Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 38290

 1                           Wednesday, 15 May 2013

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Good morning, everyone.

 7             Yes, Mr. Harvey.

 8             MR. HARVEY:  Good morning, Mr. President.  Good morning,

 9     Your Honours.  May I introduce Ricardo Izquierdo, who is from Venezuela

10     doing a masters degree here at the university in Amsterdam.  Thank you.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

12             Yes, yesterday we received a correct version of Dr. Subotic's

13     report.  I hope this time it will work.  Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Excellencies.

15     Good morning, everyone.

16                           WITNESS:  ZORICA SUBOTIC [Resumed]

17                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

18                           Examination by Mr. Karadzic: [Continued]

19        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Dr. Subotic.

20        A.   Good morning.

21        Q.   That was fast.  We have to make pauses.  Thank you.

22             Now I would draw your attention to your expert report which has

23     to do with the incident known as Markale 1.

24        A.   I --

25        Q.   Did you wish us to make some corrections?

Page 38291

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Please, and I hope we can do that quickly.

 3        A.   Yes, the first correction which we did not manage to find

 4     yesterday is in the version which I received too.  I received it

 5     yesterday and it is on page --

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please have 1D07901.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's paragraph 68, footnote 265.

 8     At the end of the footnote in the first paragraph it says "the first

 9     paragraph" and it should read "the last paragraph, line 3."

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Were the other participants able to

11     find this?

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Perhaps it's paragraph 69?

14        A.   Well, I have already moved on to looking for the previous one.

15     Excuse me, I'll check again.

16             JUDGE KWON:  It's para 69, but if you find the footnote number.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 265.  Yes, it was 265.  At the end

18     of the footnote it says "first paragraph" and it should read "last

19     paragraph, line 3."

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   In the footnote itself?

22        A.   Yes, yes.  At the end of the footnote itself.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Please go ahead.

24        A.   Please excuse me, the searching two documents is really going

25     slowly but there aren't many corrections.

Page 38292

 1             The next paragraph is 75 under (d), first paragraph -- excuse me,

 2     I cannot untangle myself with these two documents.

 3        Q.   Subsection (d) as Dubrovnik or (b) as Belgium?

 4        A.   (D) as in Dubrovnik, but I cannot untangle -- well, I have these

 5     two documents.  Perhaps during the break I can try to find it and locate

 6     exactly the place where the correction should be made.  Let me make a

 7     note in the margin so that I don't forgot.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  In the new version I noted there are two (d)s, there

 9     are two subsections under the title (d).

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you are right.  That's a

11     mistake and possibly that prevented me from finding the right place.  In

12     any case, I would ask you to allow me to look at this in more detail

13     because I noted everything here in the version I have; namely, it seems

14     that the pages I noted are wrong.  I left two corrections on page 123, so

15     if I could just go through this once again during the break.

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Thank you.  Could you point out the next correction, please.  If

18     that would be easier, Doctor, perhaps we could --

19        A.   I have to find it in my version first and then in the new one.

20        Q.   Perhaps we could go through all the corrections after the break

21     because we probably won't tender the document before we introduce the

22     corrections.

23        A.   Whatever, it suits me fine.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Could you tell us briefly and in general

25     terms - later on we'll move on to the details - what did you find on the

Page 38293

 1     basis of physical evidence and did you have insight into all the

 2     investigations that were conducted with regards to Markale?

 3        A.   Yes, I did examine all the investigations about which there are

 4     any written traces, any documents that were available to us in this case

 5     and on the Tribunal's web site.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell us how the scope of the investigations

 7     looks and what did you as an expert conclude about these investigations,

 8     not about what you did but about the investigations that have to do with

 9     Markale 1 incident?

10        A.   Well, there were various conclusions drawn in the investigations

11     with regard to this incident.  The conclusions have to do with each of

12     the ballistics parameters which affect the conclusions.  It was a rather

13     varied scope of results in terms of the angles of descent which varied

14     from 18 to up to 50-something, that was the azimuth.  Also, the

15     investigators who investigated the angle of descent drew quite various

16     conclusions about the angle of descent which we examined and measured

17     here.  I'm not looking at the precise figures in the findings right now,

18     but they are listed here as noted by each investigator separately.

19        Q.   Thank you.  We'll go into details later on.  Could you please

20     tell us if you decided how this location, the Markale market, looked

21     immediately before the incident and on the basis of what could you make

22     such conclusions?

23        A.   Immediately before the incident, there are some video-clips which

24     are practically simultaneous with the time of the incident, so it was

25     possible to conclude how the Markale market looked just before the

Page 38294

 1     incident.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  Did you notice something that needs to be noted with

 3     regard to the look of the market, the distribution of the stalls,

 4     anything that attracts attention?

 5        A.   Considering the video-clip, which as I just said is practically

 6     simultaneous with the incident itself, one can see that the street which

 7     joins Marsala Tita and Dzenetica Cikma Streets was blocked by stalls

 8     which is unusual because that's a passageway and a path to move through

 9     the market.  All the previous videos or photographs of the market show

10     that it's the street along which goods and people are being moved or

11     transported and that can also be seen from photographs made after the

12     incident at Markale.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Would you recommend image or figure 13 or figure 15,

14     which of these two should we call up from page 41 in the Serbian version

15     so as to depict what you just described for us in terms of the

16     distribution of the stalls?

17        A.   Well, I would rather opt for figure 15, but it's quite all right

18     if we choose figure 13.  So it doesn't really matter.

19        Q.   Then we could look at 15, please, yes.

20        A.   Figure 15 perhaps because it was the final result of the

21     reconstruction.  Yes, that's right.  Yes.  Here's what this is about.

22     I'm talking about the stalls which are here between Marsala Tita Street

23     and Dzenetica Cikma Street.  That's the artery through which people and

24     goods move and circulate and which is according to the photos and videos

25     from before and after the incident is always unblocked.  It's a free

Page 38295

 1     passageway.  But at the moment of the incident we noticed that the

 2     distribution of the stalls was as depicted in this figure and I wanted us

 3     to look at this image rather than the previous one for the reason that

 4     this is the final reconstruction.  And on the basis of the previous image

 5     shot from above includes a correction which can be seen here, where you

 6     can see a platform next to the building and a stall which leans onto the

 7     platform.  So what I want to say is that this is a more truthful version,

 8     it's more precise than the previous one that we have.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could I please ask the member of

10     the court staff to help the Doctor with the electronic pen.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   So that you can mark it and we can tender the document.  To mark

13     what you just told us, if you can place number 1 on the stalls which are

14     in the passageway.

15        A.   Excuse me.

16             These are the stalls.  Number 1.  And this is the correction with

17     regard to the platform.

18        Q.   Thank you.  Can you mark the point of impact with a small circle.

19        A.   It's already marked.  And how is it?  I mustn't touch it with my

20     hand; is that correct?

21        Q.   If you can just ...  if you can just place number 3 there.

22        A.   [Marks]

23        Q.   I did not manage to read what you wrote there with number 3.

24     Please --

25        A.   I wrote the point of incident or the site of incident.  I -- it's

Page 38296

 1     not quite legible.

 2        Q.   Could you also mark on this sketch where the Markale 2 incident

 3     occurred.

 4        A.   Markale 2 was here along Marsala Tita Street.  I think it was

 5     somewhere around here.

 6        Q.   Thank you.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we tender this?

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   And perhaps you could just mark Markale 2 and that location with

10     number 4.

11        A.   [Marks]

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could this be admitted?

13             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

14             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D3543, Your Honours.

15             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   Now that we're dealing with this, Doctor, do you know what

17     "Cikma" means in Turkish?

18        A.   I think that it means a boot, but I asked and I was told that it

19     means a boot.

20        Q.   All right.  But it's a dead-end street.  All right.  That will be

21     important when we get to the issue of evacuation because it's the least

22     opportune avenue for evacuating anyone --

23             JUDGE KWON:  You're not giving evidence.  Such comment is very

24     inappropriate.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, all right.  I withdraw it,

Page 38297

 1     but it can be found in a dictionary.

 2                           [Defence counsel confer]

 3             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   You mentioned a video.  Can we have a look at it.  It's 1D05664.

 5     4 minutes, 7 seconds, to 4 minutes, 14 seconds.

 6                           [Defence counsel confer]

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We'll play the video later.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Did you establish when the evacuation of the wounded began and

10     what did you conclude on the issue of evacuation?

11        A.   According to the video that was made available to us, we

12     concluded that the evacuation of the wounded began practically right

13     after the incident --

14             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  How is this evidence related to

15     Doctor's expertise?

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the Defence asked Dr. Subotic

17     to look into all the matters that were logical and illogical, all the

18     pros and contras that existed in the investigations into Markale 1 and

19     Markale 2.  But we have -- we can deal with the ballistics first, and

20     then if we have time left we can deal with the other matters.

21             JUDGE KWON:  Deal with ballistics matter, please.

22             Yes, please continue.

23             I said deal with ballistics matters, please.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 38298

 1        Q.   Can we look at figures 16 and 17, page 45 in my copy.

 2             Doctor, can you tell us what figure 16 illustrates and when it

 3     was photographed, if you know?

 4        A.   It was taken from a film that was taken by the police during the

 5     on-site investigation.  I must say that we didn't take this still for no

 6     reason.  It was an indispensable issue in our analysis of where the

 7     incident happened and how it happened and how it was possible for that

 8     incident --

 9        Q.   All right --

10        A.   Yes, I'm sorry, I was waiting for interpretation.  And how it was

11     possible for that incident to happen the way it did.  That's why we felt

12     it was necessary to do two reconstructions.  One was that of the layout

13     of the stalls in the market-place as per what was recorded in the video

14     footage taken by the police.  And secondly, we had to reconstruct the

15     shape and dimensions of the stalls because we felt that they were not

16     accurately represented in the reports by Mr. Zecevic and his commission

17     as well as in the CSB reports.  The shape of the stalls as indicated in

18     these documents did not accurately reflect their shape in reality, and we

19     felt that both the shape and the size of the stalls had to be looked into

20     and properly reconstructed as well as the layout of the stalls at the

21     scene of the incident.  This figure, figure 16 which is basically a still

22     taken from police footage, enabled us to check the passageway, the aisle

23     between the two rows of stalls, which was the subject of the

24     reconstruction in that figure which we had on our screens a moment ago.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell us which building is this, the one that

Page 38299

 1     we can see to the right?  There are some stalls abutting it.  Which

 2     building is that, is that the 22nd December?

 3        A.   No, that's not the 22nd December, that's the UPI super-market

 4     101.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Can we see figure 17 and can you briefly explain what

 6     it depicts?

 7        A.   Figure 17 which is also a still taken from the footage that I've

 8     mentioned a moment ago is a still of the scene of the incident taken from

 9     above indicating the stalls that do not have the roofing panels on them.

10        Q.   Thank you.  And what is the marking down below?

11        A.   Well, I'm not sure if it was the investigators or colleague

12     Zecevic who made the markings, but they marked the site of the incident

13     and the trace evidence around it.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell us why this figure is significant and

15     why is it important that the stall doesn't have the roofing panel on it?

16        A.   It's significant because the very site of the incident and its

17     distance from the stall can perhaps be gauged from this aerial view in

18     respect of the stall counter rather than the panel which is missing.  Do

19     you understand?  The distance cannot be seen, the distance in respect --

20     in relation to the roofing panel, but only the distance in relation to

21     the frame of the counter of the stall can be seen.

22        Q.   Thank you.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Please bear in mind that you should put a pause

24     between question and answers.  Please continue.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 38300

 1        Q.   To be precise, between answer and question because the Doctor,

 2     indeed, is making a pause and I'm not.

 3             Can we have -- can the Doctor be given the pen, please.

 4             And can you draw a red line to indicator the incoming

 5     trajectory - as determined by the CSB Sarajevo, the United Nations - 1,

 6     2, and 3, and in addition to that can you tell us where most of the

 7     fragments would end up in the event of such an incoming trajectory?

 8        A.   This would be roughly the range that, based on several checks of

 9     different types, we established as the possible and most probable

10     azimuth.  Now, in what way did we check this?  On the basis of the

11     splinter grooves, that's to say the pattern left by the fragments.

12             JUDGE KWON:  I'm sorry.  That would not help the Chamber very

13     much later on.  Shall we delete it and put a number and then explain it

14     in the transcript.  With the usher's assistance, you can delete it.  The

15     building you marked, is it a supermarket or December 22nd?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's the supermarket building on

17     which surface the pattern of fragment grooves can be seen, and we checked

18     it because based on the physicalities of the dispersion of the shell, the

19     central cluster where the fragment effect is the highest is along the

20     axis of the angle of descent.  And that's why we wanted to establish the

21     border azimuth along which the shell could have flown in, the minimum

22     one, so it was based on the fragmentation effect that we established the

23     base line azimuth.  And then on the basis of the base line azimuth we

24     looked at the various azimuth findings in the different documents in

25     order to find which ones were the closest.  So we had the results that we

Page 38301

 1     found range between 18 and 23 or 25, depending on the document where it

 2     was found.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, I will leave it to you in terms of

 4     numbering the markings Doctor has made.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In line 25 the Doctor said the

 6     azimuth that was closest to the actual trajectory along which it was

 7     fired.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Is that what you said?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Can you mark the point of impact with number 1, the

12     supermarket building with number 2?

13        A.   [Marks]

14        Q.   And the range of the three incoming trajectories with number 3,

15     the azimuth ranging between 18 and -- well, it was plus/minus 5.

16        A.   [Marks]

17        Q.   Yes.  And can we have your signature and date.

18        A.   [Marks]

19             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, I don't follow your comment about

20     plus/minus 5.  Doctor wrote differently.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In terms of the azimuth, one --

22     most of the findings established that the azimuth in this case was

23     18 degrees plus/minus 5.

24             JUDGE KWON:  You are not giving evidence.  Ask the Doctor.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 38302

 1        Q.   What are the ranges of the azimuth that were established and that

 2     were the closest to the real one?  And I mean the azimuth of the incoming

 3     trajectory of the shell?

 4        A.   Based on the physical evidence that was found on the UPI 101

 5     building, we established the base line azimuth and we compared it with

 6     the azimuths found by the several commissions and investigations and we

 7     found the range to be between 18 and 23, although I did kind of round it

 8     off to 25.  I'm afraid that Dr. Karadzic is recalling back the results of

 9     Mr. Zecevic, who found that the azimuth was 18 plus/minus 5, and that

10     does not apply to what I'm saying.  So what I'm saying is these results

11     are the most probable ones, but they also include the investigations of

12     UNPROFOR which found that the azimuth was 19, 20.5, et cetera.

13        Q.   Thank you.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we'll receive this.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D3544, Your Honours.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   You already said that the majority of fragments would actually be

19     held back to the incoming trajectory of the shell.  Can you tell us, at

20     this angle what was the amount of fragments that hit these two abutting

21     walls?

22        A.   Perhaps you misunderstood me.  As the shell fragments, as it

23     bursts - yesterday we were able to see the way this happens in a

24     different incident - they -- the fragments will disperse centrally to the

25     left and to the right compared to the axis, and some of the fragments

Page 38303

 1     will be thrown back.  So this building was caught by these fragments in

 2     respect of the incoming trajectory with the right side spray of the shell

 3     and this was a significant portion.  So in other words, the fragments

 4     were not thrown back.  So a significant amount of fragments hit this

 5     building.  I can't say exactly what the quantities were in terms of

 6     percentages.  We have extensive testings that we do in our testing

 7     rounds, and then in respect of every single projectile - because of

 8     course every projectile would have its own characteristics - I don't

 9     really know what the amount would be of the fragments that could have

10     ended up there in respect of all of them.

11        Q.   Can you draw a conclusion or give us an estimate of whether these

12     fragments were the cause of injury and death in view of the proximity of

13     the wall?

14        A.   It is possible that some of them penetrated bodies depending on

15     what sort of position or obstacle they came across, and it is quite

16     possible that they would ultimately end up in the wall because it is all

17     very close together.

18        Q.   Can we look at figure 64 now and let's focus on the crater, on

19     your analysis of the crater and on the analysis of the crater of others.

20     I think it's the first in a series of such figures, figure 64.  Thank

21     you.

22             Could you please tell us what this image represents.  It seems to

23     be a frame from a BH clip.  What do we see in this image?

24        A.   Yes, this is a television frame and this image shows the point of

25     explosion, the point of impact with a lot of rubble that are all piled

Page 38304

 1     up -- that is all piled up at the point of explosion.  This is impossible

 2     in practical terms because things scatter all over the place at the

 3     moment of explosion.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Yesterday I asked you --

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Could you mark the place where

 6     you -- what you think -- that you think is the point of impact.

 7             THE WITNESS:  [Marks]

 8             JUDGE KWON:  And date and initial, please.

 9             THE WITNESS:  [Marks]

10             JUDGE KWON:  Exhibit D3545.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Yesterday I asked you on purpose whether the appearance of the

14     crater at Dobrinja was typical or not.  You said it was a typical

15     appearance.  There was a stabiliser but it was not covered in rubble.

16     Would this type of material be able to return to the crater on its own

17     spontaneously, as it were?

18        A.   First of all, I believe that the ground in the market was similar

19     to the surface of the footpath.  Judging by the photos from the photo

20     file, this is a pebble foundation covered by a layer of asphalt, and I

21     believe that the surfaces in both cases were very similar.  What I said

22     yesterday about the typical surface meant the following:  When a body

23     penetrates a surface at a high speed, the material of the ground has to

24     be pushed out by the penetrating body and it has to be either in the

25     vicinity of the place where the high-velocity-speed body penetrated or it

Page 38305

 1     has to be scattered by the shock wave, although the shock wave precedes

 2     the very event.  Let's be clear on one thing, the process that occurs

 3     during an explosion follows the following sequence:  A projectile hits

 4     the surface, it is activated, and then the explosive is activated because

 5     it has to reach a certain pressure for the casing to be expanded and

 6     broken.  At that moment there is an explosion and the fragments of the

 7     casing scatter and the shock wave exerts destructive activity in the

 8     vicinity.  When the casing is fragmented, the rear of the projectile is

 9     also fragmented, and that includes the stabiliser.  Depending on the

10     velocity of the projectile, the stabiliser either continues flying

11     towards the point of the explosion in the nearby area or becomes embedded

12     if its speed is higher than the speed of its rejection from the

13     projectile.  If it is not higher, i.e., if the speed is less than the

14     speed of the projection from the projectile, it falls somewhere around in

15     the vicinity of the point of explosion or it is pushed backwards in the

16     direction of the incoming trajectory.

17             In this case, we would expect a totally different appearance of

18     the crater.  We would expect for the surroundings of the crater were

19     littered with soil, pebbles, asphalt, everything else that may have been

20     pushed out by the embedding of the stabiliser, whereas the stabiliser is

21     either partially or fully visible like it was in the crater that we saw

22     yesterday.  In technical terms, this is completely inexplicable.

23        Q.   Thank you.  And can we now look at figure 66.

24        A.   This photo depicts the appearance of the crater after the

25     explosion and before the stabiliser was extracted.  And in this photo we

Page 38306

 1     see that the surface is practically intact, that the stabiliser is not

 2     visible at all.  From the film that was taken by the police, we can see

 3     that that was heard by the investigators.  They were looking for the

 4     stabiliser on the roof and in the surrounding area because they could not

 5     recognise what they saw.  They did not understand that that was a crater.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Is this surface somewhat different from the surface

 7     depicted in image 64 that we have just seen?

 8        A.   Yes, it is different in the sense that the previous image shows

 9     that the rubble that covered the point of explosion was cleared and that

10     place of explosion, that's what I circled in that image.

11        Q.   Can we look at image 64.  Can it be placed on the left-hand side

12     of the screen, whereas image 66 should remain on the right-hand side of

13     the screen.  So can we look at the two next to each other.  Thank you.

14             Is there an explanation for the fact that the same point of

15     impact should look so different?

16        A.   I apologise, it doesn't look different.  It is just buried on the

17     right-hand side.  The difference between the two images consists in the

18     fact that the rubble was removed.

19        Q.   And now can we look at image 67 --

20             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Yes, yes, 67.

21             What you wanted to compare is 67 and 66, Mr. Karadzic?

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, 67 and 68.  We have just

23     compared 64 with 66 and now I want to compare 67 and 68.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Can you tell us something about these two images?  How come the

Page 38307

 1     first crater looks the way it does and the other looks differently?  The

 2     vicinity of the two craters is different.  The material looks different.

 3     Can you tell us something about the craters, the stabiliser?

 4        A.   The image --

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

 6             MS. GUSTAFSON:  These questions are extremely leading, this last

 7     one certainly was.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.  I apologise.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Doctor, could you please tell us what the characteristics of the

12     two craters are?  Can you tell us something about the material that

13     surrounds them?  Can you tell us something about the bottom of the crater

14     and the appearance of the stabiliser?

15        A.   Image 67 depicts the penetration of a stabiliser into the

16     footpath.  This happened on the 4th of February in Dobrinja, a day

17     earlier.  The appearance is very characteristic.  The material has been

18     pushed out, and you can see that around the penetration point the

19     material is pushed out and the stabiliser is completely embedded, but it

20     is almost fully visible.  This is an expected appearance in view of the

21     process that I just described.  This is an expected appearance of a

22     crater after such a penetration.  Image 68 depicts a crater at Markale

23     and here we can see that it must have been dug out, which means that you

24     could not reach it if it hadn't been dug out.  And you can tell that by

25     the material that has been taken out of that crater.  And also, we can

Page 38308

 1     see that there are two asphalt levels under which the crater is buried.

 2     In the previous image we saw that it was completely invisible.  The

 3     material has clearly been dug out, but this is impossible.

 4             Let me be more clear.  Something like that could happen only if

 5     we were to throw things into the water and the water would then close

 6     above it.  This is solid matter and an appearance like this is

 7     impossible.

 8        Q.   Could you please mark the two layers with an electronic pen.  You

 9     have mentioned the two layers or the two levels of asphalt.  Can you

10     please mark them with an electronic pen.

11        A.   [Marks]

12             JUDGE KWON:  And, Doctor, by "previous image," did you mean

13     figure 66?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  You can't see anything in

15     that image if this is what you meant.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

17             Please continue.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Please put today's date and initial the image.  And now I would

20     like to call up image 72 to replace image 67 on the left-hand side.

21        A.   [Marks]

22             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we'll receive this separately.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D3546, Your Honours.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Image 72, can I have it on the left-hand side.  In the Serbian

Page 38309

 1     version of the document it's on page 99.

 2             Can you tell us what the image represents?  How come that the

 3     air spaces between the tail fins are larger than in image 68?

 4        A.   This is a frame from the video-clip which was recorded on the

 5     6th of February by the police.  We got this image from Mr. Zecevic.  This

 6     is P6361 from the Slobodan Milosevic case.  The image shows the

 7     stabiliser that Mr. Zecevic returned into the crater.  According to his

 8     statement, he just lowered it down and he measured the angle of descent.

 9     That's why everything is so very well visible and clear in this image.

10     You can see the gravel or little stones with which he fixated that

11     stabiliser so it would remain in this position.  And if you want me to do

12     so, I can mark the gravel that's fixed the stabiliser.  This only means

13     that the opening was much bigger than the stabiliser itself because the

14     stabiliser had to be fixed in a certain position.  I suppose that I don't

15     even have to say that the fixing of the stabiliser is an arbitrary

16     activity that any one of us could fix an object in a larger space as

17     whichever way we want to do that.  This is also seen in the film that was

18     taken by the police on that day.  However, interestingly enough - and I

19     have to mention that - is that the film shows in great detail the place

20     of explosion starting with 1300 hours up to nearly 1400 hours, and you

21     can see clearly that the place of explosion is completely covered.  And

22     then there is a break of some 20 to 30 minutes in that film, and then

23     what appears is the image that we are looking at now.

24        Q.   We are going to see the film in a minute, but before that can you

25     tell us if a stabiliser is fixed with a pebble and if it is moved by a

Page 38310

 1     certain degree.  What would be the resulting aberration in an area of

 2     some 4 to 5 kilometres?

 3        A.   I would have to consult firing tables in order to be able to

 4     answer your question.  However, the -- any change in the angle of descent

 5     changes the place from which the shell was launched.  I could tell you

 6     exactly if I were to consult my firing tables or if I were to give an

 7     access to documents during the break, then I would be able to tell you

 8     whether it's 500 or a thousand metres.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to show the video

10     under 1D7441 from the beginning to 8 seconds.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   This happened on the 6th of February; right?

13        A.   Yes, the 6th of February, yes -- well, this is what my colleague

14     Zecevic marked.  You can see that the stabiliser cannot be seen although

15     it has been zoomed in, and that was at 1319 hours.

16                           [Video-clip played]

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Now can we see what happened between 9.00 and 9.30?

19                           [Video-clip played]

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My colleague marked it here.  There

21     it is.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Shall we stop it?

23             MR. GAYNOR:  Mr. President, I just want to make sure that an

24     error does not get embedded in the record.  Mr. Karadzic in his question

25     said, "This happened on the 6th of February; right?"  Now, it's clear

Page 38311

 1     from even the title of the witness's report that the incident happened on

 2     the 5th of February and the filming took place on the 6th of February.  I

 3     know Mr. Karadzic was obviously not trying to mislead the Chamber in that

 4     respect.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  I understood that way, yes.  The filming took place

 6     on 6th of February; that's what you meant?

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.  In the video the date is

 8     the 6th of February, 1994, and I wanted to draw the participants'

 9     attention to the fact that it was not filmed on the 5th, but rather on

10     the 6th.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, that's the image which is

12     included in the report and it can be quite clearly seen that the small

13     stones were used to fix the position in the crater which is much larger

14     and did not exist an hour earlier or half an hour earlier in the same

15     video and that the place within the crater is fixed with the small stones

16     from left to right.  There are, well, five.  And as I said, at the

17     beginning of the video we could clearly see that the crater was not there

18     at all, or rather, that it was buried with rubble.  And on the basis of

19     that, it can be concluded that my colleague Mr. Zecevic did not just

20     lower the stabiliser in the existing crater, but that the crater was made

21     after -- immediately after the stabiliser was lowered into the crater.

22             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Is this identical with image 72 from your report?

24        A.   Actually, this is the image.

25             JUDGE KWON:  [Previous translation continues]...

Page 38312

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Can you also tell us why is there no dust between the wings and

 3     why is this wider than in figure 60 --

 4        A.   -- 8.

 5        Q.   68.

 6        A.   It's quite obvious.  A bigger and wider crater was made in which

 7     the stabiliser was later lowered, and there was no reason for the

 8     existence of the dust in the wider crater.  And it's obvious that the

 9     stabiliser is fixed with the small stones which are also quite clearly

10     visible in this video because the video is good.

11        Q.   Thank you.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I tender these two extracts from

13     0 to 8 and from 9.00 to 9.30.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, any objections?

15             MS. GUSTAFSON:  No.  Thank you.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit --

17             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  So is it an excerpt from an

18     already-existing exhibit?  We didn't admit Zecevic's video.

19             MR. GAYNOR:  Your Honour, to be perfectly honest, I think this is

20     part of a video which we have played.  Now, I don't know if these

21     specific parts have been admitted.

22             JUDGE KWON:  But for clarity, we'll admit it separately.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D3547, Your Honours.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Both extracts can be

25     under one number; right?

Page 38313

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Could we now please

 3     look at figure 74.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Could you tell us, thanks to this image and the series of images,

 6     what can be concluded on the basis of the examination of the stabiliser?

 7     Figure 74 and 75, please.  We can depict them on the whole screen, I mean

 8     we can zoom in and remove this.

 9        A.   This is the stabiliser which as a piece of evidence relating to

10     the Markale evidence on the 5th of February is present here, in this

11     Tribunal.  And the following can be noticed with regard to it.  I just

12     have to mention for a second a fact because of which I will discuss the

13     stabiliser, namely it's the following:  In his report and opinion, my

14     colleague Mr. Zecevic, together with his commission, concluded, or

15     rather, determined the angle of descent on the basis of the stabiliser

16     which we just saw and which embedded into the ground, according to his

17     claim, and allowed him to determine the angle of descent.  First of all,

18     the method which my colleague Mr. Zecevic used is inexistent to this day,

19     15 years later, because such a method would be the result of a stochastic

20     process in which we cannot suppose what the margin of error is if we were

21     to use it as the method.  The method depends on a series of parameters,

22     and I will just list the crucial ones.  In order to be at least

23     approximately exact, then the breaking of the stabiliser --

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Can the witness please slow down.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

Page 38314

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Was I too fast again?

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Interpreters didn't hear after you said, "In

 3     order to be at least approximately exact ..."

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In order for the method to be at

 5     least approximately exact, it is necessary for several criteria to be

 6     met, namely, the severing at the moment when the stabiliser is thrown

 7     away would have to be axisymmetric with regard to the cross-section and

 8     with regard to the longitudinal axis, which can be clearly seen from

 9     image 74.  That was not the case because the severance was not

10     axisymmetric.  And another thing that would be necessary --

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   If I may ask you because of technical terms the interpreters are

13     having some trouble, so if you can please slow down as much as possible.

14     You said that it was excentric.  So the --

15        A.   The way it's severed is excentric with regard to the longitudinal

16     axis, which is clearly seen in figure 74.  Another criteria that would

17     have to be met is that the ground has to be homogenous, which means that

18     it would have to be uniform rather than varying in terms of how compact

19     it is and what are the sizes of the stones, that there is asphalt which

20     is a different kind of ground and a different kind of material.  So this

21     criterion hasn't been met either.

22             And finally, another criterion that would have to be met, the

23     effect of the shock wave would have to be completely symmetrical, the

24     shock wave of the explosive charge which can never be uniformly repeated,

25     regardless of how much we might try to make the casing so that it breaks

Page 38315

 1     in one moment in all places.  And regardless of how our colleagues who

 2     are in charge of producing explosives may try to make the explosive fully

 3     homogenous and repetitive by all its characteristics.  So each explosive

 4     wave which is produced during the explosion of a piece of ordnance is

 5     something that cannot be repeated, simply because technologically we

 6     cannot achieve this.

 7        Q.   Would you need the lower two figures if you are to continue with

 8     the description of this?

 9        A.   Yes.  All this had to do with figure 74.  If we look at

10     figure 75, we see something that is seriously illogical, namely, that on

11     the fins of this stabiliser there are some traces, traces of penetration

12     and traces of damage caused by the material through which the stabiliser

13     pass.  What is illogical here is that on the body of the stabiliser there

14     is not a single trace of penetration and it was the part that penetrated

15     first under the condition that the stabiliser was found at the spot where

16     we saw it on the previous photographs and in the following manner:  The

17     shell exploded and it penetrated into the ground.  All of this seems to

18     indicate -- first, what is down here indicates the fact that it did not

19     find itself in its crater in this way, and the upper figure seems to

20     indicate that such a method cannot be used to determine the angle of

21     descent not even an approximation of it.  And we never verified it as a

22     method precisely for this reason.

23        Q.   Thank you.  What were the ways in which the stabiliser could have

24     ended up in this position?

25        A.   Do you mean in the crater?

Page 38316

 1        Q.   Yes, in the crater and in the furrow.

 2        A.   Based on the physical traces which we have looked at already, the

 3     shape of the crater is not characteristic, not only that it's not

 4     typical, it's physically impossible.  It couldn't have been like this.

 5     By penetrating through such ground and to have the crater look as it does

 6     with such an appearance, that wouldn't have been possible.  We really

 7     analysed this in detail.  Could it have flown to the Markale market to

 8     the location where it was determined it landed?  We tried to confirm it

 9     on the basis of physical parameters, namely, the shape of the stalls, the

10     dimensions of the stalls, the distribution of the stalls, and the

11     physical location of the explosion, that is to say the location at which

12     the explosion occurred.

13        Q.   Could we now please see figure 80 so that we can see how

14     Mr. Zecevic depicted the stall and then we'll find the sketch of the

15     actual stall.  So figure 80 is the one that we need now.  Is this sketch

16     of the stall correct?

17        A.   We have seen the videos and we can say that it's not correct.

18     The stall doesn't look like this at all.  The only thing that we accepted

19     as correct is the width of the counter and also the height which

20     Mr. Zecevic measured and the sketch is incorrect if we compare it with

21     the videos that we watched.  We asked both Mr. Sabljica and Mr. Zecevic

22     why the stall is depicted like this; however, Mr. Sabljica said that he

23     just took it over from Mr. Zecevic, he took over the sketch, and

24     Mr. Zecevic replied, as far as I remember, that such a shape of the stall

25     was taken in order to prove that the shell landed or something similar to

Page 38317

 1     this.  And I have no opinion about the reply because I don't understand

 2     it.  But in any case, we used it to reconstruct the actual shape and

 3     dimensions of the stall on the basis of the videos and these two measured

 4     values which I just mentioned.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Could we now please look at image 82.  And if we

 6     could keep the previous one on the left half of the screen and have the

 7     other one on the right.  Or perhaps you can just explain it to us, we

 8     don't have to compare.  Is this sketch of the stall correct and truthful?

 9        A.   Yes.  This is a truthful reconstruction of the stall because the

10     height as measured by Mr. Zecevic has been adopted here and I previously

11     said that by the use of the video recordings we determined the

12     proportions, the angles, and all the necessary geometrical elements which

13     we needed in order to determine the actual shape and dimensions of the

14     stall, the dimensions in the first place.  And what you called up in

15     e-court now is actually a depiction of the possibility, or rather, the

16     impossibility of the shell landing where it turned out to be because you

17     see X equals 1 metre.  That's the distance from the stall counter to the

18     impact point measured by Mr. Zecevic's commission, and once all the

19     checks are done we can see that the shell could only have landed along

20     the direction marked with number 2, that is to say at a distance of 1.37

21     metres from the stall counter and not in any case at a distance of just

22     1 metre from the stall counter without hitting the roof of the stall.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Could we see figure 6 just for a moment, please,

24     page 36 in the Serbian language.  Could you explain these angles for us,

25     please.

Page 38318

 1        A.   Yes, certainly.  The angles are taken over from the video.  Let

 2     me just see what the figure is.  It's figure number 3 taken from the

 3     video recording made by the police.  We measured in AutoCAD the angles

 4     and we then made a reconstruction of the stall.  Now, of course we

 5     measured 66.49 and 65.22 because that's the locksmith's work, so we

 6     worked with the angle of 65 which was probably correct.  The proportions

 7     and the distances between the ground and the first cross-beam and the

 8     height of the counter, these proportions were determined on the basis of

 9     figure number 5 in AutoCAD, and then it was recalculated so as to arrive

10     at the actual dimensions.

11        Q.   Thank you.  So in figure 82, the lines 1 and 2 must follow or do

12     they follow the angle?  How did you arrive at the direction and what

13     angle of descent do these lines follow?  You told us that one couldn't

14     have landed at just 1 metre distance from the stall.  If we can go back

15     to image 82, please.

16             Which angle do lines 1 and 2 tally with?  What is the angle of

17     descent?

18        A.   This was verified -- my apologies.  I need a sip of water.  This

19     was verified in terms of the maximum angle as determined by Mr. Zecevic,

20     65, from the azimuth of 23, not 18.  Let me just say that the situation

21     is far more unfavourable when the azimuth is 18, and just to remind you

22     we determined the azimuth of 23 as the base line anticipated line of

23     azimuth based on the traces retrieved on the wall of the UPI 101 building

24     which can be seen in the background.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Do you mention the possibility of it being a

Page 38319

 1     statically activated explosion?

 2        A.   On the basis of all the analysis we did - and we did very complex

 3     analysis - we even assessed what the minimum angle would be in respect of

 4     the point of impact in relation to the position of the stall.  We did all

 5     the various checks we could based on the information available to us, and

 6     I think we went beyond our call of duty.  We concluded that there was no

 7     possibility for the shell landing in that point and being activated there

 8     without hitting the roof of the stall in the process.  The only

 9     possibility for the shell to be activated at the point where it was was

10     for it to have been statically activated, or rather, that the shell was

11     statically activated in a certain position at a certain site.  There is

12     no other technical explanation.  We explored and checked all the

13     possibilities that were the parameters restricting the possibility for

14     the mine to land there, and all these checks returned with a result which

15     said that this was impossible.  And we mentioned all these various

16     explanations in the report.  There is a stall and there is an indication

17     that an explosion may have occurred beneath the stall, but I do stand by

18     my position that the shell could not have landed and impacted in the spot

19     where it did without having first hit the roof of the stall.

20        Q.   Can you tell us which figure it is which indicates the

21     possibility that the shell was activated beneath a stall?

22        A.   Just a moment, please.  I had it a moment ago.  That's figure 69.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have figure 69 shown,

24     please.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 38320

 1        Q.   Can you tell us what should be observed in this figure?

 2        A.   Well, the stall indicated by this journalist, whomever he is,

 3     that the stall was overturned by 180 degrees, which means that the

 4     explosion happened in front of it and it upturned it.  What is on the

 5     bottom is the roofing panel of the stall, and above the head of the

 6     person indicating this we can see the portion of the stall which shows

 7     soot from the explosion and a bit is missing here.  The experts who

 8     concluded that the explosion took place on the stall must have been

 9     confused by the fact that the stall is upturned as it is.  However, it is

10     quite evident that what is now lying on the ground is the roofing panel

11     of the stall because you can see the part of the stall in line with the

12     head.  We can see the frame, the central supports of the stall which are

13     now lying down on the surface of the ground -- or perhaps you want me to

14     mark it?

15        Q.   That would not be a bad idea.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I ask the usher to activate the

17     pen for Dr. Subotic.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        A.   Number 1 is the damaged counter of the stall.  We can see its

20     bottom side.

21        Q.   And what is the position of the stall?

22        A.   The stall's roofing panel is on the ground.  It's marked with D1

23     on this image as far as I can see it.  It's probably to do with a text

24     that somebody drafted in connection with the image.

25        Q.   Had the explosion not taken place under the stall, what would the

Page 38321

 1     situation with this stall be?

 2        A.   It would have been overturned to the left or to the right if the

 3     explosion took place in approximate vicinity.  Depends on the shock wave

 4     and the exact position.

 5        Q.   So instead of being upside down, it would be overturned on its --

 6     lying on its side; right?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Defence witness Derek Allsop said that he did not support the

 9     thesis which indicated that this was a static explosion because the

10     stabiliser could not have become embedded in the ground in that way.

11     What is your opinion of it?

12        A.   I viewed this testimony and the gentleman is right because he was

13     looking at a specific case.  Had the static explosion taken place there

14     and the stabiliser been positioned on the shell, then it would not have

15     been possible because the shell did not fly in and there would not have

16     been that speed that we referred to.  It would not have been possible for

17     the stabiliser to become embedded in the ground.  I agree so far.  But

18     this implies the fact that a shell complete with a stabiliser is

19     statically activated.  That's the only scenario that is being considered

20     here.

21        Q.   So what are the other possibilities that would allow for both

22     these options, that the stabiliser would be embedded in the ground and

23     the explosion statically activated?

24        A.   In -- we wrote this possibility in our expert report, and this is

25     what it is:  The stabiliser could have been dug into the surface or the

Page 38322

 1     ground previously.  It could have been covered over with some material.

 2     And then above, with a certain surface and at some angle, a shell without

 3     a stabiliser could have been placed and remotely activated.  This would

 4     be the scenario that would fit completely with what we saw in all these

 5     images so far.  The crater had to appear the way it did.  It wasn't

 6     recognisable.  The stabiliser was embedded, which was obviously necessary

 7     in order to prove that the shell had flown in with a large charge.  I

 8     also saw that the Defence witness said that it was impossible to bury the

 9     stabiliser in previously before the shell is activated because then the

10     crater would become widened, but that would only happen if the shell was

11     placed directly on that surface.  In that case, what he said would indeed

12     happen; however, he did not take into consideration the scenario that I'm

13     discussing, and that is that the shell could have been placed on a

14     surface of its own.  And this could have easily have been a wooden plank.

15     If you paid attention to the figures that we looked at, we had a wreath

16     produced by the shock wave which was wider than your normal central

17     crater.  You will have seen that I marked these two levels with numbers 1

18     and 2.  The situation you here is as if it had been somehow compressed

19     down, and that is not your normal appearance of a central crater produced

20     by an incoming shell which is activated.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this image be admitted as a

23     separate exhibit?

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Can I have your date and signature, please.

Page 38323

 1        A.   [Marks]

 2             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I see the time and I leave it in

 3     your hands to decide when the break will be.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  We'll admit this.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D3548, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  We'll have a break and resume at three past 11.00.

 7                           --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

 8                           --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, please continue.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Doctor, can I ask you to make corrections if you have them ready

12     before we finish this topic.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Did this document receive a number?

14             JUDGE KWON:  Any objections?

15             MR. GAYNOR:  Well, we haven't quite heard the corrections yet,

16     but as a general matter no objections to the admission of the report.

17             THE ACCUSED:  I am talking about this exhibit that is --

18             JUDGE KWON:  Oh, yeah.  Have we not admitted as 3548?

19             THE REGISTRAR:  That is correct, Your Honours.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I will tender the

21     entire document after the corrections have been made and after we've

22     addressed Markale 2.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Go ahead, Doctor.

25        A.   Well, now over the break I have managed to find in this new

Page 38324

 1     document that I received yesterday that it's on page 21, paragraph 1 --

 2        Q.   Please, others don't have the same copy.

 3        A.   I'm sorry.  It's paragraph 75, I believe.  Yes, paragraph 75,

 4     subparagraph (b), the title is "angle of descent."  So it's -- actually,

 5     I apologise, sub-item (c), "crater."  It's a rather long paragraph, I

 6     apologise.  Somewhere in the middle, approximately, of the second

 7     paragraph it reads:

 8             "Or partly visible item 48, figure 67.  In figure 68 one can see

 9     the extent of material that was," there's a word here which was a typo

10     and which should read, "which was necessary to dig out."

11        Q.   This is correct in English.

12        A.   All right.  That was important because the word doesn't have any

13     meaning the way it is.

14             Now, the same paragraph, subparagraph (d), there's quite a few of

15     them, I'm sorry, at the top of page 122 it reads:

16             "Since the CSB Sarajevo and Berko Zecevic's commission

17     established that the shell landed at a distance of 1 metre from the edge

18     of the stall counter, a line was drawn parallel at a distance of 1 metre

19     from the stall, figure 82."  And it says "which touches upon the edge of

20     the stall," whereas it should say that it is tangential to the roof of

21     the stall.  That's the third line at the top of page 122.

22             THE INTERPRETER:  The interpreters note we didn't find it in the

23     original.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   It's in the middle of the page in the English "since the

Page 38325

 1     CSB ...," the sentence finishes with "figure 68."

 2             THE ACCUSED:  This is just middle of the page.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The sentence before the text that

 4     is in bold.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Doctor, would that (d) be (e)?

 7        A.   I'm sorry.  It was automatic numbering and that's perhaps how the

 8     error came about, and then everything should of course be readjusted

 9     because I do believe that paragraph (e) follows after this one.

10        Q.   I don't think that there is an (e), so could we perhaps put it

11     down as (e) static explosion.

12        A.   Right.

13        Q.   Anything else, Doctor?

14        A.   No, no, that will be all.

15        Q.   Can we finish off the issue of Markale 1 with the following

16     question:  Is there anything else in the material available which would

17     confirm, reinforce, or detract from your position that it was a static

18     explosion?  And I'm not just referring to the ballistics but the entire

19     circumstances surrounding the incident.  Is there anything out of the

20     ordinary in the documentation which would be contrary to your position

21     that there was this sort of manipulation?  If you could list these items,

22     if any.

23        A.   With permission, this is what I will say.  Based on the material

24     and all the documents we reviewed, we established that there were many

25     events and actions which indicated that the incident did not occur all at

Page 38326

 1     once or in some sort of natural process.  The TV filming began

 2     immediately after the incident happened.  This was obvious to be seen

 3     because we saw people running out of the market-place with shopping bags

 4     in hand and there was manipulation on the side of Dzenetica Cikma Street

 5     which is a small street and it's an impassable one.  The vehicles were

 6     moving along Marsala Tita Street in the opposite direction to the one

 7     regulated.  We saw individuals wearing official insignia.  All of this

 8     was filmed by the cameras that were there in an instant.  We know that

 9     the police arrived almost before the evacuation started.  All of this was

10     quite unusual, quite unexpected.  The entire evacuation was completed

11     within 15 minutes and we know that there were quite a few people -- quite

12     a few casualties.  It is of course quite understandable that there was

13     such wide media coverage of it.  I will not even go into that in detail.

14     However, we did observe that shortly afterwards there were manipulations

15     with the numbers of victims and we did present this in detail in our

16     expert report.  And something that we were able to observe from the

17     documents that we reviewed was that on the following day with a cover

18     letter from the United Nations some 40-odd, I think 42, injured persons

19     were sent out.  When we compared the lists, on that particular list there

20     were only 12 who were on the list of the injured at Markale itself.

21             JUDGE KWON:  Shall we pause here.  I just -- although this part

22     cannot be related to the expertise of Dr. Subotic, but I just let it go

23     because it might be related to witness's credibility as well.  But,

24     Doctor, when you said "we," who did you mean by "we"?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I say "we," I mean myself and

Page 38327

 1     my associates who worked hard with me in the collection and analysis of

 2     the material that I listed in the document and my associates were named

 3     in the document, that's Mr. Poparic.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.

 5             Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

 6             MR. KARADZIC [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Let's just see this page 37, line 7, it turns out that you said

 8     that the police arrived almost before the evacuation started.  But I

 9     believe that you said that the police arrived almost before the

10     evacuation was completed or after the evacuation.

11        A.   I said that the police arrived at a point when the evacuation was

12     almost complete.  The documents do indicate the time of the arrival of

13     the police as well as the time of the completion of the evacuation.

14        Q.   Thank you.  One other question.  You say that 40-odd were sent

15     out.  Where exactly were they sent?

16        A.   I apologise.  They were sent out to the United States for medical

17     treatment.  I think that there were 40 family members and roughly the

18     same number of those who were injured at the market-place in Markale.  I

19     think that Akashi drafted the letter.  Don't ask me who was in charge of

20     the letter; we do have it cited in the document.  We then compared these

21     lists and the list of persons sent out for medical treatment to the

22     United States contained only 12 persons who were injured at Markale.

23        Q.   And from the point of view in ballistic terms, in view of the

24     angle of descent, the obstacles, the propagation of the wave and

25     fragments, how do you account for or explain the number of injured and

Page 38328

 1     dead as reported by the Muslim side and as adopted by, of course, the

 2     Prosecution in this case?

 3        A.   There is controversial data.  We systemised that in a table

 4     depicting the number of casualties, the dead, and the wounded from this

 5     incident.  All of these numbers that are represented as official numbers

 6     in my view surpasses the technical capabilities of this asset for a

 7     simple reason:  According to the analysis and measurements that we

 8     carried out when this type of asset was developed, its lethal capacity

 9     was limited, it would all depend on the number of people who were there;

10     at the moment we provided the analysis of that in this document.  So I

11     suppose that the Trial Chamber will be able to look at our method and

12     what aspects were considered in our analysis.  What I would like to

13     mention at this point in time is the fact that during our analysis of

14     video recordings we considered something which was confirmed by our

15     colleague Zecevic, and that was yet another explosion site at Markale.

16     He signed that during his testimony.  It is my impression that the

17     increased number of casualties was the result of two explosions, not just

18     one.

19        Q.   Thank you.  The second explosion that you referred to, was it the

20     result of a mortar shell?  Is there proof of the origin of the second

21     explosion?

22        A.   That second explosion is not referred to in any of the

23     investigators' reports or the documents that we analysed.  When we

24     analysed the video recordings, we found traces on the street that

25     connects Dzenetica Cikma Street and the Marsala Tita Street, and on a red

Page 38329

 1     stall we found fragments or a fragment pattern and that was in the

 2     vicinity, and our colleague Zecevic agreed that that was indeed the point

 3     of impact.

 4        Q.   Doctor, I would like to move to G19 incident which happened on

 5     the 28th of August, 1995, and that case is a -- notorious under the name

 6     of Markale 2.  Could you please give us the characteristics of that

 7     incident in a nutshell and all that based on the physical evidence that

 8     you had at your disposal.

 9        A.   Before I move to that incident, I would like to apologise to the

10     Trial Chamber for my delay.  I went to see a doctor yesterday --

11             THE INTERPRETER:  Not for the delay, the interpreter's

12     correction.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- for the cough.  I went to see a

14     doctor yesterday who diagnosed me with bronchitis which is why I have

15     difficulties in speaking today and frequent bouts of cough.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Doctor, if you at any time would like to have a

17     break, don't hesitate to let us know.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, of course.  Thank you for

19     this.  If at all necessary, I will certainly address you.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   In a nutshell, can you tell us what happened there and what was

22     said to have happened during G19 incident on the 28th of August, 1995.

23     We will show images and elements from your report according to your

24     suggestions.

25        A.   Based on the investigations of the incident that were carried

Page 38330

 1     out, on that day some 200 metres away from that place four shells

 2     exploded and according to the same investigations and the results

 3     thereof, one of them fell in front of the market on the pavement and

 4     killed and injured quite a large number of people.  The traces that we

 5     found when we analysed the photos that were taken by the CSB were the

 6     foundation for our analysis but there were some other documents we

 7     managed to obtain with regard to this case; for example, UNPROFOR

 8     investigations and UNPROFOR reports.  These documents do not indicate

 9     that that was indeed the case.  They determined the lower angle of

10     descent which was 67 degrees, and we agreed with that as a base line.  It

11     was based on the point of impact and the trajectory that the shell had

12     when overflying a building.  There were two trajectories that were

13     established and the discrepancy between them is about 10 degrees.  One

14     was established by the French Battalion and the other was established by

15     the investigators of the CSB together with UNPROFOR, I suppose.  And that

16     was confirmed by Mr. Higgs.  We established that his confirmation was

17     erroneous.  In any case, there were two trajectories which can be argued

18     because one of them is correct.  And we have an interesting phenomenon at

19     play here.  There is a surplus of stabiliser in this investigation.  In

20     the video-clips we can see two stabilisers who were marked during the

21     investigation by numbers 12 and 13.  They were not fixated.  One of them

22     was fixated, the other was not.  And in my view there was also a

23     stabiliser which is now at the Tribunal which does not correspond to any

24     of the two stabilisers in the video-clip.  I would like to say that one

25     of the two stabilisers was never shown in the investigation.

Page 38331

 1             And finally, what I have to mention is the fact that an erroneous

 2     conclusion was drawn during the analysis of ballistic trajectories when

 3     it was said that the radar that was tasked with registering or recording

 4     the incoming of the shell did not register this trajectory or the shell

 5     coming in.  And I'm afraid that this was a serious error that was done

 6     during the analysis and during the reporting on the incident.  It was

 7     said that the trajectory went under the radar beam by consulting the

 8     firing table.  This -- it is a fact that this would be impossible.

 9        Q.   Thank you for this summary of the incident, and now I would like

10     to go through some of the details.  First of all, can you please tell us

11     what was alleged about the fatal shell, which one of them was in a

12     sequence of the five?

13        A.   As far as I could understand the documents, it was the fifth

14     consecutive shell, but there are statements to that effect.  There are --

15     75 statements were taken from witnesses and UNPROFOR members.  None of

16     them heard the launch of any of the shells or any of the explosions

17     resulting from those shells.  And since the point of explosion or all of

18     the points of explosions are within the radius of 100 to 200 metres,

19     they -- the explosions had to be heard.  I'm not denying that they

20     actually did explode, but not on that day.

21        Q.   If the shells had exploded within the range of some 200 metres or

22     less, what would have happened to the crowd of people?

23        A.   I suppose that the people would scatter if they heard that there

24     was an explosion very close to them, that there was shelling going on.

25     This is my only plausible assumption.

Page 38332

 1        Q.   Let's deal with the topics one by one.  How was the angle of

 2     descent determined?  We will see this image 102.  This was taken from the

 3     documentation of the Ministry of the Interior of Bosnia and Herzegovina

 4     as a result of its investigation.  Could you please tell us why would the

 5     minimum angle of descent be 67?  What would happen if it had been 63 or

 6     59, for example?

 7        A.   This minimum angle of descent --

 8        Q.   Let's wait for the image.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 102, please.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I've just told you the minimum

11     angle of descent was calculated based on the point of explosion and the

12     height of the building, on a condition that the shell had overshot the

13     building because it had to in order to reach the point of explosion.

14     Otherwise, it would have hit the roof, if the angle was lesser than

15     67.15, as is indicated in here.

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Thank you.  And now I would like to deal with the trajectory.

18     Could you please help us with the image number.  Would it be 101 or

19     something else?  No, it's not 101.

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   Perhaps we should first see the crater which was the basis for

22     determining the trajectory.  I believe that this is image 98.

23        A.   98, 97 before it as well.

24        Q.   Let's first see 97 then and then 98.

25        A.   Image 97 depicts the point of explosion marked by number 1 before

Page 38333

 1     the place was cleaned because the -- before the traces of blood, dust,

 2     and other particles were cleaned, those that had resulted from the

 3     explosion.  And you can see that the crater is very shallow, barely

 4     visible.  The fragmentation pattern was practically covered up by the

 5     dust and barely visible in the image.  This was a photo that the CSB took

 6     at the point of explosion before the area was cleaned.  And now on to

 7     98 --

 8        Q.   When we're talking about this, could I please ask you to tell us

 9     how do you account for the fact that the following images after the

10     cleaning depict more traces of blood in the crater itself than before the

11     cleaning operation took place?

12        A.   You mean image 98; right?  What image do you have in mind?

13        Q.   There are other images which depict more traces of blood.

14        A.   Perhaps the place was not well cleaned.  In image 98 there are

15     chalk markings as well as in image 101.  That's why the traces are more

16     visible.

17        Q.   Can we --

18        A.   The white traces are the places where fragmentation took place

19     and those were marked with chalk.

20        Q.   Based on the characteristics of the crater, how would you -- what

21     would you conclude about the velocity and the distance from which the

22     shell was launched?

23        A.   We've already spoken about that today.  When a shell flies at a

24     low velocity, its stabiliser has a higher speed of ejection than its

25     flying speed, and what happens is what happened here.  The resulting

Page 38334

 1     crater is shallow and the stabiliser cannot be found at the point of

 2     explosion.  However, there is another odd thing happening here.  The

 3     stabiliser, based on traces it is very clear that the flying velocity was

 4     very low because the crater was -- is very shallow and the stabiliser was

 5     found 29 to 30 metres laterally from the point of explosion according to

 6     the sketch.  And this is absolutely impossible.  If the point of

 7     explosion was not tampered with, if the stabiliser was not, for example,

 8     kicked by somebody, the stabiliser cannot be found laterally.  It can be

 9     found at the point of explosion, at the point when the shell landed, or

10     in the direction of the trajectory, but it cannot be found 20 or 30

11     metres laterally after the explosion took place.

12        Q.   What is missing is the word "backward, thrown backward."

13        A.   In the direction from which the shell was launched.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Can we now look at image 98, and can you please tell

15     us who was it who defined the trajectory and the azimuth and how were

16     they determined?

17        A.   This was taken over --

18        Q.   I apologise.  Are there more traces of blood here than before?

19        A.   This has still not been thoroughly cleaned, I would say.

20        Q.   Go ahead, please.

21        A.   We took this over from Mr. Higgs' report and he in his turn had

22     taken that image over from the CSB photo file.  His task was to control

23     the azimuth that was determined by the CSB and all the previous

24     investigators.  This is his sketch.  During the analysis of what he did

25     we established that he had applied a proper method to determine the

Page 38335

 1     trajectory; however, he took into account a wrong part of the

 2     Marsal Tito Street and a wrong azimuth.  You can tell that from image

 3     100.

 4        Q.   Before we see that image, could you please tell us whether it is

 5     of any significance that those angles are mentioned, 220 and 170, and

 6     what trajectories do they indicate?

 7        A.   These are adjacent trajectories that he used to determine the

 8     azimuth.  220 and 175, those are intermediate results.  But what matters

 9     is the fact that he determined a wrong azimuth of the street.  His

10     azimuth was 275 for Marsal Tito Street and that is correct, but that

11     azimuth of Marsal Tito Street is not correct for the market, for the

12     place where the market is.  The place where the market is located, that

13     angle or that azimuth is different and it can be seen in image 99 and it

14     is 255.  Again, this was taken from Google Earth and you can see the

15     market-place there.

16        Q.   Can we see 99, please, and then we will go to 100.  Doctor, you

17     can call up any image you want.

18        A.   You can see that part better on the sketch or on the map.

19     Mr. Higgs took the azimuth of the Marsala Tita Street at a wrong place

20     and he got the 275 azimuth as a result.  We can see on Google Earth the

21     azimuth of the market itself which is 255.  If we look at the city map we

22     can see the location where the market is and we can see also how

23     Mr. Higgs marked this and its location.  So if you call up the

24     appropriate image, it will be easy to explain it.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Figure 100, please.

Page 38336

 1             Can the Doctor please receive assistance with the electronic pen.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can explain it first and then if

 3     necessary we can mark it, too.

 4             Mr. Higgs drew the line where it says 275 degrees and that is

 5     indeed the direction of Marsala Tita Street; however, the market is in

 6     the slanting part ...

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   Can you show where that part is which is different from

 9     Marsala Tita Street by an arrow.

10        A.   It's this section and the market is here.  It's this red place,

11     if it's visible now; if not, I can correct it.  This is the azimuth shown

12     on the previous image, that's the direction.  The azimuth is 255 degrees

13     and Mr. Higgs made an error because he considered the other section of

14     the street and thereby included the error when determining the azimuth

15     and his result was 175 and actually when this is calculated his result is

16     265.

17        Q.   Can you draw a line along Titova Street, namely the section that

18     Mr. Higgs believed that the direction of these two streets were

19     identical?

20        A.   Well, he believed that this was that and he connected it with

21     this line here marked by him.  And the section of Marsala Tita Street

22     where the market is located is this other section and I marked here the

23     location of the market.

24        Q.   Thank you.  Can you please put number 1 for Marsala Tita Street

25     and number 2 for the market.

Page 38337

 1        A.   [Marks]

 2             You mean Marsala Tita Street where -- in the section of it where

 3     the market is or the part where Higgs considered that the market was?

 4        Q.   The Higgs is parallel.

 5        A.   You said that I should mark it with 1?

 6        Q.   Yes.

 7        A.   Here.

 8        Q.   Please also include the date and your initials.

 9        A.   [Marks]

10             JUDGE KWON:  Next Defence exhibit.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D3549, Your Honours.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   As for other investigations, what were the incoming trajectories

15     that they noted and what was their range for this shell?

16        A.   The investigations yielded varying results.  I said that the

17     French Battalion determined the azimuth as 160 degrees.  The CSB claimed

18     in their investigation conducted jointly with UNPROFOR that it was

19     170 plus/minus 5.  And there are several reports in which it is noted

20     that all five shells landed with an azimuth between 220 and 240.  The

21     five or four shells that we talked about and this one shell that landed

22     on the market-place.  And of course the same report states that the --

23     all shells were fired in a same salvo, from one and the same barrel,

24     which is impossible.  Whoever has any knowledge of ballistics, of

25     mortars, and the flight of such projectiles can clearly see that that was

Page 38338

 1     the way they were launched.  One shell cannot land 200 metres away or

 2     200 metres closer.  What I mean to say is that the range cannot be

 3     reduced in such a manner.  That was why they provided an explanation

 4     which is also technically illogical; namely, that the fifth shell which

 5     exploded at the market hit the roof, changed its trajectory because it's

 6     clear that its azimuth was 170 or 160 - we'll see what it is before we

 7     conclude - and for the others it was 220 to 240.  And then this fifth

 8     shell changed the trajectory because it hit the roof and landed as it

 9     did.  That is also impossible for the reason that no one found that there

10     was any damage on the roof, first of all.  And secondly, if the shell had

11     hit the wall, it would have activated on the roof.  And if it had hit the

12     roof and had not been activated, then it would land and would not

13     activate on the ground either because then its flight would have been

14     unstable.  It could not change the trajectory for 50 degrees and then

15     continue flying regularly -- I mean, with the fuse forwards, oriented

16     forwards.

17             So technically speaking, such a report is completely

18     unacceptable.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Could we look at figure 115, please.  While we're

20     waiting for the figure to come up on the screen, Doctor, if the mortar

21     azimuth was 240, could such mortar fire be helpful for a mortar at 160?

22        A.   No.  No, because any fire which is used and whenever a shell hits

23     is used for the correction of the range or the correction of the

24     direction itself.  It is used as a sort of test firing.

25        Q.   Can you tell us something about all of these firing trajectories

Page 38339

 1     and which one did you rely on considering that Marsala Tita Street moves

 2     in a slightly different direction close to the Markale market?

 3        A.   This figure depicts something else.  It shows the trajectories

 4     from the 150 to 175 azimuths which are drawn here, and these are actually

 5     the azimuths within the range of which the CSB findings and the UNPROFOR

 6     findings and the findings of the Joint Commission of the UNPROFOR and

 7     CSB, actually, and the French Battalion as well and the findings based on

 8     the physical evidence which we checked are based.  This is drawn like

 9     this in order to illustrate an overview of the configuration of the

10     ground where the azimuths are, considering also the ranges analysed in

11     the report with a view of the possibility of setting a mortar on this

12     ground and firing from it.  So, as I say, this is something else.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Is there any indication in this figure where the

14     separation lines were or will we discuss that in a different way?

15        A.   I don't know that.  Excuse me.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Did you visit this section of the ground and what did

17     you determine about the possibility of precise targeting of Markale with

18     120-millimetre mortar?

19        A.   Yes, certainly, I did visit the ground or the field with a view

20     of examining all the incidents in the area of Sarajevo, including the

21     position where the mortar may have been set.  And we concluded that in

22     the whole range of 150 to 175 degrees there is no place where a mortar

23     can be set and fire from it.  The only place was at an azimuth of 176

24     where there is a hillock as noted in the report.  However, the traces at

25     the site, the physical traces, indicate that the correct azimuth was

Page 38340

 1     actually 160, as calculated by Mr. Higgs as well when his error is

 2     included in his report and then a recalculation is appropriately made,

 3     which can be shown in figure 101.  I think it's rather indicative.  It is

 4     extracted from the video recording that was filmed during the measurement

 5     of the distance between the centre of the explosion and the wall of the

 6     market-place and traces of the shock wave effects against the curve are

 7     measured.

 8        Q.   [Microphone not activated]

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, could you repeat.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   [Microphone not activated]

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The Doctor mentioned figure 101, so

15     if we can please call it up.

16             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   And, Doctor, please feel free to call up any figure that you need

18     from your report.

19        A.   In figure 101 -- let us wait for the figure to appear on the

20     screen.  There it is.  Figure 101 very clearly depicts the -- on the

21     basis of the damage of the shock wave, this is one of the investigators

22     doing the measurements.  The yellow line seen on the image is the tape

23     which the investigators used to measure the centre of the explosion from

24     the market, the distance between the two, that is.  And in this image we

25     noted the traces of the border or end of the effects of the shock wave to

Page 38341

 1     the right.  The yellow line is a normal line in relation to the market,

 2     and after all that is the trajectory which was determined towards the

 3     market that we agree with.  And the red line in the centre is assessed to

 4     have been the centre of the explosion.  If it were about 6 degrees to the

 5     left of the yellow line which is used as the normal here, so if we take

 6     that the azimuth of the market has been determined, once you've

 7     recalculate everything appropriately, then you get the angle of around

 8     6 degrees as a result.  So based on the physical traces on the spot, we

 9     checked and found out that the French Battalion had actually correctly

10     determined the incoming trajectory and also that Mr. Higgs properly

11     determined it if the correction is included because he had made an error

12     taking into account a wrong curve line.  So it was erroneously concluded

13     that the azimuth was around 160 degrees here.

14        Q.   Thank you.  In line 21 on page 51, it was said that you marked

15     with number 1 the left and right borders of the shock wave.  Did you say

16     both "left and right"?

17        A.   Yes, both left and right, that's right, number 1 to the left and

18     number 1 to the right in relation to the yellow line.  The centre of the

19     explosion is represented by the red line.

20        Q.   All right.  Can you please tell us in terms of the distance the

21     crater and what happens with the stabiliser what charges would be

22     necessary for a shell to land here and how would -- what would happen

23     with the stabiliser with different charges?

24        A.   With different charges, as we already said, there are three

25     possibilities for the stabiliser:  If the shell is launched with a charge

Page 38342

 1     which is the base line of 3 or more, then the stabiliser would embed into

 2     the ground; if it's launched with the first and the second charges, I

 3     mean the first and the second because usually for security reasons the

 4     120-millimetre shell is not launched with a basic charge, so the first

 5     and the second charges, then the stabiliser should be found immediately

 6     next to the point of impact or it would be propelled backwards along the

 7     incoming trajectory.  In this case, as I said, the stabiliser was found

 8     29 metres laterally which is technically absolutely unexplainable.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  Can we please show figure 113 to the Doctor, and

10     could you please explain for us what are the ranges of different charges?

11     Figure 113.  We also have a radar in this figure so if you can please

12     explain everything that is relevant for this incident.

13        A.   In this incident, as I have already noted, I believe, the report

14     drawn up the international units, a comprehensive report, said that the

15     radar which was turned on for 24 hours and which was set in such a way

16     and had such a task to detect any shell, the ordinate of which is around

17     550 metres can be detected, this was not accidental.  It was done because

18     then in this way the radar was set to detect any shell considering the

19     ordinates and considering the location where the radar was in relation to

20     the centre of the city of Sarajevo.  What can be seen in figure 113 are

21     the lower marginal trajectories by charges which would meet the angle of

22     descent that would be higher than the lower marginal trajectory which was

23     determined on the basis of this building.  Unfortunately, as the radar

24     did not register the flight, it was not simple to determine whether the

25     shell had flown in over the building or not.  My opinion is that this is

Page 38343

 1     a serious mistake because this is what was at stake.  The analysis was to

 2     determine whether there was a trajectory by which the shell could land at

 3     that spot and it was found -- yes, it could land there but not with this

 4     angle of descent.  Judging by that trajectory, the shell would hit the

 5     roof of the building.

 6             It is said that the trajectory somehow managed to fly below the

 7     beam of the radar and we have here the lower marginal trajectories.  So

 8     no trajectory which is below these trajectories would be depicted in

 9     different colours, and depending on different charges each of them would

10     hit the roof.  Only with trajectory with ordinates that are higher than

11     these would satisfy the criterion of the marginal incoming trajectory.

12     If anyone had analysed it in this way -- it's obvious that they neglected

13     this angle of descent in their analysis and they drew the conclusion that

14     this trajectory was such that the shell could fly below the radar beam.

15     But it is shown here that such a trajectory actually does not exist.

16        Q.   Can you tell us, would this 120-millimetre shell with the first

17     charge whose ultimate range at an angle of 67 degrees of 900 metres,

18     would it have been registered by the radar beam?  In reference to

19     figure 113.

20        A.   Yes, of course.  Do you mean the red?

21        Q.   Yes, the first charge, 900 metres.

22        A.   No, it would not have been registered because it is within the

23     area controlled by the radar unless --

24             THE INTERPRETER:  Can the witness please repeat what she said.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Could you repeat your answer, Doctor.

Page 38344

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This trajectory would be within the

 2     area controlled by the radar.  It would have been too close.

 3             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   And on whose territory would it have been based on your knowledge

 5     from the material?

 6        A.   It would have been under the control -- in the territory under

 7     the control of the BH army.  I am, however, convinced that this happened

 8     so as to hear the firing, or rather, I suppose the sound of the shell

 9     being fired would have been heard.

10        Q.   [In English] If this happened, I suppose.  If this happened.

11        A.   Because there were devices which registered the firing by sound.

12        Q.   [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can you tell us what would have

13     become of this shell 1.700 and would those two distances then have

14     rejected the stabiliser and the stabiliser would not have ended up

15     embedded in the ground, 1.700 and 900?

16        A.   As you mean the distances?  I didn't understand the question.

17     I'm sorry.

18        Q.   Had the shell had the first and the second charges, where would

19     the stabiliser have ended and would the second charge have been caught by

20     the radar?

21        A.   The second charge would have been registered by the radar, as can

22     be seen on this image, that's number 1.  As for the second issue, with

23     the second charge the stabiliser would have ended up in the close

24     proximity of the point of impact.

25        Q.   Thank you.  The other charges 3, 4, 5, and 6, would they have

Page 38345

 1     been registered by the radar and where would stabiliser have ended?

 2        A.   All the charges, 3 through 6, would have been registered by the

 3     radar and the stabiliser would be embedded in the ground, in the surface.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Can we now look at what happened at the site.  Can we

 5     look at figure, or rather, figures from the beginning, the figures

 6     depicting the injured.  Figure 87 to start with.  And can you explain to

 7     us which particular moment in time this is and what the image depicts?

 8        A.   This is the point in time not -- well, yes, immediately after the

 9     explosion because there are still the injured there.  They have not been

10     evacuated yet.  Just as in Markale 1 the filming started immediately.

11     And we can see that they are at a very small distance from the centre of

12     impact of this 120-millimetre shell.  It is a bit unusual the way they

13     are positioned, since they are close to the centre, 1 and a half to

14     2 metres away from the centre of explosions, still they seem to be seated

15     and calling for help.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Can we see now figure 88.

17        A.   Again, we see the same scene, the man at some 2 metres from the

18     centre of explosion in a seated position calling for help.  We are

19     talking about image 88, aren't we?

20        Q.   Yes.  Can we look at image 89.

21        A.   This image is very interesting and technically inexplicable when

22     we consider the technical capabilities of the asset itself.  The injury

23     as displayed here cannot be caused by the fragmentation effect of a

24     120-millimetre shell or of any more destructive projectile than the

25     120 shell because the effect does not take place in a concentrated

Page 38346

 1     cluster so as to remove the significant part of one's body.  Another

 2     illogical aspect of this image is that there is an exceptionally small

 3     amount of blood beneath this man for an injury as devastating as this is.

 4        Q.   Can we see the next figure, figure 90.

 5        A.   The next image was also taken out from a film made by the CSB

 6     during their investigation.  We can see a man lying on the pavement,

 7     injured, with a spray on his body and his bag of something that is the

 8     result of fragments and their effect, although I must say that the

 9     pattern does not look like any splinter pattern but as a spray of

10     pellets.  And let me say that the shell within its construction does not

11     contain pellets.  Pellets can be found in other types of shells and in

12     defensive hand-grenades.

13             Another illogical aspect to this image is that close to the

14     electricity post or closer to the edge of the pavement - and this is

15     visible in other images from this film - there is a large quantity of

16     shattered glass.  Now, if an explosion occurs outdoors, then it is quite

17     normal that large quantities of shattered glass would be propelled

18     inwards, whereas a small quantity of glass close to the building itself

19     would be out on the pavement.  This is another matter for which there is

20     no physical explanation from the point of view of my own profession and

21     in terms of physics itself.

22        Q.   Can you tell us where in relation to this man is the point of

23     impact and was it logical for him to fall in this particular direction,

24     or would it be more in line with the laws of physics had his position

25     been different?  So where was the explosion in relation to him, on top or

Page 38347

 1     bottom?

 2        A.   The bottom of the image.  And when you look at the video footage

 3     of the area surrounding this frame, there is another illogicality, which

 4     is that opposite to this position, close to the electricity post, there

 5     are penetration defects on the post which are on the side opposite to the

 6     point of impact.  So they were not caused by the fact that from the

 7     direction of the centre of explosion they flew and passed along this

 8     side, rather, the direction in which these fragments acted was the

 9     opposite one.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Can we look at figure -- so they came from the

11     opposite direction; right?

12        A.   Yes.  They came from the opposite direction.  It was along the

13     same line, as it were, but the direction was the opposite one.

14        Q.   Can we look at figure 92.  You mentioned the nature of the traces

15     on this bag which seemed to have come from pellets.  Can you tell us what

16     can be concluded on the basis of this image?

17        A.   This is another injured person from Markale where you can see the

18     circles made by Dr. Milosavljevic who drew these circles around the

19     pellets or their marks on the stretcher and the person himself.

20        Q.   Thank you.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have figure 93.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We have yet another injured person

23     here who seemed to have been a casualty of a fire-arm rather than the

24     fragments of a shell.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 38348

 1        Q.   Perhaps my question was not right.  When I spoke about the

 2     direction into which this person with a bag fell on the ground, my

 3     question was:  Was his position to be expected and consistent with the

 4     centre of the explosion or not?

 5        A.   The shock wave propagates along the radius from the centre of the

 6     explosion radially outwards.  Of course dominantly it would propagate in

 7     the same direction which caused the explosion.  However, where the wave

 8     comes across an obstacle such as a person or something else, then it is

 9     only to be expected that the way the wave propagates, the direction in

10     which it propagates, the wave would actually knock the person down.  And

11     contrary to what is expected, the person is lying face with his head

12     towards the centre of the explosion, whereas it would be expected for him

13     to lie in the opposite direction.

14        Q.   And this is related to figure 90, isn't it?

15        A.   Well, yes, I was referring to the man who was lying down and had

16     this spray of marks on his body and back.

17        Q.   Yes.  Figure 90.  Can I now kindly ask you to explain to us what

18     the situation was like with the stabiliser.  Based on the analysis, what

19     can be concluded?  Can we first look at figure 104.

20             What did they say?  Which stabiliser was this?

21        A.   A moment, please.  Let me find the figure.  According to the

22     markings indicated in the film, that's to say number 12, this is the

23     sketch of the point of impact and this stabiliser was found 29 metres

24     laterally away from the centre of explosion.  And if I recall, it was

25     close to a wall.  Perhaps there is an image of it as well, but if I

Page 38349

 1     remember correctly, the video footage and the sketch of the scene, it was

 2     found right by the wall.

 3        Q.   Can we have figure 105 on the right-hand side of the screen,

 4     please.  [Microphone not activated]

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Is there a difference in the way the fins of both these

 8     stabilisers were flattened?  The condition of the stabiliser in terms of

 9     it being burned, charred, eroded and in the way its fins are positioned,

10     is it the same or is it different?

11        A.   Based on these images, the deformations are similar.  That's to

12     say apparently these two stabilisers were photographed from different

13     angles.  So I don't want to speak about the deformations of the fins.

14     However, this sort of deformation can be the result of a vehicle driving

15     over the stabiliser and we could produce 20 such deformations, and these

16     fins are made of tin sheets and it's very easy to deform them.  However,

17     what we see in image 105 is the stabiliser photographed by the

18     French Battalion.  One can clearly see erosion on it.  This is something

19     that when it comes to the other stabilisers mentioned and analysed in

20     this particular case cannot be found.  The erosion is something that is a

21     physical process acting upon the material and cannot happen only with the

22     natural firing of a shell.  It is absolutely impossible.  This can only

23     occur as the result of the activity of an explosive charge and the

24     physical removal of the material.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Can we look at figure 107, the stabiliser shown here

Page 38350

 1     which the Prosecution has at its disposal, does it indicate any traces of

 2     erosion?

 3        A.   Image 107 --

 4        Q.   The erosions as seen in the previous photo?

 5        A.   I said no, no.  However, there is a fracture on this stabiliser.

 6     This fracture is typical of the moment when the stabiliser is rejected

 7     from the rest of the shell at the moment of explosion.  In this case it

 8     is completely different from the stabiliser in the position of this

 9     Tribunal.  As we indicated here, there are the ends which are folded

10     back, whereas the stabiliser doesn't show that we saw it.  We took a

11     photo of it, and this is a stabiliser which -- I apologise, there is a

12     stabiliser in figure 106.  Please bear with me.  There are traces of

13     erosion, but the fracture does not look the same as the fracture on the

14     stabiliser in the position of this Tribunal.  This stabiliser never

15     reappeared in any of the reports as a piece of evidence.

16        Q.   Could the doctor be assisted with the electronic pen and could

17     she be asked to mark the place and the shape of the fracture that you

18     have just discussed.  Can you do it in both images and can you use the

19     blue pen, please.

20        A.   [Marks]

21        Q.   Thank you.  Could you please put today's date and initial the

22     images.

23        A.   [Marks]

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the images be admitted as a

25     separate document?

Page 38351

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 2             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D3550, Your Honours.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 4             Scroll up the page, please.  The image is not marked by any

 5     particular number.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Could you please tell us what you conclude.

 8        A.   Yes, there is a number, 108.

 9        Q.   I can't see the number.

10        A.   Below the capital letters, or rather, big letters of the title.

11        Q.   Oh, yes, now I can see it.  Go ahead.  What do these figures

12     depict?  Which stabiliser are these?  How do they differ?  What do they

13     depict?  What do the yellow lines denote?

14        A.   These are stabilisers that were found in the photo file on the

15     left-hand side, that is.  In the middle there is a -- stabilisers which

16     exist in this Tribunal and is in evidence and we made geometrical

17     comparisons based on the characteristics which are constant in a shell.

18     And it was established that the stabiliser whose image was found in the

19     photo file and in the video-clip which is on the right-hand side based on

20     the position of the openings for fixing the charge with regard to the

21     fins is the same stabiliser.  However, it was also demonstrated that the

22     stabiliser that is at this Tribunal is not the stabiliser from the

23     video-clip and the one whose photo is in the photo file.  This was

24     confirmed in another way which is shown in image 109.

25        Q.   Image 109, please.  On line 17 there is a word missing, but I

Page 38352

 1     suppose this will be corrected when the whole transcript is reviewed.

 2        A.   You can see that in the photo file this is not a piece of

 3     evidence in the courtroom.  The stabiliser is on the video-clip.  The

 4     position with regard to the series of charge is limited, and if this is

 5     branded during the manufacture and with regard to the position of the

 6     tail fins, it is very clear that this stabiliser in the courtroom is not

 7     actually the stabiliser that was depicted in the photo file and in the

 8     video material that was recorded by the police.

 9        Q.   With regard to the position of the holes, can this be changed

10     simultaneously without using any force?

11        A.   No.  Once this is fixed, it remains fixed.

12        Q.   And now can we go to image 110.  Could you please tell us what is

13     the significance of stabiliser number 13?

14        A.   It is the stabiliser we have already discussed.  It was marked

15     but it was never mentioned during the investigation either by our

16     investigators or CSB investigators or UNPROFOR investigators or any

17     others that were involved in the investigations of this incident and

18     establishing physical evidence at Markale market.  As we can see, it is

19     also far from the place of the incident; however, we have also noticed

20     that this stabiliser is more or less on the azimuth or the same line of

21     the shells that had fallen on the square in front of the theatre.  I

22     can't establish a link in any case.  That's the same direction, the same

23     line, the same azimuth, as it were.  And it is clear that the shell could

24     not have two stabilisers that had ended up in the same place.

25        Q.   However, the theatre is over 200 metres away?

Page 38353

 1        A.   Yes, indeed it is.  However, what I'm saying is that this

 2     stabiliser was 20 or 30 metres away just like the other one, but it is on

 3     the pavement in the direction that corresponds to the other direction or

 4     trajectory.  However, it could not belong to any of the mines that had

 5     exploded there.  When it comes to the presence of the stabiliser at the

 6     point of incident, I don't have any technical explanation for it, save

 7     for a possibility that somebody may have brought it here from somewhere

 8     else.

 9        Q.   Thank you.  In your view, what happened at Markale?  And when it

10     comes to the number and names of the casualties, would that be of any

11     assistance for you to draw your conclusions?  I'm talking about

12     Markale 2.  What happened during that incident?

13        A.   You see, it's much easier to say what didn't happen during this

14     incident than what did.  Based on the traces, the evidence, and the

15     technical capabilities of the shell and the system which was used to

16     detect the trajectory from the VRS positions towards Sarajevo, and based

17     on the testimonies of over 72 people who were interviewed as well as

18     based on the statements provided by those who were present at

19     check-points, we can claim the following:  The shell did not possess

20     technical capabilities to fall at the place of the incident without

21     having been caught on radar.  It also didn't have any technical

22     capabilities to have been launched from the place alleged by the

23     investigators of the international community because if it had been fired

24     from there, it would have been caught on radar, first of all.  And second

25     of all, if that had been the trajectory that they defined it would have

Page 38354

 1     ended up on the roof.  Based on the traces found in front of the market,

 2     it is abundantly clear that the launching had taken place at best with

 3     the standard charge.  We can say that this may have taken place from the

 4     positions under the control of the BiH army, but in that case I believe

 5     that the moment when the shell was fired would have been heard.

 6             Another thing that we can say that it is certain that those four

 7     shells had nothing whatsoever to do with this particular incident.  There

 8     are some technical ambiguities; for example, the presence of two

 9     stabilisers, the difference between the stabiliser that was handed over

10     to the Tribunal as evidence which is part of the technical documentation,

11     and the others.  There is a stabiliser there which clearly shows signs of

12     erosion for which there is no explanation.  There are many other

13     technical indicators; for example, the impact on the vicinity of the

14     incident in terms of the shattered glass pallet caused injuries for which

15     we don't have any technical explanation with regard to the shell which

16     impacted the area here, i.e., the 120-millimetre mortar shell.

17        Q.   Thank you, Dr. Subotic.  I have no further questions for you

18     during my examination-in-chief.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the report be admitted?

20             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we'll receive it.

21             Yes, Mr. Gaynor.

22             MR. GAYNOR:  Mr. President, at page 25 of the English version of

23     the report there's a CV of an individual who's not named as an author of

24     the report, and the CV does not appear in the B/C/S version of the

25     report.  So it might be that the CV has been placed there in error or it

Page 38355

 1     might be that it did, in fact, have something to do with the compilation

 2     of this report.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, may I say something?

 4     When it comes to my -- or rather, my colleague Vracaric's CV there is a

 5     mistake.  It was omitted intentionally.  We had a preliminary version

 6     that we drafted and we wanted to analyse something from Mr. Berko's

 7     analysis with regard to Markale 1.  Those were technological

 8     considerations of a meteorologist about the fragmentation and his

 9     comments that accompanied his analysis.  However, we omitted that part of

10     the report and our colleague Vracaric's CV has been kept by mistake.

11             JUDGE KWON:  So that page should be redacted.  And also I --

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

13             JUDGE KWON:  -- request the CLSS to upload the images or figures

14     that appear on the original on to the English versions as well.  With

15     that caveat we'll receive this.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D3551, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  We'll take a break after which we'll

18     hear the cross-examination.  We'll resume at 20 past 1.00.

19                           --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.36 p.m.

20                           --- On resuming at 1.24 p.m.

21             JUDGE KWON:  So what's the division of work between you and

22     Ms. Gustafson, Mr. Gaynor?

23             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Your Honours, I will be cross-examining the

24     witness on the mortar incident report, and Mr. Gaynor will be

25     cross-examining on the Markale report and the air bombs report.

Page 38356

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  So you'll start, Ms. Gustafson?

 2             MS. GUSTAFSON:  That's right.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, please proceed.

 4             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you.

 5                           Cross-examination by Ms. Gustafson:

 6        Q.   Good afternoon, Ms. Subotic.  And just before we begin so I know

 7     how I should address you, I notice that Dr. Karadzic referred to you as

 8     Dr. Subotic.  I didn't see a doctoral degree in your CV.  I see that you

 9     have a masters -- a bachelors and a masters in science.  The masters is

10     referred to as a "magistar nauka" - pardon my pronunciation - in Serbian.

11     So is it -- would it be -- how should I address you?

12        A.   I hold a masters degree in science which my CV says, so you can

13     address me as such.  I don't know why they have addressed me as they did.

14        Q.   Thank you, Ms. Subotic.  That's helpful.  Now, on Sunday when we

15     met, and I'd like to thank for agreeing to meet with myself and

16     Mr. Gaynor in advance of your testimony, we asked you about the fact that

17     your -- the three reports that you've been discussing in your testimony

18     are all co-authored by one or more individuals.  And you explained that

19     you collaborated with the other listed authors in your reports but that

20     you were the primary author of these three reports; is that right?

21        A.   That's right.

22        Q.   And you confirmed to us that regardless of the contributions of

23     others, you stand by all the conclusions in those three reports; right?

24        A.   I have confirmed this to you.  Perhaps I should clarify some of

25     the doubts that may have arisen during the interview when I told you that

Page 38357

 1     they co-operated with me.  That implies that we collected the materials

 2     together, analysed it, dismissed what in our opinion should not be

 3     included in the findings and opinion, but I was the one who wrote it, of

 4     course with their assistance.  So there are no special sections or parts

 5     that were written by separate persons while compiling the report.  We

 6     were simply associates during the preparation and work covering the

 7     extensive materials.  Personally I'm of the view that whoever

 8     participates in some work should be listed or assigned.  This is usual

 9     when projects like this are handled, what I could have seen in the Galic

10     case.  My Professor Stamatovic [phoen], and his assistant

11     Colonel Viritic [phoen], and my colleague Mr. Vukasinovic also were all

12     three listed as the authors of a similar report.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Now I'd like to move on to another topic.  The

14     central axis method of crater analysis - and again we discussed this a

15     little bit when we met - this is the --

16        A.   Excuse me.

17        Q.   Yes.

18        A.   I could not hear you well because I couldn't hear what you were

19     saying.

20        Q.   Okay.  I'll start again.

21        A.   All right.

22        Q.   The evidence in this case indicates that in general the

23     investigations into shell impacts that were carried out at the time

24     utilised what is known as the central axis method, and this is where the

25     two outer edge edges of the shrapnel traces on the side where they're

Page 38358

 1     more pronounced are drawn back to the centre of the crater.  The angle

 2     they create is then bisected with what is called the central axis and

 3     that the bearing of that central axis is measured to determine the

 4     incoming direction of the shell.  Now, you agree that the central axis

 5     method that I just described is the standard accepted method of

 6     determining the direction of fire of an incoming shell; right?

 7        A.   I just have to say that I'm not sure whether you are saying what

 8     I received as the interpretation.  I will repeat what you said so that it

 9     would be stated correctly.

10             First, the description you provided is technically incorrect, at

11     least in the interpretation that I received.  It is the following:  The

12     end points of the impression made by the fragments at the moment of the

13     explosion are the end points which are marked by the left and right fork,

14     and the axis of the angle is the bearing which marks the direction of the

15     shell because -- is that what you wanted to ask me?  Because co-ordinates

16     were mentioned and I cannot turn the co-ordinates into the angle.  So

17     excuse me.

18        Q.   Maybe there was some confusion in the translation because I

19     didn't mention co-ordinates.  So I think we're more or less on the same

20     page.  The -- you said the end points of the impression made by the

21     fragments are the end points which are marked by the left and the right

22     fork.  So you have two end points, you use sticks or lines to bring them

23     to the centre of the crater, and then the line that bisects those two end

24     points is the direction from which the shell came?

25        A.   The line which bisects the angle is the incoming trajectory of

Page 38359

 1     the shell.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  And you would agree that unless you have a

 3     specialised radar system designed to determine the origin of a

 4     projectile, that this central axis method is the most accurate and

 5     reliable method to determine the incoming trajectory?

 6        A.   The accuracy of the method is defined with a margin of error of

 7     plus/minus 10 degrees or 5 depending on the traces on the ground, but

 8     generally speaking according to the literature the accuracy of the method

 9     is plus/minus 10 degrees.  So it can be used for an approximate

10     determination of an incoming trajectory.  So the accuracy is plus/minus

11     10 degrees.  That's what the method can yield in terms of results.

12        Q.   Okay.  I understand that you are acknowledging that there is a

13     margin of error with these determinations, but my question was more that

14     this -- this is the best way to determine the incoming trajectory of the

15     shell unless you have a radar system to do so; is that right?

16        A.   It is true that it is an approximative method and the

17     investigators on the ground did not have a better one at their disposal.

18     When I talked to you, I told you that the method was conceived to be used

19     during the war in order to establish approximately when a shell is coming

20     from somewhere so that a commander of a unit, a commanding officer, could

21     assess where the projectile that they were hit with had arrived from so

22     that he could return fire.

23             JUDGE BAIRD:  But, Doctor, is it the best way in the absence of

24     radar?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is an approximate method with

Page 38360

 1     the accuracy that I mentioned, with a deviation of between 5 to

 2     10 degrees.  That's the margin of error.  Because, as I repeat, it all

 3     depends on the location where a shell lands.  Sometimes the impression is

 4     really good, sometimes not, and simply there is another element that

 5     affects the accuracy and that is the subjective assessment of the person

 6     who is doing this.

 7             JUDGE MORRISON:  But it isn't simply a question of azimuth; it's

 8     also a question of range, isn't it?  A radar will give you a back plot

 9     which assists in the range.  But simply seeing the direction of fire

10     will -- may give you an approximate azimuth of fire but it won't assist

11     you as to the range for return fire?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is certainly correct.  In

13     this way, only the direction can be determined.  The incoming trajectory

14     and approximately if the crater is a good one, then on the basis of the

15     ellipses which it left then very approximately the angle of descent can

16     also be determined.  You can see that in various incidents this method

17     was used both by the CSB and some other participants in investigations,

18     namely, determining approximately the angle of descent.  And yes, it's

19     also correct that the radar determines the incoming trajectory and also

20     the place from which a shell was launched.  And that is why the radar is

21     part of the contemporary equipment of units, perhaps not units that we

22     are talking about here, but a bigger artillery system certainly.

23             JUDGE KWON:  All the Bench is involved in questions.

24             Ms. Subotic, I don't think you answered the question by

25     Judge Baird.  Is there a better method in the absence of radar?

Page 38361

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, there is no better method when

 2     there is no radar, but this method does have its degree of accuracy, if

 3     that's an answer that satisfies you.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Your answer to Judge Baird's question is yes?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 7             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you, Your Honours.

 8        Q.   And Ms. Subotic, you'd also agree that over time, as time passes,

 9     the shrapnel marks in the ground caused by the exploding projectile will

10     erode and deteriorate and it will become harder to identify those marks

11     on the surface and harder to distinguish those marks from other marks

12     that may be on the surface; right?

13        A.   In principle, that is so.  However, no serious investigator would

14     ever work with traces that are not reliable and that do not provide a

15     degree of accuracy to his or her results.  So that's quite true.  Erosion

16     due to the weather conditions and the time that elapses certainly affects

17     the traces, but let me repeat no investigator would, I suppose, use

18     traces that are not reliable.

19        Q.   And the crater itself, the crater formed by the falling

20     projectile, that will also erode due to weather and human traffic, and it

21     will become harder to determine the central point of the crater as time

22     passes; right?

23        A.   Yes, that's correct.

24        Q.   And because of these factors, the ideal time to conduct a crater

25     analysis would be immediately after the explosion, when the marks are

Page 38362

 1     fresh, the crater is fresh, and that's when you're most likely to get the

 2     best and most reliable results; right?

 3        A.   Yes, that's certainly true and I said that in the courtroom that

 4     that's the usual practice of forensic technicians, that whenever an

 5     incident occurs, whether in war time or in peace time, first of all, the

 6     place of the incident, the site, is secured and then so that no traces

 7     would be jeopardised an on-site investigation is conducted.  So you're

 8     absolutely right and that is the practice in forensic technical

 9     investigation, that nothing should be moved at the site so that the

10     conclusions would be correct.

11        Q.   And in terms of analysing crater impacts in person versus through

12     photographs, it's also -- there are some disadvantages, I would suggest,

13     through analysing photographs.  For example, if the photograph is taken

14     at any distance there will be perspective issues.  It's more difficult to

15     determine angles.  You're also limited by the distance of the photograph.

16     You can't actually go and examine the traces up close.  Factors like that

17     will make crater analysis on a photograph more difficult than one

18     conducted in person; right?

19        A.   That's true in principle, but you disregarded one contemporary

20     technology which allows for each such photograph to be placed in a

21     vertical position by computer analysis, and thereby remove the angle from

22     which it was filmed and deformations caused by the photography that can

23     all be removed.  And thanks to the new techniques which are now

24     available, especially computer analysis, it's possible to remove that.

25     So generally speaking you are right, unless we also take into account

Page 38363

 1     this:  Namely, that we use it as something that is needed and necessary.

 2     Of course we try to make sure that any investigation is not burdened with

 3     such elements because then we'll be more accurate and more reliable.

 4        Q.   Okay.  But even if you have this technology available, you still

 5     can only see what's on the photograph.  You can't get any closer than the

 6     photograph to examine the traces, whereas if in person you would be able

 7     to go as close as you like to examine the shrapnel and the crater, and

 8     that would assist the analysis; right?

 9        A.   Yes, and we noticed the difference when we went out into the

10     field and found the traces which we could then examine from close up.  So

11     you are right.

12        Q.   And in -- on that note, you explained to us on Sunday that you

13     were not in Bosnia during the war, certainly not in Sarajevo during the

14     war, and the first time you went to the locations of these incidents to

15     examine the incident sites was in 2010; is that right?

16        A.   Yes, that is true.  I did not visit the incident sites before

17     that occasion and I was not in Bosnia during the war, nor at the incident

18     sites in the Sarajevo area.  So that is true.

19        Q.   So it follows then that all the crater analyses you've done for

20     your various reports are conducted -- were -- sorry, were conducted

21     either on the basis of these visits to the sites in 2010 or later, or on

22     the basis of photographs or video stills of the sites or some combination

23     of those.  That's right, isn't it?

24        A.   Yes, that's right.

25        Q.   And you also told us on Sunday that although you had learned the

Page 38364

 1     methodology of the central axis method during your studies, that it was

 2     not part of your job at the Belgrade Technical Institute to conduct

 3     crater analyses and that in your 35 years of employment at the institute

 4     you had not conducted a crater analysis; is that right?

 5        A.   That's right, though I am obliged to explain what the matter is

 6     here.  The analysis of the craters was made on the basis of the basic

 7     principle, the absolutely basic principles.  It's unimaginable that

 8     someone doesn't know them and did complete the sort of school that I have

 9     and was of the same profession as me.  What I said on Sunday is that such

10     analysis is only done in case of war, and they're intended primarily for

11     military units so that they could make an approximate assessment as to

12     the places from which they were fired at.  And the analysis of this kind

13     is made primarily for them and at the military technical institute we had

14     no need to do that sort of analysis for the simple reason that we were

15     not at war and we did not have such craters to analyse.  So, excuse me,

16     these are elementary things which are taught, and it's unimaginable that

17     someone who has reached his third year of university studies would not

18     know this and precisely.

19        Q.   Okay.  So is it right then that the only crater analyses you have

20     conducted are the ones you did for the purposes of your report or

21     reports?  Sorry.

22        A.   Yes, that's correct.

23        Q.   So then it's right as well that you have never in your life

24     conducted a crater analysis on a freshly formed crater in person; right?

25        A.   Excuse me, I have to remember.  Perhaps during one of the

Page 38365

 1     experiments we did do such an analysis.  I really can't remember now.

 2     It's possible that during some of the experiments at the training-ground

 3     in Nikinci we did analyse that if, for example, one of our projectiles

 4     deflected from its trajectory, but I can't remember because even if we

 5     did do it then it was such an unimportant analysis that I can't even

 6     recall it.

 7        Q.   Okay.  It's clear from your CV and your publications that you

 8     have significant experience in the area of ballistics, but I don't see

 9     anything in your CV about any publications in the area of crime scene

10     investigations.  You haven't published in the area of crime scene

11     investigation, have you?

12        A.   That's not correct.  That's not correct.  In my CV there are more

13     than 100 findings which were made for courts, and in each of these I did

14     visit the crime scene.  I don't know how you missed that.

15        Q.   All right.  But that was for -- those related to specialised

16     findings in ballistics.  But in terms of general crime scene analysis,

17     that's not an area that you've published in, general crime scene analysis

18     techniques or processes?

19        A.   General or whatever, but there are 105 findings on expert

20     analysis listed here, and in each of these I visited the crime scene in

21     order to be able to write the report.  And there are also several papers

22     that have legal elements.  I wrote them for legal journals.  One of them

23     that I remember is the determination of the place from which a projectile

24     was launched on the basis of an audio-recording on an answering machine

25     of the damaged party when they shot at him from three different

Page 38366

 1     directions and he was at home.  The report is listed here and I think

 2     that it was published at least in two legal journals and also presented

 3     at a conference.  I remember that in particular.  Therefore, several

 4     papers that are linked with the investigations and ballistic expert

 5     analysis conducted on the crime scene, and I suppose that you have seen

 6     the one report here and also the list of the expert reports that had to

 7     be drawn up for the needs of courts.  In each case, I have to visit a

 8     crime scene because what is usual in our parts is that when the

 9     investigating judge goes out to the scene, he calls the expert to

10     accompany him for the reason that it might happen that not all the

11     necessary traces which are important for determining this are recorded.

12     And that's the particular aspect and that -- those are the on-site

13     investigations conducted by relevant experts at the crime scene.

14        Q.   Thank you.  If we could now go to your report on the mortar

15     incidents, which is D3542.  Just so you're aware, Ms. Subotic, I'm going

16     to start with incident G5, which is the 12th of July, 1993, incident at

17     the water-line where the 82-millimetre mortar round struck.  And the

18     reason I'm going to start with that one is because this is one that I'll

19     go through in a bit more detail than the others, although I'm limited in

20     my time so I can't cover everything.  And then we'll go back through the

21     scheduled incidents in order and I will cover the other ones in somewhat

22     less detail.

23             Now, according to your report your position for this incident is

24     that the shell in this case could --

25        A.   Just a second, please, so I can find it in the hard copy.

Page 38367

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Paragraph 49.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.  [Interpretation] I have found it in the

 3     meantime.  It's easier for me to recognise it on the basis of the figures

 4     or images.

 5             MS. GUSTAFSON:

 6        Q.   So your position here is that the shell could not have been fired

 7     from the west/north-west, which is what the contemporaneous

 8     investigations concluded.  You conclude that the shell was fired from the

 9     north/north-east, and that conclusion can be found in paragraph 62(g).

10     Now, I'd like to start with -- at paragraph 56, which is page 82 in the

11     B/C/S and page 37 in the English.  And here you note that the --

12        A.   Paragraph 56?

13        Q.   Yes, that's right.  You note here that the investigation file,

14     which is P1438 in this case, states that at 1515 the police warned the

15     citizens not to loiter in the area because the nearest confrontation

16     lines were 200 metres away.  And you conclude that since none of the

17     witnesses testified that there had ever been such a warning before that

18     this leads to the conclusion that the police had been tipped off in

19     advance that a shell would be fired.  And I'd like to ask you a couple of

20     questions about that.  The evidence you refer to simply indicates that

21     the police warned people in the area not to loiter.  The evidence doesn't

22     say one way or another whether the police had given such warnings on

23     other occasions; right?

24        A.   It is not stated here; however, the police issued a similar

25     warning in the event of the incident of the 4th of February when

Page 38368

 1     humanitarian aid was being distributed.  At that time the police also

 2     issued a warning that people should not gather at the plateau because

 3     shelling was anticipated to take place there -- was expected to take

 4     place there.  So there were other such instances.  This is not an

 5     isolated case.

 6        Q.   Well, the witness you actually cite here in footnote 201 and this

 7     is witness AE from the Galic case did say that the police had warned them

 8     that day not to queue in the area and witness AE confirmed that there was

 9     a risk, and the risk was:

10             "The risk concerned you leaving your house every day.  You could

11     be killed."

12             And this is at transcript pages 6021 to 6022 of the Galic trial.

13             And the evidence in this case confirms that there was a great

14     deal of shelling in Dobrinja.  And I would refer to Dzevlan at

15     page 11750.  So, Ms. Subotic, in the circumstances where the area of

16     Dobrinja was coming under regular shell fire it's logical, is it not,

17     that the police would warn people not to loiter in the area and this

18     doesn't even begin to suggest that the police were tipped off that this

19     particular shell would be launched, does it?

20        A.   First, I wish to say that Dobrinja was not shelled.  Rather, from

21     what I could gather from the documents there was fighting going on there.

22     There was evidence of the fighting having taken place there and that this

23     was not the result of shelling but rather the result of fighting where

24     shells landed from all quarters.  So that's not correct.  And all the

25     evidence shows that this was exactly the case.  That's number one.

Page 38369

 1     Number two, let me say that it is quite odd - and we did write it down

 2     and it wasn't an explicit assertion - but we did notice that several

 3     minutes earlier people were warned and then a shell landed, and that

 4     afterwards it took a very long time before the CSB was contacted and

 5     called to conduct an investigation.  I think that it was quite a long

 6     time after the event, as far as I remember from this report.  So it's not

 7     an explicit statement.  It was merely an indication of a possibility.

 8        Q.   Okay.  You said:

 9             "First, I wish to say that Dobrinja was not shelled."

10             Are you disputing the eye-witness testimony in this case that

11     shells fell in the Federation-held parts of Sarajevo, in Dobrinja?

12        A.   No, far from it.  Now, when you say that Dobrinja was shelled

13     from the perspective of my profession this is the way it would appear:  I

14     am somewhere on the side and shelling this Tribunal non-stop and you are

15     sitting there doing nothing.  This is the distinction that I want to

16     draw.  I am not disputing the statements that shells fell; rather, what

17     I'm saying is that on the basis of the evidence that we had, it was

18     visible that what was at play was some sort of fighting.  So this is the

19     issue of my professional view and the way of how what you said was

20     interpreted to me.

21        Q.   Okay.  I'd like to now turn to paragraph 58, the next paragraph,

22     where you discuss the UNPROFOR report on this incident.  And if we could

23     pull that up, it's P1442.  And it is your position that UNPROFOR received

24     from the local investigators information about the type and calibre of

25     shell, number of casualties, time of the explosion, et cetera.  And then

Page 38370

 1     at paragraph 62(g) you go a bit further and you state that it is clear

 2     that the UNPROFOR report and the Bosnian report used the same data.  And

 3     you conclude that these were not two independent reports whose results

 4     match.  And I don't think it's disputed that these two reports, P1438

 5     which is the CSB report and P1442, the UNPROFOR report, do have matching

 6     results that the shell flew in from the west/north-west.

 7             So if we go to page 2 of this document and the subject is crater

 8     analysis mortar attack.  And then under crater characteristics it says:

 9             "The form of the spray shows the direction of 5100 mils

10     west/west-north."

11             And as I think you point out in your report, 5100 mils is

12     287 degrees --

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Now, it does go on to say that the 82-millimetre mortar shell fin

15     found at the site was given to the crater analysis officer by local

16     officials, but on its face this report indicates that on the key issue of

17     the trajectory of the shell UNPROFOR conducted its own analysis and drew

18     its own conclusions on the trajectory; right?

19        A.   This is certainly what would appear on the basis of what is

20     written here; however, I continue to stand by the statement that we were

21     saying, after all, that they did not have at their disposal the

22     stabiliser itself to review it because as far as I was able to glean from

23     the documents the stabiliser had been handed over to the CSB for

24     analysis.  And on the other hand it is impossible for two analyses to be

25     fully consistent.  You were able to see that we analysed something that

Page 38371

 1     was very exact and yet the difference between our analysis and the

 2     analysis of those who were there at the time was of several degrees.  I

 3     stand by my view that these were not independent reports, especially

 4     because --

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Can the witness please repeat what she said.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And it is quite -- it is not to be

 7     expected at all that people would not be exchanging their information --

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Interpreters didn't hear you, in particular at the

 9     end of your answer.  Could you repeat from, "I stand by my view ..."

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that it cannot particularly

11     be concluded explicitly that it was done jointly or not.  So it -- one

12     cannot conclude either that they conducted the investigation

13     independently or jointly.  However, the investigation was conducted

14     simultaneously and the data indicate that the stabiliser -- handed over

15     the stabiliser, or rather, the CSB handed over the stabiliser to the KTZ.

16     And of course the stabiliser would have confirmed which shell was active

17     in the incident and that the marks at the scene were atypical because the

18     projectile had been activated at a certain height above the ground in

19     mid-air.  Had this been the case, then they would have had to establish

20     what the calibre was.  My conclusion was that they exchanged information

21     and that therefore the investigations were not independent.

22             MS. GUSTAFSON:

23        Q.   Okay.  On Sunday when we spoke you explained that you

24     comprehensively reviewed the material that the Defence provided to you

25     and that you could access from the internet with respect to these

Page 38372

 1     incidents from the Galic trial record.  That's right, isn't it?

 2        A.   No, no.  You asked me if I had access to the documents that were

 3     confidential; that's the way I understood your question.  I really don't

 4     know that I did have access to a document which was - how do you call it

 5     here? - under seal.  So I said that I was not aware that I had access to

 6     any document that was confidential.  And yes, we did use everything that

 7     we could gain access to on the Tribunal's site and everything that we

 8     received here from you as the supporting documentation from the

 9     Prosecution and our team when we were looking for something or when we

10     found something that may shed light on a fact.

11        Q.   Okay.

12             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Could we move into private session for a moment?

13             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Shall the Chamber move into private session

14     briefly.

15                           [Private session]

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 38373

 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                           [Open session]

14             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we are now in open session, Ms. Gustafson.

15             MS. GUSTAFSON:  Thank you.

16        Q.   Paragraph 60(a), that can be found on page 39 of the English and

17     85 of the B/C/S.  And here, Ms. Subotic, you claim that the --

18        A.   A moment, please.  60(a)?

19        Q.   That's right.  It should be page 85.

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Now, here you state that the Skoda car that the shell exploded

22     behind was facing south-east rather than east, as you say that

23     Mr. Cavcic, the ballistics expert, stated in his ballistics report.  And

24     you state:

25             "This fact is important for the determination of the direction

Page 38374

 1     from which the shell was fired."

 2             So you seem to be claiming that Mr. Cavcic based his direction of

 3     fire determination on the orientation of the car and because the

 4     orientation of the car was incorrect his determination of fire was also

 5     incorrect.  Is that what you're saying here?

 6        A.   No.  Firstly, the orientation of the car has not been erroneously

 7     determined.  The car is situated in front of the building next to the

 8     fence of which the projectile was activated, and it's at an azimuth of

 9     157 which is the east -- south-east.

10        Q.   Sorry, my question I think was a bit confusing.  Let me try

11     again.  Are you saying that because Mr. Cavcic --

12        A.   The orientation is not wrong, the orientation of the Skoda.  It

13     is parked in the position of the south-east.  You can see that at

14     paragraph 43 and at figure 60(a), or rather, figure 44.

15        Q.   Sorry.  I think my question was a little confusing, so I'm going

16     to try again.

17             I think what you are saying here is that Mr. Cavcic wrongly

18     stated that the direction of the Skoda -- that the Skoda was facing east,

19     when in fact as you point out it was facing south-east.  Because he got

20     that wrong and he based his -- and you also -- I think you're concluding

21     that he based his determination of the direction of fire on his

22     determination of the direction of the car, and because the direction of

23     the car was stated erroneously, the direction of fire was also erroneous.

24     Is that what you're saying?

25        A.   No, no, from the beginning to the end.  First of all, it wasn't

Page 38375

 1     on the basis of the orientation of the car and the car's position that

 2     Mr. Cavcic determined the direction of fire.  First of all, this isn't

 3     something that he did in his document.  He explained in detail the way in

 4     which he determined it.  I'm sorry, it must have been down to the

 5     translation that you concluded what you just said in your question.  None

 6     of the things stand this way.  Mr. Cavcic determined the incoming

 7     trajectory the way he described it here and in his testimony, and we did

 8     relate it here in detail, but I didn't relate it in this way nor did I

 9     think that it was because of this reason that his conclusion was wrong.

10     His conclusion was erroneous primarily because it lies on a number of

11     assumptions which are not correct.

12        Q.   Okay.  Because the reason I ask is because you have cited to

13     Mr. Cavcic's ICTY witness statement in your discussion of this incident,

14     and that's footnotes 210 and 215.  And in that statement Mr. Cavcic

15     specified that when he made determinations of direction of fire he used a

16     compass.  So if he used a compass, as he said he did in his statement,

17     then whatever he said about the orientation of the car wouldn't matter

18     because he made his determination based on the analysis of the marks and

19     a compass; right?

20        A.   I have to underline again that his statement about the

21     orientation of the car had nothing to do with his determination of the

22     actual direction of fire, the direction from which the shell flew in, nor

23     was it taken as a parameter to challenge this conclusion.  So the

24     orientation of the car, regardless of how he described it in his report,

25     was not taken as one of the reasons why his conclusion would be

Page 38376

 1     considered erroneous.  The way in which we determined the direction of

 2     fire was on the basis of physical evidence and the tenets of the

 3     profession that we belonged to, which is presented here in detail.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  That's clear now.  Now I'd like to turn now to your

 5     determination of the direction of fire.  So, first of all, you agree that

 6     you were at a couple of disadvantages vis-a-vis the people who

 7     investigated this incident at the time.  Firstly, the only physical

 8     evidence that still remains at the scene are the remains of shrapnel

 9     damage to the asphalt which you examined in 2010, so 17 years after the

10     incident.  So not only is the shrapnel damage -- it has weathered over 17

11     years, but also you were not able to examine in person the shrapnel

12     damage to the car or the fence which the contemporaneous investigations

13     took into account; right?

14        A.   I cannot agree with you.  I can agree on specific points, but not

15     with your entire question.  Under 1, as far as the shrapnel marks on the

16     asphalt are concerned, they are very well preserved, as can be seen in

17     the photograph that we submitted.  Under 2, if we observed the

18     photographs from the photo file, you will agree that the photo file was

19     produced on the day, in other words, not later after items were removed

20     and the crime scene was tampered with and that it was clearly put

21     together.  Now, if you put the car back in the position where it was and

22     if you look at the various directions from which the deformations were

23     produced, it's completely clear how the shock wave acted, from which side

24     it acted, and in what way.  It was on the basis of these very good

25     photographs that one could determine at which height the explosion took

Page 38377

 1     place.  In particular, one could determine the position of the stabiliser

 2     ahead of the rear right tire of the car, which could not possibly have

 3     ended up there had the shell flown in from the direction that the

 4     investigators and Mr. Cavcic determined.  Let me not name each and every

 5     one of them, but they are physical marks.  This is physical evidence that

 6     was established at the moment it happened.  So it isn't deformation we're

 7     talking about.  We're talking about the main trajectory.  We're not

 8     talking about whether the trajectory was 5 degrees to the left or

 9     5 degrees to the right.  We're talking about the trajectory which is

10     physically impossible if it was to happen the way the investigators said

11     it did.  It was especially -- it is especially unacceptable if you read

12     what Mr. Cavcic wrote, and I'm sure you will be able to find the relevant

13     part, that all the evidence and marks that he was able to retrieve he

14     established all converged on the hip of the injured person.  And we all

15     know that the person could not possibly have been in that position where

16     all these imaginary lines of his converged.  Because had the shell flown

17     in the way these investigators imagined that it did, that person could

18     not possibly have been there.

19        Q.   So --

20        A.   I apologise if I was too fast for the interpreters.

21        Q.   Just to go back to something you said earlier in your answer, you

22     said that:

23             "As far as the shrapnel marks on the asphalt are concerned, they

24     are very well preserved."

25             Now, earlier you said that you had never conducted a crater

Page 38378

 1     analysis on a freshly formed crater except possibly once at a firing

 2     range but it was so unimportant you can no longer remember.  So it's

 3     difficult for you to say how well preserved the shrapnel marks are when

 4     you've never really analysed an incident where the shrapnel marks are

 5     fresh; right?

 6        A.   No.  You have to bear in mind that I have examined a great deal

 7     of projectiles for their fragmentation effect.  I know exactly what the

 8     shrapnel acts -- what it does to the surface.  We had never tested a

 9     projectile without knowing what its fragment would do, and this is

10     something that we would do in our testing rounds.  So I did investigate

11     the effect in this way.  However, there is one thing that I have to say.

12     The mark is either discernible and clear, or it is not visible and not

13     clear.  What we found on the ground was marks that were very visible and

14     clear.  We marked them ourselves.  They had a defined arc which you can

15     see -- or a curve which you can see on the figure there.  And to

16     illustrate the direction, which I repeat, we did not determine as a

17     specific figure but as an approximation.  And I do believe that this is

18     what is written in our report.  I say "we," because my associate Poparic

19     and myself were there as well as with an entire team of Bosnian

20     policemen.  We were all there.

21             THE ACCUSED:  Transcript.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

23             THE ACCUSED:  In line 22 it should be written "we had never

24     developed any projectile without testing," "developed" is out.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.

Page 38379

 1             MS. GUSTAFSON:

 2        Q.   Ms. Subotic, you said the mark is either visible and clear or it

 3     is not visible and not clear.  Now, my point is that if the mark is not

 4     visible and not clear because it's been on an asphalt surface for

 5     17 years, eroding and deteriorating and being weathered, then you didn't

 6     see it and you didn't mark it; right?  And you don't know whether there

 7     were marks that were no longer visible and not clear, do you?

 8        A.   We marked, or rather, your question is hypothetical.  Whatever we

 9     saw, all the visible traces, we marked.  They can also be seen in photo

10     files, on photos that were taken 17 years later.  They do not differ in

11     terms of their positioning.  What we marked and what we did was much more

12     correct than if we had done it based on a photo that is exactly

13     identical.

14             If you look at the photo file of the crime prevention services,

15     you will see that those traces are absolutely identical in terms of their

16     distribution and positioning after 17 years.  We did not add a single one

17     and we did not ignore any that we saw.  It is possible that we did not

18     see some of them because of the lapse of time; however, there was a

19     sufficient number to enable us to confirm that what we found in the photo

20     file was accurate and the photo file was available and accessible to both

21     you and a me.

22        Q.   Okay.  Let's go then to page 88 of your report.  And you've

23     just --

24        A.   Paragraph?

25        Q.   I'd like to look at the figure, so if you could just go to

Page 38380

 1     page 88.

 2        A.   Very well then.

 3        Q.   Now you've -- in your answer you've placed a lot of emphasis on

 4     the fact that the marks in the photo file were identical to the ones you

 5     saw when you visited the scene.  So if we could zoom in on the photo on

 6     the left-hand side.  Now, this is -- you've marked here with white

 7     circles what you consider to be the shrapnel marks in the asphalt.

 8     That's right, isn't it?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And it's clear you've drawn three circles on the sidewalk and one

11     just on the edge of the sidewalk, end of road.  Now, if we could bring up

12     side by side to this page 93 of your report, in particular figure 52.

13     And if we could zoom in on the middle of the photo on the right-hand side

14     and slide it over so we can see what's on the right-hand side.  Now, in

15     this photograph you've again marked in with circles what you could see in

16     terms of shrapnel marks in 2010, and it's clear that there are on the

17     order of 20 shrapnel marks identified on the sidewalk here.  So we've got

18     three shrapnel marks on the sidewalk when you marked the photo and

19     roughly 20 when you went to the scene.  So these are not consistent at

20     all, in fact.  Your shrapnel markings on these two -- on the photo versus

21     what you saw in 2010 are totally inconsistent; right?

22        A.   It is not correct, no.  Look here, we did not do our job to

23     illustrate every single piece of shrapnel for you based on those that we

24     found in photo file.  From here I can see the traces that we did not mark

25     on the left-hand side photo.  We didn't consider that we had to do it.

Page 38381

 1     We did not look for the consistency of the two findings of the site of

 2     explosion.  From here I can see at least 15 traces on the pavement that

 3     we did not mark.  This was marked only to show the trajectory or either

 4     the main curve is marked, not every shrapnel trace.  If we zoomed in on

 5     this photo, if we were to mark every single piece of shrapnel, there

 6     would be an exact match.  If it's of any interest to you, I can do it for

 7     tomorrow and I can in that case perhaps do away with your dilemma.

 8        Q.   Sorry, Ms. Subotic, correct me if I am wrong but your line number

 9     4 in figure 46 is the line that you claim is the middle of the arc of the

10     shrapnel that you have marked in this photograph; right?

11        A.   It's just the approximate trajectory.  It's not the middle of the

12     arc.  This is what we marked.  However, this is just the approximation of

13     the trajectory within which all the traces fit, especially the traces on

14     the Skoda car that we saw from the back.  You can understand that the

15     analysis of a crater of this kind is not a classical analysis because the

16     shell was activated at 65 centimetres above the ground so the arc cannot

17     be typical of what we are accustomed to when we analyse similar craters.

18        Q.   Ms. Subotic, at paragraph 40 -- sorry, 60(d), and this is at the

19     bottom of page 41 in the English, you state with respect to the photo on

20     the left:

21             "In order to clarify this vital detail in figure 45, the visible

22     damage to the asphalt has been marked white on figure 46.  This makes it

23     easy to observe the regular pattern characteristic for the fragmentation

24     of a shell."

25             And then you say this is a partial representation of

Page 38382

 1     fragmentation because the shell exploded at a height above the surface.

 2     And you say:

 3             "Yet it allows us to determine the direction from which the shell

 4     had come in with some accuracy.  This direction is marked in figure 46

 5     with a yellow line 4."

 6             Now what you said there is quite categoric and it is

 7     contradictory to what you said a few moments ago about this being an

 8     approximate trajectory based on some but not all of the shrapnel marks

 9     visible in the photo, isn't it?

10        A.   Perhaps this looked categoric to you, but it says here it may be

11     concluded with reliability that the direction of -- from which the

12     projectile arrived was north or slightly eastwards.  This is just an

13     approximation and I report this is not the exact angle to the millimetre.

14     Do you understand?  We know that the curve is 157 and I suppose that all

15     of us see here that the angle is left to the curve 157, and if we look at

16     Google Earth you will see that it is either north or a bit eastward and

17     we are talking about the place of launch and not the place where the

18     shell landed.

19        Q.   Okay.  Sorry, I'm going to move on in a moment but before we do

20     you claimed that you could see additional shrapnel marks on the sidewalk

21     on this photo.  So I'd like to zoom in on the photo in figure 46 and have

22     you mark these shrapnel markings that you claim are visible here.  And I

23     think you said there were at least 15 of them.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Would Madam Gustafson agree the

25     markings to be put on the left-hand side which was not done before?

Page 38383

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And can the photo please zoomed in

 2     on a bit more, please.

 3             MS. GUSTAFSON:

 4        Q.   Ms. Subotic, if you'd like the photo to be zoomed in, that can be

 5     done, because once we move the photo the markings disappear.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Let's zoom in further.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is enough.  This is enough.

 8     Thank you.  You don't have to zoom in any further.  Very well now.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Would you wait.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I?

11             MS. GUSTAFSON:

12        Q.   Just to remind you at line 15 of page 91 you said:

13             "From here I can see at least 15 traces on the pavement that we

14     did not mark."

15        A.   I would very much like to delete the last trace I marked.  So you

16     want me to mark only the traces on the pavement?

17        Q.   Well, that's what you asserted you could see, so the ones on the

18     pavement -- yes, on the sidewalk that you can see.

19        A.   Yes.

20             JUDGE KWON:  You wanted to delete something?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I may have not been very precise

22     when I made my circles, but it's really neither here nor there, is it?

23             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.  Can I now continue

25     drawing?

Page 38384

 1             JUDGE KWON:  If you could put your signature and the date,

 2     please.

 3             THE WITNESS:  [Marks]

 4             JUDGE KWON:  We'll receive it as a Prosecution Exhibit.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit P6319, Your Honours.

 6             JUDGE MORRISON:  Ms. Gustafson, before you continue, because I

 7     may not get another chance to ask these questions, there are a series of

 8     short questions I'd like to put to the witness at this point.

 9             The first is a general one:  Have you ever been to the scene of a

10     mortar explosion in the minutes after it detonated where injury or death

11     was occasioned?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  Just the testing grounds where

13     we examined mortar shells.  It was there that I saw quite a huge number

14     of such detonations.

15             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes.  I was particularly asking with reference

16     to the injuries caused.

17             The second question - these questions are not definitive and

18     they're not designed to stop either Ms. Gustafson or Mr. Gaynor from

19     asking or expanding on them, it's just that I'd like them to be on the

20     record - do you agree that a mortar round can have an impact fuse with

21     immediate effect or delayed fuse, where the -- a detonation doesn't take

22     place for a set period after impact?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you're right.  All mortar

24     rounds have fuses with immediate effect.  Each of the fuses in question

25     has a safety pin which is connected to certain inertia and it is

Page 38385

 1     primarily used to prevent such projectiles to be activated at the

 2     beginning of their trajectory and to protect the launching crew.  Is this

 3     what you have asked me?

 4             JUDGE MORRISON:  No.  That is something that we've already heard.

 5     What I'm asking is:  Do you know or accept that there are mortar fuses

 6     which detonate upon immediate impact and some fuses which are initiated

 7     upon impact but the detonation doesn't occur until a variable time

 8     afterwards depending on the nature of the delay fuse?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As a matter of fact, I did answer

10     your question.  All mortar rounds in our country are fitted with a

11     so-called UTI fuses which are contact fuses, which means that they have

12     an immediate action but there is a safety pin that protects the crew at

13     the beginning of trajectory.  Our 82- and 120-millimetre rounds have that

14     kind of fuses.  There are all sorts of fuses and they are fitted to all

15     sorts of rounds in accordance with the requirements of the tactical

16     authority.  You are right, there are such things, but our 82- and

17     102-mortar [as interpreted] rounds are fitted with the so-called UTI

18     fuses which is the abbreviation that stands for a contact fuse and it has

19     exactly the properties that I have explained just now.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let's be of some assistance with

21     the interpretation.  The UTI, what is this?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the contact inertia fuse.

23     The inertia applies to the safety clause that I mentioned in -- earlier

24     in the transcript.

25             JUDGE MORRISON:  I think we all understood that.  Thank you.

Page 38386

 1             Going on to explosive effect, explosives can create both blast

 2     and vacuum, can't they, so that sometimes an explosion will cause, for

 3     instance, next to a building debris to be injected into the building and

 4     sometimes the vacuum effect of explosive, depending on how far it is

 5     away, will have a sucking-out effect of debris.  Would you agree with

 6     that proposition?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, I did not understand

 8     the interpretation very well.  I don't know what the debris may be in

 9     this case, or at least the word that was used for the word "debris" is

10     not clear to me.

11             JUDGE MORRISON:  Well, irrespective of the debris, there can be

12     explosions which have the effect of creating a vacuum into which debris

13     is drawn, i.e., towards the explosive.  There are also instances where an

14     explosion pushes debris away from the point of detonation in the opposite

15     direction.  Both phenomena can be observed in some explosions.  Do you

16     agree with that?

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise.  May I be of

18     assistance?  If the Doctor received the interpretation fragments, meaning

19     shell fragments, there is no inertia that would pull them towards the

20     centre.  I would say debris, the material fragments from the ground, from

21     the point of impact.  That's what I would use.

22             JUDGE MORRISON:  I'm not talking about fragments of the shell

23     casing.  I'm talking about external material.  It can have both effects.

24     Do you agree with that proposition?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to be certain that I

Page 38387

 1     understand you properly.  You're saying that under certain conditions

 2     when there is a detonation or an explosion within an environment which is

 3     defined in geometrical terms, a vacuum can be created and that it can

 4     cause an unexpected movement of bricks, for example, or certain parts of

 5     that kind that may be found in the vicinity.  Is this the gist of your

 6     question?  Did I understand you properly?

 7             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes, in other words debris can be brought

 8     towards the point of detonation by the vacuum effect?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These would be very specific

10     conditions and these conditions are defined by the point of impact and

11     the area where the detonation takes place.  When a detonation happens in

12     a large open space or at least an open space this is quite improbable or

13     impossible.

14             JUDGE MORRISON:  Well, I'll leave for others to develop that if

15     they wish.  I'm just talking about the general principle.

16             The other matter I want to deal with is secondary debris.  You

17     talked about injuries caused by the fragmentation of the casing of a

18     mortar bomb.  Did you take into account when looking at the photographs

19     of the injuries the possibility of injuries caused by debris that was

20     blown by the force of the explosion into the victim as opposed to the

21     shell casing or shrapnel itself?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we are looking at the injuries

23     that happened on the 28th of May and that major lesion, I didn't take

24     into account the possibility of injuring due to debris in the form of a

25     large object.  That was a possibility.  However, there was no blood under

Page 38388

 1     the injured person that may have corroborated that theory and justified

 2     such a large injury in such a place.  Having said that, you are right,

 3     that injury may have been caused by a stone or the -- a grenade.  In any

 4     case, a secondary debris of larger proportions.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Did you say 28th of May?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was Markale 2, was it the

 7     28th of May?

 8             JUDGE KWON:  August.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, it was in August

10     indeed.  I have a lot of problems with the dates because there were a

11     number of incidents.

12             JUDGE MORRISON:  Well, I think we all understand what you meant.

13             And the last question I want to pose is this:  If an explosive

14     charge, for instance, an artillery shell or a mortar round, is detonated

15     remotely, i.e., not by impact but being detonated remotely, that is going

16     to require a device to be attached to the mortar round or to the shell

17     and a primary -- and an explosive charge in order to cause the secondary

18     detonation.  That's correct, isn't it?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  And the initial action had to

20     be over, the fuse had to be eliminated and that's what is the initial

21     part of its construction.  In order to be activated, it has to achieve a

22     distance, and then it can be activated.  That's why I said it was the

23     initial action and that initial part has to be blocked in that fuse.  And

24     then what you mentioned can occur subsequently.  So one action has to

25     precede the other.

Page 38389

 1             JUDGE MORRISON:  And therefore, unless it is vapourised, there is

 2     going to be the opportunity at least for physical evidence of that

 3     secondary device that's been attached to the bomb or the mortar round to

 4     be found at or near the scene?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that should be the case.  It

 6     should be found in the vicinity.  If we're talking about certain specific

 7     devices.  If it's not a TNT round which doesn't leave traces, a Trotyl

 8     round is just a piece of TNT which contains the detonating casing and

 9     that does not leave any traces.  It explodes together with the mother

10     shell.

11             JUDGE MORRISON:  Thank you very much.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript, please.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On page 98, line 17, when the stone

15     is mentioned and that is a stone that would have been projected by a

16     shell.  On 99 "armoured" was not properly interpreted.  This is the

17     initial arming of the shell.  I hope that Your Excellencies understood

18     that.  The Doctor said that when speed is achieved the shell is armoured,

19     i.e., the initial fuse is prepared for explosion and I can't see that

20     recorded in the Doctor 's answer.  And on line 17 she said that it could

21     be a rifle grenade or a brick, anything that was pushed or projected by

22     the explosion.  If we have the time, maybe you should ask the witness to

23     explain what armouring is, why this happens, and what she said about the

24     stone or a piece of brick.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm convinced that everybody here

Page 38390

 1     have already mastered the terminology because we have been discussing the

 2     same things for a long time, but in any case let me try.  The

 3     professional term for making the fuse capable of initiating an explosion

 4     is called armouring.  When we say the inertia contact fuse means that the

 5     fuse is restricted or limited before it is armoured, i.e., before it is

 6     brought to a state where it can initiate the explosion.  In technical

 7     terms this was resolved in the following way:  Once a speed of flying is

 8     achieved together with inertia, the fuse is released and it can be

 9     activated.  I also mentioned that we are primarily talking about the

10     reasons of safety of the crew which launches such projectiles.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

12             We'll stop here for today.

13             Yes, Mr. Tieger.

14             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I'll be brief.  As the

15     Court must be aware, the accused took about four times the estimated

16     period for his examination-in-chief, consuming an almost extra two days.

17     Not surprisingly, that had an impact on the upcoming schedule and next

18     week's witnesses in particular.  The proposed solution by the Defence has

19     been to submit a revised schedule, but that belatedly revised schedule is

20     quite problematic for the Prosecution.  I met immediately with

21     Mr. Robinson to see if we could reach some accommodation that would work

22     for both parties.  So far we have not been successful, but it may be the

23     case that the success of our discussions may turn on the availability of

24     extra or extended sessions either tomorrow or next week.  So I wanted to

25     bring that to the Court's attention to see if that could at least be

Page 38391

 1     explored to see if it's feasible.  We'll obviously continue to discuss

 2     the matter to see what we can do short of extra or extended sessions.

 3     But as I say, that might be an adjustment that might just be sufficient

 4     to bridge the gap.  And I wanted to raise it in case it could be thrown

 5     into the mix.  Thank you.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  How much extension do you have in mind when you are

 7     talking about tomorrow's hearing?

 8             MR. TIEGER:  Well, I think what we were talking about, as we

 9     discussed it, was an extra hour or hour and a half for two of the four

10     days remaining between now and Thursday of next week.  At least that was

11     part of our discussion as it took place.  We're going to continue to work

12     on it.  I presume we may identify some greater specificity or more

13     refinement in what is needed as we do so, but that was the nature of the

14     discussion as it took place thus far.

15             JUDGE KWON:  If either of the parties could e-mail our staff as

16     to this more detailed information so that we can understand more

17     correctly.

18             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

19             JUDGE KWON:  We'll continue tomorrow at 9.00.  The hearing is

20     adjourned.

21                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.59 p.m.,

22                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 16th of

23                           May, 2013, at 9.00 a.m.