - let me say the police videotape; I'm just putting it

15    short - and a redacted one, just showing portions of it.  Initially, the

16    Prosecution thought they could do with the redacted version, but finally

17    it turned out that they needed all the information on the tape.  So I

18    think finally they will only tender the complete version.  But these both

19    were police tapes.

20            What you are about to present to this Court is, in your own words,

21    the tape of yesterday - and of course, we are talking about the day before

22    yesterday - but is not the police video.  Am I correct in my

23    understanding?  Because I now understand far better a few of your

24    questions, perhaps.  But would you please be clear on whether you are

25    replaying a video or part of a video we've already seen, or that you're

Page 4956

 1    playing a video which has been disclosed to you by the Prosecution as a

 2    totally different kind of video.  This means a video, as explained by

 3    Mr. Stamp, a video made by someone before the police arrived.

 4            Am I correct in my understanding?

 5            MR. STAMP:  That is quite correct.

 6            JUDGE ORIE:  Would you be quite clear on that, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

 7    Are we playing the police video we have seen already, or are we playing a

 8    totally different video?

 9            THE INTERPRETER:  The counsel's microphone is not on.

10            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Well, we should see this tape,

11    but there is no time.  But we shall do it tomorrow when we proceed.  We

12    shall have to see --

13            JUDGE ORIE:  No, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.  I want a clear answer from

14    you whether the tape you asked to be played.  Whether it will be played

15    now or not is a different question.  I want a clear answer whether the

16    tape you presented us is a tape --

17            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] May I have the tape back, and

18    then I will ask the witness a direct question.

19            JUDGE ORIE:  I just put a question to you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.  I'd

20    like to have an answer.

21            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I need to confer with my

22    colleague.  Thank you

23                          [Defence counsel confer]

24            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It is a tape which we received

25    on Saturday, Mr. President, and therefore it is obviously an integral

Page 4957

 1    tape.  But we shall now confirm it.  We received this tape on Saturday,

 2    and chronologically the answer has been provided.

 3            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stamp, has a tape with a number 2278 been

 4    provided to the Defence last Saturday?

 5            MR. STAMP:  It was disclosed to them on the 27th of February.

 6    They might have received it or picked it up on Saturday, but it was

 7    disclosed on the 27th of February.

 8            JUDGE ORIE:  How was it indicated to the Defence that this was

 9    not, as I call it, the police video?

10            MR. STAMP:  It was indicated because it bore a different number.

11    And whereas the police video would have been referenced to this witness,

12    Sead Besic, this other video was referenced to another witness, Esad

13    Hadzimuratovic, on our letter of a date I can't recall.

14            JUDGE ORIE:  When I look at -- you're talking about

15    Hadzimuratovic?

16            MR. STAMP:  Hadzimuratovic, yes.

17            JUDGE ORIE:  Hadzimuratovic.  On my last list, I see as exhibit

18    numbers mentioned for Esad Hadzimuratovic only 3121, not 2278.

19            MR. STAMP:  On a letter addressed to the counsel for the Defence

20    and copied to this Chamber dated the 27th of February, we sent by fax to

21    the Defence and filed it immediately for Court, we indicate in the second

22    paragraph --

23            JUDGE ORIE:  Let me just find it first, Mr. Stamp.  You said a

24    letter of the?

25            MR. STAMP:  27th of February.

Page 4958

 1            JUDGE ORIE:  27th.

 2            Yes, I have it.  Yes, I have here a letter of the 27th of

 3    February.

 4            MR. STAMP:  And I refer to the second paragraph, Mr. President.

 5    And I did make an error.  It was not disclosed on the 14th of March -- it

 6    was not disclosed on the 27th of February.  The 27th of February is the

 7    date of the letter.  It was, in fact, disclosed on the 14th of March.

 8            JUDGE ORIE:  So it was approximately one year ago.  And where does

 9    it clearly now indicate that this is not a police video?  Is this from the

10    list of exhibits?  Can we see it there?  I haven't got a list of

11    exhibits.  Could you please read for us entry 2278, which should not be

12    too difficult?  Have you got a list?  No, it's not the list of exhibits

13    tendered into evidence but the exhibit list that has been filed in

14    accordance with Rule 65 ter.  That means the long list of exhibits.

15            MR. STAMP:  In the exhibit list, it reads "2278".

16            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And then?

17            MR. STAMP:  And video in respect of the shooting of Sarajevo

18    market, Markale, 5 February, 1994.  And it is -- the ERN number is

19    V000-0350 disclosed on the 14th of March.

20            JUDGE ORIE:  Could you tell us what does it read on 2279?

21            MR. STAMP:  2279 is excerpt of videotape, and I'll ask you to

22    forgive my B/C/S.  It's a quotation from B/C/S.  Labelled "Mati Grejala

23    Obseja Za Otegrevaca, Genocide 1, Rane Zude Ena, CSB Sarajevo, Markale"

24    [phoen].

25            CSB Sarajevo is a reference to the police department.  Acronym in

Page 4959

 1    B/C/S to the police department.  But the two tapes bear different evidence

 2    numbers.

 3            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I do understand.  But you indicated, and it was

 4    of importance for this Chamber to find out, and it must have been clear to

 5    you, whether there was any risk of anyone in this courtroom being misled

 6    by the type of video that would be played.  That's the reason why I put

 7    the questions to Mr. Piletta-Zanin.  And I did that also on the basis of

 8    you saying that it has been made clear to the Defence that this was not a

 9    police -- not a police exhibit, not a police video, as I just said short.

10    I now do understand that from the quotation in B/C/S, in the number and

11    the absence of such quotation in 2278, it should have been clear that it

12    was a different type of video.

13            Well, at least now it's clear to me what you meant by saying that

14    it was indicated to the Defence that this was not a police video.

15            Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you told us that it was about a video that was

16    given to you only last weekend.  Was this the redacted video, 2279, that

17    was given to you?  Because the Prosecutor tells us that approximately one

18    year ago, 2278 has been disclosed to the Defence.  Could you please

19    clarify that.

20            Yes, Ms. Pilipovic.

21            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'll resolve the

22    problem.  Two videotapes I collected on Saturday from the locker when I

23    was also given the -- got the binders under 92 bis.  It is Dobrinja, the

24    5th of February, 1994, and the tape which I do not have now, which is here

25    with the Registrar.  In October, and I think it was October 2002 [sic],

Page 4960

 1    the police tape was disclosed to the witness -- to the Defence which the

 2    witness identified, and it is 3274.

 3            JUDGE ORIE:  My English translation says October 2002.  That's

 4    perhaps a bit too futuristic for this Chamber.

 5            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't know why it says 2002,

 6    when the Prosecution disclosed all the video evidence.  That evidence

 7    including a tape, which said a videotape, police report of 5th February,

 8    1994, Markale, Markale market.  And I'd like to ask our learned friends to

 9    tell us what video evidence do they have in their possession?

10            JUDGE ORIE:  You just give me one second to read again what has

11    been said.

12            Ms. Pilipovic, you told us that you collected -- one of the two

13    videotapes you collected last weekend from your locker was a video

14    concerning the 5th of February, 1994.  Was that Number 2279 or was that

15    2278, or was that 2279A?

16            MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the tape which I have

17    now is 3822.  That is what I collected on Saturday and the tape which is

18    now ready to be shown.  That is what I collected on Saturday.  Now, I do

19    not know what the number is, and I do not know who has the tape.  So they

20    might tell us the number.  The tape says?

21            JUDGE ORIE:  May I just see the tape.

22                          [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

23            JUDGE ORIE:  The two videos that are with the Registry at this

24    moment are 2279 and the second one, 2279A.  The third one, which was in

25    the hands of the usher, is exhibited number P2278.  And it reads:

Page 4961

 1    "Extract from V000 or VODO" - I can't read that properly - "0350

 2    pertaining to Markale shelling."

 3            So that's the video of which you say, Mr. Stamp, that it's a video

 4    made not by any police force?

 5            MR. STAMP:  Not by any police force.

 6            JUDGE ORIE:  Not by any police force.

 7            MR. STAMP:  If I may clarify one other thing.

 8            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Stamp.

 9            MR. STAMP:  The other tape which was put into counsel's locker,

10    which she just referred to, was one which from the evidence Mr. Besic said

11    he brought in very recently and which this Court sometime last week

12    directed us to give a copy to the Defence immediately.

13            JUDGE ORIE:  But this video has not yet been shown?

14            MR. STAMP:  P2278 has not yet been shown.

15            JUDGE ORIE:  No, but that's the -- is that the video in the

16    locker?  Because this is the one, 2278, which has been disclosed you

17    said --

18            MR. STAMP:  Last year.  We gave them another copy, as the letter

19    of the 27th indicates.

20            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

21            MR. STAMP:  Yes.

22            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I've seen that.

23            MR. STAMP:  That's for convenience.

24            JUDGE ORIE:  That's for convenience.  That's the letter of the --

25            MR. STAMP:  27th.  And the letter goes on, "Another new video

Page 4962

 1    exhibit that we received recently is also being listed and planned to be

 2    tendered through Mirza Sabljica.  We are also placing this video in your

 3    locker."

 4            THE INTERPRETER:  Slow down, counsel, please.

 5            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, Mr. Stamp, you are requested to slow down.

 6            MR. STAMP:  The difficulty really arises in respect of the tape

 7    which was just produced by my friend.  That tape was clearly designated as

 8    a different tape from what has been shown before in the Court by the

 9    number, the exhibit number, and the ERN number, and the description on the

10    exhibit list.  They are different tapes.

11            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  So what you say is you provided, just for the

12    convenience of the Defence, a video, P2278, which you additionally were

13    planning to tender through Witness Esad Hadzimuratovic.

14            MR. STAMP:  Yes.

15            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I do understand this.  I do not understand why

16    this video does not appear any more on the -- among the exhibits indicated

17    in your letter of the 6th of March, which is of -- if I look at the 6th of

18    March, it's the most recent one.  If I look at the potential exhibits for

19    witnesses of the 6th to the 15th of March, 2002, I see Esad

20    Hadzimuratovic.  I only see one exhibit, 3121.

21            THE INTERPRETER:  Mr. President, please slow down.

22            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I do apologise.

23            MR. STAMP:  In the letter of the 6th of March, if I may respond to

24    that, Mr. President.

25            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

Page 4963

 1            MR. STAMP:  In the third paragraph --

 2            JUDGE ORIE:  I see, it has disappeared from Mr. Hadzimuratovic,

 3    but it appears with another witness.  It's additional information.  It's

 4    clear to me.  Thank you for assisting me and better understanding where

 5    this exhibit, how it changed from Mr. Hadzimuratovic to another witness.

 6            Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

 7            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes.

 8            JUDGE ORIE:  You were standing.

 9            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, I simply do not know if my

10    presence was still of any use in this Court, and I can only see that the

11    time is passing.  And that now, it is literally impossible to go through

12    this tape regardless of its origin, and therefore I suggest that we return

13    to it tomorrow.

14            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Let me just confer.

15                          [Trial Chamber confers]

16            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the Chamber agrees that it would

17    be wise to start tomorrow.  You can put whatever questions on this video.

18    At least it has been clarified now, I hope at least, or perhaps by

19    questioning it might not be clear at all.  I do not know.

20            But one thing is for sure, as far as I can see, this is not a

21    video we have seen before.  I think that's the only thing we possibly

22    could establish at this very moment, and we heard from the Prosecution

23    what in the view of the Prosecution is the origin of this video.  And

24    whenever you have any other view, perhaps rather let you first question

25    the witness and then see what comes out.

Page 4964

 1            Where would you like it to be kept until tomorrow morning?  I

 2    think you would like it to be returned.

 3            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [In English] We will see that tomorrow.  Thank

 4    you very much, Your Honour.

 5            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  We still have a few minutes left, if there are

 6    other subjects which would not take up much -- yes.  Please proceed,

 7    then.

 8            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] If I may continue my

 9    cross-examination for about 5 minutes, I shall do so gladly.  If not --

10            JUDGE ORIE:  Perhaps it's wiser.  I promised Mr. Stamp five

11    minutes on another issue.  So perhaps this confusion --

12            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [In English] He already had five minutes.

13            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, but not on the subject he asked for five minutes

14    for.

15            Mr. Besic, you have seen there has been a lot of confusion about

16    just what about what video will be played to you.  Looking backwards, it

17    might have been wiser to have this debate not in your presence.  Let me

18    say this to you:  Whenever a video may be played tomorrow for you, the

19    parties may have different views as to the origin of the video.  None of

20    these visions is as it is now been established for this Chamber.  I'd like

21    you to keep that clearly in mind when you return tomorrow morning and

22    answer whatever questions on a video when it will be played to you.  I'll

23    ask the usher now to lead you out of the courtroom since we need another

24    five minutes to discuss another issue not related to your testimony.

25    Would you please return tomorrow morning at 9.00 in this courtroom.

Page 4965












12   Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13   English transcripts.













Page 4966

 1            Yes, Mr. Usher, would you please lead --

 2            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you.

 3            JUDGE ORIE:  -- the witness out of the courtroom.

 4                          [The witness stands down]

 5            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Stamp.

 6            MR. STAMP:  May it please you, Mr. President and Your Honours, at

 7    the beginning of today's sitting you had indicated, Mr. President, that

 8    there was some areas that need to be clarified in respect to the status of

 9    certain witnesses, whether they are experts or not.

10            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

11            MR. STAMP:  I have to confess that as far as the 65 ter summaries

12    are concerned, perhaps the expression "expert" has not been used in a way

13    that strictly confines it to Rule 94 bis.  It has been used rather

14    loosely.  And --

15            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please proceed, Mr. Stamp.

16            MR. STAMP:  And for the time being, I'd like to clarify the status

17    in respect of the witness Mirza Sabljica.

18            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, just for this one witness.

19            MR. STAMP:  Yes.  Your Honour had referred to quite a number of

20    witnesses, and we will clarify all of them in due course.  But this one is

21    one scheduled to testify soon.  He is here.  Everything relevant to his

22    testimony has been served on the Defence for quite some time now, and they

23    have been notified that he is to testify soon.  He, as is indicated by the

24    65 ter summary, is a -- or was a police officer with specialist training

25    in a particular field.

Page 4967

 1            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 2            MR. STAMP:  He is not an expert for the purposes of Rule 94 bis.

 3    He, like many other police officers who are trained in a particular area

 4    of investigations, will certainly have over the years gained expertise and

 5    experience in a particular area that he can testify upon.

 6    But he is primarily a fact witness.  He participated in the investigation,

 7    made observations of fact, and on the basis of his training as a police

 8    officer, he is --

 9            JUDGE ORIE:  That's quite clear to us.  You regard him as a normal

10    witness and as a witness which potentially could -- Rule 94 bis could be

11    applied upon.

12            MR. STAMP:  Indeed, Your Honour.

13            JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Piletta-Zanin, any observation you'd like to make

14    after this clarification.

15            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I was about to

16    say that in view of what the Prosecution says, I'd really like to answer,

17    but there is no time to do so.  I need to consult with my colleague, and

18    perhaps we shall do so, that is, respond tomorrow if all goes well.

19            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  But let me just see.  We asked for a

20    clarification to the Prosecution in order to be sure whether we are

21    dealing with a witness or an expert witness to which Rule 94 bis might

22    apply or not.  I wonder if you would agree with the Prosecution, I wonder

23    whether the Defence could force the Prosecution to qualify one of their

24    witnesses as an expert.  It's a question.  I'm just putting it as a

25    question.  But I'm wondering if that's the issue you want to think over

Page 4968

 1    overnight, I'm curious to hear what you'd like to say about it tomorrow.

 2            MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] There are a number of things

 3    that we can do overnight, Mr. President, and that could be one of the

 4    things that we wish to clarify.  However, what we wish to clarify is how

 5    many times -- and I know how Prosecution is precise in what he wants to

 6    do, how often they have called people witnesses and at times expert

 7    witnesses.  I do not have my whole file here, but I chose to remind that

 8    the letonical (phoen) system that we were made access to does not

 9    function, and we have to simply check for this witness and for other

10    witnesses.  Thank you.

11            JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Of course, well you feel that this Chamber also

12    needed some clarification on this point.  Being it's 7.00 now, we'll

13    adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00.

14                          --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

15                          6.59 p.m., to be reconvened on

16                          Thursday, the 7th day of March, 2000,

17                          at 9.00 a.m.]