Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 7713

 1                           Tuesday, 12 October 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

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

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Good morning, everybody.

 7             Good morning, Mr. Sabljica.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Gaynor, although the accused started

10     cross-examining the witness yesterday, upon second thought the Chamber is

11     of the opinion that it would be helpful for you to lead the evidence

12     live in relation to the general methodology of investigation into

13     shelling and sniping, in particular determining angle of descent and

14     determining range of fire in relation to shelling incidents, which

15     appears on pages 14 to 18 of his statement, and the method of

16     investigation in relation to sniping incidents which appears on pages 67

17     and 69.  Given their technical mathematical or geometrical nature, it

18     would be a bit difficult for us to understand what are written in the

19     Rule 92 ter statement without some kind of guidance from the witness.  So

20     I wonder whether you can do that right now.

21             MR. GAYNOR:  Certainly, Mr. President.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

23             MR. GAYNOR:  You would like initially a general explanation of

24     methodology, followed by specifically --

25             JUDGE KWON:  If you look at those statements, he refers to sine,

Page 7714

 1     cosine or hypotenuse, which I heard during the school days.

 2             MR. GAYNOR:  Very well, Mr. President.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  And then we'll give our ruling after having heard

 4     the -- that in-chief evidence as to how much time the accused should have

 5     for his cross-examination.

 6             Yes, Mr. Gaynor.  It's out of order, but we stopped the

 7     cross-examination in the meantime, so I would like you to lead that

 8     evidence-in-chief.

 9             MR. GAYNOR:  Certainly, Mr. President.

10                           WITNESS:  MIRZA SABLJICA [Resumed]

11                           [The witness answered through interpreter]

12                           Examination by Mr. Gaynor: [Continued]

13        Q.   Mr. Sabljica, could you explain, in general, the methodology that

14     you would use in respect of shelling incidents?  Just in general terms,

15     first of all, and then I'll ask you some specific questions.

16        A.   As I said yesterday, when analysing a particular photograph with

17     regard to artillery projectiles that came for mortars, we used a

18     particular pattern that we used -- that we called the method of the

19     central axis.

20             When a shell falls on a surface, with its axis it makes an angle

21     that is less than 90 degrees, and when hitting the ground, the body of

22     the shell explodes, and that's when, on the asphalt surface, an ellipsis

23     is made, leaving a different kind of trace, and it goes beyond the center

24     of the ellipsis from where the shell had come from.

25             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness repeat his last sentence.

Page 7715

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When this comes together with the

 2     center of the ellipsis, an angle is obtained of a certain number of

 3     degrees, and then, on the basis of the center of this angle, we determine

 4     the direction from which the shell came.  On the basis of the angle

 5     obtained, a line is marked in the center of this angle, which shows the

 6     direction from which the mortar shell came.  That is what is done in the

 7     case of mortar shells.

 8             MR. GAYNOR:

 9        Q.   Now, my next question concerns angle of descent.  Perhaps you

10     could draw a picture to illustrate your answer, but, first of all:  Was

11     it your general practice to calculate the angle of descent in mortar

12     incidents?

13        A.   I calculated the angle of descent only in one particular case.

14     That was the shelling case at Kosevsko Brdo, as far as I can remember.

15     There is evidence to that effect in my statement.  There was some

16     material there.  In other cases, we avoided measuring the angle of

17     descent because we did not have adequate equipment for that.  If you

18     wish, I can explain that particular case in greater detail, why we did it

19     and for what reason.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I intervene?

21             In the transcript, the witness said "we," not "I," as far as the

22     calculation of the angle is concerned.  That can be checked on the

23     recording, "we."

24             JUDGE KWON:  That's a subject for you to pursue later on.  Let's

25     move on.

Page 7716

 1             MR. GAYNOR:

 2        Q.   Mr. Sabljica, could you explain, first of all, what was the

 3     equipment that you lacked which would have been necessary to make an

 4     accurate calculation of the angle of descent?

 5        A.   We did not have special artillery-measuring equipment in order to

 6     be able to measure, with precision, the angle of descent of the shell.

 7     On one occasion - I'm referring to that case at Kosevsko Brdo - at the

 8     request of the investigating judge, we applied a method which is not very

 9     precise, and this is what we did:  The stabilising fin -- actually, we

10     imagined an axis from that fin, and then we applied classical geometry in

11     order to be able to calculate the angle of descent.

12        Q.   Could I ask you at this stage simply to draw a diagram

13     illustrating the elements of classical geometry, as you describe it?

14             JUDGE KWON:  That can be done using e-court?

15             MR. GAYNOR:  I understand it can, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE KWON:  We can start with a blank page.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Believe me, there is a problem with

18     translation.  Mr. Sabljica mentioned this, but it is not in the

19     transcript.

20             JUDGE KWON:  What is it, Mr. Karadzic?

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We have a problem with the

22     interpretation.  I noticed yesterday that my last submissions to the

23     Court were not interpreted properly, and now the witness mentioned the

24     method of the rod.  However, that was not reflected in the transcript.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Sabljica, did you say anything in relation to a

Page 7717

 1     rod?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I mentioned a rod.  I did not

 3     say that that was the method applied, because there is no such law.  I

 4     said that we used a rod in order to represent this imaginary axis of the

 5     projectile or, rather, the stabiliser that was found stuck in the asphalt

 6     surface at the point of impact.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. Karadzic.

 8             Yes, Mr. Gaynor.

 9             MR. GAYNOR:

10        Q.   Mr. Sabljica, could you draw the triangle to illustrate the angle

11     of descent and the cosine and the hypotenuse which you've referred to in

12     your previous evidence on this subject?

13        A.   I'm going to be speaking as I draw this in order to be clearer.

14     We are going to imagine that this is an asphalt surface [marks], that

15     this is where we found the stabiliser, the tail-fin of the shell.  In

16     this case at Kosevsko Brdo, between the remains of this crater that has a

17     certain depth, we got this rod and we calculated this angle, alpha, by

18     setting the length of the shorter ellipsis that is formed around the

19     center of the crater.  We're going to mark that with an X [marks].  And

20     we determined the length of this hypotenuse.  We're going to mark that

21     with a Y [marks].  And then we calculated the cosinus X through Y, and

22     the angle was obtained, arcus cosinus, X, Y, cosine and sine.  [Marks]

23             I have to say that this is rather imprecise in relation to a real

24     piece of artillery-measuring equipment that would make it possible for us

25     to calculate the angle of descent with precision.  So our margin of error

Page 7718

 1     was plus/minus 10 per cent.

 2             I would like to add one more thing.

 3             For our report for setting the direction from where the

 4     projectile came, this was not that precise at all, because, I repeat, we

 5     did not look at that, from which point the projectile had been fired,

 6     because for that laser radars and other such equipment are needed too,

 7     and that is not feasible.  That's the way it was during the conflict.

 8        Q.   Just to clarify, the diagram which you've just drawn, does Y

 9     indicate the length from the surface to the end of the rod you were

10     using; is that right?

11        A.   Yes, because it was easy to measure the rod.  So its length was

12     well known.

13        Q.   And how did you measure the length from the apex of the triangle

14     to the ground?  How did you measure that side?

15        A.   What do you mean, X?

16        Q.   I'm actually referring to the third side of the triangle.

17        A.   [Marks].  The third side was not looked at at all.  For the

18     cosine, it is this hypotenuse that is important [indicating].

19        Q.   In that case, how did you measure side X?

20        A.   On the basis of the dimensions of the ellipsis that is formed

21     around the crater, itself, which I explained during the explanation of

22     this method, how this irregular ellipsis is formed.  So that is done on

23     the basis of the traces that come into existence when the shell falls.

24        Q.   Now, your evidence, just to clarify this, you determined the

25     angle of descent in respect of one incident only; is that right?

Page 7719

 1        A.   Yes, because that's what we were asked to do by the investigating

 2     judge for that incident.  We were not asked to do that for other

 3     incidents.

 4        Q.   Did you determine the range of fire in respect of the incidents

 5     that you investigated?

 6        A.   No, I repeat, because we had no possibility of doing that because

 7     we did not have laser-guided radars.  We just said the direction from

 8     which the shell had arrived and the type of projectile that had fallen on

 9     the ground.

10        Q.   What was the -- what are the relevant factors in determining

11     range of fire, as a general matter?

12        A.   First of all, the type of artillery piece from which the

13     projectile had been fired.  Then, secondly, the charge that had been

14     used, the type of shell.

15        Q.   Could you explain, were you aware in these instances, in the

16     instances which you investigated, of the charge used?

17        A.   No, no, we could not get that information.  It was impossible to

18     determine that, applying the methods that we were using.

19        Q.   Could you explain, briefly, why it is that the number of charges

20     on the projectile is not possible -- that it is not possible to determine

21     that at the point of impact alone?

22        A.   Because we did not have appropriate equipment or sufficient

23     knowledge to apply certain methods that can be used.  As far as I know,

24     it is very difficult to determine which charge was used if you don't have

25     a laser-guided radar to establish the point from where the firing had

Page 7720

 1     taken place.  Then you can look at the range by using tables; that is to

 2     say, the distance from which a mortar fires.  In this particular case, it

 3     was 120 millimetres.  So then you can tell with which kind of charge it

 4     gives the best results.

 5        Q.   And is it right that in respect of the 120-millimetre, for

 6     example, mortar, that you can fire that mortar with zero, one, two,

 7     three, four, five, or six charges on it; is that right?

 8        A.   Yes.  This zero is the basic charge of the shell, itself.

 9     Additional charges are added, of course, so that the mortar would have a

10     bigger range, depending on the target that is being targeted.

11        Q.   So the distance that the projectile travels depends very much on

12     the number of charges on the projectile when it is fired; is that right?

13        A.   Inter alia, yes, and, of course, the type of shell that is being

14     used, because a mortar has a small initial velocity.  It is used for the

15     direct targeting of particular objectives.  As far as I can remember, it

16     is a 7475 mortar that is most productive, the one that was used at the

17     time.  It is between 4.700 and 6.750 bullets.

18        Q.   If you could sign and date the picture on your screen.

19             MR. GAYNOR:  I would ask for that to be admitted, Your Honour.

20             THE WITNESS:  [Marks]

21             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be Exhibit P1722.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Gaynor, if I can go back to what he said today.

24             Mr. Sabljica, you said - it's page 5, line 23 to 25 - I quote:

25             "I have to say this is imprecise in relation to a real piece of

Page 7721

 1     artillery-measuring equipment that would make it possible for us to

 2     calculate the angle of descent with precision.  So our margin of error

 3     was plus/minus 10 per cent."

 4             Do you remember that, Mr. Sabljica?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  In your statement, on page 13, under the subheading

 7     of "Accuracy of Determination of Direction of Fire," you said:

 8             "Normally, in our reports we would indicate a margin of error

 9     that was plus/minus 5 per cent concerning the direction of the shell."

10             So if you can clarify between those differences.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 5 per cent was taken when the

12     direction was established from which the shell had arrived, in terms of

13     cardinal points, right, so if it came from the north, because the method

14     that we used was a lot more exact and precise than the one that I

15     explained in relation to the angle of descent.  When applying this

16     method, the margin of error for establishing the angle of descent is

17     higher.  That is why it is plus/minus 10 per cent.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Can you give us a general explanation as to the

19     method you decide the direction of fire, separate from the angle of

20     descent?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already said that, and I will

22     repeat once again.  It's the method of the central axis that you use on

23     the basis of the traces that were found at the point of impact.  The

24     traces form an irregular ellipse, and then the top points are connected

25     with the center.  You get an angle, you draw it, and then you draw a

Page 7722

 1     central axis, and it shows the direction from which you assume that the

 2     projectile had arrived.  Then, with the assistance of a city map and a

 3     compass, you determine, first of all, where the position is on the map,

 4     and then, in relation to the north, you see how big the angle is, and you

 5     have a reserve of plus/minus 5 degrees because of, say, the imprecision

 6     in marking the traces on the surface.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. Sabljica.

 8             Back to you, Mr. Gaynor.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10             MR. GAYNOR:  Thank you, Mr. President.

11        Q.   Mr. Sabljica, could I ask you to draw another diagram, please.

12     In this case, could you mark, first of all, a typical crater pattern from

13     the impact of a mortar, for example, a 120-millimetre mortar?

14        A.   I will idealise this a little bit in order to explain the method.

15             The same picture always emerges on the asphalt when a projectile

16     lands.  You have the center of impact [marks], where usually you find the

17     stabiliser of the projectile, in 90 per cent of the cases, and then two

18     irregular ellipses are formed around it [marks] with traces of hot

19     metal -- traces left behind by hot metal [marks].  These are the parts of

20     the shell that fly off when the shell explodes.

21             Our task was to mark these ellipses on the ground and then

22     connect the furthest points of the ellipses with the center of impact and

23     draw a line cutting the angle in half [marks].  And this line would mark

24     the direction from which the projectile had arrived.  Sometimes the angle

25     is more acute, sometimes it's more obtuse, depending on the kind of

Page 7723

 1     surface the shell landed on, and other things as well.

 2        Q.   In the picture which you've just described, was it your practice

 3     to put down sticks on the ground to indicate the furthest angle in which

 4     the traces could be found?

 5        A.   I'll correct you.  We did not stick sticks on the ground.  We did

 6     not actually push them into the ground, but we laid them on the ground.

 7     This is something we did if it was impossible to use chalk because the

 8     ground was wet or the chalk would not be sufficiently visible when

 9     photographs were taken.  In those cases, we would lay down sticks in

10     order to delineate the angle I have just drawn.

11        Q.   And was it your practice, where the ground was dry, to put chalk

12     marks around the traces of impact of shrapnel on the surface to better

13     determine the pattern of the impact?

14        A.   We almost always used chalk.  That was the easiest thing to do,

15     and you could mark the largest number of marks on the ground in order to

16     get the best possible picture.

17        Q.   I'll show you a photograph of that in a moment.

18             In the meantime, could I ask you to sign and date the sketch

19     which you've just marked.

20        A.   [Marks]

21             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  That will be Exhibit P1723.

22             MR. GAYNOR:

23        Q.   I'd now like to show you, Mr. Sabljica, a photograph from a file

24     of photo documentation from a shelling incident at Dobrinja, 3B, and the

25     date of the impact was the 1st of June, 1993.

Page 7724

 1             MR. GAYNOR:  Could I ask for P1699, please, and page 7 of the

 2     B/C/S.  No need for the English.  For the record, this concerns shelling

 3     incident G4.

 4             Now, if we could enlarge photograph 5, please?

 5        Q.   Mr. Sabljica, if you could explain what we see in photograph 5.

 6     First of all, are the traces of the impact marked in chalk in this

 7     photograph?

 8        A.   Yes, the traces are marked with chalk, most of them.

 9        Q.   Could you describe what the three sticks that we see on this

10     photograph -- why they are placed in the locations that they are placed?

11        A.   These are the lines that we got when we connected the irregular

12     ellipse with the center of the explosion.  As you can see, we marked all

13     the traces here, and we marked the furthest points of this ellipsis, and

14     then we joined this to the center of the explosion.

15        Q.   Sorry, could I just interrupt for a moment.  Could you mark with

16     a pen "1," "2," and "3" for the sticks, and explain what "1," "2," and

17     "3" mean?

18        A.   [Marks].  Stick number 1 is one side of the angle, and stick

19     number 2 is the other side of the angle.  And you can see under the stick

20     the pole of the ellipse of that wing, and the photograph is incomplete.

21     Probably the other one is there also.  And the stick number 3 shows the

22     line dividing the angle in half, the symmetrical line, showing where the

23     projectile arrived from.  And the object used to mark it is the tape

24     measure from the toolbox we had with us.  And we used the compass to

25     determine the position of the north so that you can read where the

Page 7725

 1     projectile arrived from in relation to the north point of the compass.

 2        Q.   Now, in this photograph we see two traces of shrapnel damage, one

 3     close to the point of impact and one slightly further away from the point

 4     of impact.  Are you able to comment on why that is?

 5        A.   Two ellipses are created, a smaller one around the center and a

 6     second one which is considerably larger.  So the traces can be seen at a

 7     greater distance from the center and are more visible because the

 8     shrapnel goes downwards, in that direction.  In the other direction, the

 9     shrapnel flies upwards, so there are fewer traces and they're not so

10     visible.

11        Q.   Could you explain, in this instance, why you put the stick you've

12     marked with "1" in that particular location and why you put the stick

13     marked with "2" in that location?  What were the factors determining

14     where, exactly, you placed the stick?

15        A.   Because the end points of this ellipsis started from where we put

16     sticks 1 and 2 in relation to the center of the explosion.

17        Q.   So this photograph doesn't necessarily show all of the shrapnel

18     marks; is that right?

19        A.   90 per cent of them can be seen in this photograph because, to

20     the best of my memory, there were no walls or other obstacles nearby

21     where shrapnel could leave traces, in view of the fact that this shell

22     landed on a football field -- football pitch.  There was a parking-lot

23     there, and there was a football game going on when this happened.

24        Q.   Could I ask you to sign and date that particular photograph,

25     please?

Page 7726

 1        A.   Before I sign, if you allow me, I would like to add that this

 2     on-site investigation was carried out after the end of the hostilities in

 3     Sarajevo, at the request of the investigating judge and the ICTY, because

 4     this occurred in June 1993, at which time I was not working in the

 5     police.  Mr. Van Hecke and I did it together, and this is an illustration

 6     of how the method of the central axis was used.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  What does another rod with an indication of arrow,

 8     which marks as "I" refer to, Mr. Sabljica?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is an upside down letter N

10     showing where north is.  I will mark it here [marks].  And what you see

11     here marked "C" is a compass which we laid down there so that we could

12     see -- establish the north point.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

14             MR. GAYNOR:  I request that that be admitted, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE KWON:  That will be done.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P1730.

17             MR. GAYNOR:  Thank you.

18             Now, if we could move, on the same page, to photograph number 6,

19     just below photograph number 5.

20        Q.   In this photograph, Mr. Sabljica, could you explain what the

21     sheet of paper is on the ground?

22        A.   This is a map of the city of Sarajevo, marking the location where

23     the incident occurred.  And we put a compass there to show how we

24     determined what part of town could be suspect as being the place from

25     where the projectile arrived.

Page 7727

 1        Q.   Could you simply mark the map with the letter M?

 2        A.   [Marks]

 3        Q.   And for the record, just indicate the direction of fire as

 4     determined in this instance.

 5        A.   [Marks].  I will mark it with the number 3, as in the previous

 6     photograph.  So this rod marks the direction of the fire.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  I take it the map should be located in parallel with

 8     the indication of north, but this picture is taken just for an

 9     introductory purpose.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, the map also has to be -- has

11     to be turned in such a way that the points of the compass are properly

12     aligned, north-south, east-west.  This is why the map is turned in this

13     way.  This happened in Dobrinja, so we had to turn the map in such a way

14     that the north end of the map would be pointing to the actual north in

15     real life.

16             JUDGE KWON:  If you could draw a line in the middle of that map

17     in the direction it was laid.  I see it's not parallel to that.

18             JUDGE MORRISON:  No, what you've done is you've orientated the

19     map in the same way that you would if you were on a map-reading exercise,

20     so that north is, as it were, indicated on the map, but we can't

21     necessarily see it.  So the map is simply orientated to the direction of

22     north and the direction of fire.  Is that what you did?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely so.  I will mark the

24     edges of the map here [marks] so that you can get a complete picture.

25     The map had to be orientated towards the north so that we could establish

Page 7728

 1     where the shell came from.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  I'll leave it there.

 3             Yes.  Carry on, Mr. Gaynor.

 4             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes.  Could that photograph --

 5        Q.   Could you sign and date that photograph, please, Mr. Sabljica?

 6        A.   [Marks]

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If north can be marked on the map,

 8     itself, because the edge of the map is not parallel with the marking of

 9     the north on the ground.  These two lines would intersect at some point,

10     the edge of the map and the rod on the ground.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Could you --

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I answer that question?

13             The map is oriented towards the north.  It cannot be parallel

14     with the rod because Dobrinja, in relation to north in Sarajevo, is a

15     little to the south-west.  When you are orientating a map, you have to

16     use a compass and orientate the map in the direction of geographical

17     north, and the place on the map that you are interested in has to be

18     aligned with the actual place in town.  So it can't be completely

19     parallel.  This an ordinary sort of map that you can buy in bookshops in

20     town.

21             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Sabljica, do you see the fourth rod you

22     indicated, which would indicate the direction of the north?  Could you

23     mark -- could you circle the letter N down there?  Do you see that?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.  I will put an arrow

25     there and mark it with an "N" for "North" [marks].

Page 7729

 1             JUDGE KWON:  My question was whether that direction should be

 2     parallel to the direction that the map was laid.  Could you indicate

 3     northbound on that map?  So my question is:  Two lines will be parallel

 4     if you draw on that map indicating the north?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  So this picture is not ideal

 6     because what is crucial is the needle on the compass which has to be

 7     parallel with the line that I drew down there [marks].  I may not have

 8     delineated the map very precisely on this picture with the red marker

 9     because it's not really clearly visible on the photograph.  However, the

10     compass needle indicates north and is parallel to the line I have drawn

11     there.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

13             JUDGE MORRISON:  Also, you have to take into account the

14     deviation, the difference between magnetic north and true north.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course.  That's why we always

16     had a plus/minus 5-degree tolerance in all our calculations.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Gaynor.

18             MR. GAYNOR:  Could I request that that be admitted, Your Honour?

19             JUDGE KWON:  Is this not -- no, sorry.  Yes, picture number 6

20     will be admitted.  Marked what?

21             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P1731, Your Honours.

22             MR. GAYNOR:  And very briefly, if we could go to the previous

23     page of this 65 ter number, please.

24             If we can focus in on photograph 3.

25        Q.   Is that an picture of the crater location before the chalk marks

Page 7730

 1     were applied?

 2        A.   Yes, this is it.  And here you can see the measurement rod,

 3     measuring the dimensions of the ellipse.  If you like, I will draw the

 4     ellipse to make it clearer.

 5        Q.   Yes, please do so.

 6        A.   [Marks].  We have two irregular ellipses, one around the crater

 7     and a larger one.  This is, more or less, the center of the explosion

 8     [marks].

 9        Q.   Could you mark the axis -- for illustrative purposes, could you

10     mark which axis represents the direction of fire?

11        A.   The photograph is not complete.  I don't see all the traces here.

12     But if I were to draw the angles, I think it's easier to see on the next

13     picture.  In this picture, we only measured the dimensions of the

14     ellipse, without marking the traces.

15        Q.   I understand.  So the white rod we see in this photograph is

16     simply a measuring tape to measure the dimensions of the ellipse and not

17     the direction of fire or anything like that; is that correct?

18        A.   Yes, it's a measure band from the tool kit of the forensic

19     technician, showing the dimensions of the traces on the ground.

20        Q.   If you could sign and date that, please.

21        A.   [Marks]

22             JUDGE KWON:  That will be admitted as Exhibit P1732.

23             MR. GAYNOR:  Thank you, Mr. President.

24             And finally on this subject, if we could move to photograph

25     number 4 on the same page.

Page 7731

 1        Q.   Here, Mr. Sabljica, we see again the three rods, which you

 2     described in your earlier evidence, and the direction north on the top of

 3     the photograph; is that correct?

 4        A.   Yes.  This is photograph number 4, which is similar to

 5     photographs 5 and 6, but taken from a different angle.  Here we see the

 6     direction of the north.  We see the sides of the angle.  We see the poles

 7     of the larger ellipse, and the rod with red markings indicates the

 8     direction of fire [marks].

 9        Q.   Which you've marked with the letter D; correct?

10        A.   The direction, yes.

11        Q.   If you could sign and date that, please.

12        A.   [Marks]

13             JUDGE KWON:  Exhibit P1733.

14             MR. GAYNOR:

15        Q.   Finally on this subject, Mr. Sabljica:  Is it correct that once

16     you've measured the direction of fire at impact location, it's not, in

17     fact, necessary to have a map at the impact location, provided you know

18     where the impact location was; that you can then look at a map later in

19     your office and, with your data concerning direction of fire, you can

20     establish back at your office the direction from which the projectile

21     arrived?

22        A.   We usually had a map with us, always, so that we could establish

23     on the spot from which part of town or from which part of the territory

24     the shell might have arrived.  But we never indicated a precise location

25     in our reports or named an army that might have fired the projectile.

Page 7732

 1        Q.   I want to move now to the question of sniping, and I want to ask

 2     you a few questions about your methodology there.

 3             I want to ask you, first of all, about the sniping of trams.

 4     Where you -- where a tram was sniped, had been hit by fire, could you

 5     describe briefly your overall approach to investigating those kinds of

 6     incidents?

 7        A.   The same forensic team, headed by the investigating judge, with

 8     ballistics experts and forensic technicians, arrived on the spot.  First,

 9     they would mark the traces on the tram, the entry and exit openings,

10     their dimensions, their positions.  And then equipment would be used, a

11     rope, glass tubes, and a small optical device, which would help us to

12     determine the potentially suspect facilities from where the bullet might

13     have arrived.

14        Q.   Could I ask you just to draw a diagram, a simple explanatory

15     diagram, indicating how you might determine the direction of fire in a

16     tram sniping incident?

17        A.   I will idealise this a little bit again.  [Marks].  Let's assume

18     that this is a tram.  These are the wheels [marks].  This is the outer

19     wall of the tram [marks], and there is an entry opening, and in most

20     cases we also found an exit opening [marks].  Then you would insert a

21     glass or metal rod through these two openings or you would pull a rope

22     through and pull it tight [marks].  And then with the help of an optical

23     device that we constructed, you would determine the optical sights

24     direction, showing where the bullet might have been fired from.  And it's

25     easy to calculate the angle of entry in relation to the ground, the line

Page 7733

 1     on the ground [marks], so that you could calculate this angle here.

 2        Q.   Could you briefly mark, with the number 1, the entry point, with

 3     number 2, the exit point, in this diagram?

 4        A.   [Marks]

 5        Q.   What was the nature of the optical device which you used?

 6        A.   It was made for us in the Ministry of the Interior so that we

 7     could use it.  It's like a rather sophisticated binoculars so that we

 8     could have optical visibility through the holes made in the side of the

 9     tram.

10        Q.   How, exactly, would you measure the angle which you have

11     indicated in this diagram?

12        A.   Using geometry, as I explained in the case of shells landing.

13     You can take the thickness of the tram side.  You have the hypotenuse,

14     and then you can calculate alpha X through Y [marks].

15        Q.   Perhaps -- thank you.  If you could -- just to the left of the

16     diagram of the tram, could you simply draw a triangle indicating the

17     entry point, the exit point, the angle of fire, and --

18        A.   [Marks].  1 is the entry opening and the other one is the exit

19     opening.  Then this is the thickness of the wall of the tram [marks],

20     which is always known.  Then this is the length of this thread that we

21     used [marks].  And then the alpha angle was determined on the basis of

22     the formula that I already wrote up.  It was a lot simpler and more

23     precise in relation to shells, because that rod method, if we could call

24     it that, is not exactly precise and it cannot exactly determine what we

25     need.

Page 7734

 1        Q.   In the diagram, we've just noted X is the width of the wall of

 2     the tram, and Y is the distance between the entry point and the exit

 3     point; is that correct?

 4        A.   X is a dimension that shows the thickness of the wall of the

 5     tram.  So it's not the length of the side of the tram.  It is a

 6     cross-section of the wall of the tram, if you were looking at the tram

 7     from that point of view, looking at its thickness, as it were.

 8        Q.   And Y is the distance between the entry point and the exit point;

 9     is that correct?

10        A.   Yes, that is correct.

11        Q.   Thank you.  If you could sign and date that, please.

12        A.   [Marks]

13             MR. GAYNOR:  I request that that be admitted, Your Honour.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P1734, Your Honours.

16             MR. GAYNOR:

17        Q.   Did you investigate sniping incidents which did not concern the

18     sniping of trams?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   In those instances, what was your methodology for determining the

21     origin of fire?

22        A.   The same methods, because in all cases it was easy to link at

23     least two cases of damage through a particular surface.  I remember a

24     particular case in an apartment in this building near Vrbanja Bridge.  I

25     can't remember exactly what the name of the street is.  There was damage

Page 7735

 1     on the windows, a window that had been protected with a very thin wooden

 2     board, and it was very easy to establish it because we used the same

 3     method.  The method of sighting, we called it.

 4        Q.   Now, could you explain whether the method of sighting enables you

 5     to determine only the direction of fire or whether it also enables you to

 6     determine the probable origin of fire?

 7        A.   The direction of fire, but also, more precisely, the area from

 8     which it could have come, roughly.  It gave a higher possibility of

 9     assuming where this had come from, because this optical device helped us

10     considerably in tracking the suspicious part of town, if I can put it

11     that way, on the basis of the measurements that we had done.

12        Q.   Could you explain, briefly, how, exactly, you would use the

13     optical device to determine the origin of fire?

14        A.   This optical device was lightly fixed to this metal or glass tube

15     that was put through the opening, and then if you looked through it, you

16     could see the potentially suspicious building, in terms of the direction

17     from which the projectile had arrived.  When you looked through this

18     optical device, you got a closer image, as it were.  It seemed closer

19     than if viewed with the naked eye only.

20        Q.   Now, when you refer to potentially suspicious buildings, were you

21     under any pressure of any kind to identify any particular buildings as

22     potentially suspicious?

23        A.   Of course not.  We can go back to my statement yesterday, when I

24     said that in this one case of the tram, there was no optical visibility

25     between that green building, if we're going to call it that, and the tram

Page 7736

 1     that had been hit, because the tram driver did not take the tram back to

 2     the original place.  There was no pressure, and I specifically did not

 3     wish to feel pressured in any way and exposed to certain suggestions,

 4     possible suggestions, made by other members of the team.

 5        Q.   Where you were not able to return a tram to the location where it

 6     had been hit, what was your methodology for determining direction

 7     and origin of fire?

 8        A.   In that case, we just conducted measurements.  We calculated the

 9     angles, but we did not conduct classical sighting to see from where this

10     could have arrived.  In our findings, we did not state that at all.  We

11     said that it had come from, we assume, the left side, in relation to the

12     movement of the tram, the trajectory was such and such, the angles in

13     relation to the side of the tram are such and such, and in that way we

14     completed our statement.  We could have seen that in one of my findings

15     yesterday.  I think that the late Medjedovic and I signed those findings.

16     We looked at them yesterday.  And one of the colleagues claimed that it

17     was skyscraper number 4, and I said that is not written in our findings.

18     We could not have established the exact facility or building from where

19     it had come because the tram could not have been returned.

20        Q.   Why, in certain circumstances, were you not able to return the

21     tram to the location where it was struck by fire?

22        A.   In one case, the tram had broken down because the firing had

23     damaged it.  And, you know, in that situation, in a situation of war, it

24     is very difficult to do this kind of work and to return a vehicle to the

25     exact spot where it was.  And also there was fear.  People were simply

Page 7737

 1     afraid of taking the tram back to the same site because no one can

 2     guarantee that you will not be fired at again.

 3        Q.   During periods of cease-fire, did you consider it safe to return

 4     a tram always to the location where it had been struck?

 5        A.   I specifically never felt safe in Sarajevo.  We tried to

 6     work - how should I put it? - normally, professionally, in a very

 7     difficult situation.  Even at times of cease-fire, nobody could guarantee

 8     that fire would not be opened yet again.

 9             MR. GAYNOR:  Mr. President, I don't know if you wish me to ask

10     anything further on this.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. Gaynor.  It was very helpful to the

12     Chamber.

13                           [Trial Chamber confers]

14             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, we considered your request regarding

15     the amount of time for your cross-examination.  The Chamber is of the

16     view, in light of the additional evidence-in-chief, you can focus more on

17     the relevant issues, so the Chamber believes that seven hours would be

18     more than sufficient for you to cross-examine this witness.

19             And Judge Morrison has some further words for you.

20             JUDGE MORRISON:  Dr. Karadzic, this is designed to assist.

21             Although it's the case that on cross-examination a witness is at

22     large as to relevant and admissible questions within the parameters of

23     Rule 90(H), it seems to the Trial Chamber that the better course for you

24     is to attempt to restrain yourself to the topics arising directly out of

25     the written and oral testimony given in chief, and, in particular, to

Page 7738

 1     avoid the unnecessary reading of documents which, if translated, could be

 2     read by all parties and already form part of the court record, if and

 3     when admitted as exhibits.  This is particularly germane when you have a

 4     record of previous testimony and cross-examination that is already

 5     available to you and the Trial Chamber and enables you to highlight any

 6     inconsistencies without the necessity of re-running every topic.  It's

 7     also important when you know in advance how long you have.

 8             The purpose of limiting cross-examination, as it has been with

 9     limiting examination-in-chief, is not to place artificial limits, but to

10     create a basis for focusing upon the really important matters that go to

11     the indictment against you, as well as attempting to make the trial, as a

12     whole, more expeditious, an expeditious trial being part of the matrix of

13     fair trial procedure.

14             If the Chamber considers that the original limitation is too

15     constricting, then it will, as it already has in many cases, allow more

16     time when good cause is demonstrated.  As Mr. Robinson knows, the effect

17     of examination and cross-examination of witnesses is an art, predicated

18     by concision and preparation, so please take advice from your qualified

19     lawyers.  Quantity does not equate with quality, and please bear that in

20     mind, because the Trial Chamber certainly does.

21             Note in particular, though, that the Trial Chamber is not

22     attempting to bar any relevant topic, nor prevent any aspect of a proper

23     defence.  On the contrary, it's attempting to make the Defence more

24     focused, and by doing so, make it more precise and of better forensic

25     quality.  That can only be to your advantage.

Page 7739

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellencies, for

 2     the additional time and your well-intentioned suggestions.  Of course, I

 3     shall --

 4             JUDGE KWON:  We'll have a break before you start, if it is

 5     convenient.

 6             And before that, I have one thing to deal with with respect to

 7     the accused's request dated 27th September 2010, in which Mr. Karadzic

 8     requested the presence of Defence expert Dr. Subotic in the courtroom

 9     during the testimony of six Prosecution witnesses:  John Hamill,

10     Emir Turkusic, KDZ477, KDZ485, Per Anton Brennskag, and

11     Thorbjorn Overgard.  The Prosecution did not oppose this request, and in

12     light of the anticipated technical nature of these witnesses' testimony,

13     we will grant the request to have Dr. Subotic present in the courtroom

14     during the testimony of these six witnesses.

15             MR. ROBINSON:  Thank you, Mr. President.  If I could also deal

16     with one housekeeping matter.

17             Yesterday, the Prosecution filed a second motion for a video-link

18     testimony of Dr. Youssef Hajir, and having reviewed the medical

19     information, we want to advise the Chamber that we don't oppose that.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Then it will be granted, then.  Thank you.

21             We'll have a break for about 20 minutes.  We'll resume at 10.35.

22                           --- Recess taken at 10.13 a.m.

23                           --- On resuming at 10.37 a.m.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue your

25     cross-examination.

Page 7740

 1                           Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic: [Continued]

 2        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Sabljica.

 3        A.   Good afternoon.

 4        Q.   Have you gotten used to these early sunsets, or does the sun set

 5     early in our part of the world as well?

 6        A.   It's a bit unusual.  The sun rises earlier in our part of the

 7     world now.  I was here all week because I was hoping to get this done by

 8     now, but, anyway, I'm used to it.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Since you are now fresh, in terms of this morning's

10     direct examination, let me deal with that.

11             When you spoke of deviations from the bearing of -- from the

12     azimuth, the bearing of fire, you said "plus/minus 5 degrees"?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And when you spoke of the angle of descent, you spoke of

15     plus/minus 10 per cent; right?

16        A.   I was actually referring to degrees, plus/minus 10 degrees.

17     Perhaps there is a mistake in translation.

18        Q.   That's what I wanted to look at, whether we're talking about

19     degrees or percentage points in that case.  Thank you.  So we've resolved

20     that.

21             Tell me, do you recall that in Sarajevo, one line followed

22     another, the line of conflict or separation?  They followed each other

23     like a red-and-white pen, a two-coloured pen; right?

24        A.   Are you referring to maps or are you talking about reality?

25        Q.   Reality.

Page 7741

 1        A.   Yes, yes, I can confirm that.  In most cases, yes.

 2        Q.   Do you agree that between the point of fall of descent of a shell

 3     and the Muslim line, there is quite a bit of space in which there can be

 4     artillery pieces?

 5             MR. GAYNOR:  Objection, Mr. President.

 6             In respect of these questions, could Mr. Karadzic focus his

 7     questions on a specific part of Sarajevo in order to clarify the

 8     question?

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

10             Mr. Karadzic, could you reformulate your question?

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I thought that we had

12     established that the lines, the Serb and Muslim lines, followed each

13     other, and that this was around the inner-city, and that it went through

14     the inner-city.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   If something fell on Muslim territory between the actual site or

17     scene where this took place and then the Muslim lines, and then the Serb

18     lines, there is a certain space, isn't there?

19        A.   Before I respond, I would just like to draw your attention to

20     something.

21             I don't know what kind of Muslim lines you are referring to.  Who

22     are these Muslims?  So far, your terminology has been fair that has been

23     adopted in this Tribunal.  I would kindly ask you to use the terms "the

24     Army of Republika Srpska" and "the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina" for

25     the two conflicting parties, because this insults my national feelings.

Page 7742

 1     I don't want you to consider me as some kind of Muslim militia.

 2        Q.   I will respect that.  But Serbs accounted for less than

 3     1 per cent, only .7 per cent of the personnel of that army.  So between

 4     the points of impact and the line of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

 5     there is a certain space that is controlled by the Army of Bosnia and

 6     Herzegovina, isn't there?

 7        A.   You mean between the lines of the Army of Republika Srpska and

 8     the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, there was no-man's land; is that what

 9     you're saying?

10        Q.   No, I'll be a bit more specific.  Say we have a site or a scene

11     where something took place, and then we have an area that's under the

12     control of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and then there's a line of

13     the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  There's a little bit of no-man's

14     land or none whatsoever, and then there's the Serb line and then there's

15     Serb territory; isn't that right?

16        A.   In principle, yes.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Tell me, please -- now we're going to move on to what

18     you kindly clarified in relation to snipers.  How thick is the wall of

19     the tram?

20        A.   Well, between the external and internal part, taking into account

21     these three layers, there's between 12 and 15 centimetres.

22        Q.   So that's how thick the wall is?

23        A.   Yes, because it is a sandwich consisting of thin metal sheeting,

24     and in between there's a small area filled with air.

25        Q.   Thank you.  How long is that little tube that you used to

Page 7743

 1     establish the direction?

 2        A.   About 30 centimetres.

 3        Q.   How thick is it?

 4        A.   In the set, we had several of these small tubes, depending on the

 5     type and calibre of ammunition that was used.  That is to say that this

 6     was specifically made for this purpose.

 7        Q.   What else did you have in respect of this kind of equipment?

 8     What else did you use when measuring that angle?

 9        A.   When measuring the angle, we used the mathematics I displayed;

10     that is to say, a classical protractor, these tubes that helped us fix

11     the entry-and-exit openings, to link up several points along the

12     trajectory.

13        Q.   You didn't use anything else?

14        A.   This optical device as well that only helped us with the sighting

15     to get the image closer to us.  It didn't have any protractors on it.  It

16     was simply like a set of binoculars, a bit more sophisticated.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Do you agree that in order to determine this angle,

18     what is of crucial importance is that the only cathetus that you worked

19     with should be parallel with the surface or the ground; that is to say,

20     that it should be impeccably horizontal?

21        A.   I agree, when measuring the angle of descent of the ammunition in

22     respect of the plane of the ground.

23        Q.   Did you use a level, then?

24        A.   Yes, I omitted to mention that.  We did have this small level in

25     the set that the crime scene officer had.  You will probably have an

Page 7744

 1     opportunity of examining one of them too.

 2        Q.   Who invented this optical device?

 3        A.   We sent a request to the head of our department, stating that we

 4     needed this kind of device.  I don't know exactly who made it, but we got

 5     one.  I think that it was made in the factory called Zrak.  You're

 6     familiar with it, aren't you?

 7        Q.   That's what I thought.  But tell me, what was the zoom like of

 8     that particular device?

 9        A.   Sixteen times, up to sixteen times, so you had a rather good

10     survey in relation to classical binoculars that are being used for

11     whatever.

12        Q.   I see.  And how thick was it?

13        A.   What do you mean, how thick?

14        Q.   The optical device, itself, how thick was it?  Could it enter the

15     opening?

16        A.   No, it could not enter the opening.  It would be fixed on this

17     metal tube, the little metal tube.  So the ocular would coincide with the

18     center of that tube, and then from higher up you could look at it very

19     easily.  It's similar to a periscope, actually.

20        Q.   Do you agree that these optical instruments -- or, rather, when

21     air goes from one setting to another, there are certain aberrations.  The

22     aberration of light, did you take that into account in respect of this

23     optical device?

24        A.   I agree with that refraction of light, yes.  We did not have that

25     kind of equipment, no.

Page 7745

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Do you agree that determining this with a rope,

 2     because, after all, a rope is flexible, it's a bit imprecise, it's the

 3     wrong way to do it, it's too much of a make-shift thing, as it were?  You

 4     said that when the rope had been tightened, it could go through both

 5     openings?

 6        A.   The rope was only used as a support, you know.  We would tighten

 7     it and fix it pretty well, so it was tense, so that this tube that went

 8     through the openings, depending on the calibre of the ammunition used,

 9     could be fixed so that we could view things as specifically as possible.

10     It's not that the rope was just taken through just like that.  It's not

11     that it wasn't fixed firmly.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Do you agree that when a device is that sensitive,

13     like this optical device is -- actually, has it been tested anywhere for

14     these particular purposes?

15        A.   I can't respond to that question because I don't know.  We

16     received it at our request.  I don't know whether they had tested it

17     previously.  At any rate, we used it for magnifying the image of the area

18     that we were looking at, nothing else.  We didn't use it for any kind of

19     specific measurements.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Do you agree that if there is this kind of a very

21     sensitive optical device, it is of crucial importance to establish the

22     exact position where the tram had been when it was hit by this particular

23     ammunition?

24        A.   Yes, that's correct, and I have already stated that.  If we were

25     unable to bring the tram back, we did not specify where the bullet had

Page 7746

 1     come from.

 2        Q.   Do you agree that even centimetres are important here, that

 3     several centimetres' difference in the position of the tram would create

 4     a huge difference in the angle?

 5        A.   I wouldn't link this up with the angle, but rather with the

 6     suspect facility from which the shots were fired.  Yes, I agree,

 7     certainly if a tram moved even a few centimetres, it would create a

 8     completely different picture.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Was it easy, then, to bring the tram back and

10     establish the precise place where the tram was when the bullet hit it?

11        A.   Of course it wasn't easy, and you have already heard this.  The

12     tram would be brought back according to witness statements, and the best

13     witness was the driver.  The circumstances prevailing at the time

14     dictated what we could do.  We always insisted on trying to bring the

15     tram back to the exact position where it was when it was hit, but I do

16     agree that this was very difficult.

17        Q.   Thank you.  In your kind conversation with Defence

18     representatives, you stated that in order to establish the type of

19     projectile, you had to have not just pieces of shrapnel, but also

20     something that would identify it precisely; is that correct?

21        A.   Yes, that's correct.  And for this reason, we formed an opinion

22     only if we found some identifying parts, such as the stabiliser, for

23     example, which can tell you a great deal about the type of projectile.

24     If we did not find anything like that, then we did not express an

25     opinion.

Page 7747

 1        Q.   Thank you.  I forgot to ask you, who in your team dealt with this

 2     optical device?  Who was in charge of it, so to speak?  I don't mean the

 3     name of the person.  I mean, what kind of expert was it?

 4        A.   It was only we from ballistics, the late Stanko, the late Cavcic,

 5     Medjedovic and I.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Do you remember whether, in addition to the

 7     entry-and-exit openings in the tram wall, entry-and-exit wounds were also

 8     investigated in the case of entry/exit wounds; do you know that?

 9        A.   I am aware of that, but it was not us who did that.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Can I draw your attention to the incident in

11     Livanjska Street on the 8th of November, 1994.  I can't say what number

12     it is on the F list, but I do have this material.

13             You attended that on-site investigation on the 8th of November,

14     did you not?  I'm sorry, it's list G.  It's not in the indictment, but

15     it's a well-known incident.

16        A.   Yes, there were two incidents in Livanjska Street, and I attended

17     both.  So I know what you're talking about.

18        Q.   Thank you.  How do you explain the fact that the investigating

19     judge did not attend the investigation?

20        A.   I don't recall the investigating judge being absent.  Can you

21     tell me what incident you are referring to?

22        Q.   The one that happened on the 8th of November, 1994.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If it will assist, can we have

24     65 ter 09678.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 7748

 1        Q.   At the time, it was like this:  There were two shells.  One

 2     landed at 1525 and the other one at 1725.  UNPROFOR established that the

 3     first arrived from the territory of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  I'll

 4     tell you why I don't like saying that; because we are also

 5     Bosnia-Herzegovina and now we have a common army, so it's easier for the

 6     Chamber to understand about the two sides.  But let's continue.

 7             UNPROFOR established that the first arrived from the territory of

 8     the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and that there was a misunderstanding

 9     between the police, the local police or the police of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

10     and UNPROFOR's investigators.  Do you recall that?

11        A.   I recall a shelling incident when we worked together with a team

12     of Frenchmen, I think, and we agreed about the direction, but they used

13     tables belonging to a NATO mortar of 82 millimetres which had a far

14     shorter range than our 81- or 82-millimetre mortars had.  And I

15     personally gave the French officer, when we came back to our office, the

16     tables for the 82-millimetre mortar from the library of the JNA, and

17     that's the rules you have going with the artillery pieces.  I remember

18     that, but I don't recall whether the investigating judge was there or

19     not.

20        Q.   Can you please look at e-court.  In the second paragraph, it says

21     that the judge felt it was not necessary for him to go on the spot.  Do

22     you agree -- did you see the judge there?

23        A.   No, I did not.  And, well, as this is what the official report

24     says, I can only agree with it.

25        Q.   Do you agree that a side that was accused or suspected would not

Page 7749

 1     like to have this investigation done without the presence of a judge, in

 2     our system, at least?

 3        A.   Yes, I think you're right.

 4        Q.   I think this is part of the record, so it need not be admitted.

 5             Who was in charge of the investigation on that day; do you

 6     recall?  You can look at the list.

 7        A.   I think, in that case, it was Mr. Dragan Miokovic, because in the

 8     Criminal Sector, he would be the team leader.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  There were victims in this incident, were there not?

10        A.   Yes.  A 15-year-old girl was killed.  It's recorded here.

11        Q.   Do you agree that this would require the presence of the

12     investigating judge, even more than the previous fact, as we mentioned?

13        A.   Of course I agree.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  It can be taken off the

15     screen now.  It's part of the documents tendered by the OTP.

16             Has this been admitted?

17             JUDGE KWON:  I think so.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honours, this has been admitted as

19     Exhibit P1704.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

21             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   In your statement of the 19th of November, 1995, you remembered

23     that there was a misunderstanding with UNPROFOR and that you wanted

24     UNPROFOR to be on the spot when you were conducting an investigation; is

25     that correct?

Page 7750

 1        A.   Yes, that's correct.  As a rule, we always insisted that the

 2     gentlemen from UNPROFOR be present.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have 20874, please, to jog

 4     our memories, 65 ter, and it's page 3 in the Serbian.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   For people who are not from Sarajevo, when you speak of

 7     Kosevo Hill, you're also referring to Livanjska Street; is that correct?

 8        A.   Yes, that's Livanjska Street.

 9        Q.   Can I draw your attention to where you say:

10             "We immediately agreed as regards the direction of fire.  On the

11     day of the incident, UNPROFOR did not conduct -- they left the spot

12     without conducting an investigation.  And the next day, we returned with

13     UNPROFOR ..."

14             So where was the misunderstanding?

15        A.   The misunderstanding was about the type of artillery piece that

16     was used, because, as I've just said, the UNPROFOR officer used tables

17     belonging to a NATO weapon which was not of the same calibre as our

18     mortar and had a far shorter range.  Later on, I personally gave him the

19     tables.  That was the difference.  I don't think that we expressed an

20     opinion as to the location from where the shell had arrived, but we only

21     established the general direction.

22        Q.   So the tables would be important in establishing the range?

23        A.   Yes.  They were using tables belonging to a quite different type

24     of mortar.

25        Q.   I have to wait for the interpretation.

Page 7751

 1             Do you remember that Mr. Miokovic asked that the police secure

 2     the site, and stressed that UNPROFOR should not be allowed access to the

 3     site?

 4        A.   I'm really not aware of that.  You'll probably have to ask Dragan

 5     that.  He'll probably testify.  I don't know anything about that.

 6        Q.   Let's see whether it's on this page.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have 65 ter 10426?

 8             MR. GAYNOR:  Before we move on, Mr. President, could the

 9     statement of the witness, dated 19th November 1995, be admitted, the one

10     that he's just been shown and that he's commented upon?

11             JUDGE KWON:  I don't see any problem.  That will be admitted

12     as --

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is cross-examination now, so

14     it's up to the Defence to tender documents, I think, as a rule.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, he's right.  But to save time, he can raise it

16     in his redirect.  I'll leave it to redirect.

17             Please proceed.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have -- oh, yes.  Can we

19     have page 3.  Yes, this it, the first paragraph in the Serbian language.

20     It's probably where it says:

21             "As a result of the conclusions at that meeting ..."

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Can you look at that, and:

24             "The policeman who was there told me that they had informed

25     UNPROFOR of the event and they were expecting someone to attend."

Page 7752

 1        A.   I've read it, but this is not my statement.

 2        Q.   You're right, it's not your statement.  It's Mr. Miokovic's

 3     statement.  And just a moment.

 4             Did you see the second part of the first sentence, that they

 5     should not allow -- let anyone, and UNPROFOR, in particular, to enter the

 6     site?

 7        A.   Yes, but that's Dragan's statement.  Why are you asking me this?

 8        Q.   Well, I just want to establish the facts about an investigation

 9     that you participated in.  You did not issue this order, but that's what

10     the situation was.  I think this is on the record.

11             Do you remember that that same evening, UNPROFOR held a press

12     conference --

13             JUDGE KWON:  The question wasn't whether it was your order, but

14     whether you were aware of such instruction or order, Mr. Sabljica.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, as I said, I was not

16     aware of it.  I did not have any information to the effect that Dragan

17     had banned the entry of UNPROFOR.  The ballistics team and the criminal

18     forensic team always wanted UNPROFOR to be there.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Well, that's what prompted me to demonstrate that the team leader

21     was not of the same opinion as the rest of the team.

22             Do you remember that on that day, UNPROFOR held a press

23     conference?

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we scroll down a little bit?

25             It says:

Page 7753

 1             "On that day, at a press conference held by UNPROFOR at

 2     2000 hours, a spokesman said to the journalist that the Bosnian police

 3     had not allowed them to carry out ..."

 4             And can we have the next page, please.

 5             "... an investigation.  On that same evening, our minister of the

 6     interior passed an order to prepare the report because it was requested

 7     by the Presidency, and I did so."

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Do you remember -- are you aware that they held a press

10     conference and that they had been prevented from carrying out an

11     investigation, and they said that?

12        A.   We had no electricity and I was not able to watch television, so

13     I was not aware of this.  And this is the first time I have seen this

14     report.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Were you aware at the time that Miokovic was required

16     to hand in a report on the same day?

17        A.   No, because as for us ballistics people, Miokovic did not make us

18     hurry with our reports.  We dealt with this very seriously, we wanted to

19     finish everything on time, and again insisting that UNPROFOR had to

20     attend, if they could, of course.

21        Q.   Thank you.  Could it happen, then, that Mr. Miokovic had handed

22     in the report without your findings?

23        A.   Findings -- without our findings and without our knowledge,

24     either.  However, I really don't know.  You will have to ask him that.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Now I would like to ask you to clarify the question

Page 7754

 1     of the Finnish tables a bit.  You say in this statement:

 2             "From November 1995, I saw that the Finnish mortar tables

 3     explained that they used maximum charges.  When we looked at that, we

 4     realised that the Finnish shells only corresponded to the second or third

 5     in our tables where we have six possible charges."

 6             If necessary, I will call this up.

 7        A.   Yes, I do recall that.  It was a lot less than the

 8     72 millimetres, the one that was used in our theatre of war.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  However, basically, it didn't seem to be very

10     important because the charge is not relevant for setting the distance;

11     right?

12        A.   Precisely.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Now, what about this

14     statement of Mr. Miokovic's?  Are we going to admit it today or -- we

15     have a problem with the transcript.  I agreed with the witness that this

16     dispute with UNPROFOR was not important [as interpreted] because a charge

17     is not important for a set -- here, it says that the charge is not

18     important, but I'm saying that it is important for setting the distance.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Could the witness please confirm that, that it wasn't that

21     important because -- the charge is important for setting the distance,

22     and you didn't set it, and they didn't set it either?

23        A.   Charge is relevant for setting the distance.  That is what the

24     transcript should say.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 7755

 1             Can we now have 1D02264.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Did you say you are tendering the statement by

 3     Miokovic?

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to tender it because

 5     it refers to the same things that the witness is familiar with.  However,

 6     I know what your practice is, so I'm asking you whether you would be

 7     willing.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  When I said there would be no problem, I thought it

 9     was this witness's statement.

10             Mr. Gaynor.

11             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes.  Could we go briefly into private session,

12     please, Your Honour?

13             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

14                           [Private session]

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 7756

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12                           [Open session]

13             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15             As a sign of goodwill from the Defence, we give our consent to

16     admit Mr. Sabljica's statement from November 1995.  That's what the

17     Prosecution asked for.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, that will be done as well.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, that will be Exhibit P1735.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   I believe that this is from the UN.  It is a document that says,

22     on page 9 -- 983 should be the last digits.  There should be a map that

23     UNPROFOR had inserted, and I hope that you will be familiar with it.  983

24     should be the last digits in the ERN number.

25        A.   I have 975 on the screen.

Page 7757

 1        Q.   It is page 9 in relation to the page on the screen.

 2        A.   Could I please have that on my screen, that page?

 3        Q.   Yes, here it is.  We've all been waiting for it.  Are you

 4     familiar with this map that UNPROFOR attached in relation to this

 5     incident?

 6        A.   No, this is the first time I see this map.

 7        Q.   Can you see here that according to their firing tables, a shell

 8     has eight charges, not four?

 9        A.   Yes, I see that, exactly.

10        Q.   Thank you.  So the true misunderstanding with them was with

11     regard to the place from which it had been fired; right?

12        A.   Yes, I really did not discuss that place with them because we

13     were not establishing that.  We were establishing the type of weapon from

14     which the shell had been fired.  They compiled this report on the basis

15     of those tables of theirs, I assume.  So that place was not the subject

16     of our discussions, because neither they nor we were in a position to

17     establish it exactly, because they did not have laser-guided radars

18     either and similar modern equipment.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  That will considerably

20     shorten our examination with regard to this incident.

21             Can this map be admitted, the entire document, the entire

22     document under this number 1D02264?

23             JUDGE KWON:  That will be admitted.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D738, Your Honours.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 7758

 1        Q.   What happened in relation to this incident at 1725 hours?  Were

 2     the difficulties the same and were the results the same?

 3        A.   I cannot recall.  I think that we discussed the first incident

 4     more.  I don't think that this one was referred to, but I would like to

 5     see the report.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we then have 65 ter 10437.

 7     That's the English version, 10437.  Could we have that just so that you

 8     can see the actual site.

 9             Could you please turn it 180 degrees.  Thank you.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Do you remember that now?  The direction was being set here; do

12     you remember that?

13        A.   Yes, I do remember.

14        Q.   Do you remember that the angle of descent was not being

15     determined here?

16        A.   I think that it wasn't in this case.  But in this other case that

17     I mentioned, we did calculate the angle of descent, in another case at

18     Kosevsko Brdo.

19        Q.   Not going into the accuracy of the methodology in relation to the

20     measuring of the crater and the 82-millimetre shell, on the basis of an

21     angle established in such a way in this first case, would the firing

22     tables determine a range?

23        A.   Well, that could be taken into consideration.  However, I repeat,

24     once again, we did not measure the angles because they were not relevant

25     for us for establishing where the shell had come from.  So we tried to

Page 7759

 1     use a method that would be as exact and precise as possible for setting

 2     the origin of fire.  You have the tables for calculating angles of

 3     descent.  After all, that is science, these firing tables, and quite a

 4     bit of effort was made to draw them up when manufacturing and examining

 5     every artillery piece.

 6        Q.   It somehow happened that in the case of the first shell, some

 7     information came up; namely, that the shell had arrived from Poljine, a

 8     Serb position there.  Was that plausible or was that determined exactly?

 9        A.   This was probably a report of one of the crime inspectors.  In

10     the ballistic reports, we did not refer to exact positions of the Army of

11     Republika Srpska.  I know that in one incident, UNPROFOR wrote that it

12     came from the area between Brijeg and somewhere else.  I think that was

13     written up in the case of one of these incidents in Livanjsko.  Again,

14     that did not affect us.  We did not accept that as some kind of a

15     guide-line that we would include in our own report.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17             Can this photograph be admitted, if it's not already in evidence?

18             JUDGE KWON:  We'll admit it.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D739, Your Honours.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have 1D02250.  Thank

21     you.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Do you remember that this is from UNPROFOR?

24             This doesn't seem to be right.  I think it should be turned

25     differently.  I see.

Page 7760

 1             Do you remember -- actually, do you see that on this map, they

 2     provided firing tables, Yugoslav ones?  Did you persuade them to do that?

 3        A.   Well, probably when I gave them the rules for 82-millimetre

 4     mortars, they probably did it that way.  But I'm telling you, once again,

 5     this is the first time I see this map.  They were not duty-bound to show

 6     their reports to us, nor did they want to do it.

 7        Q.   Do you agree, though, that this is a table for Yugoslav charges

 8     and that this map pertains to that incident?

 9        A.   Well, we can assume that.  Perhaps it's been taken out of context

10     here.  I do not know this off the top of my head.  I did this work

11     16 years ago.  As for ranges and charges for this mortar, with this angle

12     of descent, it could be the case.

13        Q.   What about the apex?  That is Kosevsko Brdo or something like

14     that, isn't it?

15        A.   Probably.  The apex is the apex of that angle.  I don't know.  We

16     can only zoom in the map of the city, but let us think that this is

17     Kosevsko Brdo.  However, if you could zoom in, then I would be more

18     certain that it is Kosevsko Brdo.

19        Q.   Do you see the city and then Kosevsko Brdo?

20        A.   Yes, I see it.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22             Can this document be admitted?

23             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D740, Your Honours.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 7761

 1        Q.   Do you remember that according to the official report, in this

 2     incident the azimuth from the east was 20 -- or, rather, from the north

 3     it was 70, which makes up a total of 90, right, and in this report what

 4     is referred to is that the possible point from where the firing took

 5     place is in the broader area of Spicasta Stijena?

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Gaynor.

 7             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes.  I would request that the witness be shown the

 8     report if he's to be asked detailed questions about it.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, that's fair enough.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.  65 ter 13331.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Do you remember that we had established that the Presidency had

13     asked Mr. Miokovic to hand in his report the same evening, the same day?

14        A.   We read that a few moments ago in his report, that the Presidency

15     had requested that.

16        Q.   Thank you.  And that they did not wait for your findings, and

17     they didn't inform you about it either; right?

18        A.   We've already established that too.  They didn't wait, and they

19     didn't inform us.

20        Q.   Thank you.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have a look at page 6.

22             We have both in English, actually.  Can we have one in Serbian

23     for the interpreters.  Yes, that is page 6 of the document and page 2 of

24     the report.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Could I please ask you to cast a

Page 7762

 1     glance at this report.  It would be good thing if the other participants

 2     could see this page.  It's probably the last page or the penultimate one

 3     with the signature of Mr. Miokovic.

 4        A.   I remember this report in the case of General Milosevic, and

 5     there was this discussion to the effect that our ballistic report did not

 6     correspond with this one.  It wasn't 20 degrees from the east, but from

 7     the north.  I would like us to have a look at our report.  This confirms

 8     that Miokovic handed in this report without waiting for us to complete

 9     our part of the job and without waiting for our findings.

10        Q.   Was that the way he usually acted or was he forced to hand in his

11     report on the same day?  If it's not easy for you to answer that

12     question, you don't have to answer it.

13        A.   I'll give you an answer, stating that I don't know.  You will

14     have to ask him.  Miokovic and the other members of the Centre of the

15     Security Services, in practice, of course, usually waited for our

16     findings to complete their report.  Now, why he did it this way in this

17     particular case, you will really have to ask him.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19             Can this document be admitted, unless it's already been admitted

20     on some other basis?

21             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, this has been admitted as

22     Exhibit P1706.

23             JUDGE KWON:  The 65 ter number is 13331?

24             THE REGISTRAR:  That's correct, Your Honour.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 7763

 1        Q.   Now, let's look at this report from the on-site investigation.

 2     It says that the azimuth is 15 from the north --

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  From the east, interpreter's correction.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   -- and 75 from the south.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And just a moment, let's look at

 7     the page.  It's the same document.  431 is the end of the ERN number.

 8     Page 8, page 8.  Yes, this is it in Serbian.  Can we have it in English,

 9     please.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Do you remember -- do you agree that it says here:

12             "15 towards the north-east, calibre 82 millimetres"?

13             So how can someone determine the azimuth according to the

14     north-east, rather than the north?  Do you agree that this is rather

15     unusual?

16        A.   Yes, I agree that it's unusual, and I would like to see the

17     ballistics report that we drew up.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Are we seeing the correct English page?

19             MR. GAYNOR:  I think it should be the third page in the English

20     version, please.

21             THE ACCUSED:  "On November --" or "8th of November," description

22     point 4.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25        Q.   Are forensic technicians a different service from the Ballistic

Page 7764

 1     Service or are they one-and-the-same service?

 2        A.   I'm waiting for the interpretation.  They were, in fact, the

 3     technical support for the ballistics experts, so it was their duty to

 4     wait for the ballistics experts and consult them before entering any

 5     conclusions into the report.  So I can comment on this as being an error,

 6     an omission on the side of the forensic technicians.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Now, in the case of General Milosevic, there was a

 8     certain change in the angle.  Here is what it says in the judgement in

 9     that case, the last few sentences.  It refers to you and the Higgs

10     experts who interpreted this to be south-east, and 1.658, the conclusions

11     of both --

12             JUDGE KWON:  Another Chamber's finding has nothing to do with us

13     in this trial.  Move on to your next topic.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I agree, but evidently there were

15     many misunderstandings stemming from this facile determination of angles

16     by a person who was not authorised to do this and who didn't know how to

17     do it.

18             So let's now move on from the topic of Livanjska Street and deal

19     with something else.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Are you aware of the incident in Dobrinja of the 4th of February,

22     1994, a day before Markale?  It's in Attachment G, incident number 7.

23        A.   Are you referring to the queue for humanitarian aid?

24        Q.   Yes.

25        A.   Yes.

Page 7765

 1        Q.   That was one day before Markale 1, as we call that incident; is

 2     that right?

 3        A.   Yes, it was a day before Markale 1.

 4        Q.   Can I ask you to look at a map of Dobrinja and point to the

 5     place?

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have 1D02151.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Is this map sufficient for you to mark the place where the queue

 9     for humanitarian aid was and where the incident occurred?

10        A.   I really can't use this map to do that.  Dobrinja is quite a

11     complicated place, as far as I'm concerned.  I would like to see our

12     reports and our map and the sketch of the site.  This is all well

13     documented.  Here, I can't see the names of all the streets.  I don't

14     know exactly what part of Dobrinja this is.

15        Q.   So let's try with a different map.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have 1D02191.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   It's on a larger scale, so is it easier for you?

19        A.   I'd like to recall exactly what street this was in, and then I

20     could mark it.

21        Q.   It was in the Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street.  The number of the

22     street is 353, because we're -- it's impossible to write the name of the

23     street.

24        A.   Well, if that is true, then this would be the street, 353.  But I

25     don't know whether it's true or not.

Page 7766

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Gaynor.

 2             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes.

 3             Before we continue, the witness has already requested to see the

 4     reports of the incident before he makes a marking.  He hasn't had the

 5     opportunity to review the evidence concerning this specific incident.

 6     He's been asked to pick one of very many incidents in respect of which he

 7     participated in an investigation.  My request is that Mr. Karadzic put to

 8     the witness the reports relating to this before asking him to mark the

 9     map.

10             JUDGE KWON:  We'll come to a similar situation.

11             Do you have a compilation of his investigation report?

12             MR. GAYNOR:  This specific incident wasn't in his amalgamated

13     statement, but we can get the report relating to this incident.

14             JUDGE KWON:  It would be beneficial for the witness to have his

15     report in front of him, if possible.  Do you have the 65 ter number,

16     please?

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, 65 ter 09617.  And certainly I

18     will be very happy to jog the witness's memory.

19             Can we now have 65 ter 09617, and then we'll come back to this

20     map when Mr. Sabljica recalls these geographic relations.

21             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   It used to be called Jawaharlal Nehru Street?

23        A.   Well, I don't know.  I grew up in the city center, and I'm not

24     familiar with Dobrinja.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Do we have the Serbian version?

Page 7767

 1     Oh, yes, yes.  Can we have page 12 of this document.  We need page 12.

 2     794 should be the last three digits of the ERN number.

 3             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Can you look at this page, please, and familiarise yourself with

 5     it?

 6        A.   I'm reading it right now.  Does this set contain the ballistics

 7     report I signed, because this is a report on the forensic inspection of

 8     the site by the forensic technicians?

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, but there are photographs

10     also.  Could we have a hard copy of this document?  That would be

11     excellent.

12             JUDGE KWON:  It's a 92-page document.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have page 15, and then

14     16, to see if that will assist.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, this is better, yes.

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Well, please look at this page, and then we'll continue.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If there is a translation, it would

19     be useful to have it, for the sake of the other participants, so we don't

20     need to waste time reading aloud, for the sake of the interpreters.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember this landed on a field

22     near the public parking-lot in Mihajlo Pupin Street.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the next page, please?

24     Is there an English translation of this document so we don't have to

25     read?

Page 7768

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, we established that it had

 2     arrived from the east, and there was an Energoinvest building there, or,

 3     rather, a group of buildings.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Can we see page 2 in English.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   You determined the direction, but you did not specify the place

 7     from which it was fired?

 8        A.   No.  We only mentioned a facility that was there, the

 9     Energoinvest building, but these were just landmarks.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Why don't we show page 4 in English and page 20 in

12     B/C/S so that the witness can familiarise himself.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, that's just where we were

14     heading.

15             JUDGE KWON:  I think we can show just the B/C/S version only.

16             Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Does this jog your memory?

19        A.   Yes, yes.  You can see Oslobodilaca Grada Street, the public

20     garage, the asphalt parking-lot, and the markings 1 and 2, where the

21     shells landed, and S, which stands for "North" in our language.  So "S"

22     means "North."

23        Q.   Two shells are marked here?

24        A.   Yes.  I think the third one landed on a house of worship, in a

25     room somewhere, so we from ballistics did not investigate it.

Page 7769

 1        Q.   And we have number 3 here in the right-hand column?

 2        A.   Yes.  That was the third one.  I think the judge was

 3     Zdenko Eterovic who attended the on-site investigation.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 5             Can we now have the next page.  I think it will be of even

 6     greater assistance to you.  So the next page, 21, please.

 7             Can we have 1D09048, which is a Google photograph of the place.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Did the 1D number reach 9000 already?  I don't think

 9     so.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 02148, 1D02148.  As this is a

11     Google photograph of the area, it would probably assist Mr. Sabljica to

12     mark those places.  One is enough.  Let's have the English version.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Do you recognise what is on this photograph?

15        A.   It's the parking-lot of Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street.  I don't

16     know exactly what street this is.

17        Q.   Well, this is very important for us, Mr. Sabljica, because there

18     is some confusion about the address and the place in the reports.  The

19     street on which these two cars can be seen in front of the parking-lot,

20     what street is this?

21        A.   Well, this is a street leading from Dobrinja towards Lukavica.

22     I think a trolley bus runs down this street, but that's not the same part

23     of town.  That's not the same neighbourhood as the one we were referring

24     to.  I don't think this photograph corresponds to the site where the

25     shells landed.  This is in the upper part of Dobrinja, near the main road

Page 7770

 1     from the federation -- leading between the federation and

 2     Republika Srpska, in the direction of Lukavica.

 3        Q.   And the drawing we had, and we can look for it again, does it

 4     correspond to this?  Are there two such places in Dobrinja?

 5        A.   Yes, but I don't think this is the same place.  I think it's a

 6     bit below this area.  It's not as close to the main road as shown here.

 7     It's closer to Dobrinja 4.  You could see, in the earlier map that you

 8     showed me, where the Branilaca Sarajeva Street is.  In the lower part of

 9     the Dobrinja settlement, if we look at all of the different

10     neighbourhoods from 1 to 4, it is in the area marked with "353," whereas

11     the upper portions of Dobrinja, near the main road with a trolley line

12     towards Eastern Sarajevo, is, that's where it is.  That's what we see

13     here.

14        Q.   Very well.  Then we have to go back to the map again.  Maybe if

15     we look at it now, it will be easier for you.

16        A.   Well, I'll try to pin-point the area on that map.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we then please have 1D02191

18     again.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Can this assist you, the Lukavica road that you mentioned?

21        A.   Well, you see the upper portion of this map.  Can you see that?

22     That means that that aerial photo was from the upper quadrant, whereas

23     353 indicates the Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street.

24        Q.   Could you now please mark the street 353 with a pen there?

25             JUDGE KWON:  Could you zoom out again.

Page 7771

 1             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

 2             [Interpretation] Well, here it is, 353.  This is the Oslobodilaca

 3     Sarajeva Street.  I can put an OS there, if you like [marks].

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I see, very well, OS.  Thank you.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Now, tell us, please -- could you please show where

 7     Mihajla Pupina Street is on this map?

 8        A.   I think this is the street right here [marks], MP,

 9     "Mihajlo Pupin," and I believe that the incident was someplace around

10     here [marks].  That's all I can conclude from this map.

11        Q.   Mihajla Pupina Street was renamed, and it is now Zlatni Ljiljan

12     Street; correct?

13        A.   Well, I really don't know what the new names are in Dobrinja.

14        Q.   What about the "466" number that you see there?  Is that the

15     Josip Marsala Sosa [phoen] Square; can you recall?

16        A.   I really don't know.

17        Q.   Tell us, please, we see up here "Lukavicka Cesta," "Lukavica

18     Road," and below is the road leading from Dobrinja to the airport.  Do

19     you know what its name is?

20        A.   I don't know the name of that street, but I have -- I have a

21     general idea where the street is, but I really don't know what its name

22     is.

23        Q.   Well, could you please draw a line here on this map, the

24     separation line?

25        A.   Do you mean between the two armies?

Page 7772

 1        Q.   Yes.  Would you agree with me that this is the airport

 2     neighbourhood where it says "Luja Pastera Street," and so on, that this

 3     was under the control -- Serbian control?

 4        A.   I can't see that.  I don't know.  It wasn't under Serbian

 5     control, under the control of the Republika Srpska Army.

 6        Q.   Can you please draw the separation line here?  Can you show it?

 7        A.   Well, I will make an approximation, but I'm not very familiar

 8     with Dobrinja.  So I believe it would run this way, approximately, and

 9     then towards outward, as far as I can tell on this map, because I am for

10     sure this is the church at Meljine, and that was for sure under the

11     control of the Republika Srpska Army.

12        Q.   Can you please indicate the airport, where that is?

13        A.   Well, here, I'll put an A for it [marks].

14        Q.   Could you now please put number 1 at the incident site?

15        A.   [Marks]

16        Q.   Thank you.  On this map, can you indicate the direction of

17     Lukavica?

18        A.   [Marks].  It's eastward here.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Can you indicate Hamdije Kapidzica Street?  That was

20     the Jawaharlal Nehru Street earlier, but now it's Hamdije Kapidzica.

21        A.   Well, here it is [marks].  I'll put an H there [marks].

22        Q.   Well, yes, but we can also see that it's already entered there.

23     Would you agree with me that there was a police station building on this

24     street?

25        A.   Do you mean is there a police station now?

Page 7773

 1        Q.   No, then.

 2        A.   I can't really confirm that.  I don't know.

 3        Q.   Very well.  We will show another document later.  But before you

 4     sign this, let me just see if I want you to mark anything else here.

 5             Can you tell us -- can you tell us something about the incident

 6     site and Hamdije Kapidzica Street and their mutual relation is?

 7        A.   Well, they are very close, one to the other, relatively speaking,

 8     if you look at the map.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Would you please date this map and sign it?

10        A.   [Marks] Here it is.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we -- I'd like to tender this,

12     please, into evidence.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D741, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE KWON:  I note the time, Mr. Karadzic.  Do you have some

16     questions until 12.00?

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, no.  I think then we better

18     go on break, and then I'll continue when we come back.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  We'll break for half an hour.

20                           [The witness stands down]

21                           --- Recess taken at 11.59 a.m.

22                           --- On resuming at 12.31 p.m.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Tieger.

24             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

25   (redacted)

Page 7774

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8             MR. TIEGER:  Well, I think -- my recollection is it was a

 9     confidential matter between the parties, and --

10             JUDGE KWON:  We are now in open session, Mr. Tieger, albeit we

11     have the curtains drawn.

12             MR. TIEGER:  I'm sorry, I thought I made it clear this was

13     supposed to be in private session, and I understood we would be beginning

14     that way.  My apologies, Your Honour.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Then we'll go into private session.

16             MR. TIEGER:  And I would ask for an appropriate redaction as

17     well.

18             JUDGE KWON:  That will be done.

19             MR. TIEGER:  And thank you, Your Honour, for noting that.

20                           [Private session]

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 7775

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18                           [Open session]

19             JUDGE KWON:  And while we are waiting for the witness to be

20     brought in again:  With respect to your request for leave to reply to

21     Mr. Karadzic's response to bar table motion regarding Mr. Thomas'

22     testimony, since we find that it would be helpful, we grant it.

23             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

24             And if I may raise one other matter, a scheduling matter.

25             Projecting out the schedule for the remainder of the week, based

Page 7776

 1     on today's revision, it would appear that the last witness, Mr. Hamill,

 2     would not complete his testimony this week and then would have to either

 3     have an extended stay or return after the testimony of Witness Fraser

 4     [phoen], whose dates are fixed for the following week.  With that in

 5     mind, the Prosecution would ask if the Court could consider the

 6     possibility of further sessions this week that might complete the

 7     witness's testimony this week, as anticipated earlier.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  We'll consider that, Mr. Tieger.

 9                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

10                           [The witness takes the stand]

11             JUDGE KWON:  Just to confirm, we have another witness before

12     Mr. John Hamill, don't we?

13             MR. TIEGER:  Yes, Your Honour, that's correct.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

15             MR. ROBINSON:  Mr. President, just one observation from our part.

16     We think it would be wiser for the Prosecution to tell Mr. Hamill not to

17     come this week, and that way he won't be inconvenienced.  Because if you

18     do the math, I don't think there would be much time on Thursday for him

19     to even begin his testimony.

20             MR. TIEGER:  That's appreciated, Your Honour, but it's too late

21     for that.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue your

23     cross-examination.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25        Q.   Can we now establish where and what happened, exactly where?

Page 7777

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have 65 ter 09617.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  That has been entered as Exhibit P1710,

 3     Your Honours.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We need page 18, please, and let us

 5     see how the investigation was conducted in this particular case.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   This report was prepared by a forensic technician.  We don't have

 8     to mention his name.  You can read it on the document, itself.  You see

 9     his name; right?

10        A.   Yes, I do.  He was a criminal technician.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please tell us what it says underneath this

12     line, "Description of incident"?

13        A.   It says "Subject:  Shelling."  And the site is Dobrinja,

14     down-town Sarajevo.  And the date is 4th February 1995 [as interpreted]

15     as the date of photographs.

16        Q.   Does that street exist, to the best of your knowledge, in

17     Dobrinja?

18        A.   No.  The street that does exist is, as we've already seen,

19     Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21             JUDGE KWON:  The transcript should read "1994."

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

23             Let us now see what it says here where this actually happened.

24             Could we now have the same document, page 12, please.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 7778

 1        Q.   Does it appear, when one sees an error of this type, that a

 2     person actually drew up the report without ever actually going on site,

 3     when he makes an error such as naming the wrong street?

 4        A.   Well, in this specific case, I know that this gentleman did go

 5     out to the site.  But as for why he made this error in the street name,

 6     you have to ask him about it.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell us, please, with number 2 there, what

 8     does it say under number 2?

 9        A.   It says:  "Place and time."  And then it says:  "Dobrinja,

10     Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street."  And then underneath, it says:  "Nehru

11     Street."  Probably Jawaharlal Nehru, the earlier street name.

12        Q.   So that's probably the old name for the street, right, the Nehru

13     Street?

14        A.   Yes.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Please bear with me a

16     moment.

17             Could we now please have 1D02191 again on the screens.  My

18     apologies, 1D02182.  1D02182.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Would you please take a look at the third name from the bottom.

21     To the left -- on the left-hand side, we see the old name, and then on

22     the right-hand side, we have the new names.  Could you please read that

23     out?

24        A.   Well, yes.  It says, on the left, "Dzevaharlal Nehrua," and on

25     the right-hand side it says "Hamdije Kapidzica Street."

Page 7779

 1        Q.   Do you remember marking Hamdije Kapidzica Street, and that, in

 2     fact, it was a whole block away from the playground, that there was --

 3     intervening between the sites there was a block of buildings; correct?

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now please have -- or,

 5     actually, I'd like to tender this into evidence.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  What document are you referring to, Mr. Karadzic?

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The list of street names, the old

 8     and new names.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Who compiled it?  Who wrote this?

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, this was from Adobe Reader

11     that I got it from, but we have a lot of evidence showing that is

12     correct.  Well, this was actually a city plan that was used to get these

13     names.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Gaynor?

15             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes.  For the moment, we don't accept that this is a

16     genuine list of the new and old names.  We would need to verify that.

17     Mr. Karadzic has still not provided any information as to the underlying

18     basis for the list of new and old names.  So for the record, we don't

19     accept it as accurate.

20             JUDGE KWON:  We're not satisfied as to its foundation at this

21     moment, Mr. Karadzic, so it's difficult for us to admit it at this stage.

22     At best, we can mark it for identification, but you would still need to

23     bring the witness to give the foundation evidence in relation to this

24     document.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 7780

 1             Well, this was the city plan for the city of Sarajevo, issued

 2     by -- published by Slovenes.  And on the back of the plan, there is a

 3     whole list of new and old names.  But we will get this other document in

 4     a moment.

 5             Could we now please see again -- well, can we just MFI this

 6     document, and then we'll move on.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  I would rather not produce as many MFI documents.

 8     Why don't we wait.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I think that we now have the

10     original document.

11             Can I please ask the Usher's assistance.  Well, let me just take

12     a look at it, and then we will show it to the Prosecution and the

13     Trial Chamber, and then we will ask the witness to actually identify this

14     city plan.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Let's move on.  You can do it tomorrow,

16     Mr. Karadzic.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  We can move on.

18             MR. GAYNOR:  Can I just -- can I just interrupt to request that

19     we provided a copy of that map.  I don't believe it was on the list

20     that's been released to the Prosecution.

21             JUDGE KWON:  That will be done, yes.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I believe we can deal with all that

23     tomorrow.

24             Now, can we please pull again 1D02191.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Or Exhibit D741 on which the witness marked.

Page 7781

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, we can use that one as well.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  D741.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, we can use this

 4     map as well.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Please go on.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Mr. Sabljica, could you please indicate 353 again, mark it here.

 8     That's the Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Now we have it.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, we have it, so we can use this

11     one.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Now please tell us, sir, whether this street ends at

14     Mimar Sinana Boulevard.

15        A.   Yes, it does.

16        Q.   In other words, it does not intersect with

17     Hamdije Kapidzica Street, but, rather, between Mimar Sinana Boulevard and

18     Hamdije Kapidzica Street, there is a small street connecting indicated

19     with 228 on the map; correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Thank you.  Would you please now mark on this map the -- indicate

22     where the north is?  Could you indicate the bearing, the north bearing,

23     parallel to Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street?

24        A.   Well, approximately it's in this direction [marks].

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 7782

 1             Can we please re-admit this into evidence?

 2             JUDGE KWON:  I think we can just keep this exhibit as marked

 3     currently.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we save it?

 5                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, that can be done.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 8             Could we now please see the sketch again.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Witness, do you still feel that the Google depiction was not very

11     helpful?

12        A.   Well, yes, because it only showed the quadrant of Dobrinja in the

13     direction of Lukavicka Street.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, then we'll move on to

15     something else.

16             Can we have 65 ter 09617, page 23, please.  That's a document

17     we've already seen.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Do you agree that --

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have 65 ter 09617,

21     page 19.  So it's the same document, but page 19.  Page 20, yes, page 20,

22     a sketch of the scene.  It's probably 19, what we see now.  We need a

23     sketch.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].

25        Q.   Can you please draw a line in the middle of the street

Page 7783

 1     Oslobodilaca Grada?

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Why don't we pull out page 4 of the English.  That's

 3     more convenient for everybody.  Could you wait.  Ignore this one.  We

 4     pull up page 4 of the English.

 5             Yes.  Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   In the middle of the street Oslobodilaca Grada, can you please

 8     draw a line there?

 9        A.   Here it is [marks].

10        Q.   Can you write a number there?

11        A.   Say number 1 [marks].

12        Q.   Thank you.  Do you see that it says "Oslobodilaca Grada" here as

13     well; it doesn't say "Oslobodilaca Sarajeva"?

14        A.   Yes, I can see that.

15        Q.   Can you now indicate to us how the north was marked here?

16        A.   [Marks].  This is it, north.

17        Q.   Does that differ from what it is like on the map?

18        A.   Now, as I look at this, this is a different depiction of the

19     scene.  If we would turn it in the direction in which it is on the map,

20     it would be no difference, because this street has to be 180 degrees this

21     way [indicates], it has to be rotated, and then we'd have the same

22     situation like on the map.

23        Q.   180 degrees?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Then it would be moving from east to west; right?  Is the north

Page 7784

 1     marked vertical in relation to this street?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Does that differ from what we saw there?

 4        A.   On the map?

 5        Q.   Yes.

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   There is something wrong here, isn't there?

 8        A.   Well, obviously this sketch is not exactly very precise, and it

 9     is hard to --

10             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Why don't we keep this.  Could you

11     put the date and your signature here?

12             THE WITNESS:  [Marks]

13             JUDGE KWON:  And we'll keep this.

14             In the meantime, can we bring the map which we saw a minute ago

15     at the same time, which is D741, so that the witness can compare those

16     two pictures.

17                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

18             JUDGE KWON:  We'll give a separate number for this marked sketch.

19             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, the sketch will be Exhibit D742.

20             JUDGE KWON:  And then we'll compare the two documents, D741 and

21     D742.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope that the technical people

23     have understood this.  We need to have this marked, one on half of the

24     screen, and on the other half of the screen we should have the map, if I

25     understood things correctly.  Is there any doubt in the minds of the

Page 7785

 1     technical people?

 2             JUDGE KWON:  It's coming.  It takes some time, Mr. Karadzic.

 3             Now, do you understand the crux of the question, Mr. Sabljica?

 4     Can you answer the question again?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can.

 6             The street Oslobodilaca Sarajeva is this street over

 7     here [indicates].  353, it is marked here.  I did not mark the north

 8     right.  I think that it should be a bit perpendicular to this street, if

 9     we are going to go by this sketch, which is more precise than what I drew

10     on the map.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   You think that what you marked on the map is wrong and that the

13     sketch is right?

14        A.   I think that the sketch is right, because this is the first time

15     I saw the map.  I tried to draw the position of Dobrinja in relation to

16     other parts of town and the north, so I approximately marked the north

17     without any measurements, without a compass, without anything.

18        Q.   And is a city map orientated towards the north; that is to say,

19     that the north is on top and the south is on the bottom?

20        A.   I don't know.  I never drew a city map or a city plan, so I don't

21     know.

22        Q.   So then your sketch -- then your drawing is better than this

23     sketch.  We have a city map here.  We have to clarify this, because this

24     is one of the drastic mistakes made by these technical --

25             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Sabljica, is it your opinion that you can draw

Page 7786

 1     the north direction again on this map?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I were to take this sketch as

 3     appropriate and relevant, it is very hard now to do this because I don't

 4     know how I'm going to turn the street Oslobodilaca Grada and then the

 5     quadrant number 1 where these incidents occurred, where the shells fell.

 6     Then we would then have to turn the north on the map perpendicular to

 7     353, if we're going to take the sketch as meritorious.  It is very hard

 8     to explain -- to compare it to the map.  The crime technician made the

 9     sketch, and then he drew it rather arbitrarily.  It is not that specific

10     and precise.

11             However, in that case, the north was established with the

12     assistance of a compass, whereas on the map, I marked it arbitrarily,

13     rather arbitrarily, without any specific assessment.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   If we have a black pen, could you mark on this map that you

16     worked on the north that would be at a degree of 90 degrees with 353?

17     And let's see what that would look like.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Just hold a minute.  Can you do that with two

19     pictures at the same time appearing?  So we collapse this sketch, and

20     we'll have the Exhibit D741 only.  And change the colour into black.

21             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   If the sketch were right, can you mark the north for us, then?

23        A.   Like this [marks].

24        Q.   Thank you.  I would now like to ask you to look at the city map,

25     the city plan, and to tell us what this looks like on the hard copy.

Page 7787

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could this please be shown to the

 2     OTP.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  We'll keep this.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Or if the Prosecution prefers some

 5     other map where everything can be seen clearly, that is fine.  But let us

 6     just see the directions in which the streets go.

 7             Could I kindly ask the Trial Chamber to cast a glance at this.

 8             [In English] Could you please show it -- after the witness, I

 9     would like the Chamber to see it.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Shall we put it on the ELMO.

11             THE WITNESS:  Yes, this is the street.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Is the ELMO working?  Yes.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now please go above

14     "Dobrinja," and mark the coordinates, or, rather, the cardinal points,

15     north, south, east, west?  Can that be marked?  A NATO marking, as it

16     were.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Do you like the witness to mark on this original

18     map?

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We can make a copy during the

20     break.  But perhaps now let's do without it.

21             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Could you tell us where the north is here?

23        A.   As I marked it before with a red arrow on the electronic map,

24     where it says "N," rather than perpendicular to the street.

25        Q.   Thank you.  So you are a better draftsman than this technician?

Page 7788

 1        A.   I seem to be.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Then there's no need to mark this.  It is clear that

 3     there is a proper orientation for north.  It is up on top.

 4             Do you agree that there is some angle between the north and

 5     Oslobodilaca Sarajeva?  Say it's about 30 or 35 degrees?

 6        A.   Yes, roughly that, 35, 30 degrees.

 7        Q.   Certainly not 90 degrees?

 8        A.   Certainly not 90 degrees.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10             Perhaps we can ask the witness to have a look at the last page

11     and see what it says there under "353," what the name of the street was

12     then.

13             [In English] May I ask you to --

14             JUDGE KWON:  Can you do that?  Witness, the accused asked you to

15     take a look at the rear page of the real map and to find out the name of

16     the street at that time, 353.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If that's a problem for you, we'll

18     get it off Google.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's a bit of a problem for me to

20     find it here on this list.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, we'll find something.

22             Can we now have page 23 of this document, 09617.

23                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

24             JUDGE KWON:  I think we can safely keep the marking as lastly

25     marked.  I refer to Exhibit D741.  We'll keep it as lastly marked by the

Page 7789

 1     witness, with the black arrow as --

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Can the witness just confirm that the black arrow, the east,

 4     corresponds to the sketch, whereas this corresponds to what the witness

 5     confirmed?

 6        A.   I would like to correct you.  You mean "north," but you did say

 7     "east."

 8        Q.   Yes, I mean "north."

 9        A.   Yes, the black arrow corresponds to the sketch --

10             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not hear the end of the

11     sentence.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have page 23 of that

13     document, 09617.

14             MR. GAYNOR:  Sorry.  Perhaps the end of the -- the part that the

15     interpreter did not hear could be repeated.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The black arrow corresponds to the

17     "North" on the sketch rather than on the map.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I think that that is

19     what we need.

20             Now, can we have 65 ter 09617.  It's a well-known document.

21     Page 23.  Yes, we had it here a few moments ago.

22             Can you show the caption so that Mr. Sabljica can see it.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Do you agree that what is written here, what is written

25     underneath, underneath this picture -- I mean, this red arrow, does it

Page 7790

 1     show the point of impact of one of the shells?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Which shell was that, in terms of succession?

 4        A.   It is hard for me to say that on the basis of this picture.  I

 5     don't know which one it would be, in terms of a succession.

 6        Q.   Can you mark the edge of the playground here in the direction of

 7     the pavement or sidewalk?  Can you mark the playground with a shadow or

 8     something and then the edge of the playground facing the sidewalk?

 9        A.   I will mark the playground [marks].

10        Q.   Excellent, thank you.  And now the edge going towards the

11     pavement?

12        A.   Perpendicular to the pavement or parallel to it?

13        Q.   You can mark both.

14        A.   Very well.  [Marks]

15        Q.   Can we see that on the playground, there is soil scattered over

16     the playground in the direction from which the projectile arrived?

17        A.   It's hard to conclude, based on this photograph, whether this is

18     a soil or whether this is soot, soot originating from the gunpowder in

19     the projectile.

20        Q.   But we can see that this is the place of impact, and we can see

21     that it left some traces; is that right?  Whether this is soot or soil,

22     we can see the point of impact and the traces; right?

23        A.   Yes, we can see that there is some sort of dirt here, to refer to

24     it in that way.

25        Q.   Yes.  Can you please put your initials and the date on this

Page 7791

 1     document?

 2        A.   [Marks]

 3             JUDGE KWON:  That will be Exhibit D743.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 5             Can we now go back to that sketch.  It's page 19 of this

 6     document.  I apologise.  It's 20, it's page 20.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Do you agree that the numbers 1, 2 and 3 designate the order in

 9     which the shells landed?

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have D742, which is in both

11     languages, D742.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't agree that this is the

13     order in which the shells landed.  We didn't know in what order they had

14     been fired.  This is the order in which we investigated the scene.  Only

15     the person who fired the projectiles knows in what order they were fired.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then we have to go back to page 19.

17             Can we have 19 and 20 on the same page, or, rather, can we see

18     them both together.

19             We have D742, the one in English.  And in the other half of the

20     screen, can we have page 19 of this document.

21             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Do you see that it says here:  "Point of impact of a mortar

23     shell, 120 millimetres," and they are numbered 1, 2 and 3?

24        A.   Yes, but this doesn't tell us which landed first.  It, rather,

25     tells us in what order we dealt with them.

Page 7792

 1        Q.   Thank you.  But you did not establish or you were not told or you

 2     did not have any information to tell you which landed first?  The order

 3     in which they landed is not marked?  You don't know?

 4        A.   No, I don't know that.  I did not have that information, and it

 5     would be very difficult to know that.  Only the person who fired the

 6     projectiles would know that.  It would be hard for witnesses, who heard

 7     the shells landing, to conclude in what order they had been fired.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

 9             Can we keep the sketch.  And instead of page 19, can we have

10     65 ter, which is the same document -- just a moment.  971 are the last

11     three digits of the ERN number.  Instead of 801, we now need 971.  The

12     sketch remains, but the left-hand side of the screen has to be changed.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Page 8 -- 8 ...?

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 789, 102-5789.  So let's go back a

15     little.  789.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Page 7.  Is it correct?  E-court page 7.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at page 6.  The

18     description begins on the previous page, near the bottom.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   And if you agree, this is the record drawn up by the

21     investigating judge, and the judge was Eterovic in this case; is that

22     right?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   A description of the site.  If it hasn't been translated, can you

25     read this passage?

Page 7793

 1        A.   "A description of site.

 2             "The shelling occurred at around 1130 hours, and a total of three

 3     shells landed.  The first two landed almost simultaneously.  One landed

 4     near the frame of the window in the basement of the building in

 5     Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street, number 8, destroying two rooms of that

 6     ground-floor flat in which part of a mosque had been located in wartime.

 7     The stabiliser was not found, nor were pieces of shrapnel found."

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have page 7, the next page.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Please continue.

11        A.   "And according to the place of impact, the direction was

12     established to be east-south-east, the direction from which the shell

13     arrived.  There were no -- no persons were killed, and one child was

14     injured.

15             "The second shell landed in the immediate vicinity of the

16     building in Mihajlo Pupin Street, number 3, on the -- in the backyard, on

17     the concrete under-wall.  A stabiliser was found on the spot belonging to

18     a 12-millimetre mortar shell.  In the vicinity was the grassy part of a

19     park covered with snow which had turned black from the explosion, and

20     traces of blood can be found as well as one children's shoe.

21             "A few minutes later --"

22             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

23             I don't think the interpreters finished the last answer of the --

24     reading out the paragraph.

25             Could you read again from:  "A few minutes later ..."?

Page 7794

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "A few minutes later, a third shell

 2     landed in the immediate vicinity, near the underground garage.  This is a

 3     children's playground, bounded by buildings in Smaj Hadzimusic [phoen]

 4     Street, Mihajlo Pupin Street and Oslobodilaca Grada Sarajeva Street, and

 5     the underground garage.  Near the garage and the grassy area, there is an

 6     asphalt foot-path, and a part of the stabiliser remained stuck in the

 7     asphalt.  Nearby, there was several pools of blood, with parts of human

 8     tissue, and bags of flour which had burst and been spilled, and a boot

 9     torn by a piece of shrapnel."

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   So number 1 refers to the landing of the third shell, and it

12     landed in the spot marked "1"; is that right?

13        A.   According to the report of the investigating judge, yes, that's

14     how it would be.

15        Q.   How do you explain the fact that children remained in the

16     playground even after two shells had landed in the immediate vicinity

17     almost simultaneously?

18        A.   How do I explain that?  It's impossible.

19        Q.   Because the children would run away, wouldn't they?

20        A.   Of course.  Not just children; anyone in the area would flee.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

22             This document has already been admitted.  And since we have not

23     made any alterations to it, I need not tender it.

24             Can we now have page 26 of this same document, 9617.

25             JUDGE KWON:  I don't think we need that sketch anymore,

Page 7795

 1     Mr. Karadzic.  We can collapse it for the moment?

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I agree.

 3             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   Is this one of the points of impact?  And which one is it,

 5     according to the best of your recollection?

 6        A.   Yes, this is one of the points of impact, and I think it's

 7     number 1, or, rather, the one that's marked as number 1 on the sketch at

 8     the edge of the playground.

 9        Q.   So the third in order?

10        A.   Yes, it would be the third one according to the investigating

11     judge's report, but it would be number 1 on our sketch.

12             If you will allow me:  The investigating judge took witness

13     statements.  He was accompanied by the crime police inspector.  We were

14     not concerned with the order in which the shells had been fired.  It's

15     hard to conclude when a shell landed and when someone fled.  All we did

16     was establish the traces, what the traces were, and that's what we

17     referred to in our report.  And as to why the judge did not correct our

18     report, you'll have to ask him that.

19        Q.   So if I understand you correctly, you first dealt with the first

20     traces you came across and not in the order in which the shells landed.

21     Is that right?

22        A.   Precisely so.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Looking at this photograph, can you mark the longer

24     axis, where the top of the projectile hit?

25        A.   Yes, I understand what you want.  I'll mark it right away.

Page 7796

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Before we do that, shall we zoom in, or is it okay

 2     to mark it on this picture?  Can you do that, Mr. Sabljica?  Let us

 3     proceed, then.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you don't need the text anymore,

 6     we can zoom in.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't need the text, but I can

 8     mark it like this anyway.  I'll just draw a line from the center of the

 9     explosion towards the longer side.  Right?

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the direction of the longer

12     axis [marks].  This is the center of the explosion [marks].

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If this was marked in red, it might

14     be more visible, but, well, it can stay like this.  Can it?

15             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  We'll admit this.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, not yet, please.  Maybe --

17     maybe we can use a red pen to make it more visible.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   So this is the longer axis; right?

20        A.   [No verbal response]

21        Q.   Can you now mark the traces of shrapnel on the asphalt?

22        A.   I'll try to do it on this photograph, although it's not very

23     good.  I will mark both ellipses [marks].  So this is the smaller ellipse

24     and this is ...

25        Q.   Thank you.  Can you please put the date on this document and sign

Page 7797

 1     it?

 2        A.   [Marks]

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Exhibit D744.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 5             Can we now have page 30 of this document.  And we might keep the

 6     sketch.  Let's have page 30 on the left-hand side.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   This is a contemporaneous photograph with snow on the ground; is

 9     that right?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Based on the traces left by the products of the detonation, can

12     you draw a line in the snow indicating the approximate direction from

13     which the projectile arrived?

14        A.   With a great difficulty, but I will try to do it approximately.

15     I don't see the center here, the point of impact, so I don't know how

16     relevant the markings will be.  It will be very difficult.

17        Q.   Well, are the traces of shrapnel on the building of assistance?

18        A.   I'll do my best.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Before you do that, why don't we zoom in further.

20     Once again.  Do it once again.

21             We see number 8.  What is it, Mr. Sabljica, if you know?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Number 8 indicates some trace

23     evidence.  I am not sure.  This was probably something that the crime

24     technician put there perhaps to indicate a piece of clothing, or some

25     kind of bag, or whatever.  In any case, the technicians had to fix and

Page 7798

 1     mark all of the trace evidence found here.  I think I also see a

 2     number 7, although you can't really see it very well on this photo.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 4             As requested, if you could indicate the approximate direction.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, here it is [marks].  I will

 6     put a "D" for "Direction" and indicate it with this arrow [marks].  This

 7     is just approximate.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 9        Q.   Could you please date and put your signature on this?

10        A.   [Marks]

11             JUDGE KWON:  D745.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now please have 1D02561.

13             And if we can have a split screen again and have 1D02560 and then

14     the other half to show 1D02561, that could help Mr. Sabljica to better

15     orientate himself.  Could we now please have on the other half 1D02560.

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   This is a recent photo.  Is this the same building?  Can you

18     tell, based on the walls and the texture, and are these the pockmarks

19     left there by shrapnel fragments?

20        A.   Well, I can't really answer that, because almost all of the

21     buildings look alike there and they were rather damaged by -- after the

22     shelling.  So I couldn't really say decisively that this is the same

23     building, because this is a more recent photo.  I really can't answer

24     that.  I don't want to guess anything.

25        Q.   Then you can also not mark these photos in any way; correct?

Page 7799

 1        A.   Yes, I can't do that, because that wouldn't really be

 2     appropriate, would it?

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 4             Could we please have that sketch, then, again on the monitors,

 5     the marked sketch, D742.  D742.

 6             Can we just enlarge it, please.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Could you now indicate -- on this field, where it says "Asphalt

 9     playground," could you please draw a line showing the same direction that

10     you drew earlier on on the photo?  And it should be in relation to the

11     right-hand side of this playground.  If you need some assistance, maybe

12     we can have the earlier photo again, the exhibit.

13        A.   Well, there's no need.  I can actually indicate that [marks].

14     This sketch is completely misrepresenting everything, so let me just put

15     it this way:  This arrow is to indicate the direction from which the

16     shell came, north-east.

17        Q.   But we know that the Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street is -- runs

18     north-west slightly; correct?

19        A.   Well, yes, but that's what I indicated on this sketch.  I don't

20     want to comment on how precise and accurate this sketch is.

21        Q.   Thank you.  Could you then please put, next to number 2, the same

22     thing you did earlier on, so to show the origin of fire?

23        A.   [Marks].  Well, let's assume -- let's put it this way.  I assume

24     that that's how it was, that's where the direction of the projectile was

25     from.

Page 7800

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this,

 2     please.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Shall we give it a separate number or we can keep it

 4     as it's lastly marked?

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.  But can we just keep these

 6     markings that the witness made, please?

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we'll keep the last markings, red markings, as

 8     well.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Mr. Sabljica, now about the method of work of these crime

11     technicians.

12             Can you tell us why the polarity of the -- of Planet Earth was

13     changed here?  If Oslobodilaca Sarajeva Street runs north-west and

14     north-east, is it correct that this direction, the direction that is

15     indicated here, is, in fact, from the south, that it would imply that the

16     shell came from the south?

17        A.   Well, based on this sketch, Mr. Karadzic, I couldn't really draw

18     any conclusions, because if you were to do this appropriately, you cannot

19     do it by me just indicating the direction from which the projectile came

20     based on some sketch.  If we were to use this sketch, we could draw the

21     conclusion that the projectile had come from any direction.  It's very

22     difficult to draw any conclusions on the basis of this method of work.

23     In order to make a more serious and professional expertise of this, it's

24     really not possible based on a sketch of this type, because what we did

25     in our investigations had to do with the actual situation and the actual

Page 7801

 1     trace evidence found on site.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  But if the Branilaca Grada Street is -- runs in the

 3     direction as shown here, could you please indicate with an arrow where

 4     the airport is in relation to that?

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Could you wait.  We'll bring in the new one, the

 6     newly kept D742.

 7             It has yet to come.  Yes.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Well, before I do that, I will ignore the marking indicating the

10     direction of north, the north bearing.  Would you agree with me?

11        A.   Well, yes, I do.

12        Q.   You just mark it according to the map.

13        A.   Well, according to the map, the airport would be in this

14     direction [indicates].  I will mark it with a green arrow and put an A

15     next to it [marks].

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Do we need a new number

17     or can it remain as it is?

18             JUDGE KWON:  I don't think there would be a problem in keeping

19     the same number.  So we'll keep --

20                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

21             JUDGE KWON:  As it is currently showing, we lost the date.  Could

22     you put the date again, kindly, Mr. Sabljica, on this sketch, the 12th of

23     10 --

24             THE WITNESS: [Marks]

25             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

Page 7802

 1             THE WITNESS:  You're welcome.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  We'll keep this.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 4             Should I start with a new incident now or are we running short of

 5     time?

 6             JUDGE KWON:  With the indulgence of the interpreters and all the

 7     staff -- I inquired of the possibility to go until 2.00, and if it is

 8     agreeable to the parties, we'll do so.

 9             Mr. Gaynor?

10             MR. GAYNOR:  That's fine by us.  Thank you.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, can you do that?  So we have

12     20 minutes more.  I appreciate the kindness.  Thank you very much.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please bear with us.

14             Very well.  This document may be removed from the screen.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Are you familiar with an incident on the 22nd of January, 1994,

17     at Alipasino Polje, which was G6 on the indictment schedule, Schedule G6?

18     If you have something, you can just use it to refresh your memory.

19        A.   [Interpretation] Are you referring to the incident involving

20     children sledding?

21        Q.   Yes.  Thank you.

22        A.   Well, I'm familiar with it.

23        Q.   Could you please briefly describe what was -- what this incident

24     actually involved?

25        A.   I think that three shells landed.  Two hit the ground.  They were

Page 7803

 1     82.  And one, which was a 120-millimetre shell, landed on a building.  We

 2     did not investigate that one.  I and the late Stankov worked on this

 3     particular incident, and I think we had established that it had come from

 4     Nedzarici, that these shells had come from Nedzarici, from that general

 5     direction.  That's in brief.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell us anything about when these shells fell

 7     and in what order?  Do you recall?

 8        A.   Do you mean at what time they landed?

 9        Q.   Yes, and how they followed one another, and how much time elapsed

10     between them.

11        A.   Well, I can't recall that.  Maybe you can let me read the report.

12     That would help.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

14             Could we please now have 1D02152.  That's a city plan showing

15     Alipasino Polje and Dobrinja neighbourhood.  One is sufficient.  Can we

16     just blow it up.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Now, when we take a look at that report, I will ask you about

19     certain things where you needed refreshing your memory.

20             Could you please mark here on this map with numbers 1, 2 and 3 --

21             MR. GAYNOR:  Objection.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Before you do that:  Yes, Mr. Gaynor.

23             MR. GAYNOR:  Yes.

24             I would prefer if -- in our submission, again, if the witness is

25     going to be asked very specific questions about an incident in respect of

Page 7804

 1     which there is a report - he's already asked to see the report now - in

 2     our submission, he should be shown the report before he's asked to mark

 3     anything on the map.

 4             Mr. Karadzic -- the report is in evidence.  Mr. Karadzic has gone

 5     straight to the map.  I think we should go to the report first.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Will you be assisted if you were to

 7     see the report, Mr. Sabljica?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I'd like that.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Let's do that, then.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

11             Can we then please have 9609, 9609.  Could Mr. Sabljica be shown

12     or be given a hard-copy report so that he can have it with him, and we

13     can work with the maps?  Is that possible?

14             JUDGE KWON:  Do you have it, Mr. Gaynor?

15             MR. GAYNOR:  I'm just checking if I have an unmarked version.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  I was told that it is only a two-page

17     document, and it should be given to the witness.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, for the record, this is

19     65 ter 09608, which has been admitted as Exhibit P1698.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   Does that assist you, Mr. Sabljica?

22        A.   Yes, this will help me refresh my memory.

23             We can now have the map.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Would you please now mark, with numbers 1, 2 and 3,

25     the point of impact where these shells landed?  Do you remember it was in

Page 7805

 1     Cetinjska and Klare Cetkin Streets; right?

 2        A.   Yes.  But could we please zoom in on Alipasino Polje, on that

 3     area?

 4        Q.   Perhaps you can use the hard-copy map that you have before you.

 5     Maybe that can help.

 6        A.   Well, here we have old street names, and I don't know what the

 7     new street names are nowadays in the Alipasino Polje area.

 8        Q.   But you do know what streets these were.  Is that the "8" symbol

 9     that we see there at the eastern part, the eastern "8" symbol, the

10     Klare Cetkin Street and Bosanska Street?

11        A.   Well, it's about here [indicates].  I can't quite mark the

12     area -- the point of impact where these shells fell, but I will just

13     indicate the general area.

14             If this is Bosanska Street and this is -- so that's Klare Cetkin

15     Street, this, then, should be Cetinjska Street, the street

16     perpendicular [indicates], so it should be in this general area if

17     Bosanska Street is also there [marks].

18        Q.   This area that you marked, is that where all three shells landed?

19        A.   I think so.

20        Q.   Could you now please indicate, with numbers 1, 2 and 3, the

21     location where they landed?

22        A.   Well, I really can't do that.  As I told you a minute ago, it's a

23     large area and it's built up.  There are a lot of buildings there.  You

24     know what Alipasino Polje looked like.  It's difficult to do that.

25        Q.   Do you agree with me that the northern tip of this "8" symbol is

Page 7806

 1     the place where one of the shells landed, or was there some other sketch?

 2     In other words, the on-site investigation report, does that also have a

 3     sketch attached?

 4        A.   I think that this does exist.  A crime technician measured the

 5     distance from the hard objects.  So I think that the shells fell at a

 6     certain distance.  The 120 one that we hadn't dealt with, I think it fell

 7     on the roof or something like that.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Can you now mark the Institute for Blind Children?

 9     Not the name; the building itself.  Where is it, exactly?  And you can

10     also use the paper map, if you wish.

11             It says here "Zavod," the "Institute," but I think that the

12     building is between those letters and where it says "Slepu Deca" [phoen],

13     "Blind Children."

14        A.   Just a moment, please.  I think it is this building here [marks].

15     Somewhere around here, roughly.  It would be there.

16        Q.   Why would it be so far away from the lettering that says

17     "Institute for Blind Children"?  Isn't it underneath the "D," the letter

18     D, the building underneath the letter D?

19        A.   Which "D," "Nedzarici"?

20        Q.   No, "Zavod Slepu Deca."  Do you see where it says that, the

21     "Institute for Blind Children"?  Do you see that?

22        A.   I don't see that.

23        Q.   To the north of what you marked just now.

24             JUDGE KWON:  The quality maybe is not very well, Mr. Karadzic.

25     I think it's a scanned copy from the copy again.

Page 7807

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here it is.  I do apologise.

 2     [Marks].  This is the institute, so we should erase what I first drew.

 3     I'm going to mark it with a Z.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Please, what is that big building further north from the "Zavod"

 6     or institute?

 7        A.   That is the former "Oslobodjenje" building.  It's a hotel now,

 8     Crowne Plaza.

 9        Q.   Can you put a circle around that as well?

10        A.   [Marks].  I'm going to mark it with "O," "Oslobodjenje."  Is that

11     all right?

12        Q.   And these two buildings that look like a Y, what is that?

13        A.   You're referring to this over here?  Those are student

14     dormitories.

15        Q.   Can you put a circle around them as well?

16        A.   "SD," "Studentski Domovi," [phoen] "Student Dormitories."

17        Q.   Can you tell us where the line of separation was here?

18        A.   I don't know exactly.  But I will tell you that the Student

19     Dormitories were held by the members of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

20     The Institute for Blind Children was held by the Army of

21     Republika Srpska, and the building of "Oslobodjenje" was under the

22     control of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Now we're going to go back to this.  Thank you very

24     much.  It would be a good thing if we could mark 1, 2 and 3, where they

25     fell, but they did fall within this circle that you marked here; right?

Page 7808

 1     Can you put some marking there for that circle?  Can you perhaps put an

 2     "I" as in "Impact"?

 3        A.   Impact, okay [marks].  Should I sign this?

 4        Q.   Please do, the date and your signature.

 5        A.   [Marks]

 6             JUDGE KWON:  That is admitted.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D746, Your Honours.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Can we now agree that this report says that an 82-millimetre

10     mortar shell fell - page 2 of this report:

11             "On the basis of the general-form traces of the fragmented part

12     of this shell and the destruction on the buildings in the surrounding

13     area, it can be established that what fell on the site was a mortar shell

14     of 82-millimetre calibre that was fired from a direction that was

15     somewhat to the north in relation to the west."

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  We did not have the text

17     that was being read out.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Your colleague said that this was mildly to the north-west;

20     right?

21        A.   Precisely.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have that returned, I mean

23     the document, 746, D746.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Do you agree that in relation to this point of impact, the

Page 7809

 1     Institute for Blind Children is to the south-west, not the north-west?

 2        A.   On the basis of the map, I do agree.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Do you agree that the "Oslobodjenje" building and the

 4     Student Dormitories, especially the one that is further to the north, are

 5     a bit to the north-west in relation to the point of impact?

 6        A.   I would say that it's purely to the west.  It's north-west.  The

 7     "Oslobodjenje" building further to the west, and the Student Dormitories

 8     are the north-west, if we can put it that way.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Would you please draw a line from the Student -- or,

10     rather, no, from the Institute of Blind Children to the point of impact

11     horizontally, or, rather, no, a straight line?

12        A.   [Marks]

13        Q.   And then from the Student Dormitories, from the upper student

14     dormitory, the one to the north, to the point of impact?

15        A.   I am going to draw a line from the Institute for Blind Children

16     [marks].  Do you want me to use a different colour when marking this

17     other one?

18        Q.   Please, red.

19        A.   [Marks].  However, I have to say that we did not exactly locate

20     the point of impact.  However, there is this circle that we marked as

21     impact place.

22        Q.   The building of the Student Dormitories, it cannot really be seen

23     very well, but you know where it is.  It's below this smear, as it were.

24        A.   Should I use green?

25        Q.   That's all right.  It's below the blot, and then the other one --

Page 7810

 1        A.   Yes, here it is.

 2        Q.   Can you draw that?

 3        A.   Yes [marks].

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 5             This doesn't have to be admitted separately; right?

 6             JUDGE KWON:  We'll keep it as is.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] For the transcript, the blue line

 8     denotes the direction from the Institute for Blind Children to the zone

 9     of impact, and then the red, "Oslobodjenje," and the green, the building

10     of the Student Dormitories, or, rather, the northern one --

11             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreter did not hear the end of the

12     sentence.  There is too much background noise.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Do you agree that your colleague did not establish the azimuth;

15     rather, he said, by way of a description, that it's west and then a bit

16     further to the north in relation to pure west?  Right?

17        A.   I agree that's what the late Stankov wrote.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Do you know why they did not take any photographs,

19     and why did they not ensure that there were photographs and sketches of

20     this location?

21        A.   Believe me, I don't know.  We are going back to a case where

22     there is not sufficient documentation with regard to the sniper nest that

23     I spoke of yesterday.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25             JUDGE KWON:  That will be it for today, Mr. Karadzic.

Page 7811

 1             We'll resume tomorrow at 9.00.

 2                           [The witness stands down]

 3                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.00 p.m.,

 4                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 13th day of

 5                           October, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.